review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
After the opening credits over a black sheet of paper with spots of white paint sprayed onto it, oh OK I'll be generous and call it a star field, we witness an alien spacecraft crashing into a meteorite and being forced to land on earth. A terrible looking model spacecraft lands on a terrible looking model field. Three nearby campers investigate. From the burning spacecraft a reptile like looking alien, the 'Nightbeast' emerges, OK so I lied it's a guy in a dodgy rubber monster mask and silver spacesuit. The campers are quickly killed by the Nighbeast's laser gun which shoots awful special effects at people. The towns Sheriff Jack Cinder (Tom Griffith) is informed. He alerts his deputy Lisa Kent (Karin Kardian) and gathers a posse of men together to investigate. Meanwhile the Nightbeast has killed an unlucky motorist who stopped on the side of the road for a leak. His two annoying kids run for help. They approach a house, inside two young people are kissing, the girl says 'someones running towards the house'. The guy gets up to take a look and is attacked and gutted by the Nightbeast, it kills the girl as well. Then it manages to kill the two kids with his laser, maybe the Nightbeast ain't so bad after all. Once the Sheriff and his men arrive at the scene they have a gun/laser battle with the Nightbeast. After possibly the most unexciting gun fight in film history only the Sheriff, his deputy and a local man Jamie Lambert (Jamie Zemarel) survive. But the Nightbeast is still alive, bullets seem to have no effect on it. The next day the Sheriff visits the towns Mayor, Bert Wicker (Richard Dyszel) and his girlfriend Mary Jane (Eleanor Herman) to get permission to evacuate everyone in the town. He refuses saying a party he is holding for the Governor (Richard Ruxton) cannot be cancelled, and that he doesn't want to create a panic situation. The Sheriff evacuates the town anyway. Two doctors, Steven Price (George Stover) and Ruth Sherman (Anne Firth) are attacked by the Nightbeast before they can leave. However, they manage to scare the Nightbeast away and survive. Together with the Sheriff his deputy and Jamie they decide to stay behind and fight the alien. Written and directed by Don Dohler this has to be an amateur film, made with family and friends, look at the credits and see how many Dohler's are involved. For that reason I should probably cut it some slack but that still doesn't stop it, or excuse it from being a throughly awful film in every department. It has no story or purpose, things just happen to waste time, whats with Drago (Don Leifert) strangling his ex girlfriend Suzie (Monica Neff)? This and many more scenes add nothing to the film. The script has no logic either, why does the Nightbeast stick around the town once it's been supposedly evacuated? The special effects are embarrassingly bad, just look at the effect when the Nightbeast shoots someone with his laser, a computer effect an 80's spectrum would be ashamed of. There's not really much blood or gore in it, a ripped open stomach, a severed arm and a decapitation but they all look predictably poor. Credit where it's due, the Nightbeast itself looks alright for the most part. There's a sex scene between the Sheriff and his deputy which has to be seen to be believed, music that even a porno would be embarrassed about and two really ugly naked people make this a difficult sequence to watch. Less than stellar acting, photography, music, lighting and editing make it a real chore to sit through. And the worse thing about this film? It commits the mortal sin of being boring and not fun in the slightest. Sorry Don mate, but don't give up the day job! Definitely one to avoid. | 1 |
These guys are anything but the Usual Suspects! They are a total bunch of likeable oddballs who you want to see get away with it,but they are so hapless that there is very little chance of that.No one is better than William H Macy at portraying the man with a big heart but down on his luck.This is probably his best performance since Fargo.Sam Rockwell played the meathead boxer to perfection,and the rest of the gang were uniformly good also.Luis Guzman brought some great comic relief as Cosimo,and George Clooney stole every scene in his cameo role.The heist scene at the end was absolutely hilarious.<br /><br />The direction was also spot on by the Russo brothers.There was certainly a Coen brothers feel to the film throughout and it will be interesting to see how they will develop their careers.They have a long way to go to match the Coen's but this is an excellent start and I look forward to their next celluloid outing. .......'Yo mutha's a whore'! | 0 |
Don't get me wrong, I love most of Paul Schrader's movies, so it was with sheer excitement I was able to attend at the 'Rolling Thunder' screening at the Parisian french cinemathèque with surprise movie on the 17th Dec 2004. Of course the surprise movie was The Exorcist and most people were there for that (I was too). The film was then finished but the score, so P Schrader used excerpts from The Return of the King and some other movie I forget (Was it Conan?). Anyways, apart from that the movie was finalized. The happy few there (maybe 200 people) were told to please not write about the film on the internet or magazines since it may have jeopardized its chance of getting selected to the Cannes Film Festival. Then came the film, then came the realization that the film might not get selected for the Festival because of its quality : Never in my life had I experienced such a feeling of awkwardness in the audience as people went from being skeptical to plainly laughing out loud at the pity-full spectacle. I couldn't believe how low the author of Light Sleeper, Mishima, Blue Collar and Affliction had sunk.<br /><br />Forced over-the-top acting thorough, stupid ending, black and white moral, awful FXs, worst take on Christianity from Schrader ever, not even suspenseful, just boring as hell (no pun intended) and unsurprising at all! Some good locations but sadly miss-used or at least not fulfilling the initial hopes! In the end I was 100 times more satisfied by the Schrader penned Rolling Thunder and wished my 2 hours back.<br /><br />Don't believe the hype, even the John Boorman movie is more exciting and original. Oh, and the Billy Crawford casting, the poor guy does his best, but what where you expecting? He's now part of the small club of worst casting mistakes ever! I give the movie a 1/5 just because I didn't leave the room, but I should have. | 1 |
This really is the worst movie I have ever seen. For a while, I made a habit of watching lousy movies, including 'Battlefield Earth', 'Delta Force Commando' and 'Starship'. All of these movies are cinematic gems compared to Ironheart.<br /><br />There isn't much point in summarizing this piece of junk; I think it's more beneficial to summarize my reaction to the movie, which is as follows: I become furiously angry and I want to rip the tape out of the VCR and burn it after (roughly) 80 minutes of play.<br /><br />I rate this movie a 0, but IMDb does not let one rate a movie less than 1. I give it a 0 knowing full well that I am saying any movie that has any score above 0 is infinitely (undefinably) many times better than this one - That's really how bad it is. | 1 |
This is basically a goofball comedy, with somewhat odd pacing due to some dramatic elements. For Michael J. Fox and Paul Reubens, it was their first film(Fox had previously been in a short lived TV series and a TV movie).<br /><br />Since the movie is basically a race/scavenger hunt type movie, like 'Cannonball Run', 'It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World', or more recently 'Rat Race', there are no main characters. Instead there are groups of characters, splitting the screen time and allowing for tons of mini-plots. Usually these kind of movies are a way to cram the maximum amount of stars (or semi-stars) onto a film.<br /><br />This one has teams, with one being the primary team which Fox belongs to, who are the only characters to be developed. Their plot is more of a stereotypical Disney affiar, about a college boy not paying attention to his younger brother, who he thinks of as a lazy punk. Since they are forced on a team together, along with the older brother's girlfriend, they are forced to work together. Since this is the main plot it gets the most screen time.<br /><br />Some of the other silly plots stand out. The Blue Team is about an overweight rich kid whose dad just wants him and his misfit friends out of the house. They end up with a cool custom van which had an on-board computer (in 1980!) to instantly solve the riddles, plus play video games with the time saved! One member, Stephen Furst, went on to play Dr. Axelrod on 'St. Elsewhere', and later was on 'Babylon 5'. I'll also admit that I still laugh when Barf, while trying to unscramble a word a'la Scrabble, comes up with, 'Fagabefe?' This is much funnier than Bart Simpson's 'Qwyjibo', in my opinion.<br /><br />The other three teams have plots that are somewhat linked together. The green team is a bunch of frat boys, with mostly beer jokes which climaxes into a breakdown for one when the hunt leads to the Pabst Blue Ribbon Brewery. They get a chance to harass the red team, with two feminists and two fun-loving twins. The white team of nerds are lead by Eddie Deezen, who was previously in 'Grease' but went on to play a critical computer geek role in 'Wargames' and later Tim Conway's sidekick in some of the 'Dorf' series.<br /><br />If you grew up in the 80's, then there are some classic moments in the movie that bring back memories. The early video arcade, from back when they were cool is always a plus in my mind. Look for Paul Reubens and his quarter-shooting guns. There is also a miniature golf course and a roller disco.<br /><br />The movie is actually an okay family movie simply because profanity is almost non-existant, and the small amount of sexual humor is completely innocent. The odd pacing thanks to the yellow team's cheesy dramatic moments will put parents to sleep while their kids can giggle at giant melons at Fat Burger (oh, they actually have a special melon platter? That must be it, right?) | 0 |
I couldn't believe it when I put this movie in my DVD player. I thought I'd have a good laugh, since I've played D&D for half my life. I had to turn it off as I had company and they were wondering what the crap I was watching.<br /><br />Finished it later, and I should have just left it off at the soft-core gay clown porn in the beginning. No, they run the gamut of fart jokes, cum jokes, incest, racism, dressing up as KKK... This movie is flat out mean to anyone who's ever played D&D.<br /><br />No wonder it looks like the Real D&D wouldn't let them use their game. Who'd want their name attached to this? | 1 |
For a TV movie this was definately worth seeing. All the acting was very well done and the story itself had a touching universal theme. I have not read/seen the original and as a rule I can't stand Shakespeare, but I enjoyed this movie(the civil war setting was very well done as well). Dont expect to see an epic, however you should find it moving enough to enjoy. By the way (on a side note) don't compare this (or any other movie for that matter) to the original work. Movies aren't supposed to transfer a book to the screen, but rather take the general idea of it a then adapt a story from it. When people say 'the book was so much better' (they're usually wrong anyway) what they are really trying to say is the book was so different. | 0 |
I did not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.<br /><br />Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...<br /><br />To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.<br /><br />That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that. | 1 |
taking into consideration the Chan films that would follow, this isn't bad. Plenty of stereotypes beginning with the Black man in the beginning and when the police captain orders that 'every Hindu in town' by rounded-up. A parade of stereotypical characters enter the scene including Shemp of the Three Stooges. Charlie seems to move quickly around the city going from Sutton Pl. to the W. Village in a flash.The ending is silly. An obvious toy airplane is used as it climbs through the sky and then nose dives. Ed Wood couldn't have done it better. The final scene is absurd as the murderer will obviously incriminate himself in his attempt to quiet the one person who knows his identity. Overall, it is worth watching. | 0 |
Warped take on the Pinocchio theme, and set during the Christmas season(..after the previous entry abandoned ties to Christmas) has booby-trapped toys sent to murder a child(..yet through this, other victims are accidentally harmed in the process)perhaps by a toy maker's 'son'. Screaming Mad George was responsible for the killer toys(..including a larvae which enters a victim's mouth and out his eye, another where soldier toys actually shoot real bullets at a babysitter after her boyfriend was practically strangled by a severed hand toy, operating from a remote control). The little target is a mute child named Derek(William Thorne)whose stepdad was murdered by a red ball with extending arms that ensnare his face, causing him to land on a fireplace poker. Mother Sarah(Jane Higginson)worries about her son's mental state, figuring his reluctance towards opening presents or, more importantly, talking, derives from watching her husband's horrific murder. Derek's real father, Noah(Tracy Fraim)fears for his son't safety, and informs, reluctantly, his ex-girlfriend Sarah that the local toymaker, Joe Petto(Mickey Rooney)once was arrested for setting traps in toys to harm kids due to the loss of an unborn child when his wife was killed in a car crash..kind of a retaliation in saying that if he couldn't have a son, then others shouldn't either. Still quite a heavy drinker(..often seen swigging Jack), Petto seems to have set aside his feelings towards kids, but his creepy son Pino(Brian Bremer)hasn't and Derek he harbors angst towards. Why? You'll soon understand.<br /><br />Pretty disappointing special effects and rather goofy premise. Rooney's name adds an allure to the film, gaining it a notoriety, but his histrionics can only help so much. Attractive lead actress Higginson(Slaughterhouse)and Fraim as the man who re-enters her life aren't so bad, but the lame plot that develops is hard to take seriously. I'm guessing that's the point, but Rooney has no reason to be in such a film as this..he has no room to bring any personality to his toymaker other than rage and desperation, quite volatile, barely holding himself together as he explodes in anger towards Pino, when not downing liquor. Bremer is appropriately weird and 'robotic' as Pino, longing to have Sarah as his mama. The practical effects used during the attacks on victims are rather unconvincing..Screaming Mad George's work with Savage Steve Holland was far more effective than what we see in this film. The sex everyone talks about isn't as gratuitous as many would have you believe(..I can't even recall any nudity). Probably the best of the numerous sequels greenlighted, but that's not exactly an endorsement. I'm pretty sure written on paper, this was an entertaining concept, the idea of spoofing Pinocchio using horror elements, but the result doesn't exactly blow you away. | 1 |
I don't know what it is about this movie- director Sam Mraovich somehow messed up just about every little aspect in this movie. I would normally say that this is a movie that should not exist, but this movie may be the most important of all time. This movie should exist for the sole purpose of being without a doubt 'The Worst Movie Ever Made'. I've seen bad movies in my lifetime, but this somehow breaks what I considered bad into something much more hard to imagine.<br /><br />Everything in this movie is hilarious, but the single funniest thing is that Mraovich himself considers this to be a great movie.<br /><br />Oh wow... | 1 |
This is one very confusing movie. The film is very hard to follow and the plot just didn't seem to make any sense. The Fury of the Wolfman was made in Spain and I think that when any film is dubbed from one language to another, it doesn't translate exactly as it was first meant. Maybe this is part of the problem but I doubt if it can account for all the problems with this film. The dubbing is pretty bad and the voices don't match the characters very well. The scenes are choppy, there is an array of strange and irrelevant characters that do little more than confuse the viewer even more. What I did like about this film was the look of the wolfman himself and the scenes where he attacks. Now if they could have put it all together and had it make some sense, they might have had something. Don't waste your time on this one. | 1 |
All the criticisms of this movie are quite valid! It is pretty boring, and filled with all kinds of pointless ridiculous stuff. A couple exchanging nods over their 'good grub.' A medium shot of a desk as a phone rings until someone finally comes, sits down, and answers it at a pretty leisurely pace. Quadruple-takes or more when people look at things. Solitary banjo-tuning and playing, taking a break for a beer. Telling a joke to a fawn, about a big-mouthed frog trying to learn what to feed its babies, complete with many big-mouthed expressions (which are needed for the weak punchline). The sharing of cucumber and cream cheese sandwiches on oatmeal bread, which to the squeamish become unpalatable when there's talk of people burned in a fire. Lots of seemingly stock-footage close-up shots of animals, birds, insects, and spiders in the woods.<br /><br />The movie starts with a forest fire, then at least a couple decades later some people in those same woods get killed by an axe. The killer evidently wasn't too satisfied by the axe he stole, and kills other people with other weapons of opportunity or his bare hands.<br /><br />If it's true that the movie in the version available on the out-of-print videotape is cut, perhaps if there's a lot of footage that was cut, it deserves another look on DVD. Otherwise, it's simply not very interesting, and would probably try the patience of even the most hardcore outdoors-slasher fan. | 1 |
This movie has EVERY cliché of every terrorism or airliner crisis movie.<br /><br />However, it is not entirely unwatchable, thanks to good performances by Rowland, Loken and Smallwood (and maybe Enberg).<br /><br />What IS amazingly bad, though, is the computer animations they try to pass off as live action scenes. Boy, oh boy, the CGI scenes in 'The Last Starfighter', filmed in 1984, are better than these (filmed 17 years later). The feeling of cheepnis really sends shivers down your spine.<br /><br />A pity, this could have been a much better movie with a little more budget and taste. | 1 |
Visually beautiful with some fine music, this film otherwise has a fairly trite made-for-TV quality. The romance between two characters, which spans a cultural and educational divide, is simply NOT plausible. Of course, from early on we knew our persnickety heroine would lighten up, win over the locals, and find true love, but that doesn't make it any less woeful that the movie had to take such completely expected turns. This film had lots of promise, which makes it more of a shame that the promise was unrealized. Perhaps a nice under-the-blanket on a cold night freebie on cable, but I certainly wouldn't recommend paid rental or purchase. I'm sure the soundtrack is wonderful, though. | 1 |
Pretty good movie about a man and his wife who get caught up in murder and the police officer investigating the case. It starts off marvelously, but kind of hits a wall at a certain point. We're sure we know what happened, then a tiny plot thread that seems at first like a red herring pops back up and disappoints. Still, Clouzot's direction is great, and the acting is quite good. Louis Jouvet, who also co-starred in Marcel Carné's Drôle de Drame, gives the best performance as the clever detective. I wonder if the Coen brothers were influenced by this film when they wrote Fargo. Much like that film, the police officer doesn't appear until nearly halfway through, and then he becomes almost the focus of the film. There's also a lot of droll comedy surrounding him (although sometimes his methods seem sort of fascist). | 0 |
Coming of age movies are quite usual these days. For 1980, 'Foxes' really gives its meaning. Jodie Foster plays her character straight out. Ever since she did 'Taxi Driver' four years earlier, she has a stronger character in this movie. She's Jeanie, a high schooler who has plenty of guts, and seems to get out of any situation she's in. Scott Baio plays Brad way before Chachi on 'Happy Days'. He's deemed immature by the other girls. Cherie Currie is Annie, hangs with the wrong crowd, chased by her policeman father. Jeanie and her three other friends decide to live on the wild side until they move into a rented house where a party get totally out of hand. Exploring life on the other side of the tracks can be either fun or dangerous. Annie is rescued by Jeanie and Brad all the time whenever she gets wasted. Reality comes back hard where she is killed in a automobile accident. And one gets married to a much older man. Growing up isn't easy, sometimes we got to explore life how it is. In reality, you got to be careful about the people surrounding you. For me, I was my own person, and I tend to stay that way! Great music, great plot, this movie's a gem! 4 out of 5 stars! | 0 |
My take on the ending. Bobby died at the hands of his step father. Mike had tried as he may to get Bobby out. Only a child could think that it would be possible to build a machine that could fly. Bobby died.... Mike as a child survived by creating an alternative ending in his mind...on how Bobby left....Mike made a plane that flew Bobby out. Children who are sexually and violent abused often create whole other worlds in their minds to survive.<br /><br />Was also great seeing my old housing area. We called it San Jose Boulevard and I lived right around where these house were filmed. It was so strange to see that they filmed inside the houses...not studios... It was my kitchen, bedroom and living room. And those hills...we use to hike them as kids....looking down on our little valley....seeing glimpses of the bay. Was a real nostalgia trip for me. | 0 |
Might end up being the biggest disappointment that I will see in 2009. I seem to be the rare person who disliked Park's Oldboy, but I think that his 'Lady Vengeance' and 'Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance' are among the best films I've seen in the 2000's decade. Therefore, I really was looking forward to see this, especially as it got such positive reviews. Instead, I found the film clichéd, and broke little, if any new ground to the vampire genre. And while I can appreciate a bit of gallows humor in movies like this, I felt Park did this at very inopportune times.<br /><br />Others have compared/contrasted this to 'Let the Right One In,' and I have to say that 'Let the Right One In' was far superior to this one, and was a fresh take on the vampire genre. Sadly, Park's take was a tired one. | 1 |
SPOILERS AHEAD <br /><br />15 PARK AVENUE: My Humble take on this film <br /><br />Now, for a viewer of cinema having tastes as severely limited as mine, niche films like 15 Park Avenue ought to be palatable to my sensibilities. With this thought, and a mild sense of embarrassment that I hadn't watched the complete film earlier, I watched this film last Saturday. There are some starting similarities with other works like the legendary Mulholland Drive (David Lynch) from which, this film borrows at least 3 concepts:- <br /><br />a) That (at least some) truths are relative b) The first scene of Shabana and Konkonam going around in a car as the opening credits roll, is uncannily similar to the car ride that Betty and Rita undertook in Mulholland Drive. In both cases, the object of inquiry happens to be a place which is probably mythical in both cases and perhaps more openly symbolic in Aparna's film c) The incident revolving around the mad beggar woman is again extremely reminiscent of the whole 'occurence behind Winkies' involving a bum but while that scary creature is an embodiment of something and that that 'something' as well as the character per Se is seamlessly linked to other works of Lynch (notice carefully the disheveled long hair), the effect of the beggar woman in 15 PA appears to be a tribute and therefore insignificant in the context of the film and its message <br /><br />The other films from which 15 PA also borrows is Blow Up (especially the last scene is a throw back to the truth Vs. perceived truth poser presented towards the end of Antonioni's masterpiece). Of course, the professor and schizophrenia angle also bring to the mind, 'A Beautiful mind'. Although, admittedly the subject here is high brow physics and Shabana, who professes it, inadvertently ends up being the brilliant antithesis to the delusional hallucinations of Konkona's character through those very prophecies. In an outstanding scene in the movie, some of these elements are juxtaposed with each other and that scene cuts back and forth from the 'real' world of Shabana, where Quantum Physics and the Theory of Relativity justify the finiteness and composition of the universe, to the artificial edifice of the 'make believe' world of Mithi But for all their differences, the sisters are alike too. Both are incapable of forming long lasting relationships- one out of choice and the other out of nature. So, Mithi's pain at being rejected in love by Joydeep is in harmony with the inability of Shaban to form a special bond with either Kunal(Dhritiman) or Sanjeev (Kanwaljeet). But I'm getting ahead of myself. Viewers generally tend to view this film in one of the following two ways:- <br /><br />Hypothesis 1: 'It was Shabana all along' There is a certain section of the audience who think so. But that explanation is not only too far fetched but also contrived as that would mean she was dreaming up so many other characters too (i.e. all those characters whom she visualized as visualizing Mithi along with her) <br /><br />Hypothesis 2: 'There WAS a REAL Mithi and the ending is a metaphor' This POV says that the film's essence is summarized in one dialog in the film, when in response to a statement by Joy (Rahul Bose), that Mithi is looking for something that she will never find, his wife Laxmi (Shefali Shah) philosophizes that we all are looking indeed for that illusive utopia, the end of the rainbow wherein appears to lie the mirage of happiness and contentment <br /><br />There are other more minor possibilities which have not been embraced that much by our knowledgeable audience like:- <br /><br />Hypothesis 3:' Shabana and Konkona are alter egos of the same person' Hypothesis 4: 'Shabana too is a figment of Mithi's imagination' Hypothesis 5: 'The old, haggard, perhaps mad, beggar woman is the real protagonist of the story' <br /><br />Are these hypotheses worthy of even being tested? Well, your guess is as good as mine <br /><br />'Why 15 Park Avenue?' Contrary to the popular perception that she was thinking of the Park Avenue in NY, I believe that she got the name from the brand name of a semi popular bathing soap. Remember, her stating Jo Jo's profession as 'Prime minister of Shikakai', which as you may be knowing is a popular ingredient used in manufacturing Shampoos. The prefix '15' is used as it was on 15th December that Mithi got engaged to Joydeep and after his walkout, she remains forever in a time warp. The film has its fair share of flaws- lack of use of a strong background score, which in films like these can really augment the narrative, some sloppy dialogs unabated by some forced dialog delivery. Inconsistent performances (Shabana and Dhritimaan are excellent though IMO) by a few of the cast members albeit many members of this ensemble cast have been wasted. Shefali Chaya's sudden insecurity about her husband seems to be an unimaginatively introduced dimension in the plot. I give it 7/10 as it made me think but not any higher than that because I can easily fathom its sources of inspiration and having experienced (and for the most part, thoroughly enjoyed) those previously, I have already thought on similar lines earlier. So, the experience post 15 PA is bound to be sans a certain degree of novelty. Where am I coming from? I gave 9.5/10 to '36 Chowringhee Lane' (though rumors still persist that one Satyajit Ray ghost directed it), 7.5 to 'Paromiter Ek Din', 7 to 'Mr and Mrs Iyer' and 5 to 'Paroma'. On an existential level, it failed to invoke my interest, not even as much as say a 'Truman Show' | 0 |
The 70s were without a doubt the golden age of 'made-for-TV' horror. This is one of those that was probably churned out as an ABC movie of the week. It's the old story of a house and/or ghost possessing one of the new owners. The movie has promise, but it's never realized. Everything is rushed too much. Tension and suspense need time to build and grow. And there's nothing new. We've seen it all before and one better.<br /><br />One final thought: I don't understand why Robert Wagner's character would fall for the long dead movie star when he's married to Kate Jackson for goodness sake!!! | 1 |
Yes, this movie was just hilarious and the acting was top notch from the whole cast. Except Shelley Winters German accent wasn't that great but then that doesn't matter as she is hardly in the film. So if you're a fan of hers beware! The two main stars of this film are Laurence Harvey and Julie Harris. Now before this film, I'd only see Miss Harris in East of Eden with James Dean and I own an audio tape of The Glass Menagerie that she did on stage with Monty Clift and Jessica Tandy, so I wasn't sure how she'd be in this role and BOY, did she impress me. How hammy was she? I love ham! ;-) Mr. Harvey, he tickled my fancy! I am now a full time Laurence Harvey fan! That hair!!! *cackles* OMG! It's almost like Burt Lancasters, that crazy messy look, it doesn't get better than that. He is young and so innocent in this film. SEE IT NOW! It's definitely in my top ten! :) I am SO glad I found a copy that is all mine! Unfortunately this movie is out of print and very hard to find on video. :(<br /><br />Btw, watch out for the hospital hotel room scene!!!!! It's one of the best parts! Or when Mr. Harvey has convinced himself he's ill and he's trying to get his knee to kick, you know how Doctors do with that little rubber hammer ;-) Well he does it himself and his leg kicks and it kicks the table *squeals* Check out the look on his face, so innocent!!!! I can't describe it but to all those people who say he couldn't act very well and other cockamamie comments, see this film and you will see what a GREAT actor he really was. You'll be bowled over! If you aren't, then I'm afraid there is nothing I can do for you, you're hopeless. ;-) | 0 |
I rented this movie because Elijah Wood has done some good work and I thought this might be an overlooked treasure. It was not a treasure. I don't know if this was straight to video, but it should have been straight to the dump.<br /><br />Elijah Wood fans will like the fact that he appears shirtless in a much-too-brief shower scene. But, no sane person would like this script. Imagine Memento played by teen actors, but ten times more confusing and a hundred times less plausible. Case in point: Janeane Garofalo plays a caring psychologist (apparently `keeping the chain of mediocrity alive').<br /><br />As if false memories syndromes and mind-over-matter medicine weren't hokey enough, the movie also hinges on one of those unexplained psychic twin bonds that keep the plot moving and the audience baffled. This same twin bond creates a few too many contrived love scenes between Wood's character and the girl from She's All That, who plays the saintly sister of Wood's angry cancer-victim friend.<br /><br />Adding to the triteness of this screenplay, Wood's other friends are a mentally challenged cancer victim and Kidney, a young black boy afflicted with a mysterious kidney disease. Kidney's dying wish comes true when Dr. Garofalo gives him his own Walkman. This character's hackneyed function in the story is matched by his on-again, off-again relationship to walking. Usually bound to a wheelchair, Kidney has several inexplicable scenes showing him pushing others around in it.<br /><br />Kindey's characterization may be one small detail, but it is indicative of this film's many other flaws. The Bumblebee Flies Anyway is definitely bumbling, but it never flies. | 1 |
The plot outline of this movie is similar to the original. Someone gets kidnapped, the prince is incest with saving her, Odet turns into a Swan, the turtle/frog/puffin first the 'bad' magician as best they can, and in the end.... Anyways, there is not much new here. With the exception of a lack of well known voice talent. Sorry, no Palance nor Cleese and thus Jean-Bob was a disapointment. | 1 |
This movie is amazing. It is funny, sexy, violent and sick, but it all holds together for a brilliant Troma rendition of Romeo and Juliet. If you don't mind being grossed out a bit (ok a lot, but it's funny grossed out), see this movie. It's worth it!There's not one level on which it doesn't deliver. I've seen it thrice now, and it is still amazing. I recommend it. Go! Get it! | 0 |
It's a shame that they didn't trust the original enough to build on it. <br /><br />But 'RoboCop 2' takes the great ideas, imagination and characters of the original and replaces them with all the stereotypes that sequels have to offer.<br /><br />The beginning commercial was cute and so was the scene that follows (reminiscent of the beginning in 'Guys and Dolls'!) but aside from a flash of thought here and there, this is one film that is a slow, dirty slog down into the middle of nowhere.<br /><br />Ideas are introduced then dropped, interesting characters from the original hardly get any screen time here, most of the new characters (Cain, Juliette Faxx) are so boring that they wouldn't hold up no matter what the movie, and then there's the tone.<br /><br />In the Blessed Original, Paul Verhoeven knew how to direct with the kind of attitude where if you cranked up the attitude and the sensibility of a good pulp comic, even the most repellent violence would be entertaining. Kershner (although he DID direct a 'Star Wars' sequel) doesn't. And scene after scene either makes you cringe, look away or just tune it out altogether.<br /><br />And what's with RoboCop?? HE should be the main thing here, right? But there's whole scenes where he doesn't even show up, and what scenes he is in are so half-thought and shakily written that you don't know or care if he's part-human or part-cyborg - since he's all-boring.<br /><br />Never have I seen such a rapid fall from grace. Why does Hollywood make such bad sequels? On purpose? Why; did the film-makers have a bet going?<br /><br />Only one star for 'RoboCop 2'; the FX are good but the story doesn't even try to match them. | 1 |
I loved this movie. It was almost the same as the first (cabin by the lake), only instead of just killing women, he kills men also. And the scenes are much more interesting, 2 of my favorite scenes are firstly, when Stanley and Allison are in the dance club and he is describing Kimberly's last moments before she is thrown to the water, And secondly, When Stanley is visiting Allison in his basement, right before they head down to the set, when she kisses him. Those scenes, for me, were very intense and riveting. I gave the movie a rating of 8/10, not because the movie was bad, but because the filming was bad, I mean, there were times when you'd notice nothing was wrong, like its being shot the way a film is usually shot, you wouldn't see the 'live' camera shooting, but then, very little, you would notice the filming mistakes. what went wrong?? | 0 |
My review is divided into questions that you really should ask yourself: <br /><br />1. Plants eating people have been done HUNDREDS of times. It's been used by Nintendo in everything from Mario to Zelda to Metroid Prime. It's been used in plenty of low-budget 50's movies, on par with the lowest of the Godzilla franchise. And this brings it to a whole another level of cheese with plants that TALK. I've known no one who walked out, but I know a lot of people who absolutely broke out in hysteric laughing during parts of this movie. I was one of them. Doesn't the horror genre deserve something a little better than this pile of laughable crap? <br /><br />2. The characters easily could have been copy/pasted from Hostel or Wrong Turn or Wolf Creek or any other movie with collage kids with bad luck. Yet it's called 'characterizing' when the movie takes hours of your time to tell you clichés that hundreds of characters before have had? Don't you ever wish a movie had characters that weren't just forgettable pieces of meat with legs? <br /><br />3. This was not gory. A guy cuts his skin off. Oh, my! (Not.) A guy gets his legs broken. Oh my! Gasp! (Not.) I have shown movies like this to my mother who hates everything to do with horror because it makes her sick, and she said: 'I've seen PG movies worse than that! Why was it rated R?' So, why was it rated R? <br /><br />4. Here's the only plot the movie/book has: collage kids drink, have sex, get naked, cruse, bleed, and eventually die. This is possibly the most typical example of a cheap, thoughtless horror movie, yet people call this 'mature'? What the . . .? <br /><br />5. I do not think I have ever seen something less original sense I watched A Beautiful Mind. <br /><br />Haven't you ever sat there and wished the horror genre, easily the most diverse genre out there, would do something . . . well, diverse? Something truly original?<br /><br />I just wish more horror movies would have actual horror, not just cheap collage parties put on film with a few splatters of fake blood tossed around.<br /><br />1/10 | 1 |
It would require the beauty and eloquence of Shakespeare to do justice to this outstanding cinematic feat. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go.<br /><br />As far as adaptations of Hamlet go this one is already at a better starting point than all other versions since it encompasses the entire play. Still this is no guarantee for a first-rate movie, or even a good one. Usually I'm not much for movies that are overlong and the trend that seems to be prevalent in Hollywood today, namely that movies should be at least two hours long, preferably three, is one that hopefully won't last long. Few stories are strong enough to withstand such extensive exploration and could do with some cutting. Making a four-hour-long movie and keeping it interesting is no small undertaking, but Kenneth Branagh pulls it off with flying colours. He has managed to make a very long movie seem no more than any average movie. I was completely engrossed from start to finish.<br /><br />The cast is excellent with Kenneth Branagh himself as the tormented prince giving a strong and memorable performance. He manages to convey his feelings admirably through his voice and one does not have to be an expert on Shakespearean verse to catch the myriad of emotions that are waging inside him. Kate Winslet was a positive surprise, I must say. I didn't know what to expect really. I've always liked her well enough as an actor, but wasn't sure she could pull off playing Shakespeare. Well, she certainly eradicated all doubts with her performance. She is the best Ophelia I have seen and lent such depth to the character and was simply wonderful. Other brilliant performances are Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Richard Briers as Polonius and Nicholas Farrell as Horatio to name but a few. I liked the fact that Branagh used some internationally more famous stars to play in some of the minor roles; I especially enjoyed the sparring between Hamlet and the gravedigger played by Billy Crystal.<br /><br />The setting of the play in the 19th century gives a welcome change to the usually gloomier Gothic settings. It is overall much lighter than other versions I've seen, more colourful and lavish, but this does not distract from the tragedy of the play. It is exceptional, stylish and aesthetically pleasing, a definite delight to the eye and other senses as well. The music by Patrick Doyle is as always magical and thoroughly in tune with the movie. One can only feel a deep sense of satisfaction after having seen this. I am shocked and appalled that this exquisite work of art did not win an Academy award for best picture, even more so that it wasn't even nominated. There is no way there was a better movie made that year, or any other year for that matter. This is as close to perfection as you can hope to get.<br /><br />To sum up, a stunning work of pure genius and I cannot see how anyone could top this. My hat's off to you Mr. Branagh. | 0 |
These two men went thru hell and beyond and have produced the movie that conveys the terror that many did not survive. This is definitely a movie about survival, but not without it's touching moments.<br /><br />The finest piece of work I have seen documenting the 9/11/01 tragedy of New York City. | 0 |
Like classic Hollywood musicals, the plot is just an excuse. A must see for those interested in French music hall (including a song by Édith Piaf) and for the wonderful 10 plus minute cancan finale. The dancing in the film is not at all like what usually passes for cancan.<br /><br />Some might object to the Technicolor costumes and the bright lighting, but it gives you a clear view of some grand costumes and sets.<br /><br />Consider it Jean Renoir's love letter to the Paris he grew up in. Certainly the Jean Renoir film for people who don't like his serious films or who only like his Hollywood productions.<br /><br /> | 0 |
IN COLD BLOOD has to be ranked as first-rate movie-making, even if the subject matter is about as grim as it gets in the world of make-believe, but film noir fans should definitely find this one a gripping piece of work, based as it is on a true-life crime spree.<br /><br />It opens with Quincy Jones' music under the credits and starkly dramatic views of a highway bus heading toward Kansas City, effectively setting the mood of the film even before the credits end. The B&W photography of Conrad Hall does a superb job right from the start.<br /><br />Also clear from the start: ROBERT BLAKE and SCOTT Wilson are natural born actors. They do a great job of portraying free spirited buddies looking for the next thrill. 'Ever see a millionaire fry in the electric hair? Hell no. There are two kinds of rules in this world. One for the rich and one for the poor,' says Wilson, taking a swig of alcohol behind the wheel.<br /><br />Both are destined to cross the path of a farm family, showing no mercy and leaving no witnesses behind.<br /><br />Blake, reminiscing about movies, and thinking of hunting for gold in Mexico, says: 'Remember Bogart in 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre'?' (An ironic moment, because Blake himself was in the film as a little boy selling lottery tickets). 'I got you pegged for a natural born killer,' Wilson tells Blake.<br /><br />JOHN FORSYTHE is one of the lead detectives on the case, discovering that all four family members were tied up, shot in the head and one had his throat cut. 'Don't people around here lock doors?' asks PAUL STEWART. 'They will tonight,' is the terse reply.<br /><br />After the murders, the killers discover that there was 'no big fat safe in the wall', like their prison informant told them. So, in the end, it was truly a stupid, senseless crime. The question is: WHY did they do it? And this is something the second half of the film explores in depth. It takes an hour and a half into the movie before the detectives catch up with the killers and begin the interrogation.<br /><br />It's these final scenes that carry the most conviction and the most interest as the boys are told they've made numerous mistakes and left a living witness. The actual events up to and including the murder are saved until the end. 'It makes no sense,' Blake tells Forsythe. 'Mr. Cutter was a very nice gentleman. I thought so right up until the time I cut his throat.' The screenplay by Richard Brooks is concise and to the point--and so is his direction.<br /><br />Summing up: Brilliant depiction of two aimless young men on a crime spree that made no sense then or now for a mere $43. Chilling. | 0 |
when i saw the movie at first i thought that it was boring because nothing was happening but when all the scary things started to happen like when church dies and is brought back to life and also gage and his mom die and there idiot dad has to bring them back to life even though he nows the warnings and ignores Jud.this is not Steven kings best work. i thought that his best work was the shining. i don't think that people who see this movie and comment on how awful it was are wrong because all they think is that what were they thinking. as if that person can do a better job in making a horror flick. i mean making the gage evil and how he kills Jud is genius. making the most innocent most unsuspecting character into one of the killers is cool. people who didn't like the movie are dumb because all it is a scary movie and nothing all. don't expect something from a movie that it isn't. it still in a general area wasn't that good. i still recommend people to watch the movie | 0 |
Oliver! the musical is a favorite of mine. The music, the characters, the story. It all just seems perfect. In this rendition of the timeless classic novel turned stage musical, director Carol Reed brings the Broadway hit to life on the movie screen.<br /><br />The transition from musical to movie musical is not an easy one. You have to have the right voices, the right set, the right script, and the right play. All signs point to yes for this play. It almost appears that it was written for the screen!<br /><br />Our story takes place in jolly old England where a boy named Oliver manages to work his way out of the orphanage. He winds his way through the country to London where he meets up with a group of juvenile delinquents, headed by Dodger, the smart talking, quick handed pick-pocket. The leader of this gang is named Fagin, an older fellow who sells all the stolen goods.<br /><br />But all is not well in London town when Bill Sykes played by Oliver Reed and his loving girlfriend Nancy get tangled up with Oliver, Fagin and his young troops, and the law. What ensues is a marvelous tale of love, affection, and great musical numbers.<br /><br />Whether or not you like musicals or not, one listen to these tunes and you will be humming them all day long. Oliver! is a triumph on and off the stage and is a timeless work of art. | 0 |
I was still living with my parents when they aired this on dutch TV. Usually I was the one watching movies with the other's not caring. But somehow we all sat down and watched this movie. This kinda movie used to be aired at Wednesday-evening. It is the story of a woman who'll die soon. But before she dies she wants to make sure her ( many ) kids will have the best possible foster-parents. So we were watching this and my dad ( the most emotional of the four of us) started to cry. I followed almost immediately and before long my sister and mother were teared up too. There we were, totally moved by this simple but heartbreaking story. If you want a good cry, this is the one for you! | 0 |
For a movie with a plot like this I would normally smell 'tearjerker' in the first ten minutes and turn it off, but this was very well made, with emotional subtleties, great acting, and some genuinely funny moments. It was also interesting to see a different culture - a vanishing one at that. My wife and I both dug it! | 0 |
I happened into the den this morning during the scene where Ed was engaged in the 3-Way and thought my wife was catching up on some early morning porn! Much to my surprise it grabbed my attention and I rewound it and we started watching it at 4:30 in the morning! What a very entertaining, rich, funny and well developed plot line and script. We both thoroughly enjoyed it, my wife so much that she shared the experience with her girlfriends at work! Going on to recommend it and say what a 'kick' she got out of it. I am in my late 40's and she in her early 50's. I think this movie would have appeal to both young and old. An unexpected, very enjoyable surprise. Nice work! Thanks! Two thumbs up! | 0 |
What's with the murky video in the beginning and sporadically throughout the movie? It's like someone put muddy water on the camera lens.<br /><br />The violence and nudity might turn some people off but, that, along with the mostly bad acting is what makes a good cult movie I suppose.<br /><br />My favorite line is delivered by Tarquin the Vampire, 'Alas, your breed is dumb.' Okay, no one should ever say 'alas' in a movie line unless they're English and living in the 18th century.<br /><br />The acting by the Van Helsing character and bad girl 'Rally' isn't bad. I also liked Master Little played by Ron Little. Wicked martial arts! Don't take it too seriously and you'll enjoy it. | 1 |
This was quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The plot didn't make a whole lot of sense and the acting was awful. I'm a big fan of Amber Benson, I think she's usually a wonderful actress, I can't imagine why she decided to do this film. Her character, Piper, is drunk for almost the whole film, with the exception of the opening scene. On the plus side, there was several points in the film where the acting was so bad, I actually laughed out loud. But despite that, I would not recommend this film to anyone. It's only 80 minutes long, but that's 80 minutes of your life that you will have completely wasted. | 1 |
This movie brings back many memories of the classic cinema of old, where actors didn't have to take their clothes off to make viewers watch their film.<br /><br />Firstly I think the main plus point of this movie is the amazing chemistry between Shahid and Amrita, it is definitely the making of the film.<br /><br />I have seen lots of comments regarding the film being sickly sweet and overly slushy. In response to this, I think to a certain degree this is a correct analysis, however considering this is a Barjatya film I think that compared to MPK, HAHK, HSSH and MPKDH, it has been toned down significantly. HSSH was almost unbearable to watch in some places.<br /><br />In this film however, when the sentimental moments come along, you find yourself smiling, wishing the budding couple all the best and hoping that nothing bad happens to them.<br /><br />Another major plus point is the performances of Shahid and Amrita. Both have acted very well, especially Shahid who looks great in the film. Amrita looks simply stunning and should be taken seriously as a future major star.<br /><br />Although I really enjoyed the film as a whole, I do feel that it was too long. Some of the middle could have been trimmed off and it would maybe made even more of an impact. I also think the music, although it fits into the film when you see the situations is slightly old fashioned and the movie could have benefited if a more up-to-date soundtrack had been available. Although the picturisation of the songs Mujhe Haq Hain and Hamari Shaadi Mein are wonderful.<br /><br />All in all, I definitely recommend this film, its romantic, looks stunning and has a dramatic climax (I won't go into details, just in case you haven't seen it.<br /><br />PS. If you're prone to crying-take a tissue! (I needed several) | 0 |
I just finished watching the movie tonight and I truly loved it. John Denver didn't play a pastor, but it was the reverend of the little town who decided to leave the floor for John Denver to speak. It's a really great movie with a wonderful Christmas message. It was also fun to watch. | 0 |
You cannot be seeing the same movie if you didn't grow up in France (or spent at least 10 years there, like me). I don't know if it will ever make it outside French cultural borders (I include Belgium and Luxembourg here). You cannot translate its kind of fun - every name is joke (how many people outside Paris would understand the pun in 'Couloirdebus', the name of one of the Roman legionnaires ?). However Monica Bel(l?)ucci is so beautiful, I almost forgot to breathe when I saw her. | 0 |
Michael Dudikoff stars as Joe Armstrong a martial artist who fights ninjas who are stealing weapons from the U.S Army, in this entertaining yet admittedly brainless martial arts actioner, which is hampered by too many long pauses without action, but helped by some high energy action setpieces as well as Steve James' performance. | 1 |
I am a Maharashtrian, a teenager living in the 21st century, and its obvious that I'm not much into even Bollywood, let alone Marathi movies. Yet, when I watched Shwaas, it left me with a unique feeling, one which only an extremely effective movie is capable of generating.<br /><br />It is a fact that, like most Indian movies, the movie has its true and complete effect only if viewed in its original language. A lot of the emotion and meaning of the movie is embedded in its Marathi dialogues, which, however hard one tries, can not be effectively translated into English.<br /><br />Shwaas explores, in intricate detail, the relationship between a grandparent and a child. And it does complete justice to this strong bond. Dialogues like 'mazha parsha pan laakhat ek aahe'(My parsha is also one in a million) enhance the emotion. Anyone who has closely observed the grandparent - child relationship will be able to relate to the situation portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />Overall, it definitely worth watching. Its a movie that has left a profound effect on me. I will surely recommend it to anyone! | 0 |
I had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend, who, like me, is a fan of the first. This movie down right sucked! It lacked the magic of the first. You could actually understand every word the mice said, the animation is crappy, the palace is much much different from the first movie, there's new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible, luckily the Prince didn't have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. Basically its like The Lion King 1 1/2 except its different stories all told by the mice. The reason I'm giving this a 2 out of 10 is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable. | 1 |
It is quite a simple not very active but very charming film. There were moments where I can see why Cher won the Academy Award for Best Actress, but there were other times when I wondered why Glenn Close didn't win for Fatal Attraction. Anyway, Oscar and Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Cher plays Loretta Castorini, a simple woman with a low pay job who has just been asked by Mr. Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello) to marry him. He promises her he'll be back in a month, as his mother is sick, so she mean while needs to get as much of his family to attend the wedding as possible. Only problem is, when she finds Johnny's one-handless brother Ronny (Golden Globe nominated Nicolas Cage), they start having a relationship, and there love goes on to that moon scene (where the title comes from). Also starring Oscar nominated Vincent Gardenia as Cosmo Castorini, Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe winning Olympia Dukakis as Rose Castorini and John Mahoney as Perry. It ends with no wedding for Johnny and Loretta, but she and Ronny were happy together. It won the Oscar for Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, and it was nominated for Best Director for Norman Jewison (In the Heat of the Night) and Best Picture, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Score for Dick Hyman and Best Original Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical and Best Screenplay. It was number 96 on 100 Years, 100 Quotes ('Snap out of it!'), it was number 17 on 100 Years, 100 Passions, and it was number 41 on 100 Years, 100 Laughs. Very good! | 0 |
Ah yes the 1980s , a time of Reaganomics and Sly , Chuck and a host of other action stars hiding in a remote jungle blowing away commies . At the time I couldn`t believe how movies like RAMBO , MISSING IN ACTION and UNCOMMON VALOR ( And who can forget the ridiculous RED DAWN ? ) made money at the box office , they`re turgid action crap fests with a rather off putting right wing agenda and they have dated very badly . TROMA`S WAR is a tongue in cheek take on these type of movies but you`ve got to ask yourself did they need spoofing in the first place ? Of course not . TROMA`S WAR lacks any sort of sophistication - though it does make the point that there`s no real difference between right wing tyrants and left wing ones - and sometimes feels more like a grade z movie than a send up . Maybe it is ? | 1 |
This is one of those movies that you wish you hadn't seen before - so you could see it again ' for the first time ' . Van Dine's books still bring pleasure - but are termed excessively flowery by many . This movie is by far the best film adaptation of his works . William Powell is William Powell - say no more . The plot is intricate . The story moves all too quickly , because you want it to last . Enjoy. | 0 |
Where to begin? How about with the erroneous synopsis: <br /><br />'X-Men Origins: Wolverine tells the story of Wolverine's epically violent and romantic past, his complex relationship with Victor Creed, and the ominous Weapon X program.'<br /><br />His epically violent past turns out to exceptionally non-violent.<br /><br />His relationship with Creed is so glossed over it's difficult to understand how they have any connection at all. We are thrown from one point in the opening scene that shows them as children on the run, to a montage of war scenes that they have fought in throughout their long lifespan, and finally to the present where they are a part of a hardcore government team of assassins.<br /><br />There is nothing by way of showing their relationship as brothers at all. Nothing complex is laid down for us to believe is authentic or even loving. <br /><br />The romantic element of the movie between Silverfox and Wolverine was forced and abrupt. We are thrown into a romance so fast that it's over before you can blink an eye. Having just introduced the character, Silverfox is killed off roughly fifteen minutes later. We are left wondering why we should care about this. Who was she anyway?<br /><br />For a pivotal element of this weak revenge driven story, the romance is surprisingly unexplored. It was rushed in simply because it was required.<br /><br />Oddly enough, when Wolverine finds that his love is dead he leaves her in the woods to rot as he goes off to find Sabertooth. Being the romantic that he is this was out of character for him yet necessary to serve the plot in pulling off a very predictable surprise.<br /><br />As for the weapon X program, lets just say that after the painfully crippling procedure Wolverine is up and running. Eventually he arrives at the home of a conveniently old yet overwhelmingly loving couple. Surprisingly Ma and Pa Kent aren't alarmed when finding a naked sweaty man in their barn. Is it any wonder what fate awaits them?<br /><br />In the previous films and the comic books, the main reason that Wolverines' amnesia plagued him partly hinged on the fact that he was said to have been viciously evil and coldblooded.<br /><br />Knowing this was the case...did he really want to remember such horrors or keep them hidden and continue his current more positive lifestyle of fighting against the villains of the world alongside his team mates?<br /><br />As hinted to in X2: X-men United when Stryker gives up some of his secrets it is said that Wolverine would be disturbed if he had known of the evil works they committed together. This film sets up the team fairly well only they don't really do much of anything. No disturbing violence, no ruthless actions, they merely harass a few natives in foreign lands for the ten or fifteen minutes they are on screen. <br /><br />It seems that Wolverine wasn't an evil man under Stryker at all. Instead he was constantly trying to put a leash on his brother Sabertooth which consequently WAS the violent agent we all thought Wolverine was. Eventually he just leaves all together.<br /><br />No conflict of duality here at all.<br /><br />Idiotically REMOVING that character conflict of good and evil DULLED the story immensely. They may as well have given him rubber claws.<br /><br />There were a ton of other errors in this film that contradicted the X-Men trilogy, including the introduction of one of the lamest Deus Ex Machinas to ever hit a script.<br /><br />Magic memory-erasing bullets. <br /><br />Really?<br /><br />Apparently they are the only thing to bring down Wolverine. Yet this was apparently forgotten when agent after agent was sent to bring him down with bullets and bombs that would surely not work on him at all.<br /><br />Another problem with this film is that it tried to focus on Wolverine while throwing in a ton of other mutants which did little to nothing at all. Interesting characters were mere window dressing and did nothing for the story. Most were in the film for 5-10 minutes max and yet you find yourself wishing we saw more of them and less of Wolverine.<br /><br />Fred Dukes (the Blob but not the comic version) can punch a launched tank missile with little to no physical damage to him at all, but a simple headbutt from Wolverines metal noggin is enough to daze him?<br /><br />Cyclops optic beams (which instead of being concussive force are now more akin to lasers) can burn through buildings but when fired at Sabertooth directly it simply smashes him into the ground without even damaging his clothes. Adamantium trench coats anyone?<br /><br />The (gravity defying) mutant Gambit, instead of utilizing his signature cards, is made into some sort of crazy acrobat. In one poorly edited scene he is knocked unconscious by Wolverine...then amazingly enough a few minutes later he is on a rooftop running TOWARDS Wolverine. How he regained consciousness, ran away a few blocks, climbed up a building, then ran back to Wolverine and Sabertooth in the middle of a scratching match is a mystery yet to be explained.<br /><br />Some have excused this films weakness by claiming it was made from a comic and therefore should be weak on character and heavy on flash. The idea that this movie being a comic film is flimsy and superficial because of that fact is incorrect.<br /><br />The comic book source material, the REAL origin of Wolverine...is a story worth bringing to the screen. It doesn't sugar coat his past nor treat the reader like mindless CGI junkies. It is a well crafted story and although retold and readjusted over time, began with WEAPON X by Barry Windsor-Smith. A much more intense and exciting story.<br /><br />This FOX film should seriously be forgotten. <br /><br />Anyone have that magic gun?<br /><br />4/10 | 1 |
I ordered this extremely rare and highly overrated movie on ebay with very high expectations. I think I paid about 50$ for this movie. As an eternal fan of horror, from cheesy 80s American slashers to European zombie films, I told myself this was going to be great! I can't tell you how wrong I was. First of all, I thought it was gonna be pretty much gorier than it actually is. After all I've had heard about this film, I was almost scared to watch it. The murders are boring. The acting... forget it, there's no acting! The story, even if we don't care, is incredibly bad. It seems they tried to get your attention with some weird sexual scenes and naked girls, but unfortunately in this case it doesn't help the movie. Why? There's no atmosphere, and this is the worst thing about this flick. It's just bad film-making from point A to B. Though it's extremely funny and amusing to watch with your friends and a lot of beers, don't make any effort to get your hands on it. There are so many movies in this world, don't waste your time watching Necro Files! | 1 |
Pointless short about a bunch of half naked men slapping and punching each other. That's it. For about 5 minutes we see this. It's shot in black and white with tons of half-naked men running around slapping each other to the tune of dreadful music. It LOOKS interesting but there's no plot and really--the violence inherent in this got disturbing. Also the homo eroticism in this is played up but mixing it with violence was not a good idea. Some people who like avant garde material might like this but I found it incomprehensible, boring, stupid and (ocassionally) disturbing. Really--what is the point in all this? I saw it as part of a festival of gay shorts and the audience sat there in stunned silence. I really wish I could go lower than 1. | 1 |
I don't remember 'Barnaby Jones' being no more than a very bland, standard detective show in which, as per any Quinn Martin show, Act I was the murder, Act II was the lead character figuring out the murder, Act III was the plot twist (another character murdered), Act IV was the resolution and the Epilogue was Betty (Lee Meriwether) asking her father-in-law Barnaby Jones (Buddy Ebsen) how he figured out the crime and then someone saying something witty at the end of the show.<br /><br />One thing I do remember was the late, great composer Jerry Goldsmith's excellent theme song. Strangely, the opening credit sequence made me want to see the show off and on for the seven seasons the show was on the air. I will also admit that it was nice to see Ebsen in a role other than Jed Clampett despite Ebsen being badly miscast. I just wished the show was more entertaining than when I first remembered it.<br /><br />Update (1/11/2009): I watched an interview with composer Jerry Goldsmith on YouTube through their Archive of American Television channel. Let's just say that I was more kind than Goldsmith about the show 'Barnaby Jones.' | 1 |
The creative team that brought us Police Squad - and the Naked Gun derived from it - said in interview that they were told by their network contact that the show would be canceled, after their delivery of the first episode. Basically, the show was never given any chance. Typical Hollywood. The contact apparently told the team that the problem with the show was that, for the show to be funny, the viewer would actually need to watch it; most shows are presented on TV with the understanding that the viewer needed to get up and miss a few minutes while getting food, or going to the toilet, etc.<br /><br />The humor of the show is extremely dry (it uses no laugh-track), and the universe the characters inhabit is one in which anything can happen, regardless of logic, as long as it was totally unbelievable; so, for instance in one episode a surgeon has to bribe an informant on the street in order to get a tip on heart surgery.<br /><br />Those familiar with the Naked Gun films should be warned that there are a number of interesting disjunctions between the show and the films. In the films, Nielsen developed a particular 'take' approach - that is, eyes widened when confronted with the unexpected. This doesn't happen in the show, where Nielsen's Drebin is the center around which the rest of the universe revolves - nothing is unexpected to him. Also, there are no romances in the show, and no parodies of MTV. Finally, the show takes certain risks that the films avoid; in the first episode, Drebin, to 're-enact the crime', has a squad of homicide detectives shoot each other from a number of different angles - ballistics the hard way. This is actually a risky bit of humor, since we need to accept that it's perfectly normal for policemen to kill each other while investigating a crime, for no other reason than experimentation. This sort of thing rarely happens in the films.<br /><br />Taken individually, each of the episodes is actually funnier than any one of the Naked Gun films, since they are both more compact (more happens in a shorter time-frame), yet more leisurely paced (there's not the rush for a punch-line as sometimes happens in the films). There are some inconsistencies that happen in the films (primarily '2' and '3') that never occur in the show's shorter time-frame.<br /><br />Of course, there's no doubt that Naked Gun (the first film) is one of the great comedies of theatrical cinema. And if you watch the TV show episode after episode in one sitting, the dry quality of the humor might wear away one's tolerance.<br /><br />None the less, it would be useful to have a DVD of this, and watch an episode a day for a few weeks - If laughter has, as some claim, medicinal value, watching this show is good for one's health. | 0 |
... when this movie so well proves that they indeed are unnecessary.<br /><br />Although few lines, it was kind of weird to see this movie, no subs, in a language unknown. A friend of mine sent a VHS, included a few pieces of papers with all lines translated to English. with her translation next to me, I began watching this tale (it is indeed a tale), and from the very first tunes of the whistling melody during opening credits I was stuck. the colours, that minimal acting (well, in most cases), absurd comedy, slapstick, thoughtful, beautiful... along with a few other movies (Paris, Texas and Nenette et Boni), this one is able to speak to anyone's heart - without words. Whenever you get the chance, see it. Whatever you do - don't miss it. It's a once in a lifetime experience. Oh, acting is great, the soundtrack is brilliant, the story is simple and told a thousand times before - but rarely (never?) like this. | 0 |
This movie is about Viola (Amanda Bynes) and her quest to beat her school Cornwell boys team after they kicked the girls team out. So she goes to the rival school Illaria and joins the boys team, in doing so she falls for Duke (Channing Tatum) who thinks shes a guy and likes Olivia (Laura Ramsey) who likes Viola as a her brother. <br /><br />I was in a version of the 12th night play and the beginning was very modern. So I knew the play well. I was very exited about seeing this movie and when I saw it it exceeded my expectations. It kept a lot of my favorite lines and I could see big connections to the play. Though it was like the play it was not as complicated. It was also more of a chick flick than I expected but it was good. It was very funny. It pulls you into a whole bunch of crazy love stories and lies. You saw how viola (Amanda Bynes) thought wrongly about what guys thought and her complications in living in a guys world. You also see her room-mate, Duke's(Channing Tatum), impression of this. I really liked seeing the characters being portrayed in a modern way. It also tells the modern theme 'Follow your dreams' but this time it has a twist. I think this movie was a great movie about a girl who loved soccer and stuck up for herself and her family and her dreams. I think this movie will be the big break for many raising stars. | 0 |
publicity got me to the theatre<br /><br />advice will take you away from this waist of time.<br /><br />very bad everything.<br /><br />do you really want to see a monkey talking with a technological device?<br /><br />X | 1 |
Talk Radio is of course, probably not the most well known of Stone's films, but don't let that put you off, this film is ripe for discovery, I defy anyone not to be entranced by it. Along with the best performance of 80's cinema by Eric Bogosian, for me (along with JFK)this remains Stone's finest moment. Stone doesn't seem to comment much on it these days and didn't do a director's commentary on DVD like all his other films. Stone has nothing to be ashamed of, most directors would kill to get a shot @ a film like this.<br /><br />The claustrophobia of the studio is intense and the opinions of Champlain are still very crucial arguments for today. The 'legalise all drugs' speech is powerful and you might find yourself agreeing with him.In my opinion the film is about freedom of speech and how sometimes people don't like hearing things they don't agree with.The speeches and conversations with the listeners are very compelling, even disturbing, a chill ran down my spine when a crazed man calls Champlain saying he has to rape again because the city drives him crazy is totally shocking.The tension is sometimes unbearable with a scene when Heavy metaller Kent becomes unhinged, of course Champlain does himself no favours by ridiculing him. Champlain(or should I say Bogosian) is fearless in film and performance, totally mesmerising, a shame th@ Bogosians other big role was the villain in Under Siege 2(dear god!!)One scene th@ didn't ring true was when Barry's boss Dan(Alec Baldwin) gets him to calm down, Barry doesn't seem to be the kind of person who shuts up and does as he's told, it seemed a bit contrived and clichéd.The scenes outside the studio are criticised for being too formulaic, it's true because Stone is trying to make the film more cinematic and allow the viewer to see Champlains beginnings but it doesn't entirely work. <br /><br />It is a brilliantly cinematic film with extreme close-ups, deep focus, extremely fast cuts a fantastic 360 set which is used for the final breathtaking monologue. Must see cinema, it makes it rare because it was ignored @the time but is now receiving attention again which it so richly deserves. A classic th@ should be studied by generations of film students. <br /><br />10 out of 10 for inventive use of 'Bad To The Bone' before T2, brilliant supporting cast including John C Mcginley(Dr Cox from Scrubs) as the sleazy Stu, Leslie Hope(24)as Champlains girlfriend, John Pankow and Alec Baldwin as the suits and Micheal Wincott who plays three roles( a very underrated actor), the tension between the listeners and Champlain which is very heart-racing @ times and of course kudos to the stars Bogosian and Stone for such a fantastic piece of cinema. Enjoy! | 0 |
It is wonderful to watch Roshan Seth (the strict father in 1992 'Mississippi Masala'), who once again takes on the role of a father and head of the family, and more, in SUCH A LONG JOURNEY, set in 1971 Bombay, India. Besides the closely knit family settings, subject matters include the lost and found of a friendship; the unexpected death of a friend (somehow the calm smiling face of a friend in death in the presence of prayers felt peaceful - so Gustad Noble, Roshan's character, similarly noted); a sidewalk artist's chain of events - 'the wall as a latrine turned into a shrine
shrine into rumbles and ashes' was at once prophetic and philosophical. It's packed full of life lessons in different aspects of varying relationships: between father and son; mother and son; father and little daughter; little daughter and father and mother; longtime colleagues; long lost dear friends; even that of a man to man, one whose an innocent slow-witted 'fool'.<br /><br />In spite of the tone of the film's era, it's a colorful film rich in substance, and the strength of the story in textural layers with humor and suspense. For a director who is not Indian (Sturla Gunnarsson being Icelandic), he's made a political Indian/Pakistani film. He gets into the bone marrow of the life of this Parsi portrayed by Roshan Seth, whose performance has such nuances, subtlety, and joy. (There is singing, too.) The rest of the cast is equally strong: from Om Puri the mysterious friend of a friend; Soni Razdan the enduring wife; Vrajesh Hirjee the argumentative eldest son; Sam Dastor the longtime office mate; Ranjit Chowdhry the pavement artist; to a superstitious 'witch' woman of a neighbor; an unbeguiling 'fool' of a man; and a long lost bosom friend - it's a world of many faces and perspectives. Director Gunnarsson has demonstrated sensitivity in the treatment of that time period and subject was well researched with attention to details. He has the good fortune to have Sooni Taraporevala (1992 'Mississippi Masala', 1988 'Salaam Bombay!') wrote the script. This is truly a worthwhile journey of a film to partake.<br /><br />Along the lines of cultural exploration (road movie style), Fridrik Thor Fridriksson 1994 'Cold Fever' is an Icelandic sojourn about a Japanese young man who went across the globe in search of the specific spot to pay his last respects to his parents, dutifully following memorial rituals for the dead. Such demonstrated reverence and cross-cultural attention to family ties are heart-warming in this day and cyber age. | 0 |
Those prophetic words were spoken by William Holden (as a war reporter) to the beauteous Jennifer Jones (as a Eurasian doctor), explaining his failing marriage on the beach. They start an affair, despite huge odds of adultery and racial issues. In Hollywood of the 1950s, interracial romance was allowed but only with dire consequences at the end. Beautiful Hong Kong scenery (although some beach scenes look studio-bound), a famous title tune, poetic script, lovely background music (by Alfred Newman), great costumes, outstanding performances, especially Jones (directed here by Henry King, who also did 'The Song of Bernadette - 1943, an Oscar for Jones) still make this a world-class romance weeper. | 0 |
SUcks. That's all I got to say about this sorry excuse for a film. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. I mean, what the hell were they thinking? The idiots involved should never be allowed to make another films. The acting was so bad that it even failed to entertain on a bad level. The attempt at a 'lesbian scene' was sad. I felt so bad for the ladies involved. This movie sucks! Sucks! Sucks!<br /><br />I heard rumors of a sequel.<br /><br />God<br /><br />Help<br /><br />Us<br /><br />All | 1 |
This movie was 100% boring, i swear i almost died from boredom at the theater. It wasnt funny and didnt really hve that much action in it either, it was BORING and i hope whoever out there that liked this movie, god be with you in the future when you find out what this movie was really like and try to jump off a bridge or something like that | 1 |
I can admit that the screenplay isn't very good, and that it has some slow parts, but all of you critics of this movie need to learn how to have some fun. First of all, the performances are great (Michael Douglas, Kim Basinger, Kiefer Sutherland, and Eva Longoria. Michael Douglas proves he has still got it, and Kim Basinger plays a very interesting character as the cheating wife. Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, play the dynamic duo, both adding their incredible talent to the pot. And second of all, this movie is the most fun I have had in years in a Theodore. Its plain and simple, if you want to go to the movies, and have a lot of fun see, The Sentinel. | 0 |
This movie doesn't have any pretense at being great art, which is good. But it is a well written script with well developed characters and solid acting. I think if I wrote it I could do without the drama surrounding the wife, but it wasn't distracting enough to detract from the main story concerning Minnie Driver's character. I think that all too often Hollywood abandons an attempt at real quality writing to try and inject more visual drama when, with an adult themed movie such as this, the emotional type of drama is all that's really needed - and probably more believable too. Overall, it's a very well done offering and well worth seeing. | 0 |
If only Eddie Murphy were born 10 years later. Then we'd all remember it. But even I was only 4 when it came out. If you haven't seen it yet, rent Dr. Dolittle, Showtime, I spy, Pluto Nash and all Eddie's family comedy movies - then watch this. Hands down, you'll laugh 90% of the time. The other 10% you'll be wiping the tears from your eyes.<br /><br />It really needs to be watched more then once to understand all the jokes. From crude humor to a joke for kids!(if you've seen it you'll laugh here) - you'll love his stuff. If you can, (or are a big fan) try to download clips from Eddie's acts. Allot of the shows are different as you'd imagine and he has even more funny jokes.<br /><br />But this is like the 'best of' Eddie Murphy 'X-rated' if you will.<br /><br />And all I can say is please don't watch Delirious if you don't like comedy, don't have a sense of humor or are not fun to hang out with. You will only put down this great Eddie Murphy classic and possibly make someone miss out on it.<br /><br />If you wanna know how Eddie got Beverly Hills Cop and got famous from it- Delirious is it. | 0 |
I'm not sure what. I just couldn't laugh at it. I had an open mind. I didn't want to be a tight-@ss about it. But I seriously just couldn't laugh at this film. It was just not funny to me. Some parts it seemed like Ben Stiller and Jack Black tried too hard. Just because you put two very funny men together doesn't mean that this is going to be an excellent comedy. Some movies just shouldn't be made. This is one of them. Because it does a lot of old jokes and the acting was just stupid. I know, I know it's a comedy. Sort of at least. But I was just not impressed. I'm sorry, but I cannot give this anything lower than a two. And that's all I'm giving. <br /><br />2/10 | 1 |
You already know how painful to watch this movie is. But I wonder why one of the worst movies ever should include one the most beautiful cars. Why the cars should be not only the victim of violation, but also the only true actors and performers in it. So how on Earth you Porsche, Lamborghini or whatever could allow those people to get in touch with your cars and ruin you reputation for which you give millions.Stop the getting an advantage of the cars and earn money on their chests. It is painful for those who love cars. It is painful for those who love movies.<br /><br />I want my money back !!! | 1 |
If this is what's best in the Finnish cinema at the moment, I'd say those big tax euros spent at supporting 'culture' have gone to waste here in a horrible way. Paha maa is the worst kind of example of trying to make a Finnish 'European film' for big audiences. I'm sure they wanted it to be all state-of-the-art, smart and touching at the same time. The result is crap.<br /><br />To make it short: - The story is pretentious, naïve and not credible. The same goes for the characters. I can imagine them brainstorming about making a film where 'everything would, like, turn to ***t and people would be hurt and feel, you know, really bad inside, because Finnish people are so notoriously depressed, too, and their self-esteem is so bad', which brings us to the fact that...<br /><br />- The film is loaded with clichés, mostly about 'the Finnish mentality'. The way the it deals with people's problems and their causes could be straight out of a regular women's magazine or a cheap bull-psychology-self-help book. ('We feel so bad inside!') I'm sure they watched some Kaurismäki, too, to find out what it is about his films that people like, misunderstood him completely, and came up with a boring, depressing story about people going through all kinds of s**t for no other artistic purpose than perhaps social pornography. It's a crying shame they threw in Tolstoy here. It's just a sign of trying to be smart. And of not being.<br /><br />- I think the worst fault, however, is the complete lack of vision and depth. The film is highly unoriginal. It is also frustrating to watch endless sulking and suffering without any real revelation brought to it. I can go through this kind of mind**ck if the film is funny or ends up being an elaborate joke, or better yet, something sublime like in e.g. von Trier's Breaking the Waves. There was none these in Paha maa. Actually though, I did start laughing at some point because the turn of events was again just too predictable, over-the-top and incredible.<br /><br />Who does this crap? And who likes it? I hope they're pretending. | 1 |
Have you heard the story about the reluctant heroes who were hired by a King to slay a dragon? Oh, you have? Was it set in a world entirely composed of small islands floating above clouds, and did the heroes have to make dangerous leaps from one island to the next on their journey? Did water flow upwards and remnants of great cities levitate on the horizon? I didn't think so.<br /><br />I stumbled onto this movie by accident and I'm really glad that I did! It's one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. Much like the Pixar movies, it's a piece of computer animated art that could only be possible in today's world. The animators have invested thought into almost everything that appears on the screen, and this attention to detail is staggering (the scene where the mushrooms in the foreground belch green smoke whilst the characters walk obliviously in the background is one of my favourites). The monsters are also fully realised and wonderful to watch in action.<br /><br />Although the plot may not be entirely unique, the movie has enough charm to make sure you keep watching. Our protagonists are likable and interesting, ensuring the audience is behind their almost impossible quest to reach the end of the world and destroy the dragon which might otherwise devour everything in its path. Of course, Hector is the character most will fall in love with. A small blue creature with a crazy grin and a tendency to speak a mixture of nonsense and English, Hector provides comedy relief in a way Jar Jar Binks could only dream of.<br /><br />In summary, I'd recommend watching The Dragon Hunters if you get the opportunity. Watch it for the incredible animation, the breath-taking battle scenes and for a glimpse into a world that's unlike anything else you've seen on a cinema or television screen. At the very least, it's a fun way to spend an hour and a half - no matter if you're nine or twenty-nine (which, in fact, I am)! | 0 |
After I've seen this movie I find it hard to understand why so many people seem to hate this movie. I'm not saying it belongs in the top 250 of all times, but in it's genre it is a great movie. I know, not many people find it amusing to see how a legendary story like 'Robin Hood' is turned into a comedy. Many people still seem to believe that some things shouldn't be laughed with ... they are wrong. <br /><br />Mel Brooks has done an excellent job with Robin Hood: Men in Tights. I have seen the original Robin Hood movies as well, but I never had such a good time when watching them as I had with this one. It's just one continuation of hilarious moments and parodies on famous people and movies (Winston Churchil, The Godfather...).<br /><br />I recommend everyone who wants to have a good laugh to watch this movie. To those who think Robin Hood shouldn't be messed with, you're wrong, but you better don't watch it because you'll probably be offended by it. I give this movie an 8/10. | 0 |
Hercules the Avenger is by far the best single entry in the muscleman genre I can recall. The charge against it made by critics - it is a cut and paste of two previous Hercules films, with some added new material to make it appear fresh - misses the fact that this cut-and-paste approach solves one of the central problems of the sword-and-sandal movies. With most of these films, the middle third sags horribly - usually involving a sappy love story or arcane political intrigue or both (queen falls in love with Hercules and her evil brother plots against them, etc.) It's often hard to hold on through this to watch the exciting finale. Hercules the Avenger cuts all that crap from the source films, and adds a rather brisk narrative of a Hercules impersonator bullying his way into power. (It should be noted that this episode also functions as a distant but pointedly critical remark on the rise of Fascism in Italy.) This also sets up a fine final wrasslin' match between the real Hercules and his impersonator.<br /><br />In a narrower focus, I might also add that further editing has improved individual scenes borrowed from the other films. For my money, the mutiny scene here is much better than it first appeared in Hercules and the Captive Women, since it has been tightened with the reduction of several characters and their plot complications.<br /><br />There are also floppy monsters, creepy underworld atmospherics borrowed (literally) from Mario Bava, an entire city destroyed, and the usual amount of lovely babes in revealing gowns. Since no one expects any of these films to compete with The Seven Samurai - or even with The Magnificent Seven - it seems a bit picky to hold the film's borrowing from other films against it. | 0 |
Up until around 1970 Lucille Ball was one great comedienne. She was such a perfect clown I only wish more people could have seen her with Bob Hope in 'The Facts of Life' because she could do dry deadpan, too. as well as slapstick..<br /><br />Yep, Lucille Ball was wonderful . . . until 'Mame.'<br /><br />Trying to see Lucille Ball in 'Mame' is physically impossible because there is so much Vaseline on the already filtered lenses that you'd need Windex to see Lucille Ball in some scenes. So even if you see Lucille Ball in 'Mame,' you can't really see Lucille Ball in 'Mame'. Which is a blessing.<br /><br />That's about the nicest thing I can say about 'Mame,' the movie of the musical of the movie of the play (this could go on, but it started with a perfectly funny book called 'Auntie Mame'). Giving this a bad rap is like beating a sponge. So it does not matter that the music is croaked rather than sung. Most of the songs weren't much, anyway. There isn't any difference in the first three. 'It's Today,' 'Open a New Window,' and 'We Need a Little Christmas' are all the same song. Celene Dion should do an album with them, they're so big and dull. The killer ballad 'If He Walked Into My Life Today' needs a confident gorgeous voice (Edyie Gorme won a Grammy for doing it in 1967) that poor Lucille Ball did not possess when she made this movie. (True, Elaine Stritch can't carry a tune in a bucket, either, but at least Stritch can put over a song.)<br /><br />If you still feel your life is not going to be complete unless you see the movie musical 'Mame,' notice how there IS dancing in it, but whenever Lucy/Mame starts to do anything beyond a palsied shuffle the camera cuts away, returning right when the number is over and the star poses with the dancers. Again, it's just as well. Jane Connell got to reprise the role of pathetic Agnes Gooch after Lucille Ball had Madeline Kahn fired to ensure no comic originality would upstage the star. Connell is a stage performer who, like Carol Channing and Ethyl Merman, can't scale down her performances for films, so she joins Lucille Ball in being embarrassing, though for different reasons.<br /><br />The lavish gowns are by Theadora Van Runkle (Van Wrinkle?) and they provide the color missing in all but one of the cast. <br /><br />Bea Arthur as the actress Vera Charles, Mame's best friend, ignores everyone and does her own fun thing. If only she was in more scenes. She's too old for her role, too, but at least she didn't maim it. | 1 |
Yes, I was lucky enough to see the long-running original production of Michael Bennett's hit musical. It was an amazing experience and I paid to see the movie when it hit theatres back in 1985. It is awful. Almost everything fails. First off, Attenborough (a fine actor, a good director with the right material) is a sorry choice - almost as bad as when John Huston was hired to mangle ANNIE. The camera is always in the wrong place - they chop up the songs and the CASTING!!! They are awful - the power of the play was these dancers - these hungry, talented performers just wanted a chance to show what they could do and when they got their chance - you couldn't take your eyes off of them. But this cast just gets by dancing, does a 'nice' job singing but none of them spark one bit. In fact, look up the cast on IMDb - none of them really went on to do anything much. (OK, OK, Janet Jones married Gretzky - sheesh). So this cinema trainwreck does not capture for one second the magic, the desperation, the passion of the stage musical. A total strike-out! (But even though they try to smother the music - the great music still rises up at times and reminds people how great the score was). | 1 |
Faithful to the work of Pearl S. Buck whose years spent in China as a child of Missionary parents that provided her with deep insights into the Chinese culture and its philosophy, this film adaptation is brilliantly done, both in technically artistry and acting.<br /><br />Wang Lung is a humble farmer grateful for the basics of life: to survive off of his land and to be newly wed to Olan, a servant to a rich and powerful family in the village area. Despite Wang Lung and Olan's best efforts to farm the land, raise kids, and build savings and wealth, a famine threatens to wipe out everything they have worked for. Choosing not to sell their land, a traditional Asian belief, they instead journey to a major city to wait out the famine. While in the city, they are reduced to begging and being just one of hundreds of other unfortunate homeless families. Although not a looter, Olan gets caught up in a mob looting at a rich man's house. She's summarily rounded up for execution by the army, but is saved at the last minute. Her good fortune, however, is that she found valuable jewels at the looting site that affords her and her family the opportunity to return to their farm to start over again. The newly found wealth transforms Wang Lung. He becomes selfish, self-centered and takes credit for the find. He becomes a very rich farmer but that only makes matters worse as he increasingly becomes more unappreciative, arrogant and difficult to reason with. He loses touch with the basic things in life that money can't buy: loyalty, commitment, trust, fairness and honesty. As punishment, nature once again turns the table on Wang Lung by sending a plague of locust to destroy everything he has. Brought to his knees, Wang Lung enlists the aid of all friends, former friends, workers, and family. With all that help, he succeeds in saving the farm. From that experience, he once again returns to humbleness and an appreciation for the basics in life. | 0 |
To be honest, I've never been to the Congo or even Africa, and after watching the made for television movie Heart of Darkness, I do not think I'd want to. The movie completely shames the book to the highest level possible. Though the book was not the best I have read, after watching the movie, I seemed to appreciate the book a hundred times more. Nicolas Roeg, the director of the movie, did a horrible job portraying Joseph Conrad's novella into a movie. I give Roeg some credit for trying to attempt the impossible by making the book into a movie, but this may not have been the job for him. The movie was unsuccessful to express any part of the novella other than the basics of the plot. The set and scenery also lacked the beauty Conrad portrayed of Africa in the book. In the book Marlow had seen so many great wonders, but in the movie you did not get that same experience. No, I'm not blaming everything on the director; the acting in the film was just terrible. All of the actors were dull and uninteresting. Throughout the whole movie I felt as if the actors were not putting forth any emotions, as if they were reading from the script the entire time. Tim Roth, who plays Marlow, did not portray Marlow's sense of adventure for his journey into the Congo well. Marlow's journey to find Kurtz was supposed to venturesome, but I didn't experience that in the movie. I would not recommend watching this movie, especially if you have read the book already. It does not come close to doing justice for Joseph Conrad's novella. Conrad's words capture the reader and take them on the journey with Marlow, on his quest to find Mr. Kurtz, where as the film did not. A great novella, but a very poor film. Heart of Darkness, the movie, is based on the book written by Joseph Conrad also called Heart of Darkness. | 1 |
Horrendously acted and completely laughable haunted-house horror flick that has an out of place Anna Paquin playing a neurotic teenager fighting off the 'things-that-go-bump-in-the-dark' that are plaguing her and her family shortly after moving to their new home in Spain(?!). Little more than a geographically re-planted rip-off of 'The Shining' and most notably 'The Others', the weak-plotted 'Darkness' is basically your typical run-of-the mill B-horror feature with a few predictable lame scares that can be seen by audiences a mile off (so to speak)! In retrospect I suppose I shouldn't have set my personal expectations quite as high for this movie to actually be good considering the well-known fact that it was shelved for nearly three years before finally being released around Christmas of last year in American cinemas across the country to what was ultimately lukewarm ticket-sales and very harsh reviews from critics. When will filmmakers ever learn that there's more to making movies (be it horror or otherwise) than just the fey possibility of a little financial gain? (Turkey-Zero Stars) | 1 |
For once a Barbie movie that is good. I'm 18 and a embarrassed to say this but I'm hooked on these movies. I hated Barbie when I was younger but the movies I love. Shiver is so cute and I've fallen in love with him. He's so cute as the polar bear and totally in love with Aiden. Oh man I'm in love with Shiver. I love Annika determination not to give up on hope and eventfully it works. I love this movie and hopefully they will be other good ones. Barbie & Swan Lake is other brilliant movie. I would recommend this movie to children of all ages (even boys) because the movie is that good and I'm hard to please. Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus is a movie that is enchanting and exciting. | 0 |
The show had great episodes, this is not one of them. It's not a terrible episode, it's just hard to follow up 'The man that was death.', 'All through the house', and 'Dig that cat, he's real gone.'<br /><br />This episode is about a couple that has just been married Peggy (Ammanda Plummer) and Charles (Stephen Shellen). In the first five minutes you find out that Charles only married Peggy for her money. The two go on their honeymoon and their car breaks down on a dirt road and they have to seek refuge in an old abandon mansion. Charles soon finds out a secret of Peggy's family...<br /><br />In my opinion you should watch this episode, but just don't expect the same feeling as the rest of the episodes in the first season. | 1 |
This movie is amazing. You will NEVER laugh harder. It's a target. No, I think it's...yes it's...A BOOB! This movie gets funnier by the second--like when Jackie Chan's character finally dies in his final fight scene. This movie is velly velly seekwet like treasha! Congrats if you buy or rent this. You'll never return it, in my opinion. I didn't, and I haven't found it in a store since. I watched this movie once and I was forever in love with Kung-Fu action flicks. If you're looking for an amazing film in the realm of great production value, good or even mediocre acting, and good special effects...this is NOT that movie. If you're looking for laughs and timeless wonderment, pick this up for a dollar and you'll probably never let it go. With friends, popcorn and drinks, it's the perfect evening. | 0 |
'Panic in the Streets (1950)' owes more to British noir that its American counterparts. Like Reed's 'The Third Man (1949)' and Dassin's 'Night and the City (1950),' director Elia Kazan chose to film largely on location, capturing the fresh and vibrant decadence of the New Orleans slums. In a decision borrowed from the masters of Italian neorealism, he also hired many non-professional actors for minor roles, lending an air of authenticity to the cityscape. However, any further comparisons with neorealism would be misguided, for 'Panic in the Streets' is pure melodrama, of the best kind. A murdered illegal immigrant, fished out of the bay, is found to be infected with pneumonic plague, a deadly air-borne mutation of bubonic plague, which is transmitted from human-to-human and, untreated, has a mortality rate that approaches 100%. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark), an officer with the U.S. Public Health Service, convinces the doubtful police-chief (Paul Douglas) to undertake a city-wide manhunt for the men responsible for the homicide, lest they also be infected with the illness.<br /><br />In my younger years, I found Wolfgang Petersen's 'Outbreak (1995)' to be among the most horrifying movies I'd ever seen. That thriller, which owes plenty to 'Panic in the Streets' {working title: 'Outbreak'}, terrified me so efficiently because it depicted the ebola virus as both an invisible and invincible killer how does one defend themselves against such a thing? Kazan's film is the first (that I know of) to approach the subject of biological epidemics, though it has difficulty ascribing visual recognition to an enemy that is basically undetectable to the human eye; it instead uses Jack Palance as a human personification of the Plague. Despite his venturing out among the filthy dregs of human society, you never get the sense that Clinton Reed is placing his own life at risk {some viewers have noted that Reed never inoculated himself against the plague, though I think it's safe to assume that he did so at the same time as the morgue staff}. Nevertheless, there's still a strong sense of urgency in the hunt for the infected man's killers, underground street-rats who pollute the sewers with their misdeeds.<br /><br />In medieval times, when the Black Death (now widely believed to have been bubonic plague) swept across the civilised world, killing a third of Europe's population, many identified the destruction as being the work of the Devil. Jack Palance's character, Blackie, serves effectively as Satan in human form: the angular-jawed thug can occasionally be charming and charismatic, but is always liable to explode into fits of violence; his two hoodlums (played by Guy Thomajan and Zero Mostel), through terror more than anything else, are constantly grovelling at his feet. When one lackey falls ill with fever, Blackie deduces that the man's immigrant cousin must have 'brought something in with him' (the irony of his conclusion not passing unnoticed), and so attempts to ascertain what this presumably valuable object must be. He cradles the dying Poldi in his arms, a grotesque display of faux affection that is both pathetic and unsettling. Blackie/Satan is finally stopped not by the authorities, but by the burden of his own infection/evil as he attempts to board a cargo ship, the primary vessel by which the Plague spread across Europe. | 0 |
'One-Round' Jack Sander is called that because he's a carnival boxer who fights any man in the audience. If they can last one round, they win a prize--a popular way to draw customers into traveling shows long ago. Jack is in love with the ticket girl, Mabel, though her head is quickly turned when Bob Corby enters the ring to try his chances with Jack. What no one at the fight knows is that Bob is the champ, so he's able to beat Jack--though it takes him some work. As a result, Bob asks Jack to become his sparring partner and give up the carnival circuit. Later, Jack improves so much that he, too, becomes a legitimate boxer. Slowly, he works his way up the rankings until he's nearly ready to take on the Champ.<br /><br />In the meantime, the Champ and Mabel start running around behind Jack's back--even though by now Mabel has married Jack. So, when the final fight occurs between Jack and Bob, it's very personal and Jack is ready to kill him. Is he good enough? Will rise justifiable rage against Bob help or hinder his performance? Tune in and see.<br /><br />This film was directed by Alfred Hitchcock and while today this sort of film seems strange for a director known for mystery-suspense films, back in the 1920s, Hitchcock had no fixed genre which he directed or wrote (he did both for this film). In fact, in many ways this film is more indicative of Hitchcock's silent style, as a somewhat similar plot came up in one of his next silents, THE MANXMAN (also starring Carl Brisson as the wronged husband). So, while this seems a lot like a standard boxing film of the day, it was not a radical departure for this great director--even with its rather formulaic ending.<br /><br />Overall, while a bit predictable and having Ian Hunter playing a boxing champ seems silly, the film works well. While far from a perfect silent, it's well worth seeing and packs a nice punch. | 0 |
Redundant, everlasting shots, useless shots, useless scenes are what you will find in this film. In other words, it seemed technically poor to me. The musical bits are amateurishly directed (no synchronization in the would-be dancing, badly post-synchronized, bad and obvious improvisation of the actors from time to time, etc). <br /><br />The film is long and boring. Eventually, it makes few point and even less sense. <br /><br />There are some good ideas though. Some of the comic elements are actually efficient, especially the opening scene. However, the film gets worse and worse so that it is completely unbearable and impossible to understand by the end. <br /><br />The trailer I saw was very dynamic, that is not true for the film. That is to say the discrepancy between the trailer and the actual film is something very close to a rip off. | 1 |
It is rare that one comes across a movie as flawless as this. It's truly one of the best acted, most tightly structured films I've ever seen. Every line of dialogue can be interpreted in several ways, relating to each of the three main characters differently. The film weaves an intrinsic web of motivations and double crosses that snare you and refuse to let go. Add to this that the slow-burning romance between Kevin and Faye is as moving as anything that's ever been committed to celluloid and you have the ingredients for a perfect film. It exposes the romance of movies such as 'Titanic' as the trite cliches they are. If you're looking for a movie to watch while you fold laundry, this isn't it. You have to commit yourself to this film. You can't have a conversation while running in and out of the room. This movie demands your attention. Treat it with the respect you deserve and you'll get a lot out of it. Unless you think 'Titanic' is the greatest film ever. | 0 |
I bought a DVD of this film for my girlfriend who shares the same name as the ghost girl in this film, and enjoys movies about the paranormal. The movie was shot entirely on video, so it has the look of a PBS special about it. The special effects are phoney looking, but there are actually some scary moments in the movie that got us to jump in our seat. There is a particularly effective scare involving a Virgin Mary statue.<br /><br />HOWEVER, the acting is bad, the 'plot' scenes are long and very boring, and I will tell you I have no clue what happened at the end. If you get the movie, rent it, if you buy it, please make sure you pay less than $5. | 1 |
'October Sky' is a film that will steal your heart, fill your mind with vivid imagery, and lift your spirit. The tale of Homer Hickham and his dream of creating a rocket seem so simple at first, especially when the film is set in a mining town, where the future is as clear cut as the lumps of coal in the mine. But Homer cannot follow in his father's footsteps. With the encouragement of Miss Riley,(a friendly teacher), members of his father's staff, and his friends, Homer attempts to make his dream a reality.<br /><br />Yet as in any true to life story, there are many stops along the way. Director Joe Johnston lowers us into the coal mines, where we witness the chilling plight of miners stooped beneath a ceiling of rock. With lit helmets and bent posture, they resembled alien insectoids more than humans in the darkness. The hacking coughs of the miners and the blackened faces were a constant reminder of the danger the miners faced in their work.<br /><br />Contrasting the mine shaft's lugubrious load are the images of Homer and his friend's rocket launches. Underneath the blue bowl of sky, rockets are placed upon a pad and launched into the stratosphere...And nothing can match the scene when Homer sees Sputnik for the first time.<br /><br />Yet what makes the film so endearing is the relationship between the characters. Homer's father is a classic hardened man...but he has a soft side as well. We see that he does love his son, despite their many arguments. The love and support of Miss Riley is evident as well. Best of all, the film is uncomfortable. It doesn't tie everything up in a nice bow. It tears at you, lifts you up. It keeps an air of reality, which is important in a film like this.<br /><br />This film can be considered a complete work. At first, I was disappointed that the film did not continue with Homer's life. I didn't want it to end. Then I realized...that's what a good film does to a person. If it has done its job, you won't want it to end. And 'October Sky' accomplishes just that. | 0 |
Let me start out by saying this movie has 1 funny point at the very beginning with the exchange between the narrator and George: Narrator:Huh? Wait a minute! Who the heck are you? George: Me new George. Studio too cheap to pay Brendan Fraser. Narrator: How did you get the part? George: New George just lucky, I guess. <br /><br />Sadly, that's the only funny part in the entire movie.<br /><br />It was still entertaining...But then again, i'm easily entertained...<br /><br />I wouldn't say this is the worst movie i've ever seen (that title goes to the terribly un-funny Disaster Movie...), This movie falls #7 on my bottom 15 list...<br /><br />If your a small child who is easily entertained, you'll enjoy this movie. If you're a movie-watcher who wants a good, funny movie, You'll end up shooting yourself halfway through this one.. | 1 |
Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film. <br /><br />The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only. | 1 |
'Son you must stop the experiments I have started!!' Too bad nobody said this too whoever green lighted this project!! I was almost literally dragged to this movie by a friend of mine for a midnight showing when we were in high-school. Now, a midnight movie in high-school on a Friday night, you are not expecting much, but c'mon!! And upon seeing it again years later I sill stand by my original opinion of it. Great special effects but so what!! Quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made. Unless you enjoy blood and guts and seeing some Hollywood vets (Steiger & Hunter) make fools of themselves for a buck. YUCK!!! | 1 |
After reading the book, which had a lot of meaning for me, the movie didn't give me any of the feeling which the book conveyed. This makes me wonder if Kaufman even liked this book for he successfully made it into something else.Either that or he is simply bad. Most importantly where is the lightness?! From the very first scene, music drownes out most of the dialogue and feeling, and this continues right through the movie. I think the makers thought that by having upbeat music playing right through the movie, this would make the story feel light- however they have completely failed here. Instead the music manages to give everything that 'movie feel', in a way dramatising events so that we linger on them, so that everything actually feels heavy.<br /><br />Another example of the how this adaptation fails is by embellishing the story line making it more dramatic. In the movie we see Franz passing Tomas on the street, who is on his way to see Sabina. The introduction of this chance meeting/passing, which im sure didn't happen in the book, gives Tomas' story more significance than it does make it light.<br /><br />There are many other examples where the continuity of the story has been changed, imo for the worst, however this might have been done because the book simply doesn't convert well into a movie, such is Kundera's style. This makes we wonder if all the generous reviewers on this site were writing with their book AND movie experience in mind rather than writing about just the film. A film which is as long as it is uncompelling. For those who haven't read the book yet I recommend just reading that. For those who have, I have to say you will just be wasting your time and probably end up here writing similar stay-clear warnings. | 1 |
Not only does this movie have a poor plot, bad direction, and terrible acting, its opens up a whole new meaning to racism.<br /><br />In this film 'White' chicks are the sluts, 'White' boys are the wana-be gangsters, and successful (yes again) 'White' businessmen are revolting toilet shitters.<br /><br />I just wonder what would happen if I made the exact same movie with the exact same story line and script, only I made it about Caucasians. 'He dude, its good to finally see your've stopped dating those black chicks'.<br /><br />Nobody seems to notice it, but watch this film again and you'll vomit at how they have portrayed the new Zealand 'white boys'. All of a sudden its white folks who are the main cause of gang aggression, and whores out for a quick bang. Only Samoans girls have a heart, there's no such thing as a non-slutty white girl.<br /><br />It disgusts me that they couldn't make this film without giving the Caucasian community in New Zealand a repulsive profile. If you think I'm overgeneralizing, go watch this film, and see what you make of the 'white boys'. Just because Samoans choose to call us 'white boys' in actual life, doesn't mean its funny. If I said hey black boy I'll loose my teeth.<br /><br />Don't see this movie. Don't waste your money. Don't be racist. | 1 |
This movie is witty, watchable and utterly touching. And now often do you get to see Jean Harlow (or any actress of this era, for that matter) give another woman a swift punch in the jaw? (Twice!)<br /><br />After Harlow's Ruby is sent to a reformatory after getting mixed up with Gable's Edward Hall (he of that cheesy yet endearing crooked smile), her predicament becomes all the more complicated when she discovers that she is pregnant, and she's convinced that this rake has abandoned her, but in fact, her love has reformed him and he comes to see her, despite the fact that he will be arrested, and from the help of a minister, are married.<br /><br />The wonderful relationship that Harlow shares with her fellow inmates is second only to her electric chemistry with Gable, who was her most frequent leading man. Her cynical character is a perfect match for Gable's smooth-talking crook. What's not to like?<br /><br />'You know, you wouldn't be a bad looking dame - if it wasn't for your face!' Ruby cuttingly remarks to Gypsy, her rival. 'If you're going to get that close to me, I'll have to open the other window!'<br /><br />Priceless!!! | 0 |
This is one of the worst movie I have ever seen. It's a thriller with a rather ridiculous ending. I watched this movie hoping for the best and instead found something truly bad. the movie starred two actors that I like very much, Rebecca DeMornay and Antonio Banderas. Sure they had decent chemistry together but for what? The movie's premise was bad to begin with and the execution just made it even worst.<br /><br />Miss DeMornay plays Sarah Taylor, a psychologist trying to analyze a convicted serial killer whose defense hinge on multiple personality disorder. That pretty much will give you a hint to where the movie is going and the identity of the killer. Early in the movie she gets an unexpected visit from her father. This being made in the 1990's when the bad daddy was the in thing in Hollywood is another clue to the ultimate conclusion.<br /><br />Mr. Banderas plays a mystery man named Tony Ramirez, who comes into Sarah's life. The whole first meeting and first encounter between Tony and Sarah is so badly done and so unconvincing it makes you wonder how it even got shot. And there's a sequence where the two of them are supposed to be knowing each other that is so sappy it doesn't seem to belong here. One thing that I would admit was that there was a sex scene that's very hot. Anyway creepy things start to happen after he arrives, weird packages arriving, things falling off the wall that could kill Sarah, incident that say things aren't normal anymore. <br /><br />Overall the movie was badly conceived, the editing at times seem jumpy, and the conclusion was laughable. Another thing that bugged me about this movie was the whole Orchestral music playing in the background. A more subtle musical score would have been better. I have to say this, no matter how bad the ending was, Miss DeMornay was very good in that sequence. It's sad that she never got first rate materials in her career. She's that rare combination of talent and beauty. | 1 |
Definitely at the top five of best John Garfield movies has to be Pride of the Marines. It's the true story of Marine private Al Schmid who at the cost of his own sight, while wounded held off a horde of storming Japanese on Guadalcanal. <br /><br />The story nicely segments in three parts, Al Schmid's home life where he's a simple working stiff who's just getting serious with a woman and who likes nothing better than his bowling night. Pearl Harbor is bombed and he's off to war as millions of others were.<br /><br />The second part is at Guadalcanal and we see part of the action where he's in an isolated machine gun nest, holding off Japanese troops. His action prevented Marine positions from being overrun, but a grenade does in his eyesight.<br /><br />And of course the third part is his painful adjustment to civilian life and to reassure himself that people aren't just caring for him out of pity, most of all that girl he was seeing Eleanor Parker.<br /><br />This film was broadcast on TCM on John Garfield's 95th birthday and there was a documentary on Garfield hosted by his daughter. One of the people interviewed said that Garfield was the actor most believable in working class roles in having and holding a union card. <br /><br />In that respect he was lucky in that he did land with Warner Brothers in Hollywood. Though he kept getting typecast in gangster roles in the tradition of that studio, Garfield was terrific in these parts because of his background, because he came from the kind of life Al Schmid had, with the exception of Garfield's Jewish background.<br /><br />In that respect he was perfect to play the part of a working class hero like Al Schmid who accepted the responsibility of defending his country. No super heroics here, just a guy who'd rather have been back in Philadelphia, but doing a job that had to be done.<br /><br />It's a great part for Garfield. It's a film one shouldn't miss. I do wonder though whatever happened to the real Al Schmid. | 0 |
Flat characters that you do not and never will care about. Cringe-inducing dialogue at places. No twists (they think they have one, but if you didn't figure it out after about 40mins you're not too bright). Lots of well know actors in roles and performances that, fortunately for everyone involved, will be forgotten as soon as the end credits roll.<br /><br />I don't mind 'slow' movies, but they've got to be going _somewhere_. This one doesn't.<br /><br />The plot wasn't what made this a direct-to-DVD movie, that's just a rather convenient excuse to try and drum up some fake controversy.<br /><br />The as-of-writing 37(!) ten (10) ratings must be from people involved with the production. | 1 |
My family and I normally do not watch local movies for the simple reason that they are poorly made, they lack the depth, and just not worth our time.<br /><br />The trailer of 'Nasaan ka man' caught my attention, my daughter in law's and daughter's so we took time out to watch it this afternoon. The movie exceeded our expectations. The cinematography was very good, the story beautiful and the acting awesome. Jericho Rosales was really very good, so's Claudine Barretto. The fact that I despised Diether Ocampo proves he was effective at his role. I have never been this touched, moved and affected by a local movie before. Imagine a cynic like me dabbing my eyes at the end of the movie? Congratulations to Star Cinema!! Way to go, Jericho and Claudine!! | 0 |
This definitely is NOT the intellectual film with profound mission, so I really don't think there is too much not to understand to in case you aren't Czech.<br /><br />It's just a comedy. The humor is simple, pretty funny and sometimes, maybe, little morbid. Some actors and characters are very similar to Samotári (2000) (Jirí Machácek, Ivan Trojan, Vladimír Dlouhý) so the authors are. But it doesn't matter, the genre is really different and these two films shouldn't be compared in this way. Jedna ruka netleská won't try to give you a lesson, it will try to make you laugh and there is some chance it will succeed.<br /><br />Not bad film, not the ingenious one, but I enjoyed it. Some scenes are truly worth seeing. | 0 |
I've noticed over the years that when a rock star makes his final album before his death, that album, if it's not his best, is usually prolific in some way and worthy of a listen at least. The album is usually good enough to cement a legacy. However, when it comes to comedians, especially mainstream comics who star in their own vehicles, their final movie is usually God awful. John Belushi had 'Neighbors', John Candy had 'Wagon's East', Chris Farley had 'Almost Heroes', Phil Hartman had 'Small Soldiers', and Rodney Dangerfield had this movie.<br /><br />'Back By Midnight', although it may not have been Dangerfield's very last film, is weak in every sense of the word. It wrapped filming in 2002 according to this website, and it's safe to say that it would have stayed on the shelves if Dangerfield was still alive. I have been a big fan of Dangerfield's since I was in my early teens, and it pains me to see how rotten this film was.<br /><br />What amazes me the most is that a number of other talented people took part in a movie with a very weak premise to begin with. Dangerfield, a great comedian who usually played his comic persona on film, is a prison warden who houses a close knit group of inmates. When the owner of the prison, Colonel-Tom-Parker-meets-Sam-Walton billionaire Eli Rockwood (Randy Quaid), cuts funding for the prison, the warden sends a group of inmates to break out of prison, rob Rockwood's eponymous convenience stores of consumer goods, and break back into prison with the loot. By taking what's in the convenience stores, they are (I guess) taking what they believe Rockwood owes them.<br /><br />With this flimsy premise, the movie sputters and stalls frequently. On top of that, the jokes that you think would be this movie's salvation are not even close to funny, not even from Mr. No Respect himself. That is incredibly disappointing too, because you'd expect a movie with Oscar-nominated (!!!) Randy Quaid, Kirstie Alley, Gilbert Gottfried, Ed Begley Jr., Yeardley Smith, and others to be at least a little bit funny. Instead, Quaid plays a character we've seen before in countless other comedies, Alley plays a British heiress with an awful British accent (could this movie not afford an actual British person!?!), and every joke was poorly set up and poorly timed by virtually every member of this ensemble. It was just not a good comedy in any sense of the word.<br /><br />'Back By Midnight' was rated R mainly for language (and one scene of nudity). The irony in this fact is that many of the jokes are so audience insulting that even kids (if you edit out the language) would walk out of this film. The physical gags are also incredibly predictable, especially when Alley's pet monkey torments Quaid's character. When the monkey grabs a pair of scissors and jumps on Quaid's couch, who wouldn't know where that gag was going?<br /><br />Being a direct-to-video comedy, of course I didn't expect any Oscar-winning material on here. The truth is, though, Dangerfield has made some great, timeless comedies before. 'Easy Money' and 'Back To School' are hilarious still, and were definitely not Oscar-worthy in the slightest. However, there's a difference between making a dumb comedy that's funny, and making a dumb comedy. With the latter kind of comedy, it seems like the filmmakers don't even try, which is precisely the case with this lame excuse for a wasted 90 minutes. Rest in Peace, Rodney, but add this film to your batch of forgettable comedies like 'Meet Wally Sparks' (1997) and 'The Godson' (1999). This film, dare I say it, is not even worth seeing. | 1 |
For the first time in years, I've felt the need to log into IMDb today to cleanse myself of this movie by writing a review, because it was just such a let-down to watch. The plot sounded awesome when I read it, I expected a minimal mystery thriller, a claustrophobic phantom hunt. Unfortunately, it all gets watered down so bad by a mundane, tiring love story and too many contrived and teeth-gnashingly stupid 'no-one-says-things-like-this-except-in-bad-movies'-dialogs that it's just agonizing.<br /><br />Here's a quick run down of the worst offenses of this piece of film: <br /><br />- The script relies so heavily on coincidences and the inexplicable and inexcusable stupidity of the main characters that it's just laughable. No, actually, it's angering. And lazy.<br /><br />- Related to that: Cheap thrills. A long parade 'just in time' moments.<br /><br />- The main characters. Alright, it seems that the screenwriter has never experienced actual human beings in real life, but instead has gained all his knowledge from bad movies. Thus, his characters are boring, lifeless second generation clichés. They are mere plot-devices, place-holders without the slightest bit of personality. They are 'man and woman in break-up who still love each other'. Never seen that one before except in 100,000 movies and it's not getting any more realistic or enjoyable. Think of the blandest two-dimensional Hollywood fare and you've got it. There is not one character in this movie that is even remotely fresh, charming, or interesting.<br /><br />- The far-fetched, vague resolution that's swaying very bad and needs just one nudge to topple, though the word 'resolution' might be ill-fitting here, because the movie is a swampy mess that isn't going anywhere anyway. By the time you're through, though, you don't care anymore. The last third of the movie I just fast-forwarded, because it was just so unbearable to watch.<br /><br />Okay, that's it. Whatever redeeming features this movie has, it all gets buried under incompetence. Don't watch this turd. | 1 |
This movie is juxtaposition of various super bad tough guy biker characters, loosely connected but with no real storyline. Some of the scenes are nicely filmed. If they took the same cast and crew, and made a movie called the Gent who was the coolest character in the film and came up with an interesting and continuous story maybe it could be decent. As it is, prepare for a lame series of tough guy character intros, all of whom do nothing but ride bikes around the desert all day and cause trouble while all staying never getting sunburned and keeping their hair and clothes perfect and never needing to look for a home or money, etc. There was a sort of background story about the characters pasts various people that were killed and a treasure that was probably supposed to be the plot. | 1 |
Films belonging to the 'film noir' genre usually contain similar elements: a 'deus ex machina' plot twist that drives the main character headlong into bedlam, a pretty but psychotic girl, a handsome but psychotic thug, lots of money, lots of brutality, and usually a denouement in the desert. Think 'High Sierra' or 'White Heat.'<br /><br />There is plenty of hard-boiled bad film noir out there. But when film noir is good, you can't take your eyes off the train wreck of human lives.<br /><br />It is this latter tradition that 'Blind Spot' belongs to. The film follows Danny Alton, a troubled teenager (superbly played with depth, grace, emotional integrity and downright plaintiveness by James Franco, who throws himself completely into this role) who has fallen in love with the rough-edged streetkid, Darcy.<br /><br />From the beginning, you know this is going to be bad.<br /><br />Darcy invites Danny to his house. But the house is empty and for sale, and a bloody check for thousands of dollars is on the floor. Danny is robbed of his clothing and possessions, but uses the check to track down the suicidal April -- Darcy's other lover. When they reach Darcy's real home, they find Wayne -- a thug hunting Darcy down for the money he's stolen. Together, the three manage to locate Darcy in a dusty, run-down motel in the desert. But that's only the beginning of the tale, as plastic explosives, drugs, gun-running, a creepy funeral home, bisexual assassins and a lonely half-finished house in the desert bring events to an explosive head in an alley outside a tattoo parlor in Los Angeles.<br /><br />This film contains some of the best noir cinematography I have seen in years. In one scene, Danny races on foot through the desert to the half-finished house in the desert where he believes Darcy may have been taken that evening by mobsters. A very long shot with sharp lighting effects shows Danny -- arms and legs flailing, palpable fear etched on his face (visible even at this distance), dust cloud trailing behind him as the wind whips in his direction -- racing across the desert flats toward the house. The loneliness, the desperation, the despair Danny feels is shocking depicted. There are many such scenes in this film, wonderfully crafted by the experienced Maximo Munzi. This is Oscar-winning material.<br /><br />The editing, too, is just astounding. The film contains little moments where the characters gain insight into themselves or their situation. Bits of time, where memory and feeling come flooding back. At these times, quick montages of images flash across the screen. This is superb editing by director-writer-editor Stephan Woloszczuk. In one early montage, Danny describes the wondrous feelings he has now that Darcy has entered his life. Quick images of Danny's diary flash across the screen: the words '4 life,' 'lucky' and 'safe' stop momentarily, while page upon page of words, the contents of a human heart, race across the screen -- out of focus, too quick to read. It's like the flood of emotion Danny himself feels.<br /><br />The flood of images reveals something else about this film: Just how beautiful Nathaniel Waters' production design is. Darcy's quonset-hut home is the perfect match of high-tech and slob (a tribute to the attentiveness of set decorator Kimberly Foster). The stunning desert house scene is just outright creepy. The ruined motel where Darcy hides out can be found in any abandoned small town in America. The creepy (and astoundingly lit) funeral home where the plot takes a horrific turn mixes starkness with the pall of death hanging over the entire film. (It's too bad the film's lighting director is not credited.) This film has a superb production design, one that enhances every single frame and every actor's performance.<br /><br />That's the fourth element of this film which makes it grab you and hold on to you: The acting. James Franco is a superb actor. Even in 'Spider-Man' -- where he was given practically nothing to do -- Franco showed that he understands human emotion like no other actor of his generation. He's no pretty-boy coasting on his good looks like Brad Pitt. Franco portrays deep emotion with full force. His performances contain pure human heart. Consider the scene in the phone booth outside the funeral home, where Danny collapses after telling April and Wayne that Darcy is dead. Lesser actors couldn't carry off the complete emotional breakdown of a human being. Franco does.<br /><br />Shawn Montgomery, in her first film, simply blows you away with her performance as the suicidal April. Deeply in love with Darcy, suffering from massive depression after having to bury alone her unborn child (after the fetus spontaneously aborts) in a perfume box in the woods, her life of luxury and perfection now a shambles: April is one of the best-drawn characters on film that I have ever seen. While Danny's relationship to Darcy is slowly teased out during the film, April's nervous breakdown is revealed only to the audience. Neither Danny nor Wayne seem particularly interested in her as a human being. April's despair when she realizes Danny has also been Darcy's lover is poignant and potent, even if it is truncated by the character's complete inability to feel any emotion for very long now. Montgomery brings to April a pathos that puts your heart through the wringer.<br /><br />Mark Patrick Gleason is given the hardest job in the film: Having to make something human and real out of the thug, Wayne. At first, Wayne is simply one of any number of violent, foul-mouthed, obsessed drug-pushers/gun-runners that appears in any number of films (from 'Kindergarten Cop' to 'Beverly Hills Cop 2'). Gleason does very well with what he's given, but he doesn't quite get to where you feel much for Wayne. It's difficult to say whether this is Gleason's problem or the material's. There is one moment -- where Wayne (who is Darcy's brother, although neither Danny nor April know this) reads Danny's diary and realizes the sexual and emotional link between the two men -- where you just know that Wayne is going to go homophobic on Danny's ass. But the explosion never comes. (Thank god! Trite plots are death to film noir.) Once the revelation about the siblings comes at the film's end, the audience is fairly astounded to realize the depth of love and compassion Wayne truly felt for Darcy -- so deep that Wayne accepted Danny's homosexual love for his bisexual brother. But this all happens off-screen. Gleason is never given a chance to act out Wayne's feelings. It must have been very frustrating for the performer.<br /><br />The story is rather inventive, although the smuggling device seen at the end of the film is likely to remind viewers of 'Diamonds Are Forever' (yes, James Bond). A traditional narrative voice-over (which proves Franco is as great a voice talent as he is a physical actor) provides terrific atmosphere, although it does tend to flow over into schmaltz a few times toward the end of the film (providing some unintentional laughter). Terrific locales play key visual roles in the film. Kudos to the location scout for finding such astounding buildings! The end of the film struck me as a bit rushed; not pat, but a little too firm for my film noir tastes.<br /><br />Now, I've seen audiences either hate or love 'Blind Spot.' Modern film audiences, exposed to the most extreme brutality and violence, often have little appreciation for the subtleties of film noir. My suggestion is to take a small group of friends who don't see despair, emotional collapse, desperation or depression as laughable. Take them to a small theater, where they can glory in the spectacle of the film's vision, but where their viewing won't be ruined by a crowd of people who won't recognize good film noir. Get them some popcorn (trust me, they'll be so engrossed they won't finish it), get them a soda, and let them be overwhelmed. Go some place bright and cheery afterward, to wash the grime and awfullness out of your soul. Because this film is so good at making you feel, you'll need that restorative. | 0 |
National Lampoon was once a funny magazine. Whether you liked the stoner hippie days of the late sixties or the smug and sassy coke-head days of the seventies (when the comedy was fortified with plenty of naked babes) depends very much on your date of birth, but everyone agrees that by the early eighties, middle age had killed off whichever remaining sparks of anarchic humour that the drugs hadn't, and offerings like this film and the increasingly terrible spin-off records shot further holes in the hull. Outside of a nicely illustrated title sequence, there's absolutely nothing to recommend this singularly depressing stinkbug. If you make it through the baffling opening segment, 'Growing Myself', hoping things will get better, tough luck - they don't. Whoever thought the idea of a woman being brutally raped with a stick of butter was comedy gold deserved to have his head handed back to him on a platter of dog mess. If there's ever a global shortage of guitar picks, the negatives of this rambling, incoherent ragbag of crummy ideas and dire performances may well serve some purpose. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.