review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Rita Hayworth is just stunning at times and, for me, the only reason to watch this silly film. Despite the overdone 1940s lipstick, Rita was one of the all-time glamor women of Hollywood. In fact, for a couple of years I can't imagine anyone that looked better, except maybe Elizabeth Taylor in her prime.<br /><br />Anyway, the co-star of the show, Gene Kelly, does not play his normal likable, at least the kind of guy we all know him from in 'Singin' In The Rain.' Here, Kelly's 'Danny McGuire' pouts much of the time. Phil Silvers, who I loved on TV at 'Sgt. Bilko,' is so stupid in here as 'Genius' you will just cringe listening to his dumb jokes....and they are stupid.<br /><br />The visuals are good with great Technicolor, which almost looks terrific. You get to see a lot of pretty women in here, too, not just Hayworth. Unfortunately, the story isn't all that much. It centers around Hayworth deciding about a career choice. Along the way, we get the normal shabby treatment of marriage and we get an insultingly-dumb ending. All in all, an unmemorable film, except as a showcase for Hayworth's beauty. | 1 |
When I rented this movie, I half expected it to be a low budget, plot less Indy film, but thought I'd give it a try. I started watching Part 1 and couldn't pull myself away till it ended 3 hours later. It was by far one of my absolute favorite films of all time. From the writing to the directing to the performances, I was laughing, crying, and singing all the way through Nan Astley's rite of passage from innocence to adulthood. Rachael Stirling is phenomenal in this film. I had never heard of her before, but now I will forever remember the vulnerability and strength I felt in her performance. She, Keeley Hawes, and Jodhi May are incredible as they guide you through the emotional turmoils that most feel as they deal with an alternate form of sexuality. The fact that the film is set in the 1890's not only educates the audience about homosexuality in that time period, but makes a statement about our society today. You must see this film and, probably like myself, you'll be making a trip to the store to add it to your collection. | 0 |
At the time I am writing this I see out of over 15,000 votes it has a 5.8 rating. Something is wrong with that picture. Personally I give it a 10. I can see a 7 at the lowest or a possible 8 if it was rated by people that see this movie for what it truly is. It is a movie based on a comic book hero. This movie won more than it's share of awards. Won 3 Oscars. Another 5 wins & 26 nominations .... right there tells me it's better than a 5.8. Some great acting from some very good actors, some great special effects and in my opinion will be if not already a classic for years to come. If you're looking for pure entertainment be sure to check out Dick Tracy. Definitely a movie you can watch more than a few times. Al Pacino is great as Big Boy Caprice. | 0 |
I was swept into this series just as surely as the sea would sweep me into its grip. Although it started out slowly, I found that the realism in depicting the ship, the variety of characters and lively dialogue keep me watching. The protagonist was destined to be challenged, grow and change on this voyage and I wanted to be there for it. I was not disappointed. The series took you from humor to tragedy and everything in-between, often in the same scene, the same breath. There was a wealth of emotional overlaying, interaction and expression--relentless and compelling to observe. The movement of the ship added an almost fanciful component to the many scenes, making the characters ill one moment and adding humor the next.<br /><br />Edmund Talbot is a complex character, the likes of which we don't see often. We may know where the captain stands or Mr. Prettiman, but they are older men, set in their ways. Talbot was young and arrogant, still learning, testing himself and being tested. He struggled getting along with others and made mistakes like a real person would but had a heart that could be touched, that grew with each hard-taught experience. I appreciate the excellent characterization; it's too rare in movies and television. | 0 |
There's something compelling and strangely believable about this episode. From the very beginning, an atmosphere of tension is created by the knowledge that a certain planet is going to explode within a few hours. Kirk, Spock and McCoy have beamed down to evacuate the inhabitants, all of whom seem to have left already for parts unknown, except for an elderly librarian.<br /><br />The librarian's polite but cryptic advice about where all the citizens have gone to is interrupted by a crisis in which all three Enterprise crew members find themselves unexpectedly hurled into different eras of the planet's past. Kirk finds himself in a time period resembling 17th Century England, while Spock and McCoy are stranded in a desolate, frozen waste. <br /><br />The intercutting between the two stories, and the different hazardous situations the men find themselves in is superbly handled, with return to the present an unknown chance, while the minutes are counting down to the planet's explosion. <br /><br />Imaginative writing and fine acting characterize this episode, with a touching performance by Mariette Hartley as a woman exiled to the Ice Age, and Ian Wolfe as the urbane Librarian. Somewhat reminiscent of the classic episode City On The Edge of Forever, this time travel story is a rich and compelling finale to the series, which concluded one episode later. This has to be one of the best of the whole series, especially remarkable given the generally lesser quality of the third season overall. | 0 |
I only voted excellent because this film took two snapshots of Americana: one in 1970, and one for every year afterward. <br /><br />Nothing's really changed.<br /><br />Joe is actually a jerk, a big stupid slob who's mad at everybody else in the world for his own idiocy. This ain't really a spoiler, but the key to the film is the big, corporate 'never does wrong' guy making friends with this semi-troglodyte Joe, and he gets some kind of...validation from his bigotry and stupidity and sense of being wronged. <br /><br />Yet, few would argue, that the dealer boyfriend did deserve to die. And those kids shouldn't have ripped Joe and Compton off. And Joe and Compton were actually getting into the hash and the young skin until they got ripped off. A simple film in many ways, except that in 1970 New York City was par to a battle zone thanks to Nixon's care, and all of the money going to the war in Vietnam. As I write this (2/25/2007) there is a 'very long wait' on Netflix for this film - which makes me happy because I think there are people out there who want to learn. This was a pretty good snapshot - not exact, a bit caricaturist - but actually pretty close to how it was back then. And the scary thing is - things haven't changed that much. Sure, there's no more welfare, but that just means the wage-slavery has won out. <br /><br />Amazing how millionaires will complain about not making enough money, then complain that $5.15 an hour is too much to pay their people. | 0 |
Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of 'At The Movies' in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.<br /><br />It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside 'edgy' projects.<br /><br />None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, 'two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole'. <br /><br />Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.<br /><br />Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): 'you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...'. I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's 'revolutionary' life! <br /><br />For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by<br /><br />1. never providing most of Che's story; <br /><br />2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition; <br /><br />3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events; <br /><br />4. barely developing an idea, or a character; <br /><br />5. remaining claustrophobically episodic; <br /><br />6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts; <br /><br />7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and <br /><br />8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success! <br /><br />Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.<br /><br />The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the 'revolutionaries', but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that 'Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time'. But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.<br /><br />Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant 'revolutionaries', some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.<br /><br />Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).<br /><br />The rest of Part2's 'woods' and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.<br /><br />Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read ('I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!'--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.<br /><br />Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.<br /><br />David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was 'uneven', Part2 actually 'goes rapidly downhill' from there, 'charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail', which '...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid'.<br /><br />Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.<br /><br />The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10) | 1 |
All but the youngest Americans are probably familiar with the iconic call of 'Laaaaaa-sie!' from little Timmy, or whatever the kid's name was, wailing his little tow-head off for his border collie friend. These same Americans may or may not be familiar with the fact that Lassie made the leap from television to movies (or was it the other way around? I'm clearly too lazy to do any research here), and The Painted Hills is one of those. It is irresistible to make a 'this movie has gone to the dogs!' pun, so I won't (even though I technically just did). But in a way, it has. Lassie (playing Shep, man's best friend) gets top billing. THE DOG GETS TOP BILLING. Now, I'm not familiar with how actors or their agents negotiate contracts, but here's how it plays out in my mind: <br /><br />MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, Lassie, in the credits, it's gonna be, 'and with Lassie as Shep!' LASSIE: Rrrrowf! Grrrrrrr. MOVIE MOGUL: Ha, ha, kid, calm down, calm down! LASSIE: Rrroo rrrrooo roooo. MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, I think I see. Co-lead billing? LASSIE: Rawrf! Rawrrrrff rawrf! MOVIE MOGUL: Oh God! Let go of my arm! Top billing! Top billing for you, now let go of my arm!!! <br /><br />So, the dog gets top billing, and with the rest of this shell-shocked cast, I suppose it's understandable. We get lovable old grumpus Jonathan the prospector, his young, whiny and apparently orphaned friend Tommy, sketchy loser Lin Taylor, and lovable old religious grumpus Pilot Pete. The meat of the plot here could be summed up in a few sentences, so I'll save you the actual pain of watching the movie. Jonathan is a prospector with a dog named Shep, and his partner dies while he is at his claim. He gets a new partner named Lin who becomes obsessed with the gold, and Jonathan for some reason gives Shep to whiny little crybaby Tommy. Lin kills Jonathan, Shep sees it, and Lin tries to kill Shep. Then Lin tries to kill Tommy. Then Tommy whines, it gets cold, and Shep carries out an elaborate plan to get revenge on Lin, which he (or she?) does. The end.<br /><br />Unless you have a deep, unsettling need to see a Lassie movie (even then, there's got to be a better Lassie movie than this), just avoid The Painted Hills. When it's not dragging on, marveling at Lassie's limited ability to 'act' (similar in style, perhaps, to Keanu Reeves - always the same facial expression, only the body moves), setting up the obvious using several minutes of film, or insulting Native Americans everywhere with its white-actor-in-facepaint 'Ugh! How! Me Running Bear!' stereotypes, The Painted Hills is fit only for Lassie fetishists or people who have some kind of connection to prospecting through their days as a grizzled old prospector lookin' fer that consarned vein of glittery gold! | 1 |
A young girl becomes a war-time marine's pen-pal, and when he visits at war's end expecting someone a bit more 'available,' comic complications ensue. All ultimately works out well, naturally, but not before everyone involved has thoroughly chewed the scenery. Errol Flynn's dead-on impression of Humphrey Bogart from 'Casablanca' is a highlight, as are various send-ups of his own swashbuckling image (the 'jumping' scene in the kitchen with Forrest Tucker is a riot). It is Tucker, though, who 'tucks' the movie under his arm, lowers his head and barrels over the goal line. He demonstrates the comic flair more fully developed twenty years later in 'F-Troop' and imparts a liveliness and energy that Flynn repeatedly plays off to raise his own performance. Eleanor Parker does a fine job as the woman being pursued, and little Patti Brady charms as Tucker's actual pen-pal friend. A fine, lightweight 'coming home' comedy in a genteel setting that children and romantics of all ages should find entertaining. | 0 |
**SPOILERS**Actually based on the novel 'The Brick Foxhole' about a gay man who was murdered by a GI on leave because of his sexual orientation. The movie 'Crossfire' is about a violently anti-Semitic GI who because of his own failures and frustrations in life takes it out on those of the Jewish persuasion. Whom he obviously feels threatened by.<br /><br />Getting himself tanked up at a local ginmill in D.C barley sober US serviceman Montgomrey, Robert Ryan, spots Joseph Samuel, Sam Leven, and starts to get a bit overly, yet sarcastically, friendly with him. It seems that Montgomery is a bit ticked off at Samuels because he's talking to his best friend and GI buddy Arthur Mitchell, George Cooper. Samuel is also getting through, which the Neanderthal Montgomery can't, to the sensitive young GI who's into the arts, he's an artist and painter on the outside, about war, WWII the war that just ended. As well as the shaky peace, if that's what it is with the dawn of atomic bomb, that's now following it in this very dangerous and unstable world. What really outrages Montgomery more then anything else about Samuels is that he's obviously Jewish. That more then anything else is enough reason for the racist Montgomery to want to do Samuels in. <br /><br />Samules Inviting Mitchell to join him and his lady friend Miss. Lewis, Marlow Dwyer, at his apartment to have a couple of drinks and continue the very deep and stimulating conversation that they started at the bar. This has a, what seems like, very jealous and feeling hurt and rejected Montgomery together with his also inebriated but somewhat clueless, in what Montgomery's plans for Samuels are, friend and fellow GI Floyd Bowers ,Steve Brodie, later that night go uninvited to Samuels' place. <br /><br />With the party already ended, with Mitchell and Miss Lewis gone, the two very drunk GI's unceremoniously crash the place. The fact that Samuels, in Montgomery's sick and anti-semitic mind, stole Mitchell away from him had him whip himself up into a white hot frenzy. Montgomery and Bowers break into Samuel's home raiding his well stacked liquor cabinet with Montgomery taking a couple of swigs, against Samuels' strong objections, of Samuels' very expansive and refined wines and spirits which is very unlike the watered down and cheap booze that the uncouth Montgomery is used to guzzling. This all soon lead to a violent and brutal assault on Samuels by the angry psychotic and drunk Montgomery, with Bowers out cold on the sofa from all the liquor he consumed, who beats the poor and innocent man to death.<br /><br />The movie 'Crossfire' then goes into a long and tedious, since it's obvious from the start who Samuels' killer is, investigation into why Samuels a wounded and decorated WWII veteran, who got the purple heart in the battle of Okinawa, was murdered with Montgomery acting like he's really interested, yeah sure, in finding Samuels' killer, which in reality is himself. This so-called voluntarily action on Montgomery's part in order to throw off suspicion on himself that he may be the man who killed him. <br /><br />Montgomery is so ridicules and even, for someone who smugly considers himself to be very smart, stupid in him constantly opening up his big yap and spewing out anti-semitic and racist epitaphs and slurs about the murdered Samuels! That only throws suspicion on himself and no one else. I guess that guy just couldn't help it.<br /><br />It's not enough that Montgomery murdered Samuels who in his sick mind was one of 'them' he even murders his friend the scared to death, in being implicated in Samuels' murder, Bowers! Who in Montgomery racist way of thinking is one of 'us'! Just because he was afraid Bowers would talk to the police in order to save his own sorry neck and thus have the spotlight put on Montgomey in Samuels' death. <br /><br />It doesn't take that long for the detective on the case Capt. Finlay, Robert Young, to see through Montgomerys obvious lies and deceptions and then has him set up by having another GI 'friend' of his Leroy (William Phipps), who was the butt of all his dumb and racist hillbilly jokes, set the arrogant creep up. This has Montgomery coming back to the scene of his crime, where he murdered Bowers, where a trap has been set up for him. That was all Capt. Finlay needed to get Montgomery to panic, when Montgomery saw that the jig was up, and make a run for it straight into the crossfire of a police ambush.<br /><br />Dated a bit now but very hard-hitting back in 1947 when it was released. 'Crossfire' addressed the horrors of anti-Semitism when it at the time was kept under the covers, and out of sight, in almost every post-WWII Hollywood movie about the evils of racism in the US, and in Europe. Even after the Second World War and with what happened to the Jews in it. When it should have been given the very full and honest exposer, to the movie going public, that it so rightfully deserved. | 0 |
I would bet a month's salary 'The Magnificent Seven Returns' (MSR) was made-for-TV. Other reviewers attest that MSR was a theatrical movie, and I'll take their word for it. The logical answer must assume it was originally shot for TV, and after a change-of-studio-heart, it was released theatrically instead. Every actor is primarily a TV actor: Mariette Hartley, Michael Callen, Ralfe Waite, Stephanie Powers... TV performers all. Lee Van Cleef split his time between TV and theater screens. Stephanie Powers has only made 3 or 4 'real' movie appearances in the last thirty years of a very prolific television career - proof positive this was shot for TV. Minor players are veteran small-screen actors who can be seen on old reruns of 'Gunsmoke', 'Wild Wild West,' 'Streets of San Francisco,' and so on.<br /><br />The ho-hum sets are identical to the Universal Studios Tour sets, often seen in old episodic TV. And the editing betrays the one-or-two-takes-hurriedness of TV, with limited camera movements, positioning, cutting, and lighting. The sound track, exclusive of the original Berstein themes, are straight from seventies television. Yep, I'd bet money it was shot for TV.<br /><br />That's an important point in evaluating MSR. Initially I watched MSR on cable assuming it was an old theatrical release. In comparison to the original 'Magnificent Seven', it's a joke, a cartoon, an amateurish attempt at movie making. Acting, lighting, writing, settings, action, cinematography, music (exempting the Berstein themes), editing, pacing,...on and on....all pale in comparison to the classic 'Magnificent Seven' which is close to the perfect 60's western, and one of the great action movies of all time. <br /><br />However, viewed as an early 70's made-for-TV movie, as I suspect, the film is actually better than average. Those unfortunate enough to live through the 70's as an adult, know what I'm talking about. MSR would have competed against 'Alias Smith and Jones' and similarly bland network shows. During the seventies, 'Gunsmoke' was a quality show, concentrating on character development rather than action, deemphasizing gun play to two shootouts a week. The first shooting, usually a murder, sets the hour's plot into motion - the second shootout climaxes the episode by killing the guest star, his nemesis, or otherwise resolving the conflict with Marshal Matt Dillon. MSR has more action than a whole season of 'Gunsmoke.' In this light - in this frame of reference - MSR is passable entertainment, a cut above the TV fare from that decade. | 1 |
I've got to say it. Gary Busey saved this film. If it were not for his fine acting talents this film would have been sub par. I recommend the film but just barely.<br /><br />The biggest difficulty with the film is its broad disregard for historical, geographical and physical accuracy. For example, why is Lubbock green and hilly? How come Buddy's producer Petty ignored? Where are the daily trips to the Clovis, New Mexico studio? Why is Nashville treated as a racist hate camp out to destroy the Holly sound? Why was Buddy's two week courtship to Maria treated as a complex, taboo, race mixing stereotype? Why are Buddy's tile boxes as light as feathers? Finally, why are the Crickets portrayed as trouble making roadblocks to Holly's talent?<br /><br />Taken on their face these inaccuracies should spell doom for any film proclaiming itself, 'The Buddy Holly Story.' However, Busey does deliver a stirring portrayal as the man whose death eventually led to the day the music died. | 0 |
At the time of this writing (January 25, 2006), I am saddened to hear of the passing within the past few hours of Chris Penn. Other than Footloose, The Wild Life is the film that I remember Chris most from.<br /><br />I still remember in the film, with slight fondness, of Chris' wrestling character and teammates sitting in their favourite restaurant with a huge plate of french fries in front of them, drowned in an entire bottle of ketchup.<br /><br />Anyhow, my comment is in regards to the title track sung by Bananarama. After these many years, I still remember the rumour (Canadian spelling -- lol) that Bananarama was called in at the very VERY LAST moment to compose the track for the film and that they wrote the song on the plane bound to the recording studio to record the song and just after they recorded the song they went to shoot the low cost video for their title track. I heard that this entire process (from start to finish) took 4 hours to do! If this is true, then they truly are worthy of being the most successful female band of all time.<br /><br />Anyhow this is just a rumour I had heard back in the day and still remember a generation later. Perhaps anyone who reads this can comment and clarify. Thanks. | 0 |
Peter Sellers plays Dick Scratcher (ha,ha), a cook for a pirate ship who takes over as captain after he murders the previous one. Although he's witnessed a treasure being buried, he begins losing his memory and the treasure map he obtains becomes blank. Thus, Dick is forced to find someone who can see and communicate with ghosts (do you place an ad for that?) and help lead a path to the treasure. It's mind boggling how anyone could have bankrolled this pointless film. Former Goon Spike Milligan replaced Medak as director, and given Medak's talents in the film The Ruling Class, you can probably guess which of the grainy, poorly lit scenes had Milligan in the director's chair. Peter Boyle makes a brief appearance in the film's first 10 minutes as the doomed pirate captain. He's probably quite thankful that Young Frankenstein was released the same year this was filmed and canned, so that he can keep this off his resume. Franciosa looks dashing as the handsome power-behind-Scratcher but he and Seller both look pretty desperate, with even Sellers' makeup and hair looking quite terrible. They had to know this movie was bombing even as they were filming it. With lines like these, I can understand any possible unease:<br /><br />PIERRE: (about to be hanged) You'll pay for this.<br /><br />SCRATCHER: No, I won't. I'll do it for free.<br /><br />And that's one of the GOOD jokes. It's amazing to me that much of Sellers prolific material is still in the vaults, but this was made available on VHS more than 15 years ago! How about someone stepping up to the plate and releasing in the US the well-received British TV program 'A Show Called Fred' starring Sellers, Milligan, and directed by the great Richard Lester? | 1 |
Don't know what film or version Jeff saw, but this entire film was awesome, not just Poitier and Going. The story was riveting, suspenseful and engaging. And for the guy complaining about historical accuracy, get real. Yes there were some Black deputy marshals in the Indian territory, but they had no authority to arrest Whites outside of Indian territory. As a rule, they did not 'patrol' but exercised warrants on criminals only. I did find it odd that Corby didn't seem to have 'any' Indian friends. I know their numbers were diminished but it still strikes me as strange. Even as Corby returned to his people, his Indian cohorts remain faceless and nameless. | 0 |
Dirty War is absolutely one of the best political, government, and well written T.V. Drama's in the 25 years.<br /><br />The acting is superb, the writing is spectacular.<br /><br />Diry War reveals the true side of why we are not ready to respond to a Nuclear, Biological, and Radiological Terrorist Attack here on American soil.<br /><br />Dirty War should be made into a major motion picture - It's that good! I highly recommend this great drama to everyone who desire to know the truth.<br /><br />This T.V. drama reveals how British Intelligence (MI5 & MI6) attempt to expose a terrorist plot and conspiracy to destroy innocent victims -because of England's involvement in the Iraq War.<br /><br />The scenes of different parts of London, England are also spectacular.<br /><br />Dirty War is a must see!!! | 0 |
It's hard to imagine in this day and age how popular and how much of an impact a Norwegian immigrant and would be chemist had on the American public and how much of a national tragedy his sudden death in 1931 was viewed. But Knute Rockne was an extraordinary individual who both revolutionized and popularized college football and put a small obscure Catholic college on the map.<br /><br />I've heard clips of Rockne's famous pep talks and it is uncanny how Pat O'Brien got the voice and the inflection perfectly. In what turned out to be his career role, Pat O'Brien captures the integrity and fighting spirit that was Rockne. Rockne is assisted by well by Gale Page as Bonnie Stiles Rockne who complained about her home being a training camp for Notre Dame, but never threw anyone out of her house.<br /><br />Rockne's first impact on football was as a player with Notre Dame not a coach. One fine day in the second half of a losing football game against heavily favored Army, Rockne and team mate Gus Dorais played by Owen Davis used the forward pass as an offensive weapon. Before that football was simply a game where you just got bigger guys for your side and ran through the defense. Rockne didn't invent the forward pass, but he popularized and football became a game of strategy as well as brawn after that. <br /><br />Rockne knew how to work the media also. Those well publicized pep talks of his were not just to inspire his players. They were well publicized and it was in a lot due to him that college football became a major sport in that Golden Age of Sports in the Roaring Twenties. <br /><br />Playing a small, but key role is Ronald Reagan. As George Gipp, the first player Rockne coached to achieve greatness, Reagan not only got a good performance, but forever after a name that was handy in his subsequent political career. That deathbed scene which Rockne swore was accurate became a Republican battle cry as many a GOP underdog went out to win one for the Gipper.<br /><br />I still remember a widely distributed photograph in 1981 that was one of the first of recovering President Ronald Reagan at Notre Dame's graduation with his old friend Pat O'Brien. Reagan always credited O'Brien and Dick Powell of all the Warner Brothers stars of the period as the ones who were the kindest and most encouraging to a young player on the lot trying to make good.<br /><br />Notre Dame itself owes its prestige to Rockne. It's quite possible that Notre Dame would be an obscure small Catholic College without the reputation that football brought to it.<br /><br />Though George Gipp and the later famous backfield of the Four Horsemen certainly had their place in the sun it was Rockne who had the reputation. It's no accident that Warner Brothers was able to get Amos Alonzo Stagg, Glenn 'Pop' Warner, Howard Jones, and William Spaulding, Rockne's contemporaries and coaches with great reputations in their own right to appear in Knute Rockne, All American. It was there way of honoring the guy who was number one in their profession.<br /><br />I think more than football fans will enjoy Knute Rockne, All American. Though you might become one after seeing the film. | 0 |
Strange enough, shorts like this get a 10. Why? They are hilarious. This is hilarious. Notice a lot of the quirky humor. Dated and childish to toon naysayers, but they don't know what they're talking about. They got to know that cartoons aren't just for kids. The art in this is probabley the best non-Road Runner art of the 1950's Looney Tunes shorts. It's hard to come across something better than the art in 'The Great Piggy Bank Robbery', although nothing ever will. This probabley runs a close 3rd or 2nd. Shorts like this one might have spawned witless LT rip-offs like Tiny Toons Adventures to try to squeeze out all the old comedy out over and over again, like how great movies like Scream spawned crap like I Know... which was released just to squeeze out all the old horror from Scream, but like Scream, this is great alone. Chuck Jones has had his faults with shorts once in a while but he does make up for them. Take Hopper for example. Few people like Hopper but it never ruined the LT reputation, but I'm sure this was his make up on things as such. Bottom line: This is not as good as 'Duck! Rabbit! Duck!', but close. Catch it on Cartoon Network frequently. | 0 |
This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. This movie has nothing positive about it. Some of you people actually like this movie! I've seen a lot of Dracula movies and I've liked everyone that I've seen, but when I saw this movie I said to myself, 'What the hell is this?' What a stupid movie. Now they have Dracula becoming who he is because he is Judas. For those of you who don't know who Judas is, he betrayed Jesus Christ and then felt so guilty he hung himself. You have to be kidding me. That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for why Dracula became evil. Who asked for a reason anyway? What a piece of sh** this movie is. Who ever came up with this sorry excuse for a movie should be beaten. Even the Dracula is horrible. If you ever saw this movie you wouldn't even think it was Dracula. Wow, Dracula 2000! Is that title supposed to impress me? Don't waste your time or your money on this trash. | 1 |
Sure, there's stuff here that the Coens and Elmore Leonard have done before, but so what? If you want entertaining, lusty and smart -- 'Judas Kiss' is near perfect. Prudes offended by tongue in cheek porn don't get it (Talk about getting your sex and violence out of the way straight up -- keeps your investors happy. That's independent filmmaking 101). As for the Brits making a bundle, I highly doubt it. This flick is clearly a labor of love and the budget probably not half of Mr. Tarantino's salary. Maybe guys don't like it as much as women. I thought it rocked. Go Coco! | 0 |
Thirst<br /><br />I found that this film was beautifully crafted. The cinematography was well above excellent. I though almost any frame could be frozen, and you would have yourself an exquisite photograph. The use of color stands out most. In many instances the camera was gliding through the scene and the work was flawless.<br /><br />Park Chan Wook's direction was fantastic. He had me believing unwaveringly in his far- fetched universe. There were several touches of verbal and visual humor (of a dark nature) that just added another depth to the picture as a whole.<br /><br />The acting I would not call outstanding but it suited the film and worked well enough.<br /><br />For me, the only place where this film lacked was in the story. At times, I will not lie, the goings on between characters just did not make sense. Sometimes the story flow was clunky. Overall, I was disappointed with the subdued narrative, and I felt it ran a little too long.<br /><br />But I still recommend this film, for its vision, its visual flourish, its dark humor, and at the end of the day, it is an interesting film even if imperfect. 9/10 | 0 |
Admittedly, before seeing House of Wax, I assumed it would simply be a second tier low quality teen slasher film following in the footsteps of such movies as The Darkness or Amityville Horror. After catching an advanced showing at my college campus, I can honestly say that the people at Dark Castle have done an excellent job with the task of making a slasher. <br /><br />Starting with the usual staples of a teenage horror film such as the small group of friends departing on a road trip, coming across an odd detour taking them through country back-roads, meeting creepy locals, after the slow but mandatory back-story this movie really reaches a fast clip. Paris Hilton appears in this film as many already know, but I really have to give it to her for her ballsy performance. Clearly her acting wasn't worth an Oscar, but the filmmakers use her appearance to its fullest by squeezing two blatant satires of her, let's just say, less noble media appearance into this film. Ms. Hilton also claims the title for the greatest death scene in the movie, and not simply because it was her death scene.<br /><br />This movie is full to the brim with jumpy moments and cheap scares, but Jaume Serra has definitely created quality suspense and tension between the characters. The causes for the horror are in part based on making the audience care for the characters, which we do. By making the usual buildup followed with a loud noise and jerked camera some other scary moments. These standard movie techniques adopted from many movies past are almost perfected with this film, and provide many good scares. In fact there isn't a slow moment after they get to the small town where the dreaded House of Wax museum is. <br /><br />This film owes a lot to many previous movies of this and other genres, though I'm not too sure how much came from the original 1953 movie of the same title. References to such movies as both Texas Chainsaw Masacres, Saw, and even Titanic, (see Paris Hilton's big death scene and you'll know what I mean) are common, but in the end the payoff will leave you scared and fulfilled if you are looking for a good scare with a few laughs. Not bad. | 0 |
First off, I would like to make it clear that I voluntarily subject myself to the viewing of terrible movies. I have seen what I thought were the worst of the worst. In my mind, movies could not get any worse than the likes of D.E.B.S., Leprechaun 6: Back 2 Tha Hood, and Terror Storm. Until I saw this movie.<br /><br />The Pirate Movie, without any exaggeration, is the WORST MOVIE IN THE WORLD. I was informed prior to watching that the movie was, indeed, awful, but I did not believe the allegations. Believe me when I tell you that this movie is simply an abomination to film.<br /><br />It starts out with a 3 minute clip of a boat of pirates apparently in the middle of a battle with themselves. 'The End' splashes across the screen. Unfortunately, it is not the actual end of the movie. The movie is about an unpopular, awkwardly nerdy girl named Mabel, who carries around a ghetto blaster and is attracted to ambiguously homosexual pirate boys. She drowns and has a overly drawn out hallucination in which she stars as a scantily dressed skank who falls in love with Frederic, who happens to have just crawled out of the ocean. He might actually be homosexual. The Pirate King has a ruby and diamond studded codpiece. It honks and squeaks when he squeezes it.<br /><br />There is singing in this movie. You might have the impression that this is a hilarious musical. It isn't. Trust me. They are the worst songs that you've ever heard, and by the end of the first original tune you will be searching for objects to pierce your eardrums with.<br /><br />There are 'references' to other movies in here. By references, of course, I mean 'obvious rip-offs.' The inclusion of Indiana Jones, Inspector Clouseau, and the lightsaber were, in fact, anti-hilarious.<br /><br />The dialogue is, in its better moments, painful to hear. The direction is flat out awful, and at one point you can see the stunt pad in the scene, which isn't very well hidden at all.<br /><br />In conclusion, if there is even the shadow of curiosity in your mind about this movie, get rid of it. There are times when people want to see how bad something really is, but this movie is not worth it. Put it completely out of your mind and never think about it again. If you cherish your mental capacity then I beg of you, NEVER EVER WATCH THIS MOVIE. | 1 |
His music, especially what we hear of it here, is very slow. From around the time of Bach's death composers had been working out ways of making music progress at a slower and slower pace: over a century later, Wagner and then Mahler wrote pieces that are about as slow as it is possible for music to get. -Of course, one can cheat by writing a 4/4 march and then specifying a tempo of, say, semiquaver = 1, but that tempo wouldn't be the correct tempo. Wagner and Mahler wrote music that is PROPERLY played at a snail's pace. Given that the slowness in no sense sounds too slow 'snail's pace' is the wrong expression. A critic wrote of a famous Wagner conductor, 'He doesn't beat time, he beats eternity.' For all I know this was meant as a compliment.<br /><br />I get the feeling that around the early 1970s directors worked out how to make the slowest possible films: there's 'Death in Venice', and there's 'Solyaris'. I much prefer the former. For one thing, 'Solyaris' steps over the line, or some line, and becomes soporific; 'Death in Venice' is gripping from beginning to end. Not much happens, but it all happens in the right sequence, at the right pace, with photography you can get lost in<br /><br />Another way of cheating with music, by the way, is to write something that doesn't really have a tempo at all. Such music sounds slow, but is really just unmusical, just as many films feel slow because they lack rhythm and form. 'Death in Venice' isn't one of them. Beautiful in every respect, it will remind you of the timelessness and contextlessness of quality. You need no theoretical knowledge to respond to Visconti's mastery, as you do to respond to a lesser director's incompetence. It's a great work. | 0 |
I still have grainy, late night, no-cable, cheap VHS dubs of this show from waaaaaayyyy back when, late-night-commercials and all, when I would stay up to whatever weird hour they would slap this show on -- just so I could tape it.<br /><br />The series wasn't really ABOUT Freddy Kreuger - only the first couple of episodes actually involved him as anything but a Rod Serling-esquire announcer. Instead, each episode was a distinct nightmare, using the traditional horror themes of horrific childhood, dating, cannibalism, dating, money, death, dating, and... hmm... dating.<br /><br />From the episode where a teenage boy accidentally says 'I will love you forever' to the wrong girl, and is stuck with her (literally, at least for a moment, they grow together...), to the one where a young stewardess goes home with a strange man, only to find herself in his cabin, where he has a trophy room full of other stewardesses, and one I only vaguely remember which compared blind dates to hockey (and the injuries and penalties that go with it) - dating was definitely the scariest thing in the series.<br /><br />One episode had Jeffrey Combs (Re-Animator, etc.) as a motivated pizza merchant with a tasty new secret ingredient. Not original, but still creepy and fun....<br /><br />Even so, some of the episodes were great. My personal favorite was 'It's a Miserable Life' where a young man is trapped working in his parents' burger joint, when he wants to go off to college. Stuck talking to himself and doing little puppet shows with old cheeseburgers - until one late night when a weird guy comes through the drive through and suddenly his life is not the same. No, not Freddy, just a thug with a gun - turns out the whole mind-blowing episode is just that - the last thoughts that pass through the kid's head... along with a bullet.<br /><br />The second half of the same episode (many of the Freddie's Nightmares episodes were essentially two vaguely connected short stories) followed his girlfriend, who was also wounded, but not killed in the drive-by, and who is taken to 'the hospital from heck' - they cram in all the most creepy hospital nightmare clichés, and then some - from accidentally having your mouth sewn shut - or waking up during an operation - to having your dead boyfriend try and lure you into the morgue for a little cuddle.<br /><br />Again, that was my favorite.<br /><br />Some of the episodes were much dumber, like ALMOST ALL OF THE ONES THEY'VE MADE AVAILABLE ON VIDEO. They put the crummy ones out as representative of the series, and then nobody likes them, thinks the show stunk, and then they don't put any more on video. It's a Miserable Life is only available on PAL DVD in England - but I'm still gonna buy it. | 0 |
It's been quite some time since I've watched this LOTR. I am currently hunting for a copy to purchase. Bakshi's work is quite true to the original work. The visuals are engrosing and sometimes haunting.<br /><br />Drawbacks? Occasionally, the movie is confusing or muddled. There are one or two times where the storyline slows to a crawl. But, overall -- buy this movie. It's great for kids, adults and collectors. | 0 |
Years ago, when I was a poor teenager, my best friend and my brother both had a policy that the person picking the movie should pay. And, while I would never pay to see some of the crap they took me to, I couldn't resist a free trip to the movies! That's how I came to see crap like the second Conan movie and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN! Now, despite this being a wretched movie, it is in places entertaining to watch--in a brain dead sort of way. And, technically the stunts and camera-work are good, so this elevates my rating all the way to a 2! So why is the movie so bad? Well, unlike the first Rambo movie, this one has virtually no plot, Rambo himself only says about 3 words (other than grunts and yells), there is a needless and completely irrelevant and undeveloped 'romance' and the movie is one giant (and stupid) special effect. And what STUPIFYINGLY AWFUL special effects. While 12383499143743701 bullets and rockets are shot at Rambo, none have any effect on him and almost every bullet or arrow Rambo shoots hits its mark! And, while the bad guys are using AK-47s, helicopters and rockets, in some scenes all Rambo had is a bow and arrows with what seem like nuclear-powered tips!! The scene where the one bad guy is shooting at him as he slowly and calmly launches one of these exploding arrows is particularly made for dumb viewers! It was wonderfully parodied in UHF starring Weird Al. Plus, HOT SHOTS, PART DEUX also does a funny parody of the genre--not just this stupid scene.<br /><br />All-in-all, a movie so dumb and pointless, it's almost like self-parody! | 1 |
I cannot believe I never added my two cents about this film as yet!<br /><br />This is one of the best films of all time. Many critics and movie-goers alike talk of John Carpenter's 'Halloween' for setting trends and being 'his best work'. Those folks have not seen this version of 'The Thing' because it is right up there with 'Halloween'.<br /><br />John Carpenter's work shines in this film. He took a film that was already made and instead of 're-making' the film, he made the book the first film was based on! Brilliant.<br /><br />The casting of each man was great, the tension between them was real, it made me scream, made me scared, made me guess, made me laugh, made me question, even up to today 'who goes there?' in that film. This film had no Hollywood sweetie pie or funny-type ending, and what a bold move not to have one in 1982. Another brilliant move.<br /><br />I was at the screening for this film when I was on vacation in Southern California. The audience at the screening went wild! I carry those memories for years, it was so much fun! We all thought that there was no way on God's green earth this film was not going to be a hit. But by box office receipts, it was a dud because of 'ET, The Extra Terrestrial' and 'Poltergeist' two very good family oriented films took the box office in 1982 when this film came out.<br /><br />This film was what I, as a horror film adult buff was looking for, a horror/thriller with an adult script, and real adult actors. Not kids playing adults. Not little Miss 'big-breasted' scream-queen of the day running around screaming for titilation BUT real guys with real problems delivering some of the best monologues you'll ever hear. Heck, being a feminist, I didn't even MISS women in this film! And good for Mr. Carpenter by not putting one in there, it really wouldn't have made sense! (Unless, 'The Thing' was actually feminine! Something to think about!)<br /><br />I saw special effects of that time I had never seen before, I saw makeup that made me sit up a few nights. This is what horror/thrillers of today are missing. Today, the Directors wimp out. Today, the Studios wimp out. Too much CGI and not enough belief, too much CGI and not enough story, not enough imagination. You leave the theater and in a week -- or less -- you forget about the film and move onto the next grand film opening. This one stays with ya. That's one of the marks of an excellent film.<br /><br />On many reviews I've written how now paying $10 for a film is horrid. For films like this one, you'd pay it and not feel slighted. This film is NOT for everyone.<br /><br />I find it horrific that they lable this film a 'cult' film. I find that the audience is broader than many would lead you to belive and although not a commercial success in 1982, this is an example of how releasing a darn good film on the wrong date can make a darn good film look bad. After John Carpenter's film, many people copied many techniques, make-up, special effects and story lines from this version of 'The Thing'.<br /><br />I am now excitd to go on record and state that this film is one of the best films of all time, very much under rated. Please see it uncut, please see it in letterbox and please hear it digitally. You'll talk about it for years as well. | 0 |
Once again, there's dastardly government agencies stopping at nothing to prevent public knowledge of some momentous events. In this case, the discovery of a new underwater species that could threaten the planet's ecology. Although the creature is no E.T. he does seem to befriend one youngster, who protects it at all costs, not realising it is but an infant of the species and is going to get a lot bigger and badder This 2005 series had a lot going for it. It is family drama, sci-fi, thriller with more than a few comedic moments. The characters are believable, well acted and well photographed. The show holds the attention. Of course, as with any sci-fi show, suspension of disbelief has to be achieved. And I think it is here. Alas, the series crashed after season one, so we never get a resolution. Infuriating.. There is a general comment I feel worth making here. Many TV networks and/or film distribution companies cancel, quite arbitrarily, seemingly excellent TV series particularly intelligent sci-fi ones. Now there may be some very good reasons for this, although the audiences are treated with utmost disdain and rarely told the reasons. This in itself is annoying. What really gets my goat is that, having cancelled the series, they then issue the thing as far as it's got, on DVD, in an obvious attempt to milk the cash cow as far as possible. For previous viewers of the series that's OK, they know what they're in for but
many of these unfinished series end on a cliffhanger. Two that come to mind immediately are 'Surface', and 'Odyssey 5'. If you've heard good things about the series and not seen it you go and buy the blasted DVD and end up with an unresolved plot issue it makes me very angry!! I enjoyed 'Surface' immensely and didn't realise the poor characters would end up in a situation that looked totally untenable and we'll never know what happened next. I believe that there should be a prominent notice on all such DVD issues, to the effect that the story is unfinished. Nowadays I check on TV series purchases (IMDB is an obvious excellent starting point) to find out whether a 'complete' series is really complete or not. Buyer beware. | 0 |
A very intelligent and exciting thriller that doesn't rely on action but on situation, which is all to rare these days. I would compare this film to The Day of the Jackal, another film about the pursuit of a dangerous international criminal. The acting across the board is superlative - Aidan Quinn has a tricky double role as the vicious terrorist Carlos and as the Navy man who impersonates him. Donald Sutherland plays the amoral CIA agent who hires him. Ben Kingsley plays the Israeli officer who assists in the plan. This is a very tense and effective film, and it's remarkable considering just how little action there is in it. The first half of the film is all set-up, as the Navy man prepares to impersonate Carlos. The second half is a breathless actioner, the action coming out of the characters and their situations, thus making it all the more gripping. A really tight film that shouldn't be overlooked. | 0 |
Dear Mr Ram Gopal Varma, I don't know in which capacity I am writing this letter to you. I am a never-say-he's-finished Amitabh Bachchan fan, having sat through his cock-chasing act in Jaadugar. I also demand some important designation in The Godfather fan club, having watched the Coppola classic more times than you have delivered flops from your Factory. And, of course, I have been a big admirer of yours, right from the time you had Nagarjuna wrapping the cycle chain around his knuckles in Shiva.<br /><br />When you announced Sarkar and called it your take on Godfather, all one wanted to know was the date the first look would be out, the Sunday the promos would go on air, the Friday the film would be released. It was sheer wish fulfillment at work knowing that you, and not someone hovering between the mustard fields of Amritsar and the tulip gardens of Amsterdam, had taken up the task of recreating the Puzo pages on the Bollywood big screen.<br /><br />Your cast couldn't have been more you working for the first time with the legend, casting Abhishek as his screen-son, giving Kay Kay a role he has deserved for years, bringing back forgotten faces like Supriya Pathak and Rukhsar, and picking complete non-actors like Katrina and Tanishaa to join the list
Before July 1, you had made Sarkar the most-awaited film ever for any Godfather freak who worshiped Bachchan.<br /><br />The opening credits stoked the hope that your stunning sepia-tinted promos on the telly had kindled. But now, you labeled Sarkar your tribute to Godfather instead of the word 'inspired' which you had been using all along. Probably you don't want the two creations to be compared but when the medium is the same, then a Kaante would be compared to Reservoir Dogs and a Reservoir Dogs to a City On Fire.<br /><br />Also, when your first and last sequences the heart of any screenplay treatment are all about the establishment and the transfer of power, you can't keep the Nagares and the Corleones apart, even if you replace the American mafia moves with Maharashtrian political power play.<br /><br />But you got it wrong, Mr Varma
You wanted to show Amitabh in his 70s avatar, as rustled up by the pens of Salim-Javed. You wanted him to lurk around larger than life. You wanted him to be his own brand(o). Then how could you steal his voice in the name of using silence? How could you keep him rooted to his chair in the hunt for interesting camera angles? How could you leave him stranded without his voice and stature, the two things that have made his B so big? Coppola's Godfather cameraman Gordon Willis masked Brando's eyes throughout the movie because it didn't have the power to match that drawling husky voice or that sudden snap of the fingers. But you tried to repeat the Malik act from your very own Company. But Bachchan is no Ajay Devgan his forte doesn't lie in the stagnant stare and the suffocating silence. You made the man look like a comatose patient, who's reminded from time to time to look at the cue cards and mouth those predictable one-liners. For that, Agneepath's there, any given Saturday.<br /><br />Which Bachchan fan would go and watch Kay Kay Menon stealing the thunder from under his nose in the scene where Sarkar asks Vishnu to leave his house? Which Amitabh aficionado would go and watch him focus on achaar and carom, in a film that talks about power with a capital P in the promos? We can't handle so much in the name of restraint and understatement! You don't even allow the camera to rest on him for five seconds when he learns that his son wanted to kill him. Give me the old-school camera-only-on-Bachchan style, any given Saturday.<br /><br />Kudos to you, of course, for making an actor out of Abhishek, first in Naach and now in Sarkar. You also allow him to show Mallika Sherawat that he can run as well as his father. Even in the short prison sequence, you really make the Bachchans come out of the text, an opportunity Shaad missed in Bunty Aur Babli. Wish the film could have been more a father-son story rather than a chaotic conflict between caricatures in the name of characters, who pop up like the ad windows on the Internet.<br /><br />You also let the women more into the script than Puzo and Coppola did and again, you deserve all the Brownie points for squeezing them in so effectively. Pathak is a welcome return as the mother in the middle, Tanishaa lovable as the lovelorn girl, Katrina a revelation as Abhishek's confused lover and Rukhsar's silence speaks volumes.<br /><br />But sub-plots do not a classic remake. When your free-flowing camera tries to make every frame look hatke and your loud background score irritates incessantly, we keep getting reminded that we are in a Factory. Well, maybe not a Nino Rota score but Sarkar certainly deserved better than those Govinda, Govinda chants and uncalled-for flute interludes.<br /><br />Mr Varma, some of your Factory directors tell me that you are involved with every project, from overseeing the shooting schedules to supervising the editing sessions. Perhaps, in the middle of all the various storyboards, the Bhiku Matre scream is being muted by the Subhash Nagare silence. Perhaps, you need to bring the shutters down on the factory and work on a single homemade product. Otherwise, your products would remain products, to use and throw, not treasure. And movie buffs like me, for whom there are no hits and flops, only good cinema, would rather choose a film without Factory finish, any given Saturday. | 1 |
Leaving aside the drawbacks and deficiencies of the film mentioned by other viewers I must say that it seemed to me a film about power,which is in my opinion one of the most luring illusions. I saw the drama of an emperor and people. It seems to me that the director wanted to pose a question of what the benefit of nation is and what the price of 'happiness' for all is. Is there justification for the enforced benefit and 'happiness'? How much can be forfeited for the nation's security and peaceful existence? Is the idea of a powerful would-be empire worth reducing to misery and killing thousands of its citizens now? It seems to me that the emperor himself does not know the answer and seeks to learn it all the time the film runs. He is desperately torn between these desires and at the same time psychologically harassed by the discovery of his true origin. He seems to half hate his subjects for having to renounce his father and his love, half love the people as a good emperor should. No wonder his actions are controversial and emotions confused. It seems to me that as another film presenting the problem of power of man over other men the film is a success. | 0 |
An excellent performance by Alix Elias highlights an otherwise mis-directed and confused pile of dreck. I have seen this movie, perhaps 12 times, and with each run through, I find less and less pleasure. Why are Munchies so lustful? Is that ever explained? Are they a reflection of our wanton, boorish 'animal selves?' If they are, why not make it more obvious? Why not peal back just a touch of the subtlety that plagues this movie, and make that connection explicit? Another part of this movie that bothers me to no end - motorcycles. The jacket the little monster wears on the front cover seems to suggest 'street-wise' traveler. The sun glasses say 'pretty cool dude.' With all this I'm ready for Easy Rider meets the Muppets. All I get is Munchies (1987). What gives? Stick to the Gremlins series if you're a fan of diminutive, wise-cracking, reptile puppets - it'll give you the treatment you deserve. | 1 |
I was watching the sci-fi channel when this steaming pile of crap came on. While not as bad as Wynorski's 'Curse of the Komodo', this still sucks...BAD. Wynorski uses the same island as in 'Curse of the Komodo', as well as the same actors and house. The effects are top notch (suprising) but thats about it........I don't know what else to say about this movie.......oh yeah! As in 'Curse of the Komodo', the government gets involved and decides to bomb the island! Also....when i saw this part i laughed hysterically...A KOMANBRA!!! (part man, komodo AND cobra!). Overall this movie is utter crap even on bad movie standards. Just remember if Jim Wynorski had anything to do with a movie....steer clear....to avoid from falling asleep keep repeating 'It's almost over..it's almost over...'. 0 out of 5. | 1 |
There's plenty to appreciate here: spectacular locations and flying sequences; period costumes, props and sets; and competent writing and acting. However, to enjoy a drama, we need at least one principal who exhibits some qualities that we can like or admire. In this bunch of catty snobs, we found only one character who is at all likable a hapless enlisted man in a fleeting peripheral role as their helpless victim. From the reviews here, it is clear that we are completely out of step, but we did not find their malicious-schoolgirl behavior amusing or entertaining. Even the dog is detestable. We threw in the towel after two of the six episodes, so you should discount these observations accordingly, but what I could find written about this mini-series gave us no cause to expect character transformation or redemption. | 1 |
Just finished watching The Groove Tube which I first saw about 23 years ago when I was a teenager staying up way past my bedtime watching HBO with my brother and his best friend. We had also watched Animal House just before that so we saw two movies that starred an SNL alumna and had some naked breasts. Good thing our parents were asleep the whole time! Anyway, there were lots of weird and funny things in this movie that were eye-openers like the Brown 25 sequence of the Uranus Industries commercial ('with the taste of beef stew' says the announcer as what is apparently human excrement comes out of a white tube. Ewww!) or the face of the puppet talking about VD (a scrotum with a small penis with eyes glued on). Chevy Chase and Richard Belzer made their feature film debuts here. Chase is hilarious whether doing a Geritan spot with a woman stripping, having his hands have sex in a 'Let Fingers Do It' commercial, or singing 'Four Leaf Clover' with co-writer/director Ken Shapiro drumming his hands on his head. Belzer teams with Shapiro in 'The Dealers' movie, and on 'Channel One Evening News' with one wild bit having Belzer as a black prostitute trying tricks on reporter Ken who plays Lionel here. 'Lionel, that sounds like a train that I'm going to ride like a Choo-Choo!' Other outrageous bits include 'The Koko Show' with Shipiro as a kid clown show host who, after ordering the 'people over ten' to leave the room, reads requests of his viewers like passages of 'Fanny Hill'! Or how about the Olympics segment with a German couple making love being announced by two men (one of them Spanish) as they get explicit while 'Please Stand By' keeps interrupting on the screen! Or the animated segment on 'The Dealers' which depicts dancing toilets after Shapiro ingested some marijuana! Not everything's so dirty. Besides the 'Four Leaf Clover' skit, at the end there's a highly amusing music segment with Ken lip-syncing his own recording of 'Just You, Just Me' while dancing with suit and briefcase around the city with occasionally a cop (co-writer Lane Sarasohn) joining in. So, in summation this is one weirdly, funny movie that seemed to influence other like films (Tunnelvision, Kentucky Fried Movie) and possibly Saturday Night Live (which made Chevy that show's first star) and, despite some dated elements, can still amuse today. P.S. While I liked hearing Curtis Mayfield's 'Move On Up' during the gorillas dancing/hitchhiking beginning sequence, I did wonder what the point was with the sequence of the hitchhiker and the woman who picked him up, having them running from the car, stripping on the run, and then having the naked man get caught by the cop who stopped on the road. Guess it's one of those '70s streaking things... | 0 |
This was the very first movie I ever saw in the theatre by myself. I was 7 years old, and to this day it is one of my favorite movies. It's pure smarmy cheese. The cartoon was marketed towards young girls, selling dolls with soft bodies and big plastic heads, one for every colour of the rainbow, with their own special animals, 'sprites' and even a talking rainbow horse. Typical of the time period, each show was about how hope, togetherness and magic can make 'everything all better'.<br /><br />The movie concerns the coming of spring, when all the light and colour returns to the world, but this time it just isn't happening for our lovely hero. A spoiled Princess plots to overtake the soul lightgiver (and implied life giver)of the universe, which happens to be a giant diamond, for her own devious purposes, with no regard for reality, and now Rainbow and her newly found friends Orin, Onyx and Chris must save the universe. As I said before, it's cheesy, but it's cute, and it's exactly like all of the other cartoons from that time period, like the CareBear movies, Strawberry Shortcake, Rose Petal and the Smurfs. All movies created to sell dolls to kids. And it works. :) | 0 |
A swedish splatter movie? Has the world gone insane?<br /><br />Probably not, but it's still not a common sight in these days with swedish gore-flicks, the b-movie business in Sweden seems to have troubles these days, long gone are the golden days of 'Rymdinvasion i lappland'. And this movie seems to have some troubles on its own: it's just too much talk in it, it still manages to be somewhat amusing mainly for the good FX, which are great for a b-movie. The script and most of the acting is still pretty bad though, but that actually don't matter that much, it's supposed to be a gore flick and nothing more, that's where it goes a bit wrong for some reason. There's is simply not enough blood to fill the void. <br /><br />Every person who know about Gert Fylking will have a good laugh over his role as a sgt. though. I nearly laughed my ass off. It's really that hilariously bad. <br /><br />Besides the good parts I've listed there's really nothing else to recommend here unless you're starved for swedish B-movies.<br /><br />4/10 | 1 |
(SPOILERS AHEAD) Russian fantasy 'actioner' (and I use the term loosely) that I've been trying to watch for over a year. I've finally gotten to the end and now I wish I didn't put in the repeated effort.<br /><br />In an effort to save two hours of your life I'm going to tell you he plot- a guy who has the ability to project a long blade out of his arm returns home to see his mom. Things turn ugly after he is beaten up by the mafia boyfriend of an old girl friend. He takes revenge on the guy when he brings the girl home. The guys mafia mom sends her men out to get revenge while the cops begin looking for him as well.<br /><br />Very little is said. no explanation is really given for anything (like why they lock id girlfriend in an asylum) and the action, for the most part is all off screen. The film essentially consists of a guy who looks like Adrian Brody looking intense and not saying anything, killing people (off screen-most of the action happens off screen). It looks good, is well acted and had there been some form of reason for what is going on it might have been a good film. Hell, I would have liked some sense of real character development or back story (all we know is that the guy was picked on as a kid). The movie runs the better part of two hours and it feels like its six. If they weren't going to tell us anything they could have at least picked up the pace so it seemed like it was moving too fast. No instead we get the hero on a boat. The hero in a bus, the hero walking, the hero looking disturbed.Hero with his girl. It really annoyed me since I think this could have been a good film if they had simply done something or had someone actually say something meaningful other than give instructions to 'get this guy'.<br /><br />4 out of 10. Its about four hours (all my attempts to see this) I'll never get back. Only for those who want to see a brooding Russian action film with very little action | 1 |
I have never read the book, but had always heard good things about it. So when the movie came out I considered going to see it, but never did. Now it has come out on DVD and I have thought of renting for a few weeks now. Last night I finally picked it up. I am very glad that I did.<br /><br />Cinematography was incredible in this movie. The scenery, etc,... all made you feel like you were in Kabul. The acting was all very good, although I am sure some of the emotions were lost in the translation. And the story itself was good and pure and uplifting. Yes the story was very sad, but at the same time uplifting.<br /><br />And I will be honest, as a white American,... made me see aside of Kabul and Afghanistan that I never picture in my mind when I think about it. Showed me a Afghanistan before the Taliban. Showed me a place that was beautiful. Showed me a place with good hearted people. I community that was like a family, aside from a few bullies.<br /><br />Anyways, I recommend this movie to everyone. It is one of the best I have ever seen. | 0 |
I searched for this movie for years, apparently it ain't available here in the States so bought me a copy off Ebay.<br /><br />Four young hunters and three of their girlfriends venture into the woods searching for a bear that apparently has killed several campers. What they find is an ex-Vietnam vet gone crazy (he kills some of his victims using a glove with long metal finger nails a la Freddy Krueger). As soon as the night falls, one of the girls goes for a walk after a brief argument with her boyfriend, she gets killed. After one of the group finds her body, they all hide in their tents waiting for daylight. Once the sun comes up, all of them try and make it out, but fall victim one by one.<br /><br />Seven bodies, not a lot of gore, but a couple of good murders, especially the girls'deaths. The guys get killed in somewhat bloodless ways (blown up in car, shot to death, knife through head). <br /><br />Overall, INFERNAL TRAP is a nice slasher film from the late 80's. Nothing new, just well acted, fast paced and some pretty ladies. 10 out of 10. | 0 |
I thought that One Dark Night was great! It deserves a 10! As to a statement made by one user, the dead WERE actually zombies in this movie. A dead person brought back to life IS a zombie, regardless of the method or cause for/of being brought back to life. The 'zombies' in this movie are used to frighten the girls, not to feed off of them, like traditional zombies. This movie is a definite star among horror flicks of the 80's. The score and atmosphere are quite eerie, and the audience is kept in suspense throughout the mausoleum scenes. The acting is actually convincing, with genuine expressions of horror at the sight of the undead. Although I enjoy all zombie flicks, this movie is a refreshing change from the typical 'flesh-eating zombie' movie. | 0 |
I very much enjoyed Bruce Almighty but the minute i found out that there was going to be a sequel WITHOUT Jim Carey, i knew it was bad. Although Steve Carell was hysterical in the first film ( the babbling scene is one of my favorites) , and, in my opinion , deserves an Emmy for his role in The Office , he is pretty weak in this dull comedy. I'm curious how much work the script writers put, because we could just as well do without the story . But even if we discard the huge plot holes (why did elephants and lions come to aid Evan when the flood only concerned that particular area of Washington) the film is simply ...not funny. I did not laugh once and as far as i remember, a comedy is supposed to make you laugh . Or giggle at least. Not this one.<br /><br />There is small hope however. Evan Almighty has 'family' written all over it and maybe a family viewing might be enjoyable,(kids might be entertained by the variety of animals and the silly jokes) , but ,for me, Evan Almighty simply doesn't cut it.<br /><br />I give it a 4/10 and hope that Carell will be more careful when choosing his roles in the feature. | 1 |
Joline (Heather Graham) married Carl (Luke Wilson) and about five hundred and some days later, Carl is very depressed and leaves her, expecting to `clean the fog' in their lives. Joline faces her marriage as an important commitment to the end of her life, and decides to look for Carl in Texas. She is very supported by her brother Jay (Casey Affleck), who meets her in the border of Mexico. There, Joline meets the confused Carl and realizes that she can not change his decision, while Jay knows Carmen (Patricia Velasquez) and starts dating her, and in the end `life goes on'. This movie is very unpredictable, having a very different story. I believe it is an independent production. In some parts, it is a little slow and boring, but there are certain dialogs that makes this movie worthwhile. I liked it, and my vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Rebeldes Até o Fim' (`Rebels Until the End')<br /><br /> | 0 |
It's sort of crazy, but I taped from TCM both, this german version of MGM's 'Anna Christie', and the english one...but I got to see this one first, 'cos I'd heard that many people thought it was better than the english version.<br /><br />Without having seen the other one, I cannot compare them, but anyway this is an excellent early talkie, with a straight-from-the-heart performance by Garbo. She looks very beautiful in this film, her face shines throughout, especially when Cameraman William Daniels, gets those gorgeous close-ups of her.<br /><br />The atmosphere of the film seems different from the regular MGM stuff made on that era, it looks very similar to french or german expressionistic films from the thirties, well it was directed by a great french director, Monsieur Jacques Feyder, who had directed Garbo in 1929 in 'The Kiss'.<br /><br />Theo Shall is excellent and gives an absolutelly believable performance as Anna's sweetheart, the hard-boiled, tough, sailor, who's just a kid in man's body. Also Hans Junkermann gives a very fine performance, as Anna's alcoholic father and Salka Viertel too, as a good-hearted old cheap floozie.<br /><br />In all quite an experience, because it's the only film were you can listen to Garbo speak in a foreign language...'cos all the other films she did in either Sweden or Germany, were during the Silent Era.<br /><br />Serious Flick. | 0 |
Yes, this movie is bad. What's worse is that it takes no advantage whatsoever of its own title!! In the ENTIRE movie, zombies and vampires fight each other ONCE OR TWICE. On top of that, we're never really sure if the main character in the movie is DEFINITELY a vampire. One might argue they were trying to 'tone it down' or make it 'realistic,' but it ends up just boring. More than half of this movie takes place IN A CAR. The scenes that take place anywhere else aren't much to brag about, either. Also, there's no clear antagonist, and in the end you have no idea what really happened for the last 30 minutes of the movie. <br /><br />However, I will say that for a film this low in production value, the soundtrack was surprisingly appropriate and instrumented (with either an origonal score or sampled music from elsewhere). <br /><br />I'm all for independent films, but it doesn't look like this was ever intended for a mass audience (if any). <br /><br />'worse than Scarecrow slayer.' | 1 |
Shot in my former home town by a couple of college kids, this movie centers around some freak named 'luther'. Luther, recently paroled (revealed to us by an arguing parole board in one of the most laughably scenes of all time), runs amuck at the local Kroger grocery by eating an old woman's neck with his metal teeth.<br /><br />Luther runs to farm where he eats a guy, steals a car, ties up an old woman, and gets chased, and gets killed. Oh, and the chick from the SUPERBOY tv show gets naked. | 1 |
A killer, wearing a plastic white mask and black overcoat, is killing the friends of Hollywood producer Shawn Banning(Danny Wolske)who inherited his position when someone sliced open his former employer from crotch to chest. Perhaps the psychopath is newly hired Maddy(Dabbie Rochon), an attractive, raven haired beauty with a troubled family past, plagued with nightmares. Shawn and his friends play a practical joke on Maddy, concerning a supposed Murder Club they started where each member randomly selected a victim to kill. When Maddy accidentally murders a woman in a parking garage because of a dent put into her car by this person, she finds that Shawn's pals were jerking her chain. But, Shawn and his comrades are concerned about Maddy's admittance towards committing the murder and contemplate turning her into the proper authorities. Deciding to wait on a definite decision, each member fall prey to the white-masked psycho with Maddy a suspect considering the fact that she already has killed before. Or, is someone else behind these murders? Low budget slasher, executive produced by Charles Band, with gore murders that fail to convince. Plenty of tits on display and Allen Nabors goofy character Chris might entertain those with low expectations. The murders include a stomach being opened with intestines showing, a neck sliced, an electrical cord thrown into a pool frying a female victim who had all day to escape, an ax buried into the back of a male victim, and, to top it all, a couple are strangled by a rope during their sexual climax(..for added effect, the killer uses the breaker bar of a socket wrench as extra leverage to twist the rope as tight as possible snapping their necks). There are enough plot holes to drive a truck through, such as why Maddy has nightmares of murders she didn't commit, how she could murder someone so violently(..with blood all over her)winding up waking in her bed without leaving something at the scene of the crime that would easily implicate her, and how Shawn could go so long, allowing her to continue working at the company despite what she told regarding the murder she committed, and a continual desire to join the supposed club that doesn't exist.<br /><br />What bothered me the most was the film's desire for having us somehow sympathizing with this female protagonist who wanted to join a club after killing someone, later proclaiming it to be an accident. The film builds Maddy as the potential psycho throughout because of her past. Her family disowned her for an abortion. She has black-outs and always appropriately winds up at the scenes of crimes after the fact. In a lot of slashers, the one who seems the most likely killer is often the red herring, but this film goes out of it's way to point the finger at Maddy. When the twist occurs, we're left rooting for Maddy, yet we know she's not right in the head. It's a tough sell caring for this chick. She does look great in a man's Army shirt, though. And, Rochon isn't afraid to let her puppies breathe, either. Low budget horror fans will get a kick out of seeing cult favorite Brinke Stevens as a religious fanatical mother who preaches against what Maddy did, calling her a murderer as beloved Troma producer Lloyd Kaufman is the aloof father who can not get in a word edge-wise to protect the daughter he truly cares about. Cult siren Julie Strain has a minor cameo, showing her tits(of course)as the opening murdered male's girlfriend getting her head crushed by a hammer. Oh, and check out the office for which Shawn works, you'll see a lot of Full Moon posters and art-work spread throughout the walls. | 1 |
The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance - what a laughable title, it's so utterly misleading. It's not surprising that the film-makers try and mislead us though because this is one terrible movie.<br /><br />The story basically involves a murder mystery in a castle on a remote island.<br /><br />Very little happens in this film. And when something does wake the viewer from his stupor, it invariably is unintentional comedy in the form of atrocious dialogue delivered by a hopeless group of voice-artists. These guys are so bad they make the actors they deliver voices for appear like a group of remedial-level morons. It really is hard to determine how bad the acting is when you have dubbing this abysmal. But the voice-artists cannot be blamed for the script. It's a travesty. Unintentionally funny at best, pathetic at worst. The story in general is, to say the least, uneven. The women characters are particularly idiotic; the men are either creepy or tedious.<br /><br />The whole enterprise smacks of pure exploitation of the audience. It doesn't remotely deliver what it promises and even when the murders (finally) start happening, they all occur off screen. All we get is a few half-hearted severed head shots.<br /><br />A few people have said that this movie is a giallo. I cannot agree less with this opinion. Anyone who enjoys Italian thrillers should give this movie a wide berth as there is nothing remotely thrilling about it. It's basically a soft-core porn film with a horror angle. But it's not very erotic either.<br /><br />I can't recommend this to anyone. | 1 |
No. I'm not kidding with this one. He was a guest reviewer for Entertainment Weekly and gave this movie positive marks. And who can blame him? This is a charming, upbeat, and rather funny Disney movie. Who doesn't love kittens? The music in Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat is jamming. It makes me want to snap my fingers or something. Only years later when Cats Don't Dance came out have I seen a movie that was that musically fun. What Aristocats lacks in animation and story, it makes up for in charm. Plus, everything moves at a relaxed pace, and even the villain isn't all that scary. It's perfect for the younger set while not being so sappy that adults can't like it. If Snoop was here, I'm sure he would say the same thing. Yeah. Dig those CRAZY cats, man. | 0 |
'Crush' examines female friendship, for the most part avoiding the saccharine quality which spoils so many films with the same theme (e. g., 'Steel Magnolias'). At the same time, it reveals the power of a sudden passion to overwhelm and surprise. The events depicted were highly improbable, but the underlying emotional truth seemed very genuine to me. Not a film for the speeding-vehicle-and-explosion crowd, but grown-up women are certain to respond with both laughter and tears. | 0 |
Now this is what I'm talking about. Finally, a low-budget horror outing that uses its limitations to its advantage. WENDIGO, while occasionally flawed, is a triumph of the imagination. Granted, it leans heavy on EVIL DEAD style camera moves for its moodiness, but it's still a damn sight better than 99% of direct to video dross.<br /><br />The story is pretty simple: a family takes a vacation at a remote cabin and are menaced by one particularly unhinged hunter. But director Larry Fessenden really knows how to build suspense and add layers of unsettling creepiness through the use of the mythical Wendigo. Is it real? Is it all in the boy's imagination? Is it an externalization of the child's emotional state? <br /><br />Some have quibbled that the film is unsatisfying because it's left to you to decide. Don't be put off by such petty nonsense. A film that makes you think is not one to avoid. It's one to rejoice in. | 0 |
I am sorry to rain on everybody's parade. Just a little background about me: I like and know a lot about Asian cinema, especially Japanese, Chinese and Indian. Admittedly I am a novice when it comes to South-Korean cinema but, if this is the best of the best, sorry. I just want you to know that I am not at all narrow-minded when it comes to appreciating foreign movies and I do not fit the stereotype of the 'dumb American' . . . well, not perfectly.<br /><br />I cannot believe the high praise this piece of nothing is bestowed upon. This is a disgusting *and* ludicrous movie. Hammy acting - everything is badly done and overdone, like begging for the uneducated viewer's attention. Horrible camera-work, with an insistence on meaningless close-ups derived from the MTV aesthetics.<br /><br />The plot is more full of holes than a gigantic piece of Swiss cheese. Nobody expects a thriller to be 100% realistic, and for the sake of entertainment I'd be happy to close my eyes to small unfitting details. But, excuse me, what's happening here that *can* stand even summary scrutiny? This story of an unbelievably intricate and contrite act of revenge is worse than the worst tabloid story one can read in a line at the supermarket. (Don't want to spoil your 'enjoyment', if that's the word, so won't go into details of the plot.) The fighting scenes are violent, unbelievable, downright stupid (the main 'hero' taking on dozens and dozens of opponents in the same time, after he ONLY trained while imprisoned, punching a wall ! ) The truly 'outstanding' features of this movie are two: the lurid and incestuous sex (brother on sister and father on daughter, well, we've evolved since Oedipus, didn't we?) and the graphic violence. The cut off body parts - hands, teeth, tongues - together with industrial quantities of spilled blood (how many tens of thousands of tomatoes had to die for this movie to be made?) have no esthetical function/motivation whatsoever.<br /><br />A feast for the S & M inclined, admittedly, but, even for those, a feast of no merit nor subtlety. Heavens, even Mel Gibson's recent and much-discussed work on an almost similar theme wasn't THAT bad.<br /><br />The invariably good press this pretentious, overblown, overlong piece of gratuitous gore coming from Korean shores obtains makes me wonder what's happening. I don't think of myself as being the ultimate paragon of taste and often I am ready to accept that a movie I didn't enjoy may be better than I was able to perceive. However, I have no scruples whatsoever in calling this one as I see it: bad, bad, bad. No redeeming qualities. My 2c? Find something better to do with your time. | 1 |
Writer-director Patrice Leconte takes a universal and potentially bottomless subject - friendship - and turns it into a flat and meaningless farce, despite A-list actors, fine cinematography and elegant production design. It's all in the plot, and the plot is laughable. 'Teach me how to be likable', art dealer François Coste (Daniel Auteuil) tells a random stranger (Dany Boon), and that about sums it up. We learn next to nothing about friendship, and Daniel Auteuil may be a fine actor, but not one minute do we believe he could be the cut-throat egoist the script depends on him to be. Just as we hope the travesty is over, Leconte pulls one of his usual cathartic third acts, fast-forwarding from damage to disaster. Like François's treasured Greek vase, everyone and everything in this movie is a fake. Leconte's only asset is Julie Gayet in the part of Coste's business partner Catherine, looking swell and sexy despite a major mishap of a haircut. | 1 |
After reading a biography on the last Russian Tzar (Nicholas II), and his failure to secure the army's support, I decided to give this film a try.<br /><br />I watched it with a completely open mind, not knowing anything about it (except its reputation).<br /><br />These are the things that impressed me the most.<br /><br />1) The shots of battleships, and the soldiers used as extras. More than once I stopped to think 'if this was done in this time and place, 80% of this would have been computer-generated'.<br /><br />2) The Realism in it. From the maggot-infested meat to the shot of the sailor with his candle and the legend 'Killed for a bowl of soup', this movie makes no concessions to the PC cause (which, thankfully, hadn't been invented yet).<br /><br />3) The slow descent into madness of the Odessa Steps sequence. From the first shot, when the limbless man appears, you get the idea something might be wrong; since the overall shots are composed, though, you end up feeling comfortable in your surroundings. Then an amputee appears, and people start falling in dramatic poses. Still, the shots are composed... until the Cossacks appear into scene, and the incredible shot juxtapositions appear. This scene is easily worth the price of admission.<br /><br />4) The fact that this movie is 100% unadulterated propaganda. Then again, when Rambo fought in Afghanistan he also was having something to do with 'propaganda'; only a different kind.<br /><br />Overall: a film marred by a bit of a slow narrative. Nevertheless, Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and this movie are perfect examples of inventive, edgy movies that are still remembered for their merits today. They really make modern movies look boring and repetitive. | 0 |
I read several mixed reviews and several of them downright trashed the movie. I originally became interested in this project because it was being directed by Tony Scott and I have become very interested in his work after Man On Fire had such a profound impact on me. Before I start my review, let me first say this...it's wonderful to see that this movie could have been told in a boring and ordinary manner, yet the writers and Scott chose a different approach.<br /><br />Plot:<br /><br />Simply stated, it's not boring. Most Hollywood movies give 'tried and true' plots that they know will connect with people, often ensuring the audiences acceptance of the film and creating a higher probability of profit. This plot was one of the more interesting ones I had seen in a while. Just for reference, I recently watched 'The Weather Man' and 'Lord of War' and while I will say that these movies are excellent, and I enjoyed them both tremendously, both the plots in these movies are boring and they are told exactly how you would expect them to be told. They don't take any chances whatsoever, and they are extremely predictable after you've watched a fair amount of American films. Domino's plot is both interesting and told in a manner that keeps you thinking, 'oh man, they're screwed now'. And I feel that has been lacking in a lot of recent films. It has a lot of depth to it, in my opinion, and gives you plenty of things to question while watching it. Overall, this is what kept me so interested in the movie.<br /><br />Characters:<br /><br />I felt that the characters were accurate. Knightley did a wonderful job of portraying a beautiful woman, who was anything but on the inside and wanted to be viewed as what she was. It was obvious that she wanted to prove herself and she took whatever means she had to accomplish that.<br /><br />Choco was also very believable, his use of Spanish in inappropriate situations, his reactions to Domino's lack of affection, as well as his jealousy issues within the team...they all rang true to me, which made me feel that his character was that much more realistic.<br /><br />Rourke's character was the least interesting to me, but it still rang true to me. He seemed like an ordinary guy, trying to make ends meet. I hope that's what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish with him because that's what I got out of it. He did a very good job of showing Ed in an Average Joe kind of way that has made his mistakes, yet is still trying to live.<br /><br />Claremont/Ladies: I believe that they provided much needed 'heart' to the story. They weren't just people who are out getting money to buy a Bentley, these were real people who had a real problem and they sought others mean to accomplish that goal. You could empathize with them because, to them, this child's illness was a problem with no other solution. These characters were supposed to show real people who are less fortunate who got into this mess because they needed help.<br /><br />The mobsters: They made the story seem sinister in a way that only the mob can. And I really liked that part. They also padded the story with small intricacies that made the plot that much more interesting.<br /><br />Christopher Walken/90210 guys:<br /><br />They provided the comic relief in an otherwise very serious movie. From Walken's awkward statements to the ceaseless references to the 90210 guys being has-beens. Their involvement in the movie only made it that much more enjoyable.<br /><br />Cinematography....yes....the cinematography. This is where this movie seems to have lost a lot of potential fans. But in my opinion I thought it was genius, the use of the camera to translate the mood of the current situation was extremely effective in my opinion. I considered it a method that was properly realized but could always use improvement, just like anything else. I both applaud and congratulate Scott, the editor, the cinematographer and the director of photography on taking some real chances with this movie. Not only did they go far and above with its presentation, they went that much further. The use of colors, both extremely light and extremely dark provided the 'look' of the film with a sinister and grungy look that accurately depicts the life of the mob, bounty hunters and the less fortunate in a manner that show that their life isn't as peachy or 'clean' as everyone else. If you notice, in times of less stress or conflict, there were very few camera tricks if any at all. This shows that Scott and his crew were trying to achieve something with this look and weren't just doing it for the heck of it. I realize that most people who watched this movie weren't expecting it and it cause many of them to be turned off to this film but I think it was great that Scott took this approach. Hollywood films have grown predictable and bland. Most of them are shot in the same manner with the same twists and turns. And I'm glad that Scott tried to make something different.<br /><br />Granted, this movie isn't for everyone, but to say it's trash and has nothing to offer is completely missing the point. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and I'm glad that I spent the money for it. I would recommend this to all, but I'm sure it will only hit a chord with few. I must agree with an earlier poster when he said that many of those who refuse to see outside the 'sphere of MTV' won't appreciate this movie, but I think many people will. We should all try to enjoy it for the fact that Scott and co. took some chances and tried to deliver something that was different and unique. And with that in mind, I think he succeeded tremendously. | 0 |
A teen-aged girl gets the horse of her dreams and is trained by an ex-Jockey to participate in London's Grand National Steeplechase. A fine adaptation of the classic children's book, with an excellent, start-making performance by Taylor as the energetic but polite youngster. Rooney is OK as her trainer, although he has some overly melodramatic moments. Crisp and Revere are quite good as Taylor's loving parents. Filmed in Technicolor, it looks beautiful. The problems are that there are corny elements, nothing very interesting happens, and it drags on a bit too long. The race is exciting but could have been much more so. | 0 |
There are good movies, and there are bad movies, and then there's Moscow Zero, a film so utterly bad it makes spending a month in solitary with an insurance salesman an attractive entertainment alternative.<br /><br />With an incomprehensible plot about the gates of Hell opening within a labyrinth of tunnels under Moscow, the film is a mess of repetitive and nonsensical shots of a little girl running through tunnels, red lights floating about, and strange wall shadows, none of which serves to mount any fear or tension, but instead elicits the reaction of 'here they go again with the girl (or lights)' from the viewer.<br /><br />Directed by María Lidón, who for reasons I can only conclude as shame, was billed as Luna, the movie stars Vince Gallo as Owen, an American priest who travels to Moscow in search of Sergei (Rade Serbedzija), a friend and colleague who has gone missing in the tunnels. He enlists the help of a series of locals who, with the exception of Oksana Akinshina, are all portrayed by Spanish actors trying with limited success to inflect Russian accents.<br /><br />Along the way they cross paths with members of some sort of underground leather-coated religious mafia headed by a portly Val Kilmer, whose career seems to be in such free fall that he's resorted to appearing in dreck like this, and henchman Sage Stallone (Sly's son), who seems to have been cast merely so the Stallone name can be included in the film's marquee.<br /><br />Apart from watching the troupe try to navigate their way through the tunnels with the aid of a comically drawn map, and repetitive shots of them being followed or eluded by a pale faced young girl, not much else goes on throughout. Dialogue routinely switches between English and Russian, with actors frequently taking turns in each language, and entire conversations are uttered half in one and half in the other with the only apparent reason being they felt like it, adding a frustrating dimension for the viewer, over and above trying to figure out the crazily cobbled together story.<br /><br />About the only thing Moscow Zero gets right, however, is its title, which could only have rendered a more accurate description of this movie if the word Moscow had been omitted. | 1 |
Just came back from the first showing of Basic Instinct 2. I was going into it thinking it would be crappy based on preview critics and I was pleasantly surprised! If you liked the original Basic Instinct I think you will enjoy #2 just as much if not more. Great story that always keeps you wondering and thinking. The music is superb, reprising the original's theme. Don't go expecting Academy Award material, go to see it for enjoyment and fun. That's what movies are designed for -- escapism. I can't think of a better way to escape than to escape with Sharon Stone who is as sexy as she ever was. Am thinking about going to see it again this weekend. Go see it! | 0 |
It's strange how the least known movies sometimes end up amongst the best you've seen. This movie has all the elements of a standard modern day thriller, guns, techno, baddies, cash, etc, and yet it stands out from your average Hollywood also-ran. I would credit this to two very charismatic people. Christopher Walken has a cool confidence and Lorraine Bracco is one of the warmest and sexiest women I've ever seen on screen. Another major reason why this film stands out is coz the setting shifts to Jamaica after the beginning. The Jamaican resort is so beautiful you'll wish you were there sitting by the pool at night, with a Run'n'Coke. . . .I know I did. I'm very glad I saw this movie - it was just too nice to miss! | 0 |
If you really want to know how most of the actors and directors in the Hollywood scene 'made it' to where they are, the vast majority will tell you (assuming they will tell) that a strange coincidence took place. They happened to meet the right people at the right time and get into the right project which led to other connections and other projects. Quinten Tarrantino took an acting class whose instructor knew Harvey Keitel. Kevin Spacey lifted a back stage pass from a sleeping old woman at the lecture of a famous playwright who helped him land an important role. And Robin Williams credits his career to Gary Marshall's son who, after having seen 'Star Wars', suggested to his father that an alien should visit the Cunninghams of 'Happy Days'. These coincidences, many times viewed as pure luck, shapes many of the careers in Hollywood today. Or is it pure luck? Is possible something else is going on? 'Grand Canyon' written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan, proposes an altogether different explanation for the inexplicable, aka the strange miraculous coincidence. The movie concerns several different characters whose lives intersect because of positive and yet inexplicable happenstance.<br /><br />Kevin Kline, a middle-aged father, experiences a break-down in one of the more dangerous areas of LA. After he phones a tow truck, a young gang accosts him. They threaten violence if he doesn't leave his car. Just before the confrontation can escalate, Danny Glover appears as the tow truck driver and dampens the intentions of the gang. Although Glover denies it later, he probably saved Kline's life. A producer (Steve Martin) of cheap violent films gets shot in the leg and after wards has a spiritual experience. He then announces retirement from producing blood and gore entertainment. And Kline's wife, Clair (Mary McDonnell), while on a morning jog, finds a baby hidden in some foliage. She claims the baby cried for her and that her 'rescue' of the infant was preordained.<br /><br />The movie explores further the results of these strange connections that lead to further relationships, end to relationships, and new beginnings. And all the while, a strange homeless man appears throughout the movie as if somehow he is also connected to everything that is going on.<br /><br />It is very rare in Hollywood, or for film in general, to explore such a purely esoteric subject. There are a few moments that seem somewhat unbelievable, but maybe that's the point. What makes the film work is the superb acting by the cast. Although the miracles and coincidences may seem far-fetched, the actors make you believe they are experiencing these new realities. Maybe this is a subject we should explore more often. | 0 |
Yes, commitment. Let's say 'Fever Pitch' might trick you into believing it's a baseball movie.<br /><br />But no, you don't have to be a baseball fan to actually enjoy this picture from the Farrelly Brothers. But of course, if you are one, you will enjoy it even more; with all the references (pretty accurate ones, I'd say) to the Boston Red Sox and its bittersweet history; from the Curse of the Bambino and everything attributed to it, including those two words you CANNOT pronounce in front of a Boston fan: Bill Buckner.<br /><br />Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon portray two people who, usually might have second thoughts of going into a relationship: the successful workaholic who is also affluent meeting a school teacher? Thing is, Fallon's character wins Barrymore's heart by being funny, caring, sweet and downright perfect. But her friends ask her a logical question: if he's such a keeper, why is he still on the market? Enter the Boston Red Sox. He's been so committed to his team ever since his uncle passed his Sox season tickets to him; he has never missed a Red Sox home game at Fenway Park in a long while.<br /><br />And that delicate balance, how much is the workaholic willing to give up for his guy's obsession; and how much is that baseball-crazed teacher willing to compromise in order to keep the OTHER love of his life, is what this movie is all about.<br /><br />At first, you might think that the sports-obsession bits of the movie are exaggerated for comic relief. Well, I'm sad to admit, they are not. Myself, as a die-hard Houston Astros fan, can say they are all true. I would try at every way available to see every 'Stros game; listen to them on the radio or follow them on the Internet. I read the Chronicle's sports section every day. And yes, my room looks like The Shed, Minute Maid Park's gift shop; with a closet full of Astros gear, including 5 jerseys, 20 t-shirts and you know the rest. Fallon's character even has the Red Sox MBNA MasterCard.<br /><br />Fallon was credible enough as the fanatical Red Sox faithful, even though he could pull it off without becoming a cartoon (Thank God Adam Sandler wasn't in it); and the plot revolved around how this couple tried to manage with each other's passions.<br /><br />I'd say it'll be a classical romantic comedy. Not enough to be among the best movies in history; but certainly breaks a mold into the genre and is appealing enough for men and women alike. | 0 |
As a native of New Orleans, I can state that almost everything in this movie, from the atrocious N'Awlins dialect to the highly creative 'manipulation' of Crescent City geography, is horrible. This is another one of those Big Hollywood movies that decides to stereotype New Orleans as: 1. A city full of French-sounding idiots 2. A city full of people who sound as if they've just returned from Blanche Dubois' summer home 3. A city of drunkards, where every day is Mardi Gras 4. A city of deep mystery, where almost everyone practices or is a victim of voodoo (I admit that maybe we are a city of drunkards; although every day is NOT Mardi Gras). 'The Big Easy' is one of the worst films about New Orleans. I wouldn't recommend it to anybody. | 1 |
I know a lot of people don't like this movie, but I just think it is adorable. There's not much I can say, but the movie is a feel-good movie I guess. The songs are beautiful, the costumes are beautiful, the voices are beautiful, and there are a lot of funny lines in the movie, especially as Briggitta learns about the do's and don't's of society. If you like musicals, I'd say you'd like this one! | 0 |
Wow what can I say it was a good movie, very different to all the boring remakes we see lately the only thing I would have liked to see a bit more of an ending like when Jane left her husband Im guessing she was going to Serena cause she fell for her,not just her but everything that she is,I so wish Producers would actually show that sort of ending instead of leaving to it your imagination sort of ending I really hate it when they do that. The aerial acts looked like fun but I guess you'd have to be light and muscly, I would like to see more movies like this one, maybe the could do a sort of sequel of Jane and Serena.If I were in Jane's shoes I would have went for the girl too she was attractive. | 0 |
This little film is hysterical, full of stereotypes about gays, straights, dwarfs, British tea and pubs, American gun culture, divorce and marriage; yet, it manages to be sensitive to the issues surrounding each. Kathy Bates is 'Amazing' Grace Beasley, and as a character actor of staggering range, she brings her considerable comedic talent to ground this somewhat unusual film as she did in Fried Green Tomatos. With the help of other comedic talents like Dan Akroid as Max, her ex-lawyer husband and the backdrop of downtown Chicago and rural England, the story is just intriguing enough to entertain. Jonathan Price plays Victor Fox, a closet gay singer murdered by a cross-bow killer in Chicago. His valet-lover Dirk Simpson, played by the stunning Rupert Everett, must overcome Victor's siblings, including Lynn Redgrave, who want to turn their home into a tribute museum, and teams with Bates and her dwarf daughter-in-law, Maudy Beasley, to find the killer among the homeless of Chicago.<br /><br />The entire cast sing at various points in the pursuit, and are excellent, esp. the talented Price and Bates. This implausible storyline, both funny and bizarre, is one of the most off-center films. Cameos by Julie Andrews, Barry Manlow, and Sally Jesse Raphael should tell you just how bizarre this film truly is. Strange, funny, and off-center but with a good perspective about people with every kind of difference. | 0 |
A man comes to the office of the psychiatric Dr. Sammael (Joan Severance) claiming to be the demon Asmodeus (Kane Hodder), the torturer of the 13th level of the hell, and he would like to tell weird things. He tells that he had made a deal with Lucifer to become human again. He should knock-up his virgin sister Mary Elizabeth (Alison Brie) on the day that their mother died and she should kill six people and deliver the Anti-Christ, and then he would escape from the pit and reborn. When Mary Elizabeth gets pregnant, her stressed and abusive sister Catherine (Denise Crosby) does not believe that she is virgin, but their father and former obstetrician Albert Martino (James Callahan) examines his daughter and sees her intact hymen. Meanwhile the Church discovers the truth about Mary Elizabeth's pregnancy and sends the priest and former military Father Anthony (Eddie Velez) to spy Mary Elizabeth. She is dominated by the fetus and forced to kill a truck driver, Lars (Jorg Sirtl), who is the lover of her tenant and friend Jennifer (Azalea Davila), and Jennifer herself and eat their hearts and drink their bloods, but she believes that she has nightmares. However during the ultrasound, she realizes that she is carrying a monster and she asks her father to stop her pregnancy. But it is too late.<br /><br />The awful 'Born' is a B-movie (actually a Z-movie) that believes that is a great movie. The result is a pretentious and disappointing production, with an incoherent and absurd story without humor and terrible acting and direction. The plot is a complete mess: there is a priest that is a hit-man and former soldier; a demon in existential crisis going to a psychiatric; a father that examines the virginity of his daughter; two female-demons (succubus?) that stand naked like a statue with both hands covering their sexes; a character that is a slut, and only exists to expose her beautiful body. There are many scenes with free and cheap nudity. But the worst is the acting: the unknown lead actress Alison Brie is histrionic, with ridiculous voices and grimaces. Sorry, Ms. Alison Brie, but I hated your annoying performance. I have not recognized Joan Severance, who has a good performance, since I still had the image of her youth. Denise Crosby performs a hateful character and like everybody, she got older but she is still a good actress. I believe that if the writer and the director had included some dark humor and assumed that this movie is a B-movie, the story might have worked better and better. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'O Anti-Cristo' ('The Anti-Christ') | 1 |
This is amazing-looking movie with the whole thing done in just six or seven colors. When it came out over 15 years ago, it stunned audiences with its color scheme, being so different from anything else that had ever been put on film. Those colors, for me at least, make this an absolutely fascinating film to watch. There are literally thousands of scenes I wish could freeze and somehow convert them to a painting to study for their artwork.<br /><br />The characters and the story don't match up to the greatness of the photography, but they are all over-the-top, especially the villains. The famous actors who played them here must have a had a lot of fun on the set playing 'Flatop,' 'Pruneface,' 'Lips,' 'Mumbles,' etc.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Warren Beatty and Gleanne Hedley are good as Dick Tracey and girlfriend Tess Truehart, and she's as sweet and soft as her name. Another good addition is Charlie Korsmo as the delinquent young boy Dick and Tess take under their wing. The colorful other characters are played by Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, William Forysthe, Paul Sorvino, Mandy Patinkin, Madona and other names you know but are too numerous to list here. Check the full credits on the main page and you'll amazed.<br /><br />The only negatives I found were Pacino's voice which grates on you after awhile, Madonna's off-key singing voice and the fact that the film would have been better trimmed about 10 minutes. Those 'faults' are all minor because overall, this is a fun movie....a cartoon strip coming to life in an incredibly-colorful fashion.....like nothing you have ever seen. | 0 |
The men can slaver over Lollo, if they like (or her lollos--she gave her name to a slang terms for breasts in French), but the ladies have an even tastier morsel in the divine Gerard Philipe, who is not only beautiful but can act. Don't be deterred if your version has no subtitles because in this simple, dashing story of love and war, in which all is fair, they are not needed. All you need know is that, at the beginning of the film, Lollobrigida reads Philipe's palm and tells him he will marry the daughter of the king. Thereafter the story is quite plain from the Gallic gestures and the running, jumping, and swordplay.<br /><br />On the minus side, the obviousness of the story and the heavy-handed facetiousness of the tone become somewhat wearying, and it is annoying that the French apparently consider themselves too superior to Hollywood to bother even attempting the plausibility of its exciting stunts. And of course the non-French-speaker misses the occasional bit of ooh-la-la, such as: Virtuous girl: I must tell you that my heart belongs to Fanfan. Seducer: My dear, what made you think I was interested in that bagatelle? | 0 |
After 'Central City' loses its mob boss to murder, partner-in-crime Robert Armstrong (as 'Doc' Rogers) decides to take drastic measures To preserve criminal continuity, he recruits the dead mobster's milquetoast son, Richard Cromwell (as Edward 'Baby Face' Morgan), to run the family business. The naive Mr. Cromwell is taken to the city, and installed as President of his father's 'Acme Protection Agency', a front for gangsters. While Cromwell sells innocently sells insurance, his 'employees' run an extortion racket. Cromwell falls for pretty client Mary Carlisle (as Virginia Clark); and, the duo find themselves in great danger
'Baby Face Morgan' catches star Cromwell and Ms. Carlisle nearing the end of their once 'promising' film careers. It's a quick, light, and inoffensive little crime drama.<br /><br />**** Baby Face Morgan (1942) Arthur Dreifuss ~ Richard Cromwell, Mary Carlisle, Robert Armstrong | 1 |
Wouldn't it be great if Not Another Teen Movie actually put an end to all of these stupid, pointless, I'm getting more sex than you are teen movies? In a perfect world, yes. Yet this one is even worse. This one is not humiliating for the stars, it's humiliating for the distributor. All of the jokes are basically college students exposing stuff that people probably have NO interest in seeing, yet it's 'funny.' Devon Sawa, who was actually good in Final Destination, is just plain dull in this movie. It makes you wonder if it's being bad on purpose. Grade: F | 1 |
This is one of the best military films ever made. And it is great because of its focus on values. It's a great human interest story that turns on a commitment to honor, loyalty, love, and determination.<br /><br />Gooding and DeNiro are superb in the lead roles. It's wonderful to see the Master Chief's racism evolve toward respect and love through Carl Brashear's determination, drive,and yes, sense of honor. The title indicates the source of their bond. I never noticed until this last time watching it how brilliant Carl Lumbly's portrayal of Carl's father, Mac Brashear, was. In a way, it's a cornerstone of the film in that it's Carl's memory of his father that helps carry him through hard times.<br /><br />I am selective about what films I purchase. This is one of those rare ones that I want on my shelf. It will be seen many times in the future, I'm sure. | 0 |
This movie is very funny. Amitabh Bachan and Govinda are absolutely hilarious. Acting is good. Comedy is great. They are up to their usual thing. It would be good to see a sequel to this :)<br /><br />Watch it. Good time-pass movie | 0 |
There are spoilers but trust me, I'm doing you a favor.<br /><br />My friends and I like to watch crappy movies every so often. Inspired by Mystery Science Theater and our knack for on the spot jokes; We set out to find movies worth watching that are in fact...not worth watching. However trouble comes into paradise when these movies can only be found if you buy them. And I am a firm believer in not giving one cent to such a group of talentless scumbags. So, as another reviewer has said, films like this are a reason why downloading movies for free should be legalized. I prefer the idea of; instead of straight to VIDEO you have straight to INTERNET. That way the ass-bags who made this travesty won't ever turn a profit. Which unfortunately you know they do. They hire a bunch of actors who can't act, special effects from a high school classroom, rubber snakes you can get at the dollar store, constant vomiting of green jell-o, and the two main characters who seem to switch between being border jumping Mexicans who only speak Spanish, to Arabs to being 100% fluent in English, random nudity, a guy being shot like 10 times including one to the side of the head and living and the most retarded ending in the history of film, book, cave drawings and hustler magazine. The fact that I actually predicted that the jell-o puking snake girl would actually TRANSFORM into a snake about half way through terrifies me...<br /><br />Anyways, the movie is great to make fun of, but you have to make sure there's at least 4 of you and you're all spitting out jokes in rapid fire, because if there's even 1 second of watching this movie where you're not laughing your ass off, you will feel physically ill. I kid you not. My friends and I were eating chicken wings and now I can't even look at such a thing anymore without being reminded of this piece of Sh!t.<br /><br />This film is one above Alien Vs. Hunter which is by far the second worst movie ever made. And I've seen lots of bad movies. Incidentally, it's the same production company as this film and that bald guy is in both as well. just thought you might like to know that little fun fact. -100 out 0f 10. | 1 |
This is a strange sex comedy because there`s very little comedy but a whole lot of sex , most of which takes place in the back of a car and is so graphic it makes BASIC INSTINCT look like an edition of TELETUBBIES . I kid you not , the sex in this film is so in your face it might just choke you , especially if you`re watching with your grandparents .<br /><br />As for the rest of RITA , SUE AND BOB TOO there`s not much else worth mentioning except the language where every single sentence seems to contain the F word . This a rather bleak hyper-realist British film made at a time when Channel 4 was the main investor in British movies which explains its made for television low budget feel | 1 |
This movie is not a kung fu movie. This is a comedy about kung fu. And if, before making this film, Sammo Hung hadn't spent some time watching films by the great French comic filmmaker Jaques Tati (i.ie., e.g., esp. Jour de fête), he is certainly on the same wave length.<br /><br />Personally, I think Tati's films are hilarious; but they're not to all tastes. Some have told me that they loathe his work. I've never figured out why, but I think it's because the character that Tati usually plays himself is so totally dead pan, so unaffected by the events around him (which he is usually causing) that many miss the more subtle comic bits happening around him.<br /><br />At any rate, Tati's main shtick - or at least his best known - is to take a pretentiously upright petite bourgeoisie with 19th century sensibilities and drop him into 20th century France where he must confront a society that is largely defined by the gradual eroding of those sensibilities. He usually has serious difficulties with little things like record players or radios. He's a hazard in a car, but the world's no safer when he rides a bicycle. But through it all, he never loses his aplomb, which is derived from his inner recognition that the nineteenth century was more interesting than the 20th overall.<br /><br />In a similar fashion, the character Sammo Hung himself plays is a country boy come to the big city of Hong Kong, utterly convinced that what makes the city interesting is that Bruce Lee made kung fu movies there. This gets him into trouble in small ways, since he takes in stride happenstance which would never be noticed in a small town but which are deemed inappropriate in a big city - such as the moment when he appears to be urinating in the street, A cop stops him, only to discover that Hung is actually just squeezing water out of his shirt, soaked during an accidental dip in the bay. What's interesting about this gag is why it is Hung doesn't understand what the cop's fuss is all about - in a country town, as long as no one's looking, if you gotta go you gotta go. In other words, Hung is not really urinating in the street - but he certainly would - and what's the problem officer? Of course Hung's obsession with Bruce Lee also gets him into big troubles as well. He beats a gang of thugs who have refused to pay his restaurant-owner uncle. Of course, in a Bruce Lee movie, the thugs would be considered trounced, and they would have learned their lesson. But in Hung's Hong Kong, reality unfortunately prevails, and the thugs return when he's not around, to trounce his uncle.<br /><br />Of course, Hung finally triumphs in the end, just as Tati always did. Characters like this must always triumph (at least in comedy) because they are completely innocent, and as such, despite their comic missteps and misunderstandings, they really represent what is best in the humans we admire and wish to be. We don't really want to be Bruce Lee (who has to experience the loss of all of his friends before he gets a chance to beat the bad-guy), we, in our own innocence, really want a world where Lee's heroics are possible.<br /><br />Unfortunately, that world only exists on film.<br /><br />'Ah, but what if...?' - and in that question we find Sammo Hung at his comic best. | 0 |
I know nothing of the Iliad so can not comment on it's accuracy to that story. However, as a stand alone film I found this very boring. The battle scenes tried to be large and spectacular but they were just obvious CGI.<br /><br />The acting is poor and no doubt Brad Pitt was cast just to attract the ladies. But he does not make a good warrior, too pretty i am afraid.<br /><br />Good points are is the design. This film does look good with the landscape and castle buildings/walls impressive. I do like a film that at least tries to get the characters accents true but this film just seems to ignore it completely. we hear American, Scottish English anything but what you might expect for a film about an ancient eastern civilisation.<br /><br />All in all, I do not recommend this film for a family sit down. It is too long and the young will get bored.<br /><br />For adults, it is OK if you don't care about the lack realism. | 1 |
This was a waste of 75 minutes of my life. The acting was atrocious and the plot was ridiculous. It revolves around an evil lesbian who gets rich married men to have sex with her, and then blackmails them for money. One of the victims is a candidate for DA, which is causing problems in his relationship with his wife. Another is a plastic surgeon, also married, and the evil lesbian happens to seduce this guys wife too! Meanwhile, the evil lesbian's girlfriend doesn't really like her sleeping around. It ends in a happy ending where all is forgiven. The women get naked a lot too, mostly in situations that stretch reality. bad bad bad. | 1 |
When I first saw this movie I was with my dad. He encouraged me to watch this movie because it was one of his favorites. After watching the movie it instantly became one of my favorites. <br /><br />A River Runs Through It is about two brothers who each take a different path in life. Norman Maclean (Craig Sheffer) is the older of the two brothers and he is set on the path of education. Paul Maclean (Brad Pitt) is the rebellious younger brother who travels on a path full of obstacles. The movie follows these characters as the each follow their own path.<br /><br />There is no downside to this movie. You will be entertained the whole way through. The acting, directing, and script is all perfect. The two things that are exceptional are the cinematography and the score. Both of which entrap you in the world Robert Redford creates for you. <br /><br />This is an all around great movie that is destined to be a classic. It sure is in my book. If you haven't seen this movie definitely watch it as soon as you can because it will stay with you forever. | 0 |
A film like Crossfire puts another film that spreads around its social consciousness- i.e. the recent film Crash- almost to shame. Not necessarily because either one puts forth its message of intolerance-is-rotten more significantly (although I'd wager Crash throws the hammer down much more thickly in comparison with this), but because of how the storytelling and contrivances never get much in the way like with Crash. Maybe it's not really necessary to compare the two, as Crossfire is in its core all deep into the film-noir vein like its going out of style. It was interesting actually to see what the director Edward Dmytryk said on the DVD interview, where he mentioned that the budget for the photography was significantly lower (on purpose) so that more could be spent on the actors, and the schedule went through at a very brisk, quick pace. But then what comes off then as being incredible about the picture is that you would think looking at many of the lighting set-ups that it took a lot to do. Just for a small scene, like when Robert Mitchum's Keeely first goes in for questioning under the Captain Robert Young- the contrasts of shadows seamlessly in the room is exquisite. That there are many other lighting set-ups that go even further with so little marks this as something essential in the realm of just the look of the noir period. Just take a look at a shot of characters on a stairwell, the bars silhouetted against them, and see what I mean.<br /><br />But back to the substance part of the film- it's really a story that consists of a murder mystery, but one that we as the audience don't take long to figure on the answer. It's then more about something else then in the mind and soul of a killer that wouldn't be found in a common crime picture then, as there are really no 'criminals' for the most part in the film. There's a very calculated risk with this then that characters could be too thin just to prop up the (worthwhile) message against anti-semitism. But Dmytryk's direction of his top-shelf cast, along with a really terrific script by John Paxton fleshes out the characters, least of which for what they should have to not seem too thin alongside the message. And what would a noir be then without some attitude to go along with it? Mitchum helps that along, even in scenes like between him and Young where its very much based in the situation of the story's moment (i.e. a detail in the plot), by injecting a little sly wit into some of the dialog. It may already be there in the lines, but he helps make the character with a good edge for his scenes.<br /><br />Then there's also Robert Ryan, who excels at Montgomery as a man who you know you don't like much at first, just through his b.s. demeanor, but you're not totally sure about either. Then once it starts to come clearer- ironically through a subjective view-point of the suspect Mitchell (George Cooper) at the apartment of the soon-to-be-deceased Samuels- his performance becomes a great balancing act of being full of crap and also rather frightening in his blind-way. It's a good performance when also countered with Cooper, who has actual personal issues that he faces and comes forward with regret and humility. It's really after the film ends that one thinks about a lot of this, however, and while you're watching the film it's more about getting into the dialog and the flow of the scenes, and in the sometimes stark, overpowering camera moves on the actors, so the message is in a way secondary. Not that it isn't an important one, especially for the time period (coming right off of WW2), but years later its seeing the actors, even the ones that don't get the big marquee status like Gloria Grahame as Ginny (the femme fatale of the picture, if it could've had time for one which it doesn't) and William Phipps as Leroy (the 'hick'), working off one another that sticks much strongly in the compacted screenplay.<br /><br />Dmytryk is also very wise in choosing to limit the musical score is powerful too, as for very long stretches we hear nothing, and mostly when it does come up it's incidental to the character's surroundings. He could've just as easily gone with added musical notes on some dramatic scenes for emphasis, most specifically the opening audience-grabber into the film. By sticking clear of that, and getting the right attitudes and nuance in camera and cast, it uplifts standards in genre material to a very fine, memorable level. My favorite scene would probably go to Finley's story about an Irish immigrant he tells to Leroy, where all such elements come into place well. It might not come in very high at the top of my favorite noirs- and I'd still throw-down Murder My Sweet as the director's masterpiece in this kind of picture- but it's assuredly higher in quality than something of the B-level too. | 0 |
The most bizarre of the cinematic sub-genres is the so called 'The Great Ladies of the Grand Guignol': camp horror films which combined over-the-top melodrama with gothic thrills and always starred by seasoned and almost forgotten actress from hollywood golden age in unflattering roles of either long suffering victims or screeching evil harpies. This genre provided them with an unusual acting showcase that allowed strut their stuff on the screen once again and win new generations of fans at expense of their glamorous images from yesterday.<br /><br />'What's the matter with Helen' is the last drop of this sub-genre with stunning performances of both Debbie Reynolds and Shelley Winters as the troubled mothers of two convicted criminals who run away from their past to the sunny California in the 1930s to open a talent school to milk out the eagerly mothers who want their daughters to be the next Shirley Temple. In California, Debbie gets happiness, clients, tango, tap dancing and a new love interest (Dennis Weaver meanwhile Shelley gets wacko with horrible flashbacks, menacing anonymous calls, menacing strangers, menacing Agnes Moorehead as a radio evangelist, cute little rabbits (!) and an unfortunate encounter with an electric fan (ouch!).<br /><br />The sloppy script (penned by Henry Farrell, the man who started all this genre with 'Whatever Happened to Baby Jane' along with master director Robert Aldrich, Joan Crawford and Bette Davis) is full of plot holes, red herrings and wasted opportunities that could had made this movie great: the underlying themes of twisted motherhood (with Debbie and Shelley's characters as 'failed mothers' and the overbearing mommies of the child stars) and obsessive female bonding (Debbie and Shelley relationship and the fact that the few male characters of this movie are either sinister or sleazy even Dennis Weaver dream boat Texan) are wasted. Instead we get Debbie Reynolds musicals interludes and dancing tots, although fun to watch take too much screen time of what is supposedly to be a psychological chiller. But still this movie is highly entertaining. The two stars and Curtis Harrington stylish direction easily overcomes its flaws. The movie recreation of the 1930's is colorful and elegant (look at Debbie's clothes!) made with a very tight budget. The increasing atmosphere of madness and hysteria is genuinely creepy with a shocking finale that will haunt you for days. And you wouldn't easily forget that silly 'Goody, goody' song that runs through the movie either. And seeing an increasingly mad Shelley Winters screw every one of Debbie Reynolds' chances at happiness is a hoot to watch!<br /><br />8 out of 10. | 0 |
A young American woman visits her Irish roots and fends off a druid witch who is out to possess her. Sounds intriguing but after an interesting start, I got lost and spent most of the time wondering where it was going. The movie seems to be dithering in two directions -- are we watching the travails of the Irish-American woman battling her alcohol problem or are we watching a straight off horror flick about an evil witch that returns from the past? The director can't seem to decide. The two doesn't seem to gel and in the end you get nowhere. This could be so much better done and the story seemed to drag towards the end. This was most boring and disappointing. | 1 |
This movie deserved better It's great fun, has some wonderful jokes and sight gags, some in-stuff for the 'Geeks' amongst us (And we know who we are), and the effects are indeed effectual. Watching Paul Reubens fart in the face of an Academy Award winner is worth the price of admission alone. I never read the comics series before I saw the movie, but have since. as good as they are, I still recommend MM the film. (Although having the Flaming Carrot as a character would have been cool, too) Greg Kinnear is, well,...amazing as Captain Amazing, and NO ONE ELSE could be The Shoveller except William H. Macy My favorite line in the film? 'We've got a blind date with Destiny. And it looks like she's ordered the lobster.' See this film. BUY this film! It's only 5 bucks and some change at your local Wal-Mart. You'll thank me. Really you will. Oh, and Ms. Garafolo is in it. THAT ALONE makes it watch-worthy | 0 |
Considering all the teen films like 'the Breakfast Club' and 'Pretty In Pink' that are lionized. It is surprising that this one is so ignored.<br /><br />There is no sex in it, but sex is thought of, including the idea that it may matter what others think about it. The kids do not always get along with their parents, but neither the parents or the kids are seen as always right or wrong, and the parents are not seen as monsters.<br /><br />It deals with hero-worship. How one girl does a dangerous thing, which could have lead to real dustier, before realizing that she was wrong.<br /><br />The movie is kind of ahead of its' time. One kid asks another kid what birth control she uses. She says she is doing nothing to need birth control. She replies (wrongly) 'oral sex'. | 0 |
---what happened to these unlikeable people. Alan Arkin was, as usual, unfunny and just walks through the role. The kids are all a mess. Mariesa Tomei probably wishes this role had never come her way. And what are Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno doing in this really bad, mean movie? If you enjoy watching losers wallow in their disfunction, and not try in any way to do better, this is your film. All others, take a walk, read a book, or see something else.<br /><br />Jane | 1 |
'Autumn Spring' tells of the misadventures of a dapper, walrus faced, 78 (approx) year old Czech man who haplessly befuddles and bemuses all who know him with his mischievous ways while his wife meticulously plans her funeral. Centerpiece Hana (Brodský) shows us how to get babes to kiss you when your 78 and how to cop a feel in an elevator and get thanked for it as he pranks his way from day to day in this warm and glowing look at old age and one man's creative, amusing, but socially unacceptable ways of enjoying life while refusing to be relegated to the old folk's home. 'Autumn Spring' is a plodding, subtle comedy with messages for all ages which will have the greatest appeal with more mature foreign film buffs. (B+) | 0 |
First of all, let me start by saying that I have been a devoted follower of C Thomas Howell's career ever since 'The Outsiders' and 'The Hitcher'. He was an up and coming star in the 1980s - with hits such as 'Soul Man' also. The future was bright for this young actor and he had the potential to go on from there and really assert himself in Hollywood. Put it this way - Tom Cruise had a bit part in 'The Outsiders' while Howell had the lead. Look at Cruise today !!! But picking material like this drivel will only denigrate Howell's career even more - if that was possible. Why does he pick stuff like this? A small part in a major movie would be of more benefit to him than this rubbish.<br /><br />Essentially the story here takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where everybody lives underground where chaos reigns. Howell is a Shepherd - protecting the flock of various religious leaders by killing off any undesirables. He's a hit-man in other words.<br /><br />The sets are so bad, they wouldn't look out of place on a Thunderbirds episode. The use of slow-motion needlessly repeats itself throughout the movie but is well backed up by bad acting (and bad is a kind word here), no continuity, scenes that are thrown in for no reason whatsoever, vehicles that looked like they were made from a Corn Flakes box and a directorial style that bordered on stupidity. Oh yeah, and the storyline was pathetic too.<br /><br />I hate writing bad reviews about films - especially those in which I really like the star - but this film is so bad I don't believe for one second that anyone could have been proud of it. I am not a filmmaker nor am I a director but I would hide my head in the sand if I'd spent whatever amount of money and time on this movie.<br /><br />In short - this was a monumental waste of time and energy and I would not recommend anyone to EVER see this film. It came free with a DVD player I bought but I still turned the thing off halfway through because I was embarrassed for Howell. Come on C - give yourself some credit and wrestle yourself away from these non-hit wonders and try to knuckle down and get a good part - however small.<br /><br />1/10 - and only because there is no setting for 0/10. | 1 |
OK, the very idea is ludicrous.<br /><br />1. Kids don't own planes 2. Kids don't race planes with dirtbikes 3. It made the Air Force look like total idiots 4. The kids father would not jeopardize his entire career to allow his boy to joyride with him 5. Neither would a reserve colonel<br /><br />The sequels, I am sure were worse than this tripe. The soundtrack is about the only redeeming quality of this waste of celluloid. I am sorry but I just don't understand why in the world anyone would write direct and produce such unbelevable junk. The Iranian Air Force is lucky to filtch a couple parts for an ageing F-14, and this kid wrangles not 1 but 2 fully loaded and fueled F-16s? Gimme a break. | 1 |
This is a documentary I came across by chance on the UK TV channel More4 and I have to say I found it extremely interesting and thought provoking. I will also be seeking out the book that was the source material for this documentary. Basically this is Professor Jared Diamond theory on why certain parts of the earth's societies prospered and others did not. The argument he presents was new to me and argued about how the fortune of the right crops and the right animals that where able to domesticated is certainly a compelling one. As for the documentary itself it is well shot and well narrated with not to much of the re-created scenes that spoil many a modern documentary. Diamond also helps by not being to condescending which is a fault of a lot of intellectuals when trying to get a message to the masses. People have claimed his theory is Marxist but I do not buy this and see it more socio geologist. It was also refreshing to hear an theory on the evolution of society not based around religion. Highly recommended viewing. | 0 |
An enjoyable movie, without a doubt, and very evocative of both its era and that very particular stage in any boy's 'rites of passage'. But I have to say that having read the very positive comments here, I was a bit disappointed. The period was captured, but the plot was desperately thin. The whole thing revolves around the most egregious bit of miscasting in the history of school plays. The idea that quack quack would ever be chosen to play not only one of only three star turns, but a philanderer, is risible. And without that, nada. The sub-plots bore no relation that I could see to the main plot - all of them could be removed in their entirety without in any way affecting the main story - which surely suggests a fundamental flaw. When all your sub-plots look like padding, you know a central idea is being stretched beyond its limits. Nevertheless, it's a benign movie with its heart in the right place, there are some fine performances, and you just get the feeling that everyone involved felt deflated at the final 'cut!' That good feeling permeates the film. And that has to count for something. A flawed really quite good movie. 7 out of 10. | 0 |
Admittedly, I didn't have high expectations of 'Corky Romano.' But then again, who did? However, I felt it deserved the benefit of the doubt. I had no high hopes of 'Joe Dirt' either--another recent comedy starring an SNL cast member--and I ended up being pleasantly surprised. But this film is just as bad as it looks in the previews. Chris Kattan is actually a talented comic actor--contrary to what you might think after watching this movie--with great energy. He's been in many hilarious SNL skits, and I think he's one of the most talented cast members on SNL as of now. In this case, he's given a lame, pointless script and he tries to remedy each scene with his incessant mugging. Throughout each scene, he attempts a lame Jerry Lewis act and fails miserably. Jerry Lewis knew how to pull off this type of physical comedy, not to mention he worked with much better writing. Kattan simply looks like some ignorant fool with ADHD who had one too many Cafe Lattes. He doesn't even wait for the punchline; he assumes we'll all laugh once he starts jumping around like an ape on crack. In one scene, he ends up in a tugging match with a dog who has a package of cocaine in his mouth. The package explodes and the cocaine splashes all over him. He comes back to the job, strung out on coke. Now, how are we supposed to laugh at the fact that he's acting hyper and on-edge, when he's doing the same thing throughout the whole film? <br /><br />As for the rest of the cast members...Vanessa Shaw is really hot, Peter Berg is wasted in a thankless role and so is Chris Penn. Peter Falk is also wasted, though he has a few funny lines that I'm pretty sure he improvised. I hope Falk gets a decent movie someday soon. That's too much talent too waste on a clunker like 'Corky Romano.' I didn't like Falk's last movie 'Made' all that much either, but at least he had a decent role. <br /><br />I chuckled a few times, but I could not get a single laugh. Each gag is performed with no sense of timing or delivery. And it's made worse by Kattan's hammy acting. And there are certain gags that are streneously dragged out. For example, when Kattan is about to fart in his two brothers' faces. He stands there for 2 or 3 minutes, trying to get out a fart and when he finally he does it's a little tiny one. It's bad enough when you have a gag that's funny and drag it out, but when you have a lame gag and you drag it out it's a hell of a lot worse. And another example of this is when he tries to translate what those two Asian men are saying during a drug bust. I can go on and on about what's wrong with this so-called comedy, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Like I said earlier, if you predicted bad things from the trailers--you predicted right. <br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10) | 1 |
I saw this on TV the other night
or rather I flicked over to another channel every so often to watch infomercials when I couldn't stand watching it any longer. It was bad. Really, really bad. Not 'so bad it's good' just flat out bad. How did it get funded? Who thought this was a good idea? An actor friend of mine auditioned and was told he wasn't good enough to play a bad guy but I think what they meant was 'save yourself and runaway from this steaming pile of @#$%.' I bet the rest of the cast had been given the option. To be fair the acting was hard to judge because of the appalling fake American ascents. The shooting was dullllllllllll. The action was awkward and stilted. The dialog was inane. By far the saddest thing was ship. In real life the Interislander ferry is a shabby boat and on film it doesn't scrub up well. Instead of trying very unsuccessfully to make it look like a new crews liner with bits of tinsel wrapped around rusting polls, I kid you not, they could have change the script to explain or even celebrate the shabbiness. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. Don't watch this movie, not even as a joke. | 1 |
I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. <br /><br />The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.<br /><br />A definite see!<br /><br />I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. <br /><br />The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.<br /><br />A definite see! | 0 |
If you go see this movie you'll be holding a grudge against the movie theatre, the director, the producer, the actors and the person that told you to go see it! Shame on you, Sarah Michelle Geller, for putting your name and face to this poor excuse of a movie. It may have been more scary if the Japanese actors would have just spoken in Japanese instead of attempting to 'act' in English. I wanted to boo when the movie ended...a true disappointment after all of the hype on TV and movie trailers promoting this lame money maker. Sarah Michelle really didn't have to act at all to make this movie...she just practiced her frowning skills. Don't waste your time or money on this film. | 1 |
I saw this a good while ago, but i just cant get over it. I have looked everywhere to try and find out where i can get a copy of it but i have not been able to get a hold of it. I really reccomend this movie and if anyone has any info about how i can get a copy then let me know. thanx | 0 |
It's about jealousy, it's about racism, it's about manipulation, but the underlying message is love. Geoffrey Sax tried to pull off Shakespeare's Othello, by bringing it to modern day context. However, the actors were not convincing enough to pull this off. There were extra bodies to help put everything in to perspective, however, John Othello, played by Eamonn Walker, over reacted a lot in this film, causing for the down fall of Keeley Hawes, Dessie Brabant, eventually ending in Dessie's death. <br /><br />Ben Jago, played by Christopher Eccleston, was seen as the main character in the film. He didn't give enough evidence for Dessie to be cheating on Othello, with Michael Cass, played by Richard Coyle. Instead he just played a friend to all and gave one reason as to why she 'was' cheating. In the play, it took a lot more convincing from Iago to make Othello even suspect anything. This change made the movie more about rage for the wrong reasons, than what the book was based off of. However, the movie did have a few good points. It turned the army scenes into more a racist group toward blacks, where Othello is the main chief of the police squad. These scenes are made believable by the raging crowds, and burning fires. You are able to sense the amount of racism in the movie, more so than you can in the book. This book plays up the modern day scenes by making it much easier to understand, than the Shakespearian times it was written in. In the play Iago (Jago) gets tortured at the end, but in the film he gets his satisfaction, and gets Othello's position. He never gets what he deserves and is never caught for telling the lie to Othello until it is too late. I saw this as a downfall in the movie, because I feel that the villain is granted his treasure of the promotion out of lying, and in the book, he is found out by Rodrigo. Overall, the movie could have done a better job based on the play than what it did. I feel that the director of the movie left out some of the most important parts of the play that were mentioned or there to make the play flow, or make it more of a tragedy. I would say that you should read the book first, in order to understand all of the events that happened in the movie, otherwise you may find yourself lost, and confused. | 1 |
Though the Our Gang comedies still have their followers, I've got to say that their attempt to graduate to feature films, courtesy of Hal Roach came up way short. Why did Roach have to pick the Civil War as is subject with all the attendant racism that would follow.<br /><br />Dashing southern cavalier Phillips Holmes takes in young orphan Spanky McFarland and his young black friend Buckwheat Thomas after Spanky inadvertently exposes a card cheat on a riverboat. All is placid and serene in the Old South and then the Civil War comes to ruin it for everybody.<br /><br />But even children can charm the worst in the world and there's none worse than those damn Yankees. They just come south and ruin it for everybody.<br /><br />Criticized though it was for its southern viewpoint, Gone With The Wind did make a good case for the southern cause and the blacks portrayed even though servile which they would be out of necessity are still three dimensional characters. Hattie McDaniel would not have won her Oscar if it were not so. Butterfly McQueen's character of Prissy as silly and vacuous as she was has some dimension.<br /><br />Here though is maybe some of the worst racial stereotyping ever brought forth in Hollywood. The companionship of Spanky and Buckwheat does show that kids get along, racial feelings are acquired not inbred. It's not the servility of the blacks that's objectionable, but there total acceptance of it. Right from that horrible watermelon song, sung over the title credits, the message of General Spanky is a bad one.<br /><br />Yet it did get an Oscar nomination for Sound recording, probably one of the very few Hal Roach ever got out of the short subject field.<br /><br />General Spanky is far from Gone With The Wind though. | 1 |
When viewing a movie as silly as 'Hot Rod,' one must sit back, relax, and alter one's intellectual capacity to a like state which is, in this case, a state dimwitted enough to endure brainless drivel that has somehow been mistaken for comedy. With a brief runtime of 88 minutes, this film was long past drawn-out and buried itself beneath a bundle of repetitive jokes jokes that came at a minority and weren't even funny in the first place. 'Hot Rod''s base material is as superficial and irrelevant as 2004's cult hit 'Napoleon Dynamite,' though it's much more contrived and comes without ANY of the laughter. In fact, the movie's blatant desperation to be compared to 'Napoleon Dynamite' is scornful and offensive, and left me ticked off, instead of just being annoyed.<br /><br />The movie, if one were compelled enough to call it such, poses a paltry story that puts self-proclaimed stuntman Rod Kimble before us, with the trifling intention of jumping fifteen buses (one more than his idol Evel Knievel jumped, so we're told by Rod) and raising $50,000 dollars for his stepfather's impending life-saving heart operation; all so that he can fight his stepfather, once recovered, and gain his respect
because in order to gain one's respect, one must first fight them. Huh? Whatever. Each character is no more interesting than Rod's stick-on mustache, and from the film's opening joke to its ridiculous conclusion, each scene played like a nonsensical, and terribly unfunny, SNL skit which, with the addition of an extra 85 minutes, is, essentially, what 'Hot Rod' strives to be.<br /><br />The film's star, Andy Samberg, contributed an effort to the screen that observably exerted every last drip-drop of his comedic capabilities. Unfortunately rather, realistically his humorous talents are no more admirable than a five-year-old retelling his own exhausted joke that somewhere includes the innocently crude poop and pee-pee gags. And if that's disappointing, pull a chair, hide your face in your hands, and brace yourself for the real blow: he IS the film's humor! To rescue them of their mortification, I'll willingly omit the ghastliness of Samberg's co-stars' roles and leave the second third of The Lonely Island team, director Akiva Schaffer, to his non-existent talent as a director
or a comedian. Basically, every thing one could possibly do to further trample a crash-course comedy is perfectly portrayed here; and done so arrogantly, as though the film would be funnier that way. Trick yourself into believing that there's even a single laugh in this heap, or treat yourself to another movie ANY other movie. | 1 |
I almost stopped watching Hindi movies because of the mediocre quality and story lines. One exception for this is Ramgopal Verma movies. This is a nice movie with great performances from the star cast. This is must see movie for those who are sick of watching stupid dancing and love stories. The adaptation of the story and characterization was exceptional good.You should watch this movie for Nana Patekar. based on the life of Mumbai cop Daya Naik this movie deals in a more realistic way. The film delves into the life of the common man, which he has apart from being an encounter specialist. I rate this as one of the best movie of the year | 0 |
42/100. Often referred as 'Tarzan with clothes on', but it's not at all in the same league as his far superior Tarzan series. Basically, The Jungle Jim series became a Tarzan replacement for Johnny Weismuller, after he started getting too out of shape for a loincloth. In Jungle Jim, he is fully clothed. It can't compare to the Tarzan series in any way, not in acting, screenplays or quality of production. It's pretty hokey stuff. This one is the first the best in the series, and that isn't saying much. Too much stock footage is used, and it is so obvious. The score is overdone, and the plot is lame and the production is so poor it makes it hard to watch at times. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.