review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Just finished this movie... saw it on the video shelf and being a Nick Stahl fan I just had to rent it. In all honesty, it probably should have stayed on the shelf. The concept was an interesting one and there were several fairly smart twists and turns but somehow I guessed almost all of them before they came along. And the movie just went a little too far in the end in my opinion... if you have to suffer through a viewing of it you'll see what I mean!<br /><br />On a positive note, Nick Stahl's acting was great (especially considering what he had to work with). Eddie Kaye Thomas was also good but he always plays the same type of character... too much Paul Finch from 'American Pie' coming through for my liking.<br /><br />And finally, the worst part of this movie has to be January Jones' emotionless performance... I guess a pretty face really is all that matters in Hollywood. | 1 |
Big disappointment. CLASH BY NIGHT is much to talky and stagy and the dialog doesn't resonate as true coming from these characters. This is melodrama at its peak. The acting is truly over the top and very unreal. Only MARILYN MONROE and KEITH ANDES as supporting players give this film any zip. Wish they had more to do. I'm somebody who looks at details in films. Two big questions...1 Who is watching the baby the entire day when Stanwyck and Ryan are together and Douglas is working, then breaking up a fight in a bar with is father? 2. When Stanwyck is packing to leave town, why is she seen packing at her brothers place where she hasn't lived for at least two years? Also, when everyone goes to the projection room at the Theatre, who's taking care of the baby again? Such details really irritate me and cause me to give films much lower ratings. What were the writers, directors and everyone else connected with the film thinking? Nuf' said. | 1 |
As far as the movie goes, it's an OK science fiction movie. It has a lot of cool stuff in it, and some quality scenes. That said, it's not that good, and some of the stuff is pretty far fetched...<br /><br />As for calling this another cube-movie is utter and complete bullsh!t. This is the very definition of milking a great and inventive original movie... The whole feel to it can be somewhat translated into the core of the first, but the introduction of people/androids as part of the 'team' behind the cube itself is somewhat a stretch...<br /><br />I gave this a 3*** because of the backstabbing of the original. This one should have been kept sterile in so many parts of the movie that there is no place or time to mention them all...<br /><br />Watchable for those who have not seen Cube & Hypercube, but not recommendable for fans of the series... | 1 |
THE GOLDEN DOOR (NUOVOMONDO) is for this viewer the finest film of the year to date. It is a masterpiece of concept, writing, directing, acting and cinematography. More importantly, this radiantly beautiful film is a much needed reflective mirror for us to view the history of immigration of 'foreigners' into America at a time when the very mention of the word 'borders' is a political fuse. Writer/director Emanuele Crialese has given us not only a deeply moving story, he has also provided a touchstone for viewers to re-visit the history of each of our origins: with the exception of the Native Americans, we all entered America as 'foreigners' at some point in our histories, and it is humbling to view this film with that fact in mind.<br /><br />The film opens in turn of the century Sicily as poverty stricken widower Salvatore Mancuso (Vincenzo Amato) and his brother Angelo (Francesco Casisa) climb a rocky hill to present their tokens to the cross to ask for a sign as to whether they should continue to struggle for existence on the island or go to America, the land of dreams. Mancuso's deaf mute son Pietro (Filippo Pucillo) runs to the top of the hill with postcards he has found with images of America (money growing on trees, fruits and vegetables larger than people, etc), and Salvatore accepts this as the sign that he should move his family to America. After convincing his reluctant mother Fortunata (Aurora Quattrocchi) and his sisters Rita (Federica De Cola) and Rosa (Isabella Ragonese) to make the trip, he sells his only possessions (two donkeys, goats, and rabbits) and the man with the boat arranges their trip, giving the family shoes, appropriate clothing, and instructions to board an ocean liner as third class passengers. As the Mancuso family prepares to board they are asked for a photograph, and as they pose behind a painted set, an Englishwoman Lucy/Luce (Charlotte Gainsbourg) walks into the photo as though she were part of this peasant family. Lucy cannot board the boat for America without male escort.<br /><br />The voyage begins and Luce in her gentle way identifies with the Mancuso family, finally solidifying her safe passage by proposing to Salvatore to marry her 'for convenience, not for love' when they arrive in America. Through a violent storm and living conditions that are appalling poor, the multitude of third class passengers survive, bond, and eventually arrive at Ellis Island, believing their dream of America has been fulfilled. But everyone must pass harsh physical tests, de-lousing, and even intelligence testing to determine if they can enter America: the officials let them know that America does not want genetically inferior people entering the new world! Each woman must be selected by a man to marry on Ellis Island before they are allowed admission. The manner in which the Mancuso family remains united until a somewhat surprising ending is the closing of the tale.<br /><br />Few of us understand the strict rules and harsh treatment immigrants face (or at least faced at the turn of the century) on Ellis Island, and if we do we have elected to submerge that information. THE GOLDEN DOOR presents the case for immigrants' struggles in a manner that not only touches our hearts but also challenges our acceptance of current immigration legislation. But all political issues aside, THE GOLDEN DOOR is first and foremost a film of enormous beauty, exquisite photography, deeply felt performances by a huge cast, and a very sensitively written and directed story. The is a film that deserves wide distribution, a movie that is a must see for everyone. Highly recommended. Grady Harp | 0 |
This is probably one of the best thrillers I have ever seen. It has action, but not this bullet-flying, good guys - bad guys, van damme - stallone action, but quick, realistic and nervous action, it has a plot, cause till the very end of the movie you don't know how this is gonna end, it has characters, aidan quinn, donald sutherland and ben kingsley are just perfect, and it has suspense, this movie just won't let you go away before you've seen the end of it.<br /><br />Though there are only a few characters, I didn't find it difficult to keep my attention the the story, and as for the story, it's basic (not too tom clancy-difficult, but simple and raw) and realistic.<br /><br />If you're in for a movie with a good story, some action and great acting, watch this and I promise, you won't go away till you've seen the end of it. The very end of it. | 0 |
DIG! is funny, fun, amusing, interesting, stylish, and very well done. Knowing that it was made on such a shoestring budget over 7 years it is amazing that such a story can be told, especially with such style and substance. If you are a music fan or documentary fan this is a must see.<br /><br />Focusing on The Brian Jonestown Masssacre and The Dandy Warhols over the years is a brilliant way to show the contrast between a decent band who meets with moderate success through perseverance and the ability to compromise and a genius megalomaniacal lead singer backed up by a varied cast of characters who sabotage their own success through drugs, alcohol, and insanity. If I did not know that this is footage of real people, I would swear it was an incredibly well written and imaginative scripted piece. The story is compelling, concise, and simply amazing. | 0 |
What in the world! This piece of gambling cinema would have been suitable for the Lifetime Network. Michael Imperoli is a good actor but I think his portrayal as 'Stu' fell short. The montages were unbearable and too many. The supporting cast, where are you? Whoever did the casting should be partially at fault. The cinematography was useless. A gambling story with an after school feel to it. Stories of this sort should be left for the Oliver Stone's of the world. It would still suck ass but at least it would be fun to watch. It was an attempt that lost it's wheels before the race ever begun. Mario Andretti in the 1982 Indy 500 came to mind. | 1 |
I saw this film some years ago and promptly bought the soundtrack because it was simply excellent. Bacharach's music is endearing and should be given the recognition it richly deserves. The cinematography is awesome. Critics hated it, but they hated HOME ALONE too. I haven't found it on video but welcome anyone who can find a copy. | 0 |
Awful film. Terrible acting, cheesy, totally unrealistic, embarrassing to anyone who has played the game. For a start that guy is not a hooker, he would be snapped in two. As for ''I score, that's my job'' well no it's not. For the the uneducated American audience it might come across as a good film. For me, well, that's a few hours of my life I'll never get back. I read through the reviews and came across one where the guy sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Then I read - <br /><br />''And while American rugby may never reach the level of talent that New Zealand or South Africa has, third in the world is also nothing to hang your head about''<br /><br />All I can say is, LMFAO! <br /><br />Keep playing your American football and baseball, leave the real sports to the big boys. | 1 |
I had actually considered investing in this movie when Gorman was out drumming up funding. I loved most of the script but did not like the ending. Gorman insisted the ending was as it had to be.<br /><br />Seeing the completed movie I have to say I am amazed. Reading the script I had not imagined the acting (and Gorman's directing) would be as powerful and moving as it is here. The two leads did an amazing job. They were very believable and this movie is well worth watching just for the performances of these two amazing stars.<br /><br />Now, for the spoiler and if you have not seen the movie please don't read further as you need to see the movie first. (I actually wish I had never read the script just so I could have experienced the movie ending first hand.) <br /><br />----------------------------- SPOILER <br /><br />I have two main problems with the movie. First off, and I'm sure I mentioned this when I read the script, the wife should have died. If she were dead the ending would be much more believable. As it is, we have this guy who has been agonizing over a woman who left him 'years ago.' If she left him and he is still in love after so long he'd have to be seriously delusional. But he doesn't come across that way in the script. (There is also the problem of why he did not expend all this energy going after the wife he still loves.)<br /><br />Plus, if the wife were dead we would actually be able to believe that they had a fulfilling, reciprocating love, and therefore believe that the guy is devastated enough for the ending to be reasonable.<br /><br />However, I don't buy Daphne doing what she does in the ending. I'd need a heck of a lot of convincing to believe that this naive girl (very naive for a whore but believable due to Bohl's performance) did what she did. The character is simply not cold enough. And if she did this out of some kind of love, or something else, then there is a whole piece of the movie/story missing.<br /><br />Much of this movie is reminiscent of 'Sex, Lies, and Video Tape.' I think it could have been as popular if Gorman had chosen to give the movie a more believable ending. <br /><br />So watch the movie, enjoy the performance. And make up your own mind. | 0 |
And believe me that's a pretty stunning accomplishment. Take 'Jolly Roger: Massacre at Cutter's Cove,' change the killer from a pirate to a prospector, change his obsession from buried treasure to old gold, and his color from puke green to deep blue. You now have 'Miner's Massacre.' The problem is, at least 'Jolly Roger' was entertaining enough -- albeit in a so-bad-it's-good way -- to keep you watching it for the whole two hours. There's no strip-joint-murder scene or any bizarre killings. I can't tell you how many times I lost interest in 'Miner's Massacre' and started doing dishes or cleaning around the condo. And, the ending is absolutely silly. The 49er dude just randomly re-appears out of nowhere to kill the local sheriff, while the lead actor and actress are sitting in the sheriff's cruiser, screaming. A truly horrible movie. | 1 |
Enterprise is the entertainment, but it is also the forefront of Science Fiction and a positive outlook for tomorrow. With gratitude and respect Mr. Berman and Mr. Braga. I wish you well, thank you both for your service to Trek.<br /><br />Enterprise is what Trek is about... | 0 |
I like movies about morally corrupt characters, but this was too much. The acting wasn't great, but that wasn't the real problem. The issue was the sinking feeling I got in the pit of my stomach about 20 minutes into the film. These characters were hollow. They had almost no depth, and what little they did have was devoted to the cruelty they displayed to each other in the guise of friendship. Exploring the darker sides of a set of characters can be fascinating, but you have to give those characters actual personalities or they are just cardboard cutouts. These characters were cardboard and the picture they gave was just ugly. | 1 |
ELEPHANT WALK may not be the acme of literature or of film, but it is great entertainment in the quasi-melodramatic mode. It is the story of love, both genuine and illicit, as well as overweening ambition, devotion, and the arrogance of personal tyranny. A previous reviewer, John Mankin, questions why the central focus of the film, the mansion called Elephant Walk, should have been built by the former owner, the 'governor' the late Tom Wiley, right across the elephants' traditional path to the major source of water, the river. To miss this point is to essentially miss the point of the whole center of the film: the hubris of man. That his son, played by Peter Finch, should become enthralled by the super image and enigma of his revered father, is not unexpected, since the son was without a mother growing up in a foreign jungle with only his father and his father's rowdy 'boys' club' as his role models. The point of the father was that he was a self-made man who would tame nature to his liking, and that liking was not just a tea plantation upon the lands the elephants once dominated, but also that he would dominate even the large bull elephant that led the herd, and thus he would dominate his son and all around him, and so we join the tale after the elephants have been denied the crucial dry season access to their pathway to water. Who could know that this dry season would last so long and what the elephants would do in desperation to get water? This is the nexus of the film: what will animals do to get water; what will humans do to get power or love? Ceylon, today's Sri Lanka, is the huge island off the coast of India where the plantation is located and one quickly learns that it is the real scenery of the story, not just the expenses of Miss Taylor. Were it not for this exotic location (much of the film was shot in Ceylon), and the magnificent 'bungalow' this would have been just another potboiler. One must recognize the atmosphere created here as integral to the time and place, as it illuminates the latter day wealth and power attained by the English immigrant 'conquerors' that were part and parcel of the British raj. It is only such wealth gained by the use of virtual slave labor that one could build so magnificent a residence of ebony, teak, and marble. Not to be overlooked are the wonderfully carved Jalees (grille work window and doorway borders) evidently specified by art directors J. McMillan Johnson and Hal Pereira and obviously made by the cheaper labor on the island. Such craftsmanship reveals the careful attention to detail that these men sought.<br /><br />For those immune to the blandishments of time, place, and architecture, there is always the allure of Miss Taylor, as she marries a man she doesn't really know and is tacitly wooed by a another man, against the background described, and under the overarching tyranny of the legacy of a man deceased. As I said, it is not great literature nor even great film, but it is great spectacle long before that term was debased by the special effects extravaganzas of today.<br /><br />This is one of those films made to be seen on the giant screen of an outdoor drive-in, not on the home TV, so arrange the largest screen to see it on to fully appreciate its fine camera-work and scope. | 0 |
This show, Paranormal State, has an almost 'Blairwitch Project' feel to it. As in, you're watching a 'documentary' that's actually just a scripted movie, made to look and feel like a documentary.<br /><br />My biggest problem with the show, is their 'go to' outside advisers of the Warren's, who were made famous for their 'investigations' of the Amityville murders, which were shown to be completely fraudulent, just based upon the police reports of the family's deaths! (such as the eldest daughter actually having been involved in the entire thing, to the point of possibly even helping with some of the deaths!) Then there's the way they constantly jump to blaming demons for everything. Not to mention how haughty the group is about what cases they take. They don't want to help those who need it most, they just want the weirdest cases, that will get them the most press and attention.<br /><br />They're complete frauds, plain and simple. | 1 |
It is true that some fans of Peter Sellers work may be disappointed with this, his last venture. But surely any fan of Sellers will find delight in all of his films, simply because of the man's huge talent. and The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu is certainly no exception. Unfortunately this would prove to be Sellers last film, (it was even released after his death), but it's still nice to see how the man had managed to keep his irreplaceable talent right until his untimely demise. And not only do we get one Sellers, but we get to, for Sellers plays not only the title role but also his nemesis, the equally bizarre Nayland Smith, the detective on the hunt for the crazed 168 year old Fu. The story is equally outlandish as we follow Fu's outrageous antics to make his age-defying elixir and also Nayland and his group of associates trying to prevent him. Just like any of Sellers greater films, the film comes with a guaranteed impeccable performance from him, as well as many of his familiar-faced co-stars - David Tomlinson, Sid Caesar, John Le Mesurier, Clive Dunn and Helen Mirren to name a few. It's also nice to see Pink Panther stalwart Burt Kwouk (Cato) enjoying a cameo with Sellers - albeit playing the same role, but still nice. The story is indeed pretty ridiculous, as are many of the characters involved, which classes this as a film strongly under the Goon influence. And, although it never reaches the heights of Goon comedy, there are plenty of amusing jokes that seem to point in the right direction. The film failed commercially on it's initial release due to the entire world mourning after Sellers' death (the film was released less than 3 weeks after)and there is always that sorrowful thought lurking in the back of your mind when viewing it that this was Sellers last film. It's far from a great film - it's often slow, too ridiculous, and sometimes the jokes simply aren't there - but it is nevertheless enjoyable - if only for another top rate performance from Peter Sellers. | 1 |
Fat Man And Little Boy were the code names of the two atomic bombs that were dropped in reverse order on Nagasaki and Hiroshina. How these came to be and came to be in American hands is the story of this film.<br /><br />The terms by the way are the code names of two bombs fueled with plutonium and uranium. Fat Man was the plutonium bomb and that one was dropped on Nagasaki and Little Boy was the one used on Hiroshima<br /><br />The film is primarily a conflict between General Leslie R. Groves of the United States Army and physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer who led the team of scientists who developed the bomb under Groves's direction. With two men from as widely divergent backgrounds as these were, conflict was inevitable.<br /><br />Paul Newman who all his life has been a disarmament activist plays General Groves. To his credit Newman does not play a man whose views he would very little in common with as any kind of caricature. Groves is a military man first and foremost with an engineering background. He wanted a combat command as trained military professionals would naturally want in this greatest of wars. But because of his background in engineering Groves got to head the Manhattan Project which was what the effort was code named. So be it, Newman is determined to make his contribution to the war effort count.<br /><br />Most of us first became acquainted with Dwight Schultz from the A-Team as H.M. Murdoch the pilot whose grip on reality is tenuous at best. If one was only acquainted with the A-Team, one might think that Schultz had a great future in comic roles.<br /><br />Instead Dwight Schultz is one of the best actors in the English speaking world with an astonishing range of dramatic parts since leaving that television series. J. Robert Oppenheimer in life was a complex man who recognized the dangers and benefits of atomic energy. The challenge of the problem also intrigues him. Later on Oppenheimer got into a real bind because of his left-wing political views and associates which everyone knew walking into the Manhattan Project. <br /><br />Some of the lesser roles that stand out are Bonnie Bedelia as Mrs. Oppenheimer, Natasha Richardson as Oppenheimer's Communist mistress whose affair with Oppenheimer got him in such a jackpot later on, and Laura Dern as a nurse at the Los Alamos site.<br /><br />But the best is John Cusack who as Michael Merriman is a composite of some real life scientists who might accurately be labeled as the first casualties of the atomic age. His scenes with Laura Dern, especially with what happens to him, take on a real poignancy.<br /><br />The debate over the bombs as the use put to them is still a matter of raging debate. Fat Man And Little Boy presents the facts and lets you decide what might have happened if an alternative use of them had been taken. | 0 |
The film, Heaven's Gate, was a good view, although still tedious at over 4 hours. But the film took great license - as usual with Hollywood. James Averill (Chris Christopherson), and 'Elle' were actually married in real life. Their main contribution to the Johnson County war, was to start it by being hanged. Well, by starting it, I mean it came at the beginning, not the end. Here's the real scenario: James Averill and Ellen Watson were secretly married because one homestead could be given to each family. By filing as single individuals, they could get two homesteads. They chose homesites on Crazy Woman Creek actually controlling the water above the land held by a powerful member of the Cattleman's Association. He offered to buy them out repeatedly, which they refused.<br /><br />Although characterized in real life as the owner of a brothel (Cattle Kate), and a prostitute herself (and also in the film), there is no real evidence that was true. It is known that she bought many head of sick cattle, nursed them back to life, and was later accused by the Cattleman's Association of receiving the cattle in trade for 'lewd acts'. In the end, she was accused of rustling - an act almost certainly untrue. So much for this part of the myth of the 'American West', which is a gooble-de-gook of myths spanning a time period of about one hundred years.<br /><br />In real life, she and Jim Averill were surprised one day by several members of the Cattleman's Association, taken in hand, and promptly hanged. Those perpetrating the injustice were never brought to trial. But that was the first link that led to the murder of Nate Champion, and the start of the Johnson County war.<br /><br />Quite different from the Hollywood version which shows her shot at the end. <br /><br />Other than that, I think the main problem with the film was the editor, who could have made the action a faster pace by more skillful editing. | 1 |
An excellent example of the spectacular Busby Berkeley musicals produced in the early 1930's. Audiences must've been very surprised to see James Cagney in this type of vehicle. Quite a contrast from his 'Public Enemy' 2 years earlier. Cagney does add spark & interest to a rather routine tired out formulated storyline & plot. But the highlight of the movie is the 3 elaborate production numbers back to back. First with the conservative 'Honeymoon Hotel' number,then followed by the very spectacularly eye dazzling 'By A Waterfall' sequence,followed by the closing 'Shanghai Lil' sequence, Cagney only participates in the last number hoofing it up on top of a bar counter with Ruby Keeler. The 'Shanghai Lil' number with Cagney is excellent but a bit of a comedown & anti climactic after the more exciting & incredibly mind boggling 'By A Waterfall' choreography.If I was the director I would've inserted the 'Shanghai Lil' number in the middle & close with 'By A Waterfall',which blows the other 2 numbers out of the water so to speak & in my view the best of the 3 numbers. The 3 production numbers are the frosting on the cake & James Cagney's performance is added decoration to the cake. An outstanding musical achievement,a 4 star movie, the ultimate musical,well worth watching,you won't be disappointed!!!!!!!!! | 0 |
In a college dorm a guy is killed by somebody with a scythe. His girlfriend Beth (Dorie Barton) discovers him and tries to commit suicide. She's institutionalized. A year later she's out, has a new boyfriend named Hank (Joseph Lawrence) and is about to spend Spring Break with Hank and four other mindless friends in a BIG, beautiful condo in Florida. Naturally the killer pops up (for no reason) and starts killing again.<br /><br />Lousy slasher thriller--a textbook example of how NOT to do a low-budget horror movie. For starters, large portions of this film are ENDLESS filler of these six idiots videotaping themselves, having 'fun' (more fun than the audience), getting drunk, acting stupid etc etc. Also there is NO nudity in here at all. I'm not saying a horror film needs nudity but ANYTHING to liven this up would have helped. None of the deaths are really shown (you hear them), are only a little bloody and there is no gore. There's one REAL gruesome one--but that's not till the end.<br /><br />With a few exceptions the acting sucks. Dorie Barton is dreadful as the main woman and Tom Jay Jones is lousy as Oz. Chad Allen pops up as Brad and he's TERRIBLE. Lawrence is actually very good--handsome and hunky and giving this crap his all. And Jeff Conaway pops up in a small role doing a pretty good job.<br /><br />Logic lapses abound--after they realize a friend has been killed two of the girls casually talk about sex; Baston's non reaction to seeing a friend getting killed is kind of funny and WHAT happens to Lawrence? His character disappears without a trace at the end! Dull, stupid, no gore, no nudity--skip this one.<br /><br />Rated R for Graphic Violence and some Profanity. | 1 |
I caught this movie on TV yesterday. I had a certain curiosity about it, being that it was directed by Emilio Estevez and starring him and his real-life Dad, Martin Sheen. I love to see a movie about a father-son relationship that involves a real-life father and son. Naturally, there's an instant chemistry between Sheen and Estevez, and their scenes of conflict are even more intense, knowing that they're actually related. Of course, it helps that the two of them are both terrific actors. I've seen Martin Sheen in intense roles before, but I think this is Emilio's most intense role--being that I mostly recall him from the 'Mighty Ducks' series--and I was very impressed. Talent REALLY does run in that family. And Kathy Bates steals the movie in an Oscar-worthy performance. She tugged at my heartstrings with every word of dialogue. Kimberly Williams--the beautiful actress from the 'Father of the Bride' movies--is also very good, holding her own among a group of talented veteran actors. <br /><br />The movie is a bit stagey, with dialogue that's obviously geared for the stage, but that didn't bother me. This is not meant to be an action movie; this is a character study. And for a film that's based on a play, it never gets too claustrophobic. When Emilio's character, Jeremy, reminisces to his days in Vietnam, we actually see his harrowing memories brought to life. <br /><br />The film is extremely powerful and realistic, without being sentimental. At the end, I expected all the conflicts to be resolved and the family would become hunky-dory, but that's not how it turned out. The ending made me cry, without resorting to standard Hollywood melodrama. That proves reality is much more gripping than anything Hollywood can conjure up. <br /><br />If you're in the mood for a beautiful, powerful drama with extremely wonderful performances that will knock your socks off...please check out this underrated gem. Hopefully, one day Martin and Emilio will unite with Charlie, and they will all make a great film together. <br /><br />My score: 9 (out of 10) | 0 |
Why do movie makers always go against the author's work? I mean, yes, things have to be condensed for the sake of viewer interest, but look at Anne of Green Gables. They did a wonderful job of combining important events into a cohesive whole that was simply delightful. I can't believe that they chose to combine three novels together for Anne of Avonlea into such a dreadful mess. Look at all they missed out on by doing that . . . Paul Irving, little Elizabeth, the widows, Windy Poplars . . . and Anne's college years, for heaven's sake!!! Wouldn't it have been delightful to meet Priscilla and all the rest of the Redmond gang? Kevin Sullivan should have taken things one movie at a time, instead of jumbling them all together and combining characters and events the way he did. This movie was good, if you leave the novels out of it!! But L.M. Montgomery's beautiful work is something that should not be denied. This movie was a let down after seeing the successful way he brough Anne of Green Gables to life. | 1 |
Things that are only just now 'news' were taken as a given in this shocking documentary. I fear that as the investigation proceeds, the producers of this film will be vindicated in spades.<br /><br />The producers show us the Davidians, the government agents, the investigators, with all their faults and all their humanity. Nothing any reviewer can say could approach the impact of watching and listening for yourself. Pieces of evidence -- Congressional testimony, 911 tapes, news footage, expert commentary, interviews, photos and home videos -- are seamlessly woven together and tell a disturbing tale. <br /><br />Do not wait. See this film and tell your friends. | 0 |
This starts off bad, what with the three women acting like simpering junior high school wussies sitting around giggling with their gin, endless cigarettes and a caramel chocolate treat for the one who tells the best 'man' story, and then it gets worse -=- spoiler alert =-= what with Andie's character falling for the young organ player who used to be her student when he was 14 (she's the headmistress of an English school, believe it or not), only to have him destroyed thanks to her bitch-from-hell 'girlfriend' . ..and then from there, it's basically unwatchable claptrap: she forgives her 'friend' and has the organ player's love child and the 3 women end up as they started, drinking more gin and smoking more cigarettes blah blah blah. Andie's character throws the caramel chocolates out in the street, in a pathetic attempt to symbolize growth. Have mercy. | 1 |
people, get a clue! I mean, the writers dont have one, so I would expect you to...this show is SUCH a pale imitation of the '60 show that you can laugh at it! and the sixties show is the one with the cheap special effects, and is in B&W fer Chrissakes! Yet the mood and the writing on the old show is MILES ahead of this drivel. Get HiP kids! if 98 Degrees or Brittany told you to watch it, you would! You know it! Just bypass them and tell all your friends you were 'IN' with the 'scene' BEFORE it became too cool! | 1 |
Another in the long line of Conan wannabes that tired to cash in on that movie's success, this Italian monstrosity is about as bad as they came. You know it's a bad sign when your heroes fight invisible enemies because the movie was made so cheaply there wasn't money for either adequate special effects or to hire real people. I won't even bother going into the plot as I defy anyone to follow it and make sense of the storyline. Maybe it's the television cut I watched, but I can't imagine any version being that much better. It all seems so random to me. Evil sorcerers, cavemen, giant snakes, medieval castles, grenades, and hang gliding none of it fits together. It's as if director Joe D'Amato had an epileptic fit while making Cave Dwellers (or any of the other half-dozen names the movie goes by) and threw everything he could think of onto the screen regardless of how unrelated it was or how it fit into the film's already puzzling plot. The acting is sufficiently bad. Miles O'Keeffe could never act his way out of a wet paper bag and he proves that once again in this movie. The rest of the cast is equally atrocious. Then there's the . . . well, you get the idea. It's late, I'm tired, and I've already wasted more than enough time writing about this piece of garbage. Take my word for it avoid Cave Dwellers (or whatever you want to call it) at all costs. | 1 |
It seems at least vaguely possible that this movie provided a bit of inspiration for 'The Sopranos,' as its main character, Martin Blank (John Cusack) is a hit man who has so many issues from his past and his profession that he's in therapy trying to deal with it all. Everything finally comes to a head at his 10-year high school reunion. The problem was that by the time Blank got to the reunion I had stopped caring. Frankly, I found this movie a drag from start to finish.<br /><br />It had potential. There was a reasonably good cast, headed by Cusack and Dan Aykroyd, playing Grocer, his arch-rival in the hit-man business, along with Minnie Driver as Debi, Blank's high school sweetheart who he stood up on prom night, and a limited role for Alan Arkin as Dr. Oatman, Blank's psychologist. That fairly talented cast never really seemed to come together, though. The drama lacked intensity and the comedy lacked real humour. What I thought had the most potential to be a comedic storyline was Grocer's proposal for a hit man's union, but aside from becoming a bit of a running joke, the idea never really got developed. As for the romance, one wondered why Debi would even think of letting this guy back into her life.<br /><br />There were a handful of chuckles, but nothing really caught me and held me and I spent most of the movie wondering whether this thing was ever going to start to click. It never did - not for me, at least. 2/10 | 1 |
Cash (Now played by Khrystyne Haje in for Angelina Jolie) has wandered to a post apocalypse wasteland (after her protector has died from old age, said protector was played by Elias Koteas, an actual decent actor) and now she finds that people wander through the rubble looking for cyborgs to trade for scrap metal and cash. She leads a group of burned out cyborgs (That includes William Katt, Evan Lurie and a human scientist played by Zach Galligan) against bounty hunter Richard Lynch. Malcolm McDowell has two minutes of screen time as Lynch's employer. Cyborg 3 does manage to be better than the other two entries but it still is a largely dull feature. The problem this time is that the ideas with potential are never used well, the action sequences are routine and the name cast such as McDowell, Katt and Galligan are given little to do. Haje is indeed a whiny heroine and Lynch is too over the top(as usual) and the film lacks the inspiration or ambition to be as fun-bad as it's hilarious predecessor. (The one with Van Damme, the second one is just dull.) Also disappointing is the science fiction angle which almost aggressively resists any good idea it has. As an action flick this is routine and by the numbers B-movie stuff and it is competently made, that's the only thing positive I can say about it.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor) | 1 |
I agree that this film is too pretentious, and it is not easy to know where it is going. I have been teaching literature and film for many years, and I find this film to be one of the most over rated, according to some of the previous reviews here. <br /><br />However, let me remind you that this is the same director who has L'ora di religione (Il sorriso di mia madre- My Mother's Smile) to his credit -- a gem of a film! <br /><br />Was he trying to outdo Fellini's 81/2 here???? The scene with the dogs, which has also been pointed out, is absurd and excessive just one example. Others would take too much space, and some reviewers have already noted them. <br /><br />Overall, a most frustrating and annoying experience! | 1 |
I have nothing but praise for this mini series. It's only about a year and a half old but I have seen it twice already; with greater enjoyment the second time than the first. I'm seriously thinking of watching it again soon since I find it spiritually uplifting.<br /><br />It is a very tender romantic drama with such beautiful performances, sets, costumes, music and scenes that it has a resonance which places it almost in a league of its own among mini series.<br /><br />Some others have commented on the difficulties of living as a lesbian in Britain in the 1890s. Nothing especially difficult about that; it was only male homosexuality that was against the law as poor Oscar Wilde experienced to his great cost and as a great loss to the literary world. Anyway, I digress.<br /><br />In my view, this is essential television. It is perhaps one of the greatest tragic romantic dramas since Romeo and Juliet, although not in the conventional sense.<br /><br />10 out of 10 from me.<br /><br />JMV | 0 |
This movie was packed pull of endless surprises! Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, they added more joints and more pink fuzzy-lined vans with raunchy sex scenes. As you can guess, I was a victim of the original version. We were tricked into watching it thinking it was Supervan, the host box which promised lasars, jail breaks, and much more. Who would have thought a Dollar Store Christmas present could have been so much fun! | 1 |
Italian soft X Exorcist clone.<br /><br />Woman buy statue of crucified thief. Said thief comes to life and turns out to be the Devil with rape fantasies.<br /><br />Ivan Rassimov plays the Devil brilliantly. Mostly due to his gift of evil looks. And Because he was never above doing nudity. Good on him.<br /><br />The actress in the lead did a decent job. Her wide eyed innocence and the fact that she looked great naked helped.<br /><br />This one has a similar plot element to most Italian horror films. The girl's parents are filthy rich, and depraved. Watch it to get the details.<br /><br />Laura Gemser's husband, Gabriel Tinti, also appears as a random stud. His part is basically phoned-in, but like a cheap beer, it did the job.<br /><br />Fault the director for its failings. This could have been a horror/sex classic. | 0 |
Cute film about three lively sisters from Switzerland (often seen running about in matching outfits) who want to get their parents back together (seems mom is still carrying the torch for dad) - so they sail off to New York to stop the dad from marrying a blonde gold-digger he calls 'Precious'. Dad hasn't seen his daughters in ten years, they (oddly enough) don't seem to mind and think he's wonderful, and meanwhile Precious seems to lead a life mainly run by her overbearing mother (Alice Brady), a woman who just wants to see to it her daughter marries a rich man. The sisters get the idea of pushing Precious into the path of a drunken Hungarian count, tricking the two gold-digging women into thinking he is one of the richest men in Europe. But a case of mistaken identity makes the girls think the count is good-looking Ray Milland, who goes along with the scheme 'cause he has a crush on sister Kay.<br /><br />This film is enjoyable, light fare. Barbara Read as Kay comes across as sweet and pretty, Ray Milland looks oh so young and handsome here (though, unfortunately, is given little to do), Alice Brady is quite good as the scheming mother - but it is Deanna Durbin, a real charmer and cute as a button playing youngest sister Penny, who pretty much steals the show. With absolutely beautiful vocals, she sings several songs throughout the film, though I actually would have liked to have seen them feature her even more in this. The plot in this film is a bit silly, but nevertheless, I found the film to be entertaining and fun. | 0 |
I always loved this film. The music,story and the action. I especially love the opening and closing of the film. The music stayed with me throughout the years. The WWI plane battles were great and the comedy is typical Blake Edwards. Slaptick is his forte' after all. Julie's singing is amazing and keeps me glued to the screen. The sets and the scenes are wonderful. The characters are appealing. I loved the scene with the wounded soldiers and Julie's singing to them. I wish she sang to me in Vietnam. I also enjoyed the old cars from the period and the WWI music.I was glad when the DVD arrived. Now I can whistle in the dark watching it again and again. | 0 |
It's not like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliché-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst. | 1 |
'The Plainsman' represents the directorial prowess of Cecil B. DeMille at its most inaccurate and un-factual. It sets up parallel plots for no less stellar an entourage than Wild Bill Hickok (Gary Cooper), Buffalo Bill Cody (James Ellison), Calamity Jane (Jean Arthur), George Armstrong Custer and Abraham Lincoln to interact, even though in reality Lincoln was already dead at the time the story takes place. Every once in a while DeMille floats dangerously close toward the truth, but just as easily veers away from it into unabashed spectacle and showmanship. The film is an attempt to buttress Custer's last stand with a heap of fiction that is only loosely based on the lives of people, who were already the product of manufactured stuffs and legends. Truly, this is the world according to DeMille - a zeitgeist in the annals of entertainment, but a pretty campy relic by today's standards.<br /><br />TRANSFER: Considering the vintage of the film, this is a moderately appealing transfer, with often clean whites and extremely solid blacks. There's a considerable amount of film grain in some scenes and an absence of it at other moments. All in all, the image quality is therefore somewhat inconsistent, but it is never all bad or all good just a bit better than middle of the road. Age related artifacts are kept to a minimum and digital anomalies do not distract. The audio is mono but nicely balanced.<br /><br />EXTRAS: Forget it. It's Universal! BOTTOM LINE: As pseudo-history painted on celluloid, this western is compelling and fun. Just take its characters and story with a grain of salt in some cases a whole box seems more appropriate! | 0 |
Listen, I don't care what anybody says, as Cypher is nothing less than a 5 star movie. Cypher is not, I repeat not, a B movie. Cypher is an absolute masterpiece. Suffice it to say, I am a connoisseur of the world's finest spy films and this film is nothing less than top flight. I cannot overemphasis how phenomenal this movie is. Cypher is one of the best spy movies ever conceived and ever made. The technology in this movie is over the horizon of spacetime. In fact, I must admit that Cypher completely surprised the hell out of me. In fact, I've recommended this movie to my colleagues more than any other movie. Other critics, of whom some downplayed the movie, have no idea as to what the hell they're talking about. Don't listen to the haters. And actually, for the most part, reviews of Cypher have been largely positive. And it should be noted that Cyher is not only a good movie, but it is also a fantastic movie. Cypher is the kind of movie that's so advanced and so magnificently crafted, that it's over the heads of most critics and all the cynics. There is nothing wrong with or cheap about Cypher whatsoever. Again, the cinematography, the backdrops, the technology, the storyline, and the acting are all 100% world-class top notch. Naturally, I won't give anything away. This is not a spoiler. And though it is the contention of some critics that Cypher should have been in movie theaters, I believe quite the opposite. Cypher is a movie that seems to have been just right for DVD release only and not in a bad way. Cypher has got to be the greatest underground spy flick ever to hit the shelves. Blade Runner, 1984, Brave New World, Total Recall, Logan's Run, Jason Bourne and Impostor and Deja Vu... look out! Cypher equally earns the distinction of being placed in the AONN Multimedia Research, 5 Star Eternal Spy Movie Hall of Fame. Cypher is counterespionage at it's absolute best. Hands down and hats off. Nothing is what it seems and truth is stranger than fiction. The future is now. | 0 |
'Iedereen Beroemd' has everything we can expect from a straight to video-movie. It's the story about a man who believes his daughter could be a star. The only thing he needs is to get her on stage, surrounded by cameras and reporters. A simple plan for which he has to kidnap and do some blackmail. The problem with the movie is not the basic plot, but how it is made. Everything is supposed to be funny, but it isn't. It is trivial and clumsy, the characters are shallow, and the end-sequence is totally without climax or emotion. The last sequence is probably the only scene where you feel like laughing, but only at how pathetic the whole set-up is. | 1 |
This film was one of the worst I've seen in a long while. <br /><br />It's a combination police drama and comedy about two Hollywood detectives, Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett, investigating a shootout at a hip hop club. <br /><br />The plot is contrived and there are way too many side issues going on. Ford is hustling real estate on the side (Martin Landau is one of his clients), Hartnett runs a yoga school where he's hustling chicks in his spare time, the two are under investigation by Internal Affairs, Ford is screwing the ex-girlfriend (Lena Olin) of the IA investigator and she's a psychic who has a radio show, the man who set up the killing at the club is a dirty ex-cop who shot Hartnett's father years ago.<br /><br />Toss in the obligatory car chases and some lame attempts at humor, and that's about the gist of this turkey. | 1 |
I read that Jessie Matthews was approached and turned down co-starring with Fred Astaire in Damsel in Distress. Jessie Matthews in her prime never left her side of the pond to do any American musical films. IF they had teamed for this film it would have been a once in a lifetime event.<br /><br />It's a pity because Damsel in Distress has everything else going for it. Fred Astaire, story and adapted to screen by author P.G. Wodehouse, Burns&Allen for comedy, and songs by the Gershwin Brothers. In answer to the question posed by the Nice Work If You Can Get It, there isn't much you could ask more for this film.<br /><br />Except a leading lady. Though Ginger Rogers made several films away from Fred Astaire, Damsel in Distress is the only film Astaire made without Rogers while they were a team. Young Joan Fontaine was cast in this opposite Astaire.<br /><br />Her character has none of the bite that Ginger Rogers's parts do in these films. All she basically has to do is act sweet and demure. She also doesn't contribute anything musically. And if I had to rate all the dancing partners of Fred Astaire, Joan Fontaine would come out at the bottom. The poor woman is just horrible in the Things Are Looking Up number. <br /><br />When she co-starred later on in a musical with Bing Crosby, The Emperor Waltz, it's no accident that Fontaine is given nothing musical to do.<br /><br />The version I have is a colorized one and in this case I think it actually did some good. The idyllic lush green English countryside of P.G. Wodehouse is really brought out in this VHS copy. Especially in that number I mentioned before with Astaire and Fontaine which does take place in the garden.<br /><br />Burns&Allen on the other hand as a couple of old vaudeville troopers complement Astaire in grand style in the Stiff Upper Lip number. The surreal fun-house sequence is marvelously staged.<br /><br />P.G. Wodehouse's aristocracy runs the gamut with Constance Collier at her haughty best and for once Montagu Love as Fontaine's father as a nice man on film.<br /><br />The biggest hit out of A Damsel in Distress is A Foggy Day maybe the best known song about the British capital city since London Bridge Is Falling Down. Done in the best simple elegant manner by Fred Astaire, it's one of those songs that will endure as long as London endures and even after.<br /><br />Overlooking the young and inexperienced Joan Fontaine, A Damsel in Distress rates as a classic, classic score, classic dancing, classic comedy. Who could ask for anything more? | 0 |
Anytime I'm not giving 150% to my dreams or my goals I think of Mark Borchardt, the real-life subject of 'American Movie'. Mark's dogged persistence at having his first feature film produced and shot is so captivating that it will have you laughing, shaking your head with sadness and rooting for him.<br /><br />I haven't seen a documentary this honest since the movie on R. Crumb. The supporting 'cast' (Mark's real-life family and friends) are all great. Give this movie a chance and you'll see a great film and a wonderful portrait of the stuff that the American dream is made of. | 0 |
Let's describe Larry as an interviewer: a complete suckhole, in every way possible. He laughs at all his guests jokes, he asks the most boring questions and he would never dare contradict them. He hits me as the type of person who wants to be liked by...everyone. Friendly, boring, ol'predictable Harry. He probably owes his success to being a dream interviewer for celebrities because they don't get bombarded with what we, the people, want to know and have a right to know. Let's put it this way: he interviews as if he's in a red country. 02/10, 2 for the guests that come on the show yet it all seems pointless when Larry starts asking his mind numbing questions such as 'What's it like to be a mother?' followed by the usual answer along the lines of 'Being a mother is the greatest thing that ever happened to me: it's wonderful, but tiring'. | 1 |
I am very surprised to see the good ratings for this movie.<br /><br />I watched the film 9 years ago and I still remember how angry I felt to sit in the movie theatre and to look at this mess. I am a big fan of John Boorman's work. I really like his movies. So I went to 'Beyond Rangoon' with big expectations. But I felt like watching a dumb, cheap Chuck Norris jungle movie with all action scenes cut out. Even the soundtrack was very annoying.<br /><br />I can't believe that John Boorman was the director because this movie was so badly done. I think the Burmese people deserve better films to illustrate their struggle. | 1 |
I have never really been interested in cannibal movies before and up until a couple of months ago i had avoided this genre of movie.<br /><br />I recently had to undergo knee surgery and found i had a lot of time on my hands as i was unable to work, so i decided after seeing almost every horror movie our local video shop had to offer i would take a chance on this.<br /><br />Christ was it a mistake! I have never seen a movie this bad in all my years of being a movie addict. This is just a pile of s**t pasted to a D.V.D disc and sold as a horror movie.<br /><br />I have a lot of respect to other horror fans who can switch their brains off long enough to enjoy this crap, They are more brain dead than i ever will be and that is some achievement! 0/10 and thats generous. | 1 |
Enough talent and sincerity went into making this film that I wish it turned out better. Everyone is clearly doing their best to be true to an intriguing premise, but it's too deep a vision, too involved attempt at disentangling mental delusion to survive a transition to the screen. It is an attempt to capture the dimensionality of gossamer patterns on celluloid -- the result is muddled and slow. I give it a 10 for effort, but a 5 overall. | 1 |
at the beginning i was happy to know about a new superman movie , i though that will be great but it wasn't.<br /><br />is a bad copy of the Richard Donner work,Lex is again a villain that makes no more else , even played by Kevin spice.<br /><br />the evil plan is the same of the first movie of Donner just a lot forced.<br /><br />the script is predictable and simple (all stuff Luthor finds in a museum or an old lady).<br /><br />the story is the wrong thing , it must be the Kevin Smith Script and may be it could be better.<br /><br />i just hope a sequel without Brian Singer and with a new talent director to do something new and not a copy.<br /><br />all read you later | 1 |
Even a decade after 'Frontline' aired on the ABC, near as I can tell, 'current affairs' programmes are still using the same tricks over and over. Time after time, 'Today Tonight' and 'A Current Affair' are seen to be hiding behind the facade of journalistic professionalism, and yet they feed us nothing but tired stories about weight-loss and dodgy tradesmen, shameless network promotions and pointless celebrity puff-pieces. Having often been subjected to that entertainment-less void between 'The Simpsons' at 6:00 PM and 'Sale of the Century' (or 'Temptation') at 7:00 PM, I was all too aware of the little tricks that these shows would use to attract ratings.<br /><br />Fortunately, four rising comedians Rob Sitch, Jane Kennedy, Santo Cilauro and Tom Gleisner were also all too aware of all this, and they crafted their frustrations into one of the most wickedly-hilarious media satires you'll ever see on television. The four entertainers had already met with comedic success, their previous most memorable television stint being on 'The Late Show,' the brilliant Saturday night variety show which ran for two seasons from 1992-1993, and also featured fellow comedians Mick Molloy, Tony Martin, Jason Stephens and Judith Lucy.<br /><br />'Frontline' boasts an ensemble of colourful characters, each with their own distinct and quirky personality. The current-affairs show is headed by nicely-groomed Mike Moore (Rob Sitch), an ambitious, pretentious, dim-witted narcissist. Mike works under the delusion that the show is serving a vital role for society he is always adamant that they 'maintain their journalistic integrity' and his executive producers have excelled into getting him to believe just that. Mike is basically a puppet to bring the news to the people; occasionally he gets the inkling that he is being led along by the nose, but usually this thought is stamped out via appeals to his vanity or promises of a promotion.<br /><br />Brooke Vandenberg (Jane Kennedy) is the senior female reporter on the show. She is constantly concerned about her looks and public profile, and, if the rumours are to be believed, she has had a romantic liaison with just about every male celebrity in existence. Another equally amoral reporter, Marty Di Stasio, is portrayed by Tiriel Mora, who memorably played inept solicitor Dennis Denuto in the Australian comedy classic, 'The Castle.' Emma Ward (Alison Whyte) is the Line Producer on the show, and the single shining beacon of morality on the 'Frontline' set. Then there's the highly-amusing weatherman, Geoffrey Salter (Santo Cilauro), Mike's best friend and confidant. Geoff makes a living out of always agreeing with Mike's opinion, and of laughing uproariously at his jokes before admitting that he doesn't get them.<br /><br />For each of the shows three seasons, we are treated to a different EP, Executive Producer. Brian Thompson (Bruno Lawrence), who unfortunately passed away in 1995, runs the programme during Season 1. He has a decent set of morals, and is always civil to his employees, and yet is more-than-willing to cast these aside in favour of high ratings. Sam Murphy (Kevin J. Wilson) arrives on set in Season 2, a hard-nosed, smooth-talking producer who knows exactly how to string Mike along; the last episode of the second season, when Mike finally gets the better of him, is a classic moment. Graeme 'Prowsey' Prowse (Steve Bisley), EP for the third season, is crude, unpleasant and unashamedly sexist. It's, therefore, remarkable that you eventually come to like him.<br /><br />With its cast of distinctive, exaggerated characters, 'Frontline' has a lot of fun satirising current-affairs programmes and their dubious methods for winning ratings. Many of the episodes were shot quickly and cheaply, often implementing many plot ideas from recent real-life situations, but this never really detracts from the show's topicality ten years on. Celebrity cameos come in abundance, with some of the most memorable appearances including Pauline Hanson, Don Burke and Jon English. Watch out for Harry Shearer's hilarious appearance in the Season 2 episode 'Changing the Face of Current Affairs,' playing Larry Hadges, an American hired by the network to reform the show.<br /><br />Particularly in the third season, I noticed that 'Frontline' boasted an extremely gritty form of black humour, uncharacteristic for such a light-hearted comedy show. Genuinely funny moments are born from Brooke being surreptitiously bribed into having an abortion, murder by a crazed gunman and Mike treacherously betraying his best friend's hopes and dreams, only to be told that he is a good friend. The series' final minute minus an added-scene during the credits, which was probably added just in case a fourth season was to be produced was probably the greatest, blackest ending to a comedy series that I've yet seen.<br /><br />Below is listed a very tentative list of my top five favourite 'Frontline' episodes, but, make no mistake, every single half-hour is absolutely hilarious and hard-hitting satire.<br /><br />1) 'The Siege' (Season 1)<br /><br />2) 'Give 'em Enough Rope' (Season 2)<br /><br />3) 'Addicted to Fame' (Season 3)<br /><br />4) 'Basic Instincts' (Season 2)<br /><br />5) 'Add Sex and Stir' (Season 1) | 0 |
A group of hunters track down a werewolf, kill it, decapitate it and then sell the head to unethical Dr. Atwill (played by director/writer Tim Sullivan), who runs a private clinic specializing in corneal transplants. Research chemist Rich Stevens (Mark Sawyer), whose eyes were destroyed when acid flew into his face during a lab explosion, is the unlucky recipient of the werewolf's eyeballs. It takes awhile to get to the first full moon, so first we get a tender love story between Rich and his compassionate, big-breasted nurse Sondra Gard (Stephanie Beaton). Sondra is so compassionate that she strips off her clothing and starts riding Rich in bed before he even has a chance to remove his bandages! After a month in the hospital, Rich returns home to icy wife Rita (Deborah Huber), who promptly tells him 'You look pretty ugly' before speeding off in her Kia. Our hero soon discovers that Rita is not only a bitch, but an adulterous skank who's been carrying on an affair with his supposed friend Craig (Lyndon Johnson). Finally, the full moon rises and Rich finds himself in a hairy predicament as he transforms into a (very silly looking) werewolf creature. Predictable carnage ensues.<br /><br />After ripping out Craig's throat on a beach, Rich wakes up in the brush the next morning with his clothes tattered and vague recollections of the evening's events. He makes friends with dwarf psychic/occult expert Andros (Kurt Levi) and is hassled by both local author Siodmak (Jason Clark) and lesbian-police-detective-in-a-pants-suit Justine Evers (Tarri Markel). When Rich confronts Dr. Atwill, the doctor sends his sadistic bald henchman Kass (Eric Mestressat), who gets a kick out of dismembering corpses with a machete at the clinic, after him. With help from Sondra, Rich manages to escape. Sondra takes him back to her place and basically rapes him on the couch during an overlong sex scene that lasts about five minutes. Will Rich be able to control his lycanthropy or find a cure for it before he claims more victims? <br /><br />Shot on the cheap with a camcorder, this homemade werewolf flick has a somewhat unique premise with the eye transplant angle, but trots out cliché after cliché otherwise. The sets are sub porn level - the clinic scenes seem to have been filmed inside someone's home or apartment. The wolf transformation scenes don't even look as good as the time lapse photography used way back in the 1940s. Instead, they employ ragged editing. Throw some hair on the actor. Cut. Throw on some more on. Cut. More fur... and fill his mouth full of white gunk he can spit out. Cut. No need to worry about continuity! There's no fade, no dissolve, nothing. It's pretty sloppy. Once fully transformed, the werewolf costume (designed by Jeff Leroy, who also edited and shot the movie) is pretty awful. It has red, glowing Christmas bulb eyes, fur that looks like shag carpet and a plastic face that's almost completely immobile. There are several times you can see the cameraman's fingers in front of the camera lens, and does the moon really stay full five nights in a row? As far as the cast is concerned, they're amateurish, but tolerable. And as far as B horror flicks are concerned, there are worse out there. This one is paced fairly well, is only 70 minutes long and does provide plenty of the red stuff during the attack scenes, as well as the aforementioned T&A from Ms. Beaton.<br /><br />It was produced by David S. Sterling (CAMP BLOOD), who was one of the first to ride the wave of digital video right when it was first starting to dominate the low-budget/independent horror genre scene back in the mid/late 90s. Many of his notoriously awful productions were released by Brain Damage Films, a label to avoid like the plague for the most part. Fx guy Jeff Leroy (who is listed as co-director here at IMDb, but not in the film's actual credits) and Vinnie Bilancio (who appears in a small role as one of the hunters) went on to make the much more fun and polished exploitation flick WEREWOLF IN A WOMEN'S PRISON in 2006, which had a similar-looking creature on display (red glowing eyes and all). | 1 |
I don't have a really solid thesis here, so I'm just going to toss out some observations.<br /><br />First of all, the film is absolutely gorgeous. It's shot in high contrast black and white, and some of the scenes are so well composed that they're almost distracting.<br /><br />There's a sequence early on of some intense protests, and some of the shots were amazing -- three guys launching tear gas at the protesters, etc.<br /><br />Second of all, I think that one of the biggest signs that this is a recent film looking back on the 60's is that it's really about how the idealism of the revolution morphed and shifted into something different. The take on this shift is really interesting -- I think that both the political phase of things as well as the artistic and more self-indulgent phase have strong points and weak points. The film doesn't necessarily take the position that things decayed.<br /><br />Third, I think the romance works very well.<br /><br />Finally, I really, really, really hated the ending. It was way too melodramatic. You could even say that the ending is unworthy of the film that preceded it. | 0 |
Okay, the only reason I watched this movie is because Krista Allen is in it. Since I admit to watching Days of our lives... I know her as Billie. Oh sure, perhaps there will be a reason to watch this movie.. that would be the soft porn area. They seem to exel at that. And little else. I would hope anyone renting/buying this movie rented it only for the sex scene's. Because if they bought/rented it for anything else, say quality tv, they may die of a heart attack. This movie involves little imagination whatsoever. While I do have a good laugh at it's stupidity, and perhaps I'll buy it myself, I am but a fool. Rent before you buy on this one. 2 out of 10. (note I have yet to give a movie a 1 star. the sensual scene's alone gave itself and up from a 1. if they hadn't a straight 1 in the pot and I want a refund if it hadn't.) | 1 |
I don't get this. The movie obviously has a pretty good budget. It has very good cinematography. It has nice pacing, good editing and pretty good directing too. Then WHY OH WHY didn't they hire someone to do a final rewrite of the script so it would not be so damn cheesy and WHY OH WHY did they hire such lousy actors that can't act their way out of a paper bag? This movie could have been good. At most times it LOOKS good and FEELS good but in the end, you realize that the movie was no good at all.<br /><br />So I would say it's a good production but a bad movie. Too bad actually.<br /><br />And eels? Come one, really! | 1 |
This movie has lots of action and little heart. Let's forget for a minute that it gets just about every aspect of the Russian Revolution wrong - after all we only have only under an hour here to tell our story. In fact, the czar abdicated after World War I proved a disaster for the country, and a provisional government tried to rule as a pseudo-democracy until the Leninists took power nine months later, mainly because they promised to immediately withdraw Russia from the war. Now, back to our story.<br /><br />Here we have the revolution being 'rumored' in Russian newspapers in what appears to still be a functioning country until violence erupts suddenly and upends the life of nobleman Baron Nikita 'Nikki' Krasnoff (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.). He flees his home with his former servant girl Tanyusha (Nancy Carroll) in tow, and they start to make a new life in Constantinople. Before the revolution the Baron made a regular habit out of making a play for the girl, not out of any real passion, but out of boredom as a diversion of sorts. The revolution doesn't change this, and he continues to try to take advantage of what is obviously a very simple girl. It certainly doesn't make the audience like this guy to see him toying with her so. Tanyusha follows the Baron because she literally has no place to go after the revolutionaries take over the Baron's home, and she has known no other life other than waiting on Nikki hand and foot. Once in Constantinople, Nikki quickly wearies of life as a penniless laborer, and that is when he meets up with his former lover, Russian aristocrat Vera Zimina, who has a plan for getting them to Paris where the Tsarists have congregated after the revolution. Unfortunately for Tanyusha, Vera's plan does not include her.<br /><br />This film manages to completely waste the considerable acting talents of early talkie actress Nancy Carroll. She does a good job with what little she is given to do, but that is not much. Lilyan Tashman is the standout here, even though she has only a small role as Russian vamp Vera. Lilyan was so often given supporting roles just as she is here, but her earthy voice and glamorous looks make her the center of attention in every scene in which she appears. Guy Kibbee even shows up in a humorous bit as an American tourist who is curious about the Russian royalty that has been forcefully ejected from their homeland. | 1 |
Is there anything else on earth to be more enticing than to learn what expects our frail bodies after, um, death. Spanish director Ignacio Cerdà (a soul-mate of his German colleague Jörg Buttgereit) provides blow-by-blow answer to our curiosity and invites us to an exciting journey in the world of preparation tables, scalpels, surgical saws, human entrails and warped minds.<br /><br />Welcome to the autopsy room!<br /><br />I don't know which facets of the film, apart of its notorious reputation, may have helped it to acquire sufficiently high rating.<br /><br />Storywise it's fairly simple and straightforward - a day in the life (actually half an hour) of a troubled coroner (or, perhaps, assistant pathologist or whoever he is) that is fed up with his routine morbid duty and discharges his psychological tension in a non-traditional fashion, right at his workplace. I'm perplexed of what particular message the authors tried to deliver with this one-note plot. I suspect it may be somehow inspired by Udo Kier's character's quirky demeanor in Andy Warhol's Frankenstein.<br /><br />Artistic values of the film are also questionable. It's hard to evaluate the performance of the actors that don't squeeze a single word. Their emotions are concealed behind the medical masks. There's also not enough room for great camera-work - basically, the entire action unfolds mostly within four walls.<br /><br />Authenticity - effects and makeup are impressive and the setup looks very plausible, but only a handful of medical/forensic experts can judge how truthful and anatomically correct the dissection is carried out here (if anyone cares). Honestly, I used to think that the autopsy is done to examine the condition of particular organs and to ascertain the cause of death. Now I know that dead bodies are severed, raped and humiliated, intestines are ripped apart, brains are retrieved from the head, stuffed into abdomen and mixed with guts, then the body is stitched back and washed - nothing personal. And what are these poor lads expected to write in their deceitful autopsy reports afterward?<br /><br />Shock and disgust factor - it's much unlikely that an unsuspecting viewer would discover, to his horror, that the disc he was intended to watch with his wife and kids beside a Christmas tree turns out to be a graphic video manual on vivisection. This obscure item is barely available, sought by people well familiar with the subject and not easily offended. Hence it would be pointless to warn anyone to sabotage this film. They are well aware what exactly they are watching and what they want to see.<br /><br />Cerdà is really gifted and stylish director, which is clearly obvious from at least two other parts of his 'trilogy' - preceding 'The Awakening', amazing black and white short, and 30-minute 'Genesis', visually stunning and moody piece with an off-beat and interesting concept. And I'm pretty sure that one day he will conquer the hearts of moviegoers with his new, more mainstream oriented, material. And sooner or later 'Aftermath' would become a rarity for the meticulous collectors of his 'early' 'warm-up' works.<br /><br />But in the meantime, I'm afraid, it may be recommended strictly for medical students or specialists that study mental disorders and sexual deviations. | 1 |
Based on the book 'Space Vampires' by Colin Wilson. This is (in my humble opinion) one of the best pieces of Sci-Fi Horror to come out of the eighties. The effects (done by ILM) still hold up by todays standards. The actors are mostly British and being british seem to give this film a greater depth of realism.<br /><br /> The film was panned by the critics and sadly failed to do well at the box office on both sides of the atlantic. Tobe Hooper blamed the promotional work that was done before its release as the main cause for it's low takings. But for whatever reason, it still does not detract from the fact that this is an excellent film with a great cast and well-paced plot.<br /><br /> Not to be over-looked. | 0 |
Lady and the tramp ii: scamp's adventure i think is a good movie but i think the first lady and the tramp movie is better because it is the original and i would think that the original movies compared to the sequeals is better. Lady and the tramp ii takes off after the original, but this time it's junior's turn, Lady and Tramp's youngster (scamp) always hates been treated with the things that has to be done with him, following the rules in the house, taking baths all the time and taking things nice and easy, scamp gets angry and runs away with a pack of dogs that are left off the loose. Scamp meets another dog called Angel, they both get along fine and do the things scamp's mother and father did, having an italian meal (Spagetthi and Meatballs etc:)Afterwards, Scamp realises that he is loved by his family especial his pal, which is the baby, scamp comes back and Angel is joined in the family. I give this movie 10 out of 10. | 0 |
*Spoilers* Some people claim that Natural Born Killers is brilliant criticism of the media obsession with violence. But this contention ignores the actual content of the film. Oliver Stone could have shown his serial killers as vicious, inhuman murderers of innocent people and contrasted this with a morbid media fascination. Instead he lends them justification. The movie portrays just about every victim as someone who deserved to be hurt. Engaging in vicious stereotyping, Stone presents the victims as unpleasant caricatures - dumb rednecks, broken-English speaking immigrants, lazy fat people. The one person that the homicidal lovebirds is also a stereotype. Of course they befriend the old, hallucinogen-using American-Indian - because they're trendy, dude? Let's make him an admirable character. Fat, Chinese clerks and 'hicks' are uncool, so let's make it seem like the deserve to die. Instead of twisted,hateful that are corrupted by their misdeeds, their rampage makes them happier and more in love. Mickey and Mallory are made sexy and cool and surreal visuals are bound to entice more impressionable people. Justice is mocked. The police and prison officials are portrayed as brutal, ugly and scowling compared to the GQ murderers. Again, this is not in the media reports within the film but in the 'reality' in the film. There is no nuance or subtlety in the film - just overblown performances and visuals. The film says nothing new or specific about the obsession with violence. The proof that the film fails in its message lies in actual real world reactions to it. Some impressionable young people who saw this movie cited it as inspiration for murders that they committed. The film's 'message' is a failure because it inspires people in the opposite direction with horrendous real-life results. The clever message is nowhere to be seen. | 1 |
Titanic has to be one of my all-time favorite movies. It has its problems (what movies don't) but still, it's enjoyable.<br /><br />When I stumble across someone who asks me why I like Titanic, I suppose my first reaction is 'wait a minute, you don't?' I know so many people who don't like this movie, and I'm not saying I don't see why. 'The love story is too cheesy' well, yes but isn't it enjoyable and moving? All right, the love story between Jack and Rose is very unrealistic, everyone knows that love like this doesn't actually exist. But this is a movie, doesn't everyone enjoy watching a beautiful story that lets us slip slightly into fantasy for a while? The next complaint, DiCaprio and Winslet are terrible actors. Well, OK, in this movie, I agree that they do not perform to their full potentials. However I think it's unfair to say that they are terrible actors. I personally think they are both very talented actors who unfortunately are very famous for a movie that they are not amazing in. But the roles they are given are simple, and the characters seem real enough that you can care about them quite a bit, but I agree with many people that they did not do as well as could have been expected.<br /><br />And finally, if one is going to complain that they don't like this movie because they hate romance, or because they hate history, or tragic movies, then I'm sorry but why on earth did they go and see a movie that is so clearly all of these things. It's like people who complain The Dark Knight is a bad movie because they hate action movies. Simply for being a movie, not because you dislike the genre, this IS a good movie.<br /><br />Well deserving of its Oscars, in particular, Best Cinematography, which I find to be the best I've ever seen in a movie save maybe the Lord of the Rings trilogy.<br /><br />I know some of the writing fails, such as the constant screaming of each other's names throughout the movie. The flashback portion of the story can be quite weak at times, but overall it's an amazing achievement in making the Titanic look so real, and the sinking feel so epic.<br /><br />I understand why a lot of people dislike this movie, but for the most part it boils down to them disliking the fundamental idea, such as it being a love story, rather than them thinking the movie in and of itself is poorly constructed.<br /><br />I can tell you that I have read more than five books about the Titanic, including memoirs form the day it happened, and this movie is extremely historically accurate save just a few faults. The only main ones I can find is that the piping should be threaded copper, not steel, and the iceberg looks fairly unrealistic as is the scene where they hit it.<br /><br />I give this movie 10/10, not because I like romance movies, but simply because it's an outstanding cinematic achievement, that leaves one feeling horrified by the realistic adaptation of events. | 0 |
This is without a doubt one of the best movies I have ever seen. The first time I saw it I was about 9 or 10 years old. I began looking sometime before the rape scene. And when I saw it I was really shocked thinking 'What kinda sick movie is this?'. Today I've seen it from the beginning and really understood how great this movie really is. It's exciting, frightening, shocking and in it's own unique way disturbing. But the best thing about it is the ending where the audience is shown that this experience will haunt the characters for the rest of their lifes. It'll torture their conscience and they will worry for the rest of their lifes about the bodies being found in that river. And there is nothing they can do about it, it's something they have to live with. This ending is one of the most unhappy endings in movie history and very smart, brilliant and horrifying<br /><br />And the acting is also great, especially Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds. Magnificent acting in this movie. All in all, John Boorman has created one of the best movies throughout movie history based on Dick Chaney's novel. A must see for all the movie lovers | 0 |
Another Indian legend you never heard of before is let loose. As the name implies, this is a vengeful wraith who likes to absorb the skeletons of people while they're still using them. As usual, ancient burial grounds (can you say, 'Poltergeist?') have been disturbed by clichéd greedy land developers building stuff.<br /><br />The CGI, if it had been better, might have made the effect more treacherous looking, but they skimped on the budget, and it shows--to comical effect. The unleashed creature probably should have been kept off stage during its first several killings-that might have added some mystery or impending doom atmosphere-but the inept director decided to show us in the first five minutes what it looks like, and it wasn't impressive. The deaths are just poorly done, again with shoddy CGI. I guess ancient spirits always kill by using cheap special effects. As for the 'victims,' they look they're going to laugh any moment while they do goofy screams. It's always obvious who's going to get it: a character with only a few lines shows up, strange noises are heard, CGI dots fly, exit character. Repeat (several times).<br /><br />Still, there's a few chase scenes featuring the monster that actually made this thing watchable. Unfortunately, the director seems to be using these as a device to fall back on (so it's used too often) when he can't think of anything else for his characters to do. Overall, it's pretty silly, but I've seen worse. This flick is cheap, but it's oddly fun to watch. | 1 |
This movie is a fine example of what happens when a studio wants to get a sequel to a fine movie out of the gates at all cost. Only with this movie, it truly is a near miss. Everything seems in place for Robocop 2 to be a worthy followup to the groundbreaking first movie. The complete original cast (apart from the casualties, naturally) returns and gives it their best. Too bad a hackneyed script and an incompetent director as good as neutralize their efforts.<br /><br />Irvin Kershner might have been the ideal go to guy for George Lucas to direct the Empire Strikes Back. For a pedestrian filmmaker like Kershner there isn't much to ruin in Lucas' charmless film series. A worthy successor to a classic like Robocop would have needed either Paul Verhoeven to return, or a director with enough brass to give his own spin on it. Kershner doesn't know how to give his own spin on anything (Lucas hired him for that) and he's surely no Verhoeven.<br /><br />So what we get here is a movie that goes through all the motions to replicate the first movie, but with none of the freshness, humor or daring the original had. Kershner probably thought he could top Verhoeven by adding more gore and gratuitous violence, but instead he reveals how much he was at work as a director for hire instead of a passionate filmmaker. And that's a shame, since everything was in place to make this another classic. As mentioned the actors give it their best, but Phill Tippet delivers some groundbreaking stop motion effects and there are some great ideas in the story by Frank Miller, who was born to write a Robocop movie. If only the studio had hired a director who was competent enough to make all the potential come through. | 1 |
'The Vindicator' is a weird little Canadian B-Movie. At first glance it would appear to be just another cheap (extremely cheap!) 'Terminator' knockoff, but strangely enough it also shares some qualities with the original 'RoboCop,' which hadn't even been released yet when 'Vindicator' appeared (1986). Coincidence? Who knows? Anyway, the story is thus: scientist Carl Lehman seems to be a pretty nice guy who works for a super duper secret government high-tech research lab, reporting to a sleazy boss named Whyte, whom he butts heads with about project funding early in the movie. Carl's got a loving wife at home and a baby on the way, which makes it all the more tragic when he is suddenly killed in a 'lab accident.' But wait! Carl's not really dead after all! Whyte has extracted Carl's brain and inserted it into his pet project, some sort of experimental bio-mechanical space suit. When Carl wakes up inside his new body, he understandably goes a little nuts, trashes the lab, and escapes. This is a problem because Whyte (for reasons known only to himself) has programmed the mechanical suit with a 'Rage Reaction' program, which will cause Carl to kill anybody who touches him for any reason. In hindsight, that little addition to Carl's psyche was probably not the best idea.<br /><br />So Robo-Carl wanders aimlessly through the movie for a while, killing a couple of random muggers and other assorted background characters, till he returns to his home and contacts his wife (this scene is supposed to be heartbreakingly touching, I guess, but turns out comical because Carl's robot voice is so heavily synthesized that you can barely understand a word he says). He of course tells her to leave the city and never come back because she's in danger, but she wants to stay and help him, yadda yadda yadda. Eventually Whyte hires a gang of commando thugs led by 'Hunter,' an apparent ninja assassin played by Pam Grier (!)to hunt down and destroy his runaway creation, using Carl's wife as bait, and predictable (but laughably cheap looking) mayhem ensues.<br /><br />I'm a B-Movie kind of guy but 'The Vindicator' was so half-assed that it turned into high comedy pretty quickly. I'm assuming that a good hunk of the budget went into Stan Winston's robo-Carl suit design, because that actually looks pretty cool, but the rest of the movie suffers from a cheap, made-for-TV kind of look. The script could've used a LOT more work, but then maybe the filmmakers had gotten wind of 'RoboCop' going into production and rushed to get 'Vindicator' out so they couldn't be accused of ripping them off. Either way, judging by the other comments here on IMDb, I'm not the only one who's noticed the parallels between 'Vindicator' and 'RoboCop,' and obviously 'Robo' is the superior film, so there's no need to waste your time sitting through this piece of nonsense unless you want to see a film that can best be described, at best, as a rough draft of 'RoboCop' if it were made by an 8th grader. | 1 |
This first-rate western tale of the gold rush brings great excitement, romance, and James Stewart to the screen. 'The Far Country' is the only one out of all five Stewart-Mann westerns that is often overlooked. Stewart, yet again, puts a new look on the ever-present personalities he had in the five Stewart-Mann westerns. Jeff Webster (Stewart) is uncaring, always looking out for himself, which is why he is so surprised when people are nice and kindly to him. Ironically, he does wear a bell on his saddle that he will not ride without. This displays that he might just care for one person- his sidekick, Ben Tatum, played by Walter Brennan, since Tatum is the one that gave it to him. Mann, yet again, puts a new look on the ever present personalities he put into the five Stewart-Mann westerns. He displays violence, excitement, plot twists, romance, and corruption. The story is that Jeff and Ben, through a series of events, wind up in the get rich quick town of Dawson, along with gold partners Calvet and Flippen, and no-good but beautiful Roman and her hired men. They are unable to leave, because crooked sheriff Mr. Gannon (McIntire) and his 'deputies' will hang them, since the only way out is through Skagway, which is Gannon's town. But, eventually, McIntire comes to them, but not to collect Stewart and/or his fine that he supposedly owes to the government. What is McIntire there for? He is there to cheat miners out of their claims and money. People are killed. A sheriff for Dawson is considered needed, and Calvet elects Stewart because he is good with a gun. Stewart, however, refuses the job, because he plans to get all the gold he can, and then pull out. He also refuses it because he does not like to help people, since law and order always gets somebody killed. So, Flippen is elected instead. A miner is killed because he tries to stand up to one of Gannon's men, a purely evil, mustachioed fancy gunman named Madden, who carries two guns, played by Wilke. Flippen attempts to arrest Madden and see that justice be done, but he cannot stand up to him, so he becomes the town drunk. A man named Yukon replaces Flippen. Stewart and Tatum start to pull out, but are ambushed by Gannon's men. Tatum is killed, and Stewart is wounded. Stewart finally realizes that he must do something, or Gannon will take over Dawson, set up his own rules, and it will become his town, just like Skagway. The audience also realizes what Stewart must do. Another thing that the audience realizes is that Stewart is the only thing that stands between the townspeople and Gannon. If Stewart leaves, Gannon would take over the town. If Stewart stays and keeps on not doing anything about it, the townspeople will be killed one by one mercilessly and uselessly. This is where a great scene occurs. Stewart walks into his cabin. He has a sling on his arm. For a few seconds, his gun, in the gunbelt, is hanging on a post beside his bed, the gun is close up, Stewart is in the background, just inside the door. He stares at it for a few seconds. He tosses the sling away. The sling lands on the back of a chair, and falls to the floor. This is symbolic, because he is throwing away his old life, which consisted of not caring about anybody but himself. He comes into his new life, of helping people when they need help. What ends the film is a guns-blazing, furious show of good against evil, and a genuinely feel-good feeling that everything will be alright. | 0 |
For me, reviewing movies is an extension of my love of film--and of horror cinema, in particular. The reviews I've written thus far have been for films that I love, respect, and admire, and I have eagerly rewarded them with glowing accolades and perfect-ten ratings. A life-long horror movie fan, it is a tremendous pleasure for me to be able to share with others my thoughts and ideas about great horror films, and to, hopefully, have a hand in exposing people to movies they may not otherwise seek out. I only recently began reviewing films for the IMDB, and it was my initial intention to concentrate only on my own personal favorites, examining those which I believe are of substance and of lasting value to the horror genre. However, the existence of films like 'Graduation Day' is, without pun, a thorn in my side. Completely devoid of any merit whatsoever, this 1981 hodgepodge of unformed ideas is amateurishly directed, poorly acted, and, in every sense, an unmitigated embarrassment to horror cinema. During the brief couple of years before and after this movie's release, we saw the appearance of domestic (and Canadian) films such as 'Halloween II,' 'Prom Night,' 'Terror Train,' 'Madman,' 'My Bloody Valentine,' 'The Prowler,' 'Just Before Dawn,' 'Final Exam,' and 'Hell Night,' among others. These films, though of varying degrees of quality, clearly strove to achieve something in terms of story line, plotting, acting, direction, and overall tone. Not every movie released during this bountiful season of the Slasher Era would be of the artistic merit or commercial success of the original 'Halloween' or 'Friday the 13th,' but these films were all well-made and clearly contributed to the ongoing development of horror cinema. 'Graduation Day,' an abysmal farce about a masked killer stalking members of a high school track team, was directed by Herb Freed, whom one can only hope will never again attempt to besmirch the horror genre with such a travesty. The task of creating worthwhile horror films is best left to those who have a genuine love and respect for the genre. This movie fails miserably on every possible level, not the least of which are dreadfully wooden performances, dime-store special effects, an irritating musical score, and, most of all, a story lacking even the slightest hint of tension or suspense. A pointless exercise in how to waste film, 'Graduation Day' is an utter disgrace to horror cinema. | 1 |
An OK flick, set in Mexico, about a hit-man (Scott Glenn) who hitches a ride with struggling American writer and his Mexican girlfriend after a hit. He pays them to take him to the border but things get out of hand.<br /><br />It starts well enough, but quickly struggles and dies.<br /><br />**SPOILER**<br /><br />The eventual relationship twist is badly set up and difficult to believe. An absence of passion, and essentially no reasoning behind her leaving one man for the other, made it ridiculous - and the ending was predictable and dull.<br /><br />**END SPOILER**<br /><br />Harvey Keitel is the US agent on the hit-man's trail, but he seems a little confused as to how boring and slow the script is... | 1 |
. . . or type on a computer keyboard, they'd probably give this eponymous film a rating of '10.' After all, no elephants are shown being killed during the movie; it is not even implied that any are hurt. To the contrary, the master of ELEPHANT WALK, John Wiley (Peter Finch), complains that he cannot shoot any of the pachyderms--no matter how menacing--without a permit from the government (and his tone suggests such permits are not within the realm of probability). Furthermore, the elements conspire--in the form of an unusual drought and a human cholera epidemic--to leave the Wiley plantation house vulnerable to total destruction by the Elephant People (as the natives dub them) to close the story. If you happen to see the current release EARTH, you'll detect the Elephant People are faring less well today. | 0 |
The movie was very moving. It was tender, and funny at the same time. The scenery was absolutely beautiful! Peter Faulk and Paul Reiser gave award winning performances. Olympia Dukakis was great. I understand due to the story line her part had to be brief, but I did wish I could have seen more of her-she is a true pro.You will be able to recall experiences from your own life , hopefully in a positive way after seeing this movie. We were fortunate to see Paul Reiser at a Q and A after the viewing. He is a wonderful man, clever, eloquent and a 'real Person'. It was truly an enjoyable night out!This is a must see movie. You will be so grateful you went. | 0 |
I've never seen a Bollywood film before but I caught the first ten minutes of this, laughed myself silly and hit the R button on Sky+. I'm glad I did!! I hope I don't insult anybody (because basically, the BF and I loved it!) but we couldn't take it half as seriously as the actors did - especially the obsessed one (who, I understand, is a huge Bollywood star because we've seen him on the cover of lots of dvds since and i even saw a doll of him today in Hamleys!! The BF keeps on about this bloke - I am beginning to think HE'S obsessed! He keeps saying that it's strange for the traditionally good looking one to be the anti-hero of a film! But then we do like films that aren't your stock predictable Hollywood fare).<br /><br />It was completely over the top but really good fun. If all Bollywood films are like this then we're watching more. I have had that bloomin' song in my head all week and I can't speak a word of Hindi! PS any recommendations would be appreciated! | 0 |
I normally don't try and second guess a crime thriller, but Cleaner was just entirely too predictable. Samuel L. Jackson playing the character Tom Cutler, along with his profession created an interesting twist in the beginning of the film, however, that was about it. Without even thinking I knew where the plot would be taken and within 30 minutes I had already figured out who the killer was. Rather then trusting myself and having seen several films that make a turnabout, I watched to its completion. What a disappointment, I was right from the beginning.<br /><br />The casting of characters was a good, as well as the acting from Jackson and Harris...except for Eva Mendes. From the starting gate she didn't play a believable character in correlation to the script and this ruined the entire plot too soon. Maybe this was a directing mishap or just weakness in the story itself. Her role as Ann Norcut should have shown more emotion and distress for the situation that was building around her. This would've made the build-up a bit more compelling and the ending more dramatic. Nevertheless, Cleaner is watchable, not memorable. I've seen episodes of CSI that were more thrilling then this. | 1 |
I have certainly not seen all of Jean Rollin's films, but they mostly seem to be bloody vampire naked women fests, which if you like that sort of thing is not bad, but this is a major departure and could almost be Cronenberg minus the bio-mechanical nightmarish stuff. Except it's in French with subtitles of course. A man driving on the road at night comes across a woman that is in her slippers and bathrobe and picks her up, while in the background yet another woman lingers, wearing nothing. As they drive along it's obvious that there is something not right about the woman, in that she forgets things almost as quickly as they happen. Still though, that doesn't prevent the man from having sex with her once they return to Paris & his apartment. The man leaves for work and some strangers show up at his place and take the woman away to this 'tower block', a huge apartment building referred to as the Black Tower, where others of her kind (for whom the 'no memory' things seems to be the least of their problems) are being held for some reason. Time and events march by in the movie, which involve mostly trying to find what's going on and get out of the building for this woman, and she does manage to call Robert, the guy that picked her up in the first place, to come rescue her. The revelation as to what's going on comes in the last few moments of the movie, which has a rather strange yet touching end to it. In avoiding what seemed to be his 'typical' formula, Rollin created, in this, what I feel is his most fascinating and disturbing film. I like this one a lot, check it out. 8 out of 10. | 0 |
It appears even the director doesn't like this film,but for me I think he's being a bit harsh on himself.<br /><br />Sure it's not perfect, but there are some atmospheric shots,and the story is good enough to keep you interested throughout.<br /><br />It's shot in what appears to be quite a pretty village which adds to the atmosphere as well.<br /><br />If you like horror films shot in England, give it a go.<br /><br />I have just seen a trailer for this directors latest film 'The Devil's Chair' which looks quite amazing.<br /><br />There aren't enough English horror films for me, so any that come along deserve our attention, and this one isn't as bad as you may think | 0 |
... sings David Bovie in this movie. BUT IT IS!!! It's ALL about America, so don't be ashamed to watch it. Just think, if you can, to prevent more damage... You know, you're just the same regular guy next door, so, be careful! One of the best critics of 'common' mind and friendship. Still don't care? Go for it for the music - it's worth a try, just close your eyes and Pat Metheny and David Bowie will touch you so deep you'll start to scream! And while watching, if you'll dare to open your eyes, please don't do the popcorn&stuff, you're gonna miss quite a lot. You may think that it's not worth, but, think twice - and don't look at your neighbours lawn - you never know what to find there... Is It worth? Try it! Just don't die or gloat over it... | 0 |
I totally hated the movie. It was so retarded. They need to get some acting lessons....no, wait, that won't help because the Naked Brothers Band people a retards. You know why I am here even though I am a Naked Brothers Band hater? To warn people before they watch the dumb movie so that the NBB doesn't get any money from it so then they can't make any more amateur stupid songs that are so retarded that any old guy could go and write it in 10 seconds. Not only are the song lyrics retarded, they sing badly. Okay, I'm kinda getting off the movie here.....anyways, it was boring and they acted horribly. It was NOT funny at all even though they tried really hard for it to be. I guess they deserve some credit for that...well, the movie isn't worth your time. Just look at its rating. The movie (and the series) is very painful to watch for anyone who has even half a brain. Seriously, if you liked it, you need to go watch movies where the actors actually act, not babbling their lines in a monotone. I am on the drama club at my school and some people there are actually BETTER than those Nat and Alex guys. Hurry before it's too late! I seriously thought that Herbie Fully Loaded was better than this piece of poopie. I don't even know why I went through even HALF of that film. I don't think it even deserves to be called a film... | 1 |
I saw this recently with my wife and discovered it's better than Caine believes, although it's not much cop. Britain's greatest ever screen actor does not seem too interested in this role, which is a pity as he might have elevated it with more conviction in his playing. Rex Harrison seems even less bothered, perhaps unsurprisingly, as his character is very poorly written. William Holden is better, but his screen time is fleeting and, again, his character is not well scripted.<br /><br />Beverly Johnson is as beautiful a woman as I have ever seen, but is given very little to do, the film might have gained a great deal by concentrating more on her story. Ustinov steals the show, but basically by playing a comic character quite out of keeping with the film's serious tone. The music is poor and Omar Sharif makes one of his many pointless cameos (his career has been based on this for decades now).<br /><br />Richard Fleischer has to be blamed for not directing this more effectively, he was an infuriatingly unpredictable film director, and this is one of his weaker movies. | 1 |
I saw this at the 2004 Stony Brook Film Festival in NY and it was very warmly received. In this pre-WW2 film, a pair of German rocket scientists are working on the Scottish Isle of Scarp as war looms on the horizon. The characters encountered on the island are priceless in their creation and their portrayal. Shauna MacDonald is particularly memorable<br /><br />After getting up to speed on the 'Scootish' accents, the viewer feel right at home with these folk who watch with amusement as the Germans work to link their isle with the mainland via a rocket-based mail delivery. As implausible as it seems, this film was based on an actual story.<br /><br />All in all, a memorable film that will stay with you for some time thanks to its casting, its story or its scenery. | 0 |
Very poor quality and the acting is equally as bad. This movie is a prime example of present day england and the mindset. There is no mention of Jesus in this movie nor does the movie feature any type of scripture Christianity as most know it. <br /><br />I am also very surprised because this film is a BBC program and the BBC is quit well known for their quality programing, but it looks like the BBC's attempt to rival the Hollywood psycho/drama films are failing completely. <br /><br />Poor acting, poor plot, poor culture that seems to be without religion. I would not even bother buying this, instead better to try to rent this one or buy it when it goes to the 2 dollar bin. | 1 |
This sequel is a total rehash of the first film. A completely pointless movie. It basically just took every single sceanrio of the first film and they redid it in Omen IV except with a female antichrist this time. It even ends the same way as the first one! The music is too busy and interfering, and because its pretty much a copy of Omen I, it's extremely predictable. It's not a horrible movie, it's not terribly made, there is much worse movies out there, this just had absolutely no point in being made. The Omen remake from 2006 is much worse, even more pointless than this, so I guess it has that. If you someone pointed a gun to your head and you had to choose to watch this sequel or the 2006 reamke, I guess I'd choose this. | 1 |
Spoilers will be in this. The movie could have been better if they had just had a different script, director, and CGI provider. Not much right? The movie has a man starting his own theme park...err...zoo on a deserted island where people can see dinosaurs...err...Sabretooths and it is called Jurra...oops...Primal Park. I do not mind rip-offs, because there are no original ideas for these kind of movies, but this one just slaps you in the face with it, R e p e a t e d l y.There is even the 'creature's shadowed head on the design' thing. The Sabretooths, that are not sabretooths according to Mr. Primal Park (Just ancient killing cats), Are rather junky but the crowning accomplishment is the one I call 'Sloggy'. Because, after disposing of one big cat, a hero is relaxing a little because there is only one left. Enter the weird feeding guy who says, Nah, we made three, the third being a monster who pulls itself around with its front feet. Great, groovy. A group of college students are also on the island for a scavenger hunt, there test to get into their cliques frat or sort (Always thought that needed a short nickname). Out of the ones who do live, only one has completed their task, so I got a kick out of that. Oh yeah, the mandatory 'Evil Capitalist Must Die' Clique is in force with not one, but two of them! Mr. Primal Park's death is the most laughable thing you will see in one of these movies as a Sabretooth statue's tooth jars loose (Courtesy of Sloggy), shrinks a few sizes, and impales the man through the throat. If I had only gotten away so easy. I like 'Sabretooth' better than this spin-off. | 1 |
I'm no horror movie buff, but my wife's nieces and nephews are. So, I saw the first movie. It was gruesome, and tense, but not my taste. Still good though. For similar reasons, at this very moment, I am being exposed to a sequel.<br /><br />The premise itself is beyond absurd. I can buy that disasters occur in the desert. I can buy that mutants exists. I can even buy that the events might be so weird and strange that the military may decide to get involved. It is unlikely, yes, but I'm willing to suspend my belief.<br /><br />HOWEVER, under no circumstances am I willing to believe that the military squad assigned to recon such an area would be unable to fend off the mutants. Being a member of the United States Army, I can assure that while fresh recruits may lack the seasoned eyes and experience of combat soldiers, any such recruits would be integrated into a capable squad.<br /><br />A squad of armed soldiers is not about to be taken out by a few mutants with knives. That's just the way it works. Squad movements, vastly superior firepower, and of course, radio support, would ensure nothing less than total victory. I'm not saying you wouldn't have casualties, but as soon as the area was verified as hostile, military training would take precedence, no-one would go off on their own even to use the bathroom.<br /><br />And if it were discovered that the area was so infested with hostiles that the squad was unable to handle the danger, they would radio in for backup. And believe me, their radios would not be jammed, if there was a chance that normal radios would not do, the squad would have a military issue satellite phone. Chances are, if they were unable to check in every hour, a search would be called.<br /><br />In order to accept this movie, you must accept that our soldiers are incompetent fools, with incompetent leaders, and an incompetent chain of command. While it may still be true that the most dangerous thing in the world is a lieutenant with a map and compass, our military forces are filled with intelligent, well-trained, competent soldiers. Mutants with knives are far below our ability to deal with.<br /><br />With the whole execution of the movie depending solidly on the impossible to imagine, the film fails to deliver. Instead, we are expected to believe that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen are incapable of dealing with even the most mediocre threats.<br /><br />As a combat veteran, I find the movie insulting. | 1 |
This ludicrous and inept film is certainly the most misguided version of 'Hamlet' to ever reach the screen. Branagh's approach to the material can only be described as vulgar; going to such lengths as depicting Ophelia in a straight jacket, having Fortinbras' army appear suddenly on the horizon (looking very much like the climax of 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail') when the palace is apparently guarded only by Francisco (who shouts the very un-Shakespearean cry of 'ataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack' before being gunned down), and multitudes of star cameos that harken back to the days of Jimmy Cagney's Bottom and Mary Pickford's Kate.<br /><br />Branagh chose to set his film in an Edwardian setting but at the same time decided to employ an almost uncut text, so that frequently the dialogue that is firmly rooted in Elizabethan mentality makes no sense in the context that it is being performed. And Branagh does not concern himself with such textural subtleties as the ambiguous nature of Hamlet and Olphelia's relationship, treating the audience to a vulgar nude sex scene between the couple that tosses any ambiguity right out the stained glass window.<br /><br />The uncut text does allow Branagh to indulge in his favorite cinematic pastime: more footage of Kenneth Branagh. This is never so apparent as in the 'How All Occasions Inform Against Me' speech that ends the first half of the nineteen hour film (at least that's how it feels), which attempts to play to a dramatic crescendo along the lines of Gone With The Wind's 'I'll never be hungry again.' This may serve Branagh's ego, but it does not serve Shakespeare or the speech: when I saw the film in the theater, I leaned over to my companion and snickered 'Great Moments With Mr. Hamlet.' Branagh saves the funniest and most tasteless moment for last, when he attempts to out-do the Olivier film and its justly celebrated death of Claudius by having Hamlet jump from off a high tower onto the monarch, impaling him with a sword. Branagh's Dane does in the king by heroically throwing an apparently magic rapier from across the palace to run through Claudius' heart with a super hero's bulls eye. The only thing that saved the moment from being unbearably maddening was that it was so off-the-wall funny.<br /><br />While this film has been praised in some quarters as a serious depiction of the tragedy, it is in fact nothing but a star-studded display of a once-talented filmmaker being overtaken by his own narcissism. The Emperor has no clothes, and this Hamlet has nothing to offer but a few unintended laughs and the appalling sight of one man's ego out of control. | 1 |
Just finished watching the movie and wanted to give my own opinion(and justice) to the movie.<br /><br />First of all, to get things straight, this movie is not pretending to be anything other than a solid action comedy movie. It doesn't aim to revolutionize the movie industry and garner critical acclaims nor does it want to be regarded as one. If you really want to enjoy this movie to the fullest, I suggest you discard your critical-mindedness and your longing for a good plot because you won't find any in here. With that established, let us further into the movie.<br /><br />I had low expectations for this movie simply because it didn't have a strong plot(Yes, moviegoers, I underrated this movie as well), but I never expected myself to enjoy this movie that much. I even enjoyed this more than the Stephen Chow flicks(which I find Kung Fu Hustle to be his best effort and would've rated it a 9 as well). Action is tight and epic while comedy chokes on to the right places.<br /><br />SPOILERS alert, I think The action might be unreal, but why would I want to watch a serious basketball movie anyways? There are a lot other sports movies(drama) that already did it well, why create another? SPOILERS end<br /><br />I'm not even sure why you're reading this. Go ahead and watch it. Just remember, no thinking - just watch, enjoy, smile, laugh, and <br /><br />Every once in a while they(the movie industry) creates masterpieces such as Pulp Fiction or The Godfather movies, and sometimes they create movies which are better off in the pile of dump. I'm not saying Kung Fu Dunk deserves the recognition that the previous examples have, then again, if we're talking about Stephen Chow-ish comedy, this one's a top ten.<br /><br />Highly recommended if you love: -no brainer movies with really good action -Kung Fu -Death Trance -Kung Fu and comedy -what the heck, watch this. you'll have a great time.<br /><br />9/10 for you the cast of Kung Fu Dunk. ^_^ | 0 |
Very literate, intelligent drama about a group of international travelers held virtual prisoners in the Hungary of 1956 by invading Russian Communist regime. Kerr and Robards play lovers, she a British baroness, he a Hungarian freedom fighter trying to do his bit for his country. Other New York theater stars of the period Anne Jackson & E G Marshall play an American couple traveling with their two young sons, including Ronny Howard in his screen debut. Jackson's character is hugely pregnant and not anxious to give birth in a soon-to-be communist country; she gives an impassioned plea in the third act of this film which presages the naturalistic acting styles we've come to know today from Redgrave, Fonda, & Streep. Leading the pack of Soviet wolves is Yul Brynner, magnificent as a commandant and at his sexiest since he played opposite Kerr in 'The King and I'. He is mean and nasty and terribly conflicted by his attraction to the lovely, patrician, & heroic Kerr. This is one of the great transition films of the latter part of the Golden Era of American film. Do not miss it. | 0 |
One of the more sensible comedies to hit the Hindi film screens. A remake of Priyadarshans 80s Malayalam hit Boeing Boeing, which in turn was a remake of the 60s Hollywoon hit of the same name, Garam Masala elevates the standard of comedies in Hindi Cinema.<br /><br />Akshay Kumar has once again proved his is one of the best super stars of Hindi cinema who can do comedy. He has combined well with the new hunk John Abraham. However John still remains in Akshays shadows and fails to rise to the occasion.<br /><br />The new gals are cute and do complete justice to their roles.<br /><br />A must watch comedy. Leave your brains away and laugh for 2 hrs!!!! After all laughter is the best medicine ! Ask Priyadarshan and Akshay Kumar !!!!! | 0 |
I don't give a movie or a show ten very often but this show touched a nerve in a way no other show has. I found the entire series on mysoju.com and thought the premise looked interesting so I took a look see. I wasn't disappointed in what I saw; I was moved. This story stays on the tender side as the main characters move us through the scenes. Sumire Iwaya, played thoughtfully by Koyuki, shows us human nature as she wants to keep troubles from being shown. No one really wants to lay their soul out in front of a perspective mate. So instead she substitutes a human, played by an adorable Matsumoto Jun, as a pet. This pet is like any other creature we would consider a pet. The difference; he can retaliate in the same way, after all Momo is a man, not a dog. As he is treated like a pet, he reacts to situations how a dog might react. She spends time with the new boyfriend, Momo gets jealous. It's when she realizes that her pet isn't just a pet that the sexual tension between the two starts to become thick - Momo is a dance prodigy. Her thinking slowly changes as we start to get a glance at his own thoughts. Matsumoto takes us from seeing a character who is very one dimensional in the beginning, to two dimensional when we see he's a dancer, to a three dimensional character when we see him start to fall for his master as a man, not as a dog. In my opinion, it's worth watching this story just to see this character develop. Plus Matsumoto plays Momo with such tenderness you almost start to wish you had one too. Neither wants to think about the future and how their relationship will change, but as Momo (the name she gives him as one would name their new puppy) states we both knew this wasn't going to be able to last. Watch this show with a open mind, it's worth it. | 0 |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />David (Johnathon Schaech) and Tish (Lori Heuring) are a couple in Budapest, on business commitments and staying at a luxury hotel. One night, they meet an attractive woman at a nightclub and invite her back to their place, where they end up in a threesome. All is well, until David receives some negatives in the mail and he and Tish end up being blackmailed. But when some people involved in the deception are found murdered, things get messy and they are forced to enter the seedy underground world of pornography and hardcore bondage to track down the woman who may hold the key to everything.<br /><br />Whereas the original film dealt with the concept of snuff films, this straight to DVD sequel deals with the more wholesome (!!!) theme of threesomes and sleazy sex. It plays like a porn film, a cheap piece of titillation with plenty of hot T/A action going on. If this sounds like your idea of a good film, you'll probably like it, but you'd probably be more at home in a porn shop than a video store.<br /><br />This tries to copy the original film's dark and voyeuristic feel, but while it does a pretty good job of this, it still can't hold up to that of the original's. It has an apathetic story, with a dodgy narrative flow. And compared to Cage, Schaech comes across as interminably wooden.<br /><br />Better than I thought it'd be, I suppose, and better than your average one of these DVD direct sequels that seem to be coming out a lot these days, but really, haven't we seen enough? ** | 1 |
I went and saw Rivers and Tides again today. It's the second time in two days and yes, I do see movies I like as many times as is necessary. Yesterday I was struck by the brilliance of the images and Goldsworthy's works. This morning when I threw the coins I received #29 The Abysmal (Water). Goldsworthy has an affinity with water, hence the title. I received the 5th line changing which moved to #7 The Army. To Blake Art was a War. Anyway, I knew I had to see the film again.<br /><br />I read one of the few reviews extant Online from the SF Examiner. The critic loved the film but said Goldsworthy's comments got in the way of his enjoyment of the film. He'd rather have only the images and the wonderful soundtrack. So I was aware of that as I watched this second time.<br /><br />Yesterday I thought that I'd vote for Andy Goldsworthy as King of the World. Well today I could get a little bit beyond the images and listen to what he had to say. Could I enjoy the film without his comments? What he is doing, what he is saying goes way beyond 'art'. His understanding of Water, Time, Stone, Change, and on and on made me think the man is the reincarnation of Lao Tsu or some Avatar. Some of his work/words are Zen like. His knowledge...<br /><br />Anyway, the film is only (apparently) being shown here in the Bay Area. Be a Trend setter. Go to your local cinema and tell them, no insist that they have to book a film you've heard about from the hinter lands. It's called Rivers and Tides.<br /><br /> | 0 |
On this 4th of July weekend it's heartening to see the spirit of the Declaration of Independence alive and well in the film 'War, Inc.' Just as our founding fathers gave the back of their collective hand to King George III, this film exposes in hilarious fashion the craven war-profiteering by the current crop of capitalistic creeps who are intent on indecently privatizing the government, to include privatizing war itself.<br /><br />The cast in this satire absolutely shines. John Cusack is wonderful as a droll, conflicted corporate assassin, and the beautiful Marisa Tomei is superb as his love interest. (My gosh, 'George Costanza' was right. Marisa Tomei is so attractive!) But it is John's sister Joan Cusack who really steals the film. Her portrayal of a bossy, yet simultaneously sycophantic, personal assistant is priceless, and more than once I just couldn't stop laughing at the brilliance of her performance. She not only possesses fantastic comic timing, her face is as expressive as one could ever wish for in an actor. Dan Ackroyd, too, has a short, but very effective, cameo in the film as the head of the company which is running the war, the Tamerlane Corporation. Sitting on a 'throne' with his pants down around his ankles, Ackroyd even looks like the arse clown who currently occupies one of our real thrones of power. You won't have to think too hard to recognize that person. Much of this movie was filmed in Bulgaria, which is why we are able to see so much real military equipment. (You just know that the US military would never have cooperated in making this satiric expose of war-profiteering.) I especially enjoyed the character of 'Omar Sharif' as played by the Bulgarian actor Lyubomir Neikov. In one scene in which he is on the dance floor with Marisa Tomei he has a couple of lines that could summarize our entire foreign policy attitude toward the foreign leaders we install - and uninstall - in power.<br /><br />Naturally, this film won't appeal to everyone. If you believe that the on-going privatization of our foreign policy, the military, intelligence collection and analysis, prisons and the corrections system, public health, and a myriad of other government services is a good thing you may not find much to like in this film. If you believe, however, that destroying people and countries in order to add to some corporation's bottom line is an abomination I think you'll find much to appreciate in this film. Nothing could be more in keeping with the Spirit of Independence that heaping well-deserved ridicule on corrupt powers that be. | 0 |
I am a longtime fan of the original of this movie (Bella Martha/Mostly Martha), and everything that makes that movie great and enjoyable to watch is missing from this one. I miss the slow pace, the build-up of characters and their style in small gestures, the dominance of lights and moods and moves over dialog. I don't think that the story itself is enough. Martha/Kate is more secluded, and Mario/Nick is not a clown. In most of the cases the things that makes one scene great in the original, its is not working in its copy here. The small alterations take away the tension. My opinion is that you should go and see the original. It'll worth the inconvenience of subtitles. | 1 |
This is a very, very early Bugs Bunny cartoon. As a result, the character is still in a transition period--he is not drawn as elongated as he later was and his voice isn't quite right. In addition, the chemistry between Elmer and Bugs is a little unusual. Elmer is some poor sap who buys Bugs from a pet shop--there is no gun or desire on his part to blast the bunny to smithereens! However, despite this, this is still a very enjoyable film. The early Bugs was definitely more sassy and cruel than his later incarnations. In later films, he messed with Elmer, Yosimite Sam and others because they started it--they messed with the rabbit. But, in this film, he is much more like Daffy Duck of the late 30s and early 40s--a jerk who just loves irritating others!! A true 'anarchist' instead of the hero of the later cartoons. While this isn't among the best Bug Bunny cartoons, it sure is fun to watch and it's interesting to see just how much he's changed over the years. | 0 |
Based on Robert Louis Stevenson's St. Ives, the film tells the story of a dashing young French Hussar captain (Jean Marc Barr) during the Napoleonic wars. Captured in battle he is sent to a prisoner of war camp in the Scottish Highlands, run by Major Farquhar (Richard E Grant) In short order he falls in love with a local girl (Anna Friel), strikes up a friendship with the Major, and discovers that his long lost grandfather, who fled from France during the revolution, lives just up the road! Spirited performances from all the cast and some memorable lines make this an above average offering. | 0 |
OK, I don't kid myself that this is the typical gay love life but since when are straight romances in real life as they are on the screen? This movie is well-balanced with comedy and drama and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. It was a riot to see Hugo Weaving play a sex-obsessed gay real estate salesman who uses his clients' houses for his trysts with the flaming Darren (Tom Hollander). And having seen him in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert only the day before, he is probably one of the most secure-in-their-masculinity actors around. :) Anyway, the plot flowed smoothly and the male-bonding scenes were a hoot. Thumbs up! 8/10 | 0 |
Mention Bollywood to anyone with a slight familiarity with the genre and the images usually conjured up are of tacky, over the top musical numbers peopled with costuming that makes Vegas seem a bastion of conservatism. This perception is not helped by the whiff of condescension that permeates most movies that have approached Bollywood from an outsider's perspective. Willard Carroll's romantic comedy Marigold, however takes a different tack. It is not a nudge-nudge wink-wink look at those silly people and their clueless antics but a sincere appreciation of Bollywood for its vitality, its lack of irony and self-consciousness.<br /><br />It is obvious that the director has a tremendous affection and respect for Bollywood while at the same time is bemused by its kitschier aspects. And if you have a familiarity with Bollywood, you can appreciate what he does here in making a true hybrid of Bollywood and Hollywood movie conventions. From one of the opening shots, a flashback of the Salman character as a child by the sea, talking with his grandmother (played by Helen! - how many Salman movies start with this same premise?) to the flashback sequence that is incorporated into the movie that Marigold and Prem has been filming, anyone who has seen enough Bollywood movies will recognize these references. The story itself incorporates tried and true conventions from both Hollywood and Bollywood as well the fish out of water meets duty-to-one's-family-at the expense of personal fulfillment. The structure of the film follows the typical Bollywood plot line of the more comical set up of the first half giving way to a more dramatic resolution of the second. Yet ultimately the sensibility of the film is that of Hollywood, with its understated, wry humor and its story of a woman learning to believe in herself, to reach self-affirmation.<br /><br />You couldn't have a movie inspired by Bollywood if there weren't any musical numbers and this movie does not disappoint with seven of them. Unlike Bollywood, however, the songs do not pop out of nowhere and transport its characters to a European locale or Goan beach; they exist as musical numbers that are part of the film that is being made, reminiscent of how musical numbers were justified in Busby Berkeley movies as being part of a stage show. Or they come out of a situation where music already has a reason to be there a sexy nightclub scene where Prem teaches Marigold to dance or a beach scene where there are musicians (including a cameo from the playback singer Shaan) performing. All reflect the emotional state of the protagonists at that point in the movie. Often the music will take a conventional song from one genre and put a twist on it from the other. So in one of the highlights of the film where Marigold comes into her own, the song picturazation is fairly typical of its genre the female star singing and dancing among a line of women but in this case it's blond Ali Larter looking like a total natural Bollywood film star, emoting and lip synching to the Hindi lyrics with no subtitles.<br /><br />Also synonymous with Bollywood are sumptuous visuals and Marigold fulfills that aspect beautifully thanks to some of the top talent working in Bollywood today. The cinematographer is Anil Mehta who was also the cinematographer for Lagaan and Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam. The choreographer is Vaibhavi Merchant and production designer is Nitin Desai, both from Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam and Devdas. You can really see the influence of Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam on this film in fact, the illuminated floor in one of the numbers was originally from Dholi Taro Dhol, which coincidentally has an embedded Marigold pattern.<br /><br />As for the cast, Carroll obviously has a penchant for spotting acting talent as evidenced by Playing by Heart one of the first movies for both Angelina Jolie and Ryanne Phillippe. And in this film he again hits the mark with Ali Larter. One of the main reasons the film works is because of Larter. She makes a bitchy, unappealing character sympathetic and her subsequent transformation believable and she is smart, funny, and sexy because she is smart and funny. She and Salman share excellent chemistry and that is one of the film's biggest strengths.<br /><br />Salman Khan plays the role of Prince Charming here as filtered through his iconic role as Prem. This is old school Prem, however, so expect a quiet, subdued Salman - those used to him in his usual stripping avatar may be disappointed or relieved! It's a sincere and sensitive performance from him marred only by poor enunciation of his English lines.<br /><br />With a refreshing lack of cynicism and unabashed embrace of romantic love, the film is a love letter to Bollywood and Hollywood movies of yore. | 0 |
I can appreciate what Barney is trying to achieve, but after sitting through this last night at a college movie house, I couldn't help but think...when is this gonna end? A very long and ponderous two hours and fifteen minutes. I had only seen a part of Cremaster 3 on DVD and thought I knew what to expect. That said, experimental films such as this are better digested in small increments. There are a couple of beautiful/horrible images...including the title sequence (no kidding), but if you go into this expecting any kind of plot or meaning, then you are in for a long, snooze-inducing ride. I managed to stay awake for the whole thing (if that's a compliment) but more often than not, I was waiting for some kind of meaning or narrative...big mistake. Among the collection of images are a very ornate gift-wrapping ceremony, the creation of a disgusting dish of what appears to be petroleum jelly slabs formed with a cookie cutter and sprinkled with shrimp (this is served to the crew of the ship which is shown throughout the film), a large blubber cheesecake with a large tentacle turd placed in the center of it, and the mutual evisceration of Bjork and director Matthew Barney which eventually culminates in some bizarre kind of communion, followed by their transformation into whale-like creatures. The soundtrack is at times beautiful and annoying...sometimes even maddening. At one time, there is a song being sung by Bjork to go along with the ephemeral rituals being played before us, and at other times there is just a constant droning of a high-pitched instrument, which we see a mysterious woman playing at the beginning and end of the movie. If this sounds like it doesn't make sense, that is because is DOESN'T! If this sounds like your cup of tea, then you will absolutely LOVE it! If this sounds like something that you probably won't like, then stay far away from it, because you will most likely walk out of the theater during the halfway mark like several people at the screening I attended. This is the very definition of an art film. You get from it what you take from it. But otherwise, there really isn't much there, other than a few oddities and constant construction and deconstruction rituals. I'm glad that there is a place for films such as this, but I can't say I would want to sit through it again. However, I can't say I wouldn't want to see one of Barney Cremaster films from start to finish and compare it with this. I think, perhaps now that I know what to expect I might enjoy something like this more. To give you an idea of what kind of comprehension factor this film has, I probably would've liked it better if I had gotten stoned. Then again, it could've felt twice as long as it was, and then it would've REALLY gotten ponderous. Definitely not for everyone. | 1 |
Any film with a title as ridiculous as 'The Bagman' should automatically attract the attention of any bad movie lover, but the plot is far different than what one may expect after viewing the DVD cover. The Bagman is by no means a good movie. It falls into the category of films that seem to have been (and probably were) filmed on a home video camera. The acting is awful. I haven't heard and seen such wooden acting since Troll 2. There are plenty of scenes with nudity and sex, but they are clearly jumped into too fast. The characters are morons and entirely forgettable. The ending (which I will not spoil) can be easily anticipated after watching the very first scene. Due to the cheesy nature of the film, nothing aside from the awful production values is truly scary (awful attempts at realistic gore, a driving scene where the car is clearly stationary, etc). Recommended for bad movie aficionados only. | 1 |
I can't figure out what Jon Voight could POSSIBLY have been thinking when he got involved in this tenth-rate, incoherent, pretentious, mind-numbing slop. He helped to write the alleged 'script' himself, and he should be damn well ashamed of it. The film (I can't call it a 'movie' because it barely moves at all) is rambling, embarrassingly pretentious drivel--sort of like a really bad Oprah Winfrey show, but worse. It meanders senselessly back and forth from medieval times to modern-day Los Angeles, with Voight as a television producer who thinks he is the reincarnation of a medieval prince who must save the kingdom from the machinations of his evil brother, and somehow this gets transferred to modern times where Voight has to save the country from the evil machinations of an oil company executive. If the bizarre casting (Wilfrid Brimley, Frankie Valli (!), Kaye Ballard and Armand Assante, among others) isn't enough to kill it, the stupefyingly inept direction, the washed-out photography (it looks like it was shot with a really cheap 16mm camera), the almost complete lack of editing (scenes either go on and on endlessly or are chopped off in the middle of a sentence), and Voight's embarrassing, apparently stream-of-consciousness 'acting' are enough to bury it, which is exactly what should have been done with it. A jaw-dropping experience. Avoid this dog at all costs. | 1 |
This should have rocked. VH1 moved away from the traditional divas (Whitney Houston, Celine Dion, etc.) that had made the 2003 show so stale. Sadly the move backfired. The show had no MC keeping the show together. Queen Latifah did a fantastic show at the 2003 Divas. The show kicked of with a horrific rendition of Lady Marmalade featuring Patti Labelle, Cyndi Lauper, and Jessica Simpson. Okay in the studio with some control they can all sound great. <br /><br />However, when they are competing with each other (why?) it just sounds torturous! Jessica Simpson has the most bizarre facial expressions when she sings that i've ever witnessed! Cyndi Lauper also performed Girl Just Wanna Have Fun. That wasn't as bad but it was hardly impressive. The worst was yet to come! Cyndi and Patti Labelle teamed up to perform Cyndi's hit 'Time After Time'. It was acoustic, and didn't fit in with the rest of the show. Still it could've been okay if they both hadn't insisted on squealing like mamed animals. It was just dire.<br /><br />Debbie Harry (from Blondie) is always cool. She has a style of her own and although maybe she can't compete vocally with a many of the divas although she certainly can sing very well. Debbie came out and performed Blondie's #1 hit 'Rapture'. With some lovely vocals. She really hit the notes perfectly. She looked stunning. Rapper Eve provided a new, but sadly inferior rap. It was good. Debbie's next performance was a team-up with newcomer Joss Stone. They performed the Blondie hit 'One Way Or Another'. I think Joss misunderstood the style of the song and just shouted over Debbie. A rather sad bit was when Debbie tried and failed to match her shouty style which spoiled it a bit. She should've just let Joss get on with her totally inappropriate warballing. The whole of Blondie performed this track. The final track Debbie performed was Blondie's massive hit 'Call Me'. It was pretty poor. Not Debbie's fault because you just couldn't hear her. The sound was atrocious all the way through the show.<br /><br />Joss Stone also performed a few songs on her own. They were quite well done. Ashanti also showed up to perform two inexplicable cover versions. Firstly she did Diana Ross' 'I'm Coming Out', and then Chaka Khan's 'Ain't Nobody'. She is not a diva! She can sing to an extent but she has no presence whatsoever. Why not just get the real singers in. Chaka was even interviewed on the show....<br /><br />Gladys Knight showed up and did a medley. It was very good. She was probably the best bit of the show. I don't know much about her other than she is a seasoned performer in Las Vegas and her experience and class really shone through. Patti Labelle fitted in another performance this time her 80's hit 'New Attitude'. It was the finale and it was okay but it was too little to late. This was one big dud. Better luck next time VH1.<br /><br />The version I saw was a heavily edited 55min version which was shown on VH1 in the UK. If these were the best bits..... | 1 |
Not being the least bit familiar with the characters from the comic book series, I expected this film to merely accomplish the basic: introduce me to the characters and their inherent characteristics, present a plot, and end with the destruction of the main adversary and perhaps hint at the possibility of a sequel. And that's exactly what this movie happens to deliver.<br /><br />However, unlike with most other comic book movies, I felt that this one did it with a bit of class. Risking a more limited audience with strong language and graphic fight scenes, 'Blade' presents a very modern, believable and dismal world whose little nuances effectively managed to elicit a sense of dread--as minor as it may have been--from a viewer who rarely ever becomes involved in a story unless an emotional (i.e., sappy) aspect is concerned.<br /><br />Yes, the movie has innumerable plotholes, and preposterously unrealistic situations such as a standard female doctor being astute enough to contrive what no one else has been able to for several thousand years. But when you have an enemy as cool as the one in this movie, and fight scenes with involving and exciting camera cuts and special effects such as this, what else matters? It may run a little long, but for what it sets out to do, 'Blade' stands out in sharp relief among most other movies in this genre. | 0 |
After reading the other reviews for this film I am of the opinion that the high markers are probably paid studio lackeys as the film I saw was absolutely dire, with wooden acting, lacklustre scripting and plodding predictable directing, one of the few plus points has to be the stunning scenery as this film features some stunning backdrops with great sweeping vistas and dramatic skies and wide open prairies, sadly when the most memorable thing in a film is the part featured behind the actors this has to be a warning sign as to the quality of the movie, all in all a thoroughly uninspiring addition to the western genre which even at the very reasonable price it can be obtained on DVD is best to avoid. | 1 |
And I'll tell you why: whoever decided to edit this movie to make it suitable for television was very ill-advised. EVERYTHING CONCERNING DRUGS IS CUT OUT AND COVERED UP!!! How do they do it, you might ask? Well, they don't do it very well, that's for sure. Anyway, instead of the marijuana which Cheech and Chong are supposed to have in their possession, they are said to have diamonds! Still, the characters go around in a haze of marijuana smoke stoning others along their way with no explanation whatsoever! | 0 |
You know, I was very surprised when watching this movie. It aired during the day once when i was sick, and having nothing else to do, I continued watching. This is by far the WORST MOVIE EVER! But to my surprise I kept watching. I sat there saying, this is terrible, but yet didn't change the channel because I was so amused at how bad it was. Maybe It was the guy that looked like Big tom from survivor or the dreadful moustaches and mohawks these characters had, that kept me watching. However, the girls weren't half bad, but if that's what you want, there is far better. Oh, and there's 'NINJAS' and 'PAJAMA BOYS!'<br /><br />So if you like ninja's, bad acting, hilarious(and terrible) dialogue, and two twins who are five feet tall and killing everything in their sight, then this movie is for you. It's so bad it's good. However, I just had to give it a 1 out of ten. I couldn't have put a 10 on it up there with Lord of the Rings.<br /><br />ENJOY!!!!!!!!! :) | 1 |
I watched this because I thought there were going to be a lot of car chases and cool cars to gawk at. Guess I was lied to. This movie is very boring.<br /><br />The movie starts out Kip Raines(Giovanni Ribisi) sitting outside a Porsche dealership checking to see if they have the right car. When they confirm it's the right one, Kip gets a brick out of the trunk and chucks it at the window, shattering it. He gets the Porsche while his friend gets the keys. They start up the car and take off into the night. They deliver it to a warehouse only to have been followed by the police. So, the whole crew ditches all the cars and go their separate ways. Then, we get a glimpse of Memphis Raines. He is giving a little speech to a bunch of kids at a go-kart track. Then, he is confronted by Atlee Jackson(Will Patton). Atlee tells Memphis that his brother Kip is in deep *bleep*. Memphis is known as one of the most notorious car thieves in Los Angeles. Memphis heads to a junkyard and meets Raymond Calitri(Christopher Ecclesten). This guy threatens to kill Kip if Memphis doesn't deliver 50 cars within 72 hours.<br /><br />There are a few problems with this film: <br /><br />1.Story: The first 48 in-movie hours take place when Cage and Duvall are looking for a crew and planning everything out. The last 12 in-movie hours are a waste! <br /><br />2. The Cars: You see maybe 10 cars out of the 50 as the movie advertises. So, where are the other 40 cars? Why don't we get to see them? <br /><br />3. The Chase: The chase at the end of the movie was a joke. It was not suspenseful at all.<br /><br />4. The Dog: Somewhere in the movie, the dog eats the burgers and swallows three keys as well. This is impossible. The keys were flipped open. The keys would have severely damaged the dog's esophagus, stomach, and large intestines. The guys suggest giving the dog laxatives to help him poop it out. This won't work. The dog will get a lot of diarrhea but no keys. It was stated in Jackass after Ryan Dunne stuck a toy car up his rectum. Take laxatives, lots of diarrhea, but no car. Same case with the dog.<br /><br />5. The Cop During The Chase: When Eleanor breaks down for a few minutes, Nicholas Cage tries desperately to start up the car. You see a police cruiser behind him who isn't looking at his car at all. But, right when Nicholas Cage starts the engine up again, the police officer jerks his head to the right, sees the car, and immediately begins to chase after him. It is stupid. So, right when he heard the engine start, and saw the car, he knew that was the car he was looking for. How does he know it's the right car? He only sees the back of it.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is boring. There is no action. There are very few cars. The movie is stupid. I have never seen the original but I plan to.<br /><br />I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Get The Fast and Furious instead. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.