review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
This movie is truly boring. It was banned in Chinese cinema and i can see why. It's not because it's critical of the communist regime but simply because the movie is of such low quality. I would never want to pay money to watch this. I love movies from Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou and i am disappointed such a poor movie could come out of China. It totally seems to ignore the audience and the director seems to have made the movie for himself. The shots of a person standing there doing nothing for up to a minute are hilarious and there's plenty of them. The cinematography and video quality are unbelievably bad. I looked this film up on the Net and it seems like people actually like this film. The only explanation i have for this is that some film buffs think that if a film is not in English it is automatically good. I can't see any reason why people would like this. this is not an art film it's of waste of celluloid.(That's if they actually shot it on film , which they didn't) | 1 |
I very much enjoyed watching this film. I taped it while watching so that i could review it later. I actually enjoyed the second viewing more since i was able to absorb more of the clever dialog between Natalie and Adam, the 2 main characters. I thought the way this story evolved was very thought provoking. I got very intrigued with how Natalie was going to interact with her daughter's friends , at first it seemed that she was going to spew a lot of animosity but once she started interacting more pleasantly i had to see how this visit was going to unfold. i wasn't disappointed . Gradually the secrets that Sara kept from her mother started to reveal a daughter who was not so perfect, a flawed human being like most of us who wanted her freedom from a domineering mother who thought she knew her daughter but unfortunately had to learn in a very painful manner that sometimes to really love someone you have to give them their freedom. The viewers who stuck with this film to the end saw a very touching performance from Diane Keaton (who is always wonderful, even in some of her less well received films-think Town and Country). The closing scene of Diane Keaton driving home was well worth waiting for, revealing that anyone who loves another human being has got to learn that we have to live our own lives, we love others but don't own them and ultimately we have to let go. It's a hard lesson but well worth contemplating now and then.Thank you CBS for this broadcast,it was worth the long wait. | 0 |
Whenever Hayao Miyazaki does the 'tri-fecta,' (writes, directs, and animates a movie) he makes a classic film for the ages. He has done it again with Gake no ue no Ponyo.<br /><br />The story is about a girl fish who is kept on a very tight leash along with her younger sisters by her father, a bitter ex-human wizard named Fujimoto. The fish escapes from her father and rides a jellyfish to shore, where she is caught up in a dredging operation and finds herself stuck in a bottle. This underwater sequence must be one of the most elaborately drawn animated scenes ever undertaken and stands on its own as a reason to search out the theatrical release. Miyazaki, who shows no fear of having a busy scene, has outdone himself. There were literally hundreds of individually-drawn sea creatures of every imaginable size all in motion at the same time.<br /><br />When the fish escapes the dredging operation while still trapped in the bottle, a five-year old boy named Sousuke spots her in the water and is able to break the bottle, saving her. Since she is the result of her father's magic, she is capable of magic herself--and her father actively tries to retrieve her. The boy names the fish Ponyo. Just when Sousuke learns that Ponyo can speak, her father successfully retrieves her back into captivity.<br /><br />After a war of wills with her father, Ponyo manages to escape again with the ability to change herself into a human. She meets up again with Sousuke in a storm and the story continues from there in many interesting ways. There is a cuteness factor in this film rivaling and arguably surpassing that of Tonari no Totoro. Joe Hisaishi, once again, provided outstanding musical support.<br /><br />The story itself is simple--as are Miyazaki's films in general--and should appeal to a broad spectrum of viewers. While I haven't viewed it enough to be sure, the film doesn't seem to be one which will keep scholars in long discussions as Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi did. Nonetheless, this is the ultimate feel-good entertainment movie. I gave the movie a ten out of ten rating. | 0 |
Stanley Stupid (Tom Arnold) and his wife, Joan, like to sleep in bed with their heads under the covers and their feet on the pillows. They have two equally challenged children, Buster and Petunia. One day, Mr. Stupid notices their garbage is gone again....there must be someone stealing it from the curb. He goes off in roller blades after the garbage truck. When he finally gets to the dump, he is startled to learn not only that 'other folks garbage' has been stolen, too, but that there is a secret organization meeting at the landfill. He is determined to defeat the garbage nappers of the world, it seems. Meanwhile, Petunia and Buster visit the police station and a Chinese restaurant in search of their parents, for Joan comes up missing, too. Will they bumble their way through their problems? This is just a stupid, stupid movie, with the culprit being the terrible script. The books by Allard and Marshall are hysterical and only a couple of situations from the books ends up in this film. Arnold is actually quite nice as Mr. Stupid and the other cast members try very, very hard to make the film work. The production values are very high, with the dog and cat belonging to the Stupids adding a little oomph to the film. But, it is all for naught, as the plot is wandering and weak. Perhaps, someday, someone will take another stab at translating the very funny Allard books to the big screen. Therefore, if you love to laugh, rent something else while you await a new production and, by all means, go get the books, too. But, stay away from being stupid yourself, as anyone who watches this movie to the end could hardly be called intelligent. | 1 |
What 'Noise' fails to do is get us to understand its character. Tim Robbins plays an obsessive New Yorker who can't deal with the obtrusive noises of the city any longer, particularly car alarms. It's an odd idea for a film, which has about as much creative credibility as 'Death Wish.' It is clever at points; particularly a scene in which our hero is trying to read through Hagel, 'I'm too stupid to be understanding this.' He reads and rereads a paragraph in confusion, we read it and don't get it either.Just then a car alarm goes off. Throughout the movie is constant interference of alarms and city noises. Though, all in all it does little to help us understand our hero, who allows this all to ruin his marriage and gets distracted with side plots instead of digging deeper-into his persona. <br /><br />The film-making itself is too oblivious to notice its own sound problems, shoddy editing, and visible boom mikes. No, 'Noise' isn't all-bad. William Hurt is at least colorful. At least the ending doesn't fall flat. Overall it drives home a logistical point, one you haven't probably thought of. At least I hadn't. Though all in all, ninety minutes long, it couldn't have ended sooner. The story dragged on and seemed to be lost as soon as it started.<br /><br />This is another one of those movies that you might see at a film festival, but probably won't get picked up for distribution. Check it out on DVD if you're really partial to someone involved in the project. Otherwise skip it. | 1 |
Some spoilers**** A Soap has some wonderful moments to recommend it. When Charlotte and Veronica get close to intimacy is a beautiful, low key, truly erotic scene. I also loved the music score and the soft, muted cinematography. I'm not clear if the curious stop and start structure of the film comes from it being digested originally in serialized form (the announcer describing the action in sections is quite annoying). My biggest problem with this film is its rather absurd depiction of a transwomen and her life. Of course, she has to be shown as a sexworker (what else), scatterbrained, impractical, absurdly frilly/girly, completely hopeless when it comes to dressing and incapable of making any interpersonal attachments in the world. Moreover, she's always shown with two days growth of beard (for some bizarre reason) as if to emphasize how tawdry her life is. And she's waiting to get gender reassignment surgery when she seemingly has done nothing else to forward her transitioning. In truth, the character resembles a drag queen, not someone in the midst of transitioning.<br /><br />These are typical fantasies of people from the outside who really aren't connected to transpeople. The film's fetishization of GRS surgery is a way of objectifying people who are going through transition. Not impressed with this aspect of the film in the least. At the very least, why not have the character played by someone who really is transgender... I thought the male actor portraying Veronica was okay but no better than that. Much better was the woman portraying Charlotte, a very complex character full of energy, self-loathing, desire and contradictions. If she was so fascinated by someone with female energy, a Charlotte could go out to a women's bar in two seconds and find it. Yes, she was drawn to Veronica but more as an abstract idea of someone with male/female characteristics (a gentle touch but with a good punch), not as a unique person. Yes, what A Soap says about love is often lovely and moving, but that doesn't mean an already stereotyped minority has to be stereotyped some more in the process.<br /><br />This film also proves that Danes are lousy dancers. For such a promising premise (better executed in a film like 'Different For Girls') the final film is a letdown. | 1 |
This was another World War II message to the soldiers and to the Allies to be careful about spreading rumors. These were called 'instructional' cartoons because it was a mixture of serious messages along with a funny-looking main character called 'Pvt. Snafu.'<br /><br />All of us have imaginations, along with fears and what-have-you, and that's what happens here as Pvt. Snafu incorrectly adds two and two to something he hears and comes up with 'five.' You can start panics and all kinds of disasters if you spread enough rumors and enough people believe them. That includes losing confidence in your country and your cause, as pointed out here in this cartoon. A good way to lose a war is demoralize the enemy. That's still being done today. <br /><br />'We lost the war,' declares one big baloney near the end of this cartoon. Amazing how some Americans still haven't learned. This cartoon may be 65 years old but it sure has relevance today. As I write this, there were two terrorist bombings in Europe today and some people still think the 'War On Terror' is just a bumper sticker slogan. Amazing.<br /><br />The writer, the famous 'Dr. Suess,' uses analogies of 'hot air balloon juice' here to present the above message. With Theodore Geisel (his real name) you know the rhymes will be clever.<br /><br />Nothing hilarious here, but it wasn't meant to be. You have to understand the climate of 1943 and the justified paranoia that was out there during World War II. People forget that war could have easily wound up with the other side winning. It was a tense time | 0 |
This is by far the worst British comedy ever, how it made it past the first episode let alone the pilot is beyond me. The acting is weak from the main character played by Ben Miller to Sarah Alexander (from the fantastic coupling)right through the cast. The plot/story lines were unfunny and very very predictable using many worn out ideas. A very painful series to endure but sadly put in a slot between two excellent shows. describing it as Britain's answer to ' Meet the parents' does a disservice to 'meet the parents' and is as about as fresh as an old shoe that has a run around with the family dog. Britain should have learned that rip offs from other countries never work from looking at America's sad attempts at doing so. | 1 |
As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the 'Scarlett' miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an 'arrangement' with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's 'roots that go deep,' and is eventually named 'The O'Hara,' the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd 'night-on-white-horse' - type of a rescue. The 'Scarlett' miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.<br /><br />I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision. | 1 |
Life Begins - and ends - in a typical 1930's maternity / recovery ward, where we view 48 hours in the lives of several high risk pregnant women, played by Loretta Young, Glenda Farrell, Clara Blandick (Aunty Em???), Vivienne Osborne, Dorothy Tree, and Gloria Shea, as they await to give birth. While the film features plot devices which seem far fetched today when maternity wards are much more controlled and restricted, it does offer us a look back in time to see what giving birth in a typical city hospital in 1932 was like for our grandmothers and great-grandmothers. I found the film fascinating and exceptionally moving.<br /><br />Oddly enough, the most outstanding performance in this film comes from a male cast member, young Eric Linden as Jed Sutton, Grace's (Loretta Young) husband. What an actor! As a first time father, Jed is distraught and uneasy with hospital staff who seem to brush off his concerns about his wife as they might brush crumbs off a cafeteria table. I felt his every concern keenly. I'd like to see more of this actor's work. He had a very emotional voice, which was used to unforgettable effect in Gone With The Wind. In that film Eric played the young soldier whose leg was amputated without anesthesia, who screamed 'Don't cut! Don't cut!' as Scarlett fled the hospital in horror. Chilling! Another great performance is from Aline MacMahon, who plays Miss Bowers, the nurse. Her character is a salt of the earth type, the kind of nurse we all hope to get for our hospital stays, who breaks the hospital rules constantly in order to show a more humane side of the medical profession.<br /><br />Loretta Young did another superb acting job here as well, a very authentic and deeply felt performance as Grace. My, she is great in these precodes, I've really grown to appreciate her more as an actress the last few months.<br /><br />Glenda Farrell played her role of a shrill unwed mother a little over the top for my taste (didn't anyone know back in 1932 that swigging brandy from a hot water bottle might be hazardous to unborn babies' health?) but her character redeems herself in the end.<br /><br />Also in the cast was an uncredited Gilbert Roland, silent movie star, as a grieving Italian husband. His screen time was brief, but notable.<br /><br />Life Begins is a must-see precode, try to catch it sometime on TCM, but remember to bring a few hankies to cry into. 9 out of 10. | 0 |
The movie starts off promisingly enough, the use of imagery and simple short clips convey the bigger story, which would normally need a considerably higher budget than the one here. However it did start to worry me as it continued, combined with another overly husky Max Payne type voice over the movie was starting to look not so good. I hoped it was just the introduction to the story.<br /><br />The story is what really caught me and took me to this movie. The idea that a research scientist has created a virus that actually protects the cells it infects from other infection was an interesting scientific idea. Then that subjects who had the most bizarre disorders sought out the scientist and offered to be his human experiments made me think this could be one very good small movie. Yet the introduction hadn't gone well.<br /><br />There did seem to be a change of pace as the movie turned to recorded interviews with the four main characters in the movie, the test subjects. Although the acting wasn't superb, there seemed to be a lot of scope for character development throughout the movie, and the recordings were done quite well with a varied mix of characters. However these faded through the movie. They weren't used again after a few brief clips and I did feel that there was a missed opportunity to provide some great character development by reflecting back to them, however it wasn't to be.<br /><br />The imagery becomes increasingly disconnected from the story, often repeating to represent something that is still happening. This disconnection and repetition is reflected in the annoying and distracting commentary. It began reciting words one after the other. Short, meaningless sentences and reciting none too relevant or interesting scientific ramblings. If there was something to be described, four or five words would be used, it was too long, repetitive, circular, looping,...you're getting the idea.<br /><br />Now this could have been to reflect the confusion and of the character, slowly becoming caught up in his own thoughts, rambling due to lack of food and water. What it actually did was to cause me to totally switch off to the voice and by the closing stages of the movie I found that I hadn't been listening to some of the ramblings.<br /><br />A number of times that an event occurs the camera shows all the characters one after the other for their reaction, which seems to be somewhere between confused and thoughtful. There are repeated fades from the same scene to the same scene, for instance a character sleeping fades to black, then fades back in on the character sleeping again. Look, we know the character is asleep, we know time has passed, please move on. Overall there are just too many atmospheric cuts and long, hanging shots to fill time.<br /><br />The acting was not bad, and the characters were okay, but not exploited and developed. When they were interacting there were some truly cringeworthy moments. For example when one of them asks if they are hungry the camera looks to each of them and returns to a group shot, they pause, look to each other, turn back to camera and say slowly 'No'. It raised a snigger or two. Their dialogue was slow, glossy and either it was missing altogether or totally unnecessary, there seemed to be no middle ground where the dialogue hit spot on.<br /><br />However, there were some good scenes, but they were really hard to find unless you viewed them in isolation, and this is what it almost looks like has happened with this movie. The film has been looked at as a series of scenes and not as a complete story.<br /><br />Nowhere is this seen more than in the main storyline. The characters are infected with the virus that has been killing the animals, the one that was being engineered for them. We're told that it develops in stages to something dramatic, and so that is what we expect. What we get are the characters eating loads together, all throwing up once together, water pouring from their mouths in unconvincing streams, then they all fall asleep, these are the phases which all happen really early in the movie. Then, they all say 'Good' together when asked how they are, and that's it. That's the virus done, nothing else happens.<br /><br />There could have been so much more done with this movie, so much more developed with the virus and it protecting them from all manner of harm. It could have explored a serious change of these characters as it infected and took over them, it could have developed these characters, shown them making decisions and doing things that connect back to their character shown in flashbacks to the interviews.<br /><br />The ending isn't even confusing, intriguing or thought provoking. It just shows something that happens and that's it, although in the long, drawn out style with the irritating voice over above it. I really struggled with this movie and watched a number of Press members walk out (including one famous TV critic leaving within the first twenty minutes), I stayed, but regretted the lost time. | 1 |
The trailer goes nowhere near and only scratches the surface of the film and rightly so too, not because it has that obligation to keep its real narrative under wraps, but because what actually transpires, will provoke entirely different lines of questioning, some of which are frustratingly not answered in the film, leaving you to your own devices to interpret the series of events. Which of course means plenty of material for an after-show discussion.<br /><br />Metaphorically, the box refers to how us humans tend to subconsciously hole ourselves into situations or things in everyday life, and how our enclosed thoughts tend to see things from a certain perspective, seldom out of the box. There's a speech made near the end by one of the characters that will leave you pondering over this fact, which governs the basis of the entire film, and even threading on existentialism, where our bodies are mere vessels for the soul, and from cradle to the grave we put ourselves in more boxes in a way of life fashion.<br /><br />What I disliked about the film, is how it tried to sound intelligent through the frequent name dropping of covert government agencies like the CIA and NSA, as though there's something overtly clandestine about these agencies that we should be aware of. They serve little purpose other than to put every action and every person under scrutiny, that nobody can be trusted, wrecking havoc in a sense to both the characters and the audience as we try to keep up with trust issues to aid in the interpretation of the narrative. Having it set in 1976, against a NASA backdrop of manned space missions, and in Langley, Virginia, also provided that heightened sense of wary that will sap your energies as you sit through it patiently.<br /><br />Based upon the short story Button, Button written by Richard Matheson and made into an episode of the Twilight Zone, the story follows the Lewis family, where husband Arthur (James Marsden) works at NASA and develops a prosthetic foot for his teacher wife Norma (Cameron Diaz), and you'd think it's all happy family with their son Walter (Sam Oz Stone), until one day a mysterious man called Arlington Steward (Frank Langella in a Two-Face inspired facial effect) whom we are preempted of in the opening, comes knocking and giving them a Deal or No Deal button in a box. Plunge the button and they'll get a million bucks (we're talking in dollar terms of the 70s here) although a stranger out there will die. If they don't, well the deal's got an expiry date.<br /><br />The story would dictate a deal be made, which of course sparks off a mysterious sequence of events that unfold, with even more shady characters (who nosebleed) appearing, some whom are inexplicably zombie like, apparently all under the influence, or employment, or Arlington Steward. Whether or not Steward is Death, a clandestine government employee, a messenger from God or a representative of Aliens after an anal probe, remains unanswered, so whichever way you look at it, it's as if he's delivering something expected, just begging that mankind will shake off its innate greed so that his work can be cut short and to return to wherever he came from.<br /><br />If you need a little distraction from the disparate scenes which make up the narrative, the production sets and art direction are gorgeous in recreating the 70s look, as you try to figure out the mystery of the consequences that stem from a result of not fully understanding the fine print. It's full circle this examination of human nature, of our greed for immediate gratification, manifesting its result in longer term pain, confusion and further choices that we'll make based on real sacrifices. Nifty special effects come into play as well, though it just leaves more room open as to the genre of the film.<br /><br />So is it horror, science fiction, or a mystery thriller? It's everything rolled into one actually, together with a sprinkling of the philosophical. Just don't go expecting a straight narrative film with clean and easy answers at the end this is like an X-Files episode on steroids. | 0 |
While I'm normally a big fan of John Turturro's work as an actor and director, ILLUMINATA is a great disappointment. Although the film has some charming moments, overall it falls flat. Worst of all, the film is confusing. Where is the movie set? Italy or an Italian troupe in New York? Why bother making a historical film if it fails to convey a setting? If you want to see a well-made, inspiring historical film also about theater, go see Tim Robbins' THE CRADLE WILL ROCK. This movie has many pluses, including a fine performance by John Turturro. | 1 |
When I first saw this film around 6 months ago, I considered it interesting, but little more. But it stuck with me. That interest grew and grew, and I wondered whether my initial boredom and response had more to do with the actual VHS quality rather than the film itself. I purchased the Criterion DVD box set, and it turns out that I was right the second time. Alexander Nevsky is a great film. It is rousing, and I'm sure it succeeded in its main aim: propaganda against the Germans.<br /><br />That is the most common criticism against this film, and against Eisenstein, that it is merely propagandist and nothing else. It's untrue. He is an amazing film artist, one of the most important whoever lived. By now, the world is far enough beyond Joseph Stalin to be able to watch Eisenstein's films as art. | 0 |
A disappointing end to a season that started so well ...<br /><br />Exodus part 2 and other notable episodes were amongst the best seen on TV in any series, where as this was rather bad.<br /><br />Well I am not sure if it was the episode that was a disappointment, but the cheesy guitar music at that accompanied the closing sequence was laughable and would have been more at home in the original series.<br /><br />Its almost as if the corporate execs didn't like the low key down note ending and wanted to jazz it up. They failed and rather spoilt everything.<br /><br />Lets hope this is not a trend for the future.<br /><br />Still at least we saw the return of a certain person even if somewhat bizarrely and tritely done. | 1 |
The Stepford Children, besides being a very good made for TV movie, shows the very disturbing result of indoctrination. It is quite a statement about how being made to act within the confines of what is considered 'Good' behavior can destroy whatever it is that makes a person unique and an individual. I think that this is a movie that parents who want to maintain some semblance of the thought that loams within the hearts and minds of youngsters should watch with their children and discuss what the movie is saying. I don't know if that was in any way the intent of this movie but I have always been of the opinion that it is one of the best movie devices against the wish to have children conform to an unrealistic and domineering pretense of what is in the best interest of anyone other than that of the children themselves. I hope to one day see this movie on DVD. I am at the starting gate... waiting. | 0 |
Believe it or not, the Mona Lisa actually got stolen once, and was missing for nearly two years. In 1911, Leonardo da Vinci's 'La Gioconda' (better known as the Mona Lisa) was taken from the Louvre by a petty thief (and former Louvre employee) who allegedly sought to return the world's most famous piece of art to its native Italy. His actions after the theft make it seem more likely that he intended to sell the painting for his personal profit. (Of course, he had no hope of finding a buyer.) The Mona Lisa was quietly returned to the Louvre on the very last day of 1913, remaining there ever since except for occasional loan-outs. When 'Arsène Lupin' was released in 1932 (twenty years after the theft), most moviegoers would have recalled that 1911 crime, and their knowledge would have lent some plausibility to this movie. 'Arsène Lupin' is quite enjoyable, with MGM's usual high production standards and Jack Conway's usual briskly efficient direction. This movie does not lack for pleasure; what it lacks is plausibility.<br /><br />John Barrymore is the master criminal of the title: he specialises in perpetrating 'impossible' crimes, which he makes even more difficult by announcing them in advance ... but of course he always commits the crime and fools the gendarmes. Tully Marshall has a good scene as one of Barrymore's victims. Lupin has a penchant for elaborate disguises, which enables Barrymore (a U.S. 'Grade A' ham) to indulge his own penchant for tomfoolery. John's older brother Lionel Barrymore is Guerchard, the Javert-like Surete detective sworn to catch Lupin.<br /><br />Karen Morley was an extremely beautiful actress whose private life was filled with populist political activities; on screen, she was most impressive in working-class roles that fitted her own political beliefs (such as her fine performance in 'Our Daily Bread'). In 'Arséne Lupin', Morley's naturally dark hair is bleached a horrid blonde tone, and she's all tarted up in posh outfits that make her look uncomfortable rather than sexy.<br /><br />SPOILERS COMING. Eventually, Lupin decides to steal the Mona Lisa from the Louvre. He slits the painting from its frame, rolls up the canvas, and then smuggles it out in a flower basket. We see John Barrymore casually brandishing a tightly-rolled piece of cloth which is allegedly the greatest work of art in all human history. I had to laugh at the filmmakers' error. In real life (but not in this movie), da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa on a plank of poplar wood, so a thief would have difficulty rolling it up!<br /><br />Eventually, Guerchard captures Lupin and hauls him off to Le Calaboose. The scene between John and Lionel Barrymore in the police car is sheer delight, as their genuine affection for each other spills out into their characters' dialogue. I would have found this scene implausible with any two other actors. As it is, I can't imagine anyone but the Barrymore brothers playing these roles. Well, maybe Dennis and Randy Quaid, but just barely.<br /><br />Don't look for a good plot line here, but 'Arsène Lupin' is a delightful example of old-style movie-making. I'll rate this movie 8 points out of 10. | 0 |
How sad there is no option to post a mark lower than 1. I watched this piece of nonsense and could barely believe what i was watching. Every single part of the film was awful. Music, acting, direction, story, everything, simply everything. I actually found myself laughing out loud at various points in the film. I particularly loved the bit where our hero is dashing through the hospital in soft focus slow motion, and knocks the clipboard out of the nurses hand, because, .............well. Just because. Product placement? Crucifix's (crucifi?) everywhere. If you are of a Christian persuasion and very easily satisfied, you may like this movie. If you do like this movie, you really need to get out more. | 1 |
In my humble opinion, this version of the great BDWY musical has only two things going for it - Tyne Daly and the fact that there is now a filmed version with the original script. (OK Vanessa Williams is good to watch.)But to me that's all there is. Most of the cast seem to be walking through the show - Chynna Phillips has no idea who Kim really is and no wonder people walk over Harry McAfee when it's played by George Wendt who looks like he'd rather be back on a bar stool in Boston. Jason Alexander is passable, but that wig has to go and I saw better dancing in Bugsy Malone. As I mentioned, it's good to have a version of the stage script now, but I hope the young out there, who have never seen a musical, DON'T judge them all by this. | 1 |
Sure, I like short cartoons, but I didn't like this one. Naturally, kids would love it. But then again, I'm not a kid anymore (although I still consider myself young).<br /><br />I will not tell you anything about the story, for the simple reason there is no story. How is it possible this dragon of a cartoon was nominated for an Oscar?! Well... I guess it's because people in the 30's were more happy with not much than now. In the present where we live, everything must happen fast. Look at the movies nowadays, and you will come to the same conclusion: we live in a society that doesn't allow men to be slow. That's really a shame. I wish I lived in the 30's, because it seems so peaceful. But every time has got its ups and downs, I guess...<br /><br />To conclude: if you like music (and frogs), you'll have to see this cartoon. Otherwise, don't spill your time on it. | 1 |
I recorded this ages ago but only got round to watching it today. I have been ill so had run out of stuff to watch! I am so glad I saw it, and which I could erase my memory and watch i again for the first time. This movie is so wonderful! It reminded me very much of Fried Green Tomatoes At The Whistlestop Cafe. <br /><br />The story goes back in time and at the end of the movie we see what the connections are. Some people have said this is a kids movie. I disagree - it may be made by Disney and many characters are children, but I am 23 and I LOVED it! There were moments when my spine tingled. The story is unlike any other film these days, full of adventure. I have just ordered the book from amazon, can't wait! | 0 |
Very disappointing 7th chapter of this slowly dying series. Very evident that the budget was extremely low. This movie was made for one reason and one reason alone. To sell Puppet Master Toys! Fans, such as myself of the series have decided, from what I have read and heard that the only one in the series worse than this is Curse of the Puppetmaster. In turn, turning us away from the series. <br /><br />Opting to make this a PG-13 film, for whatever reason, did not work in the films favor. The plot seemed almost to be there, but was easily lost in the steady stream of nonsense. <br /><br />The only film in the series worth watching, also directed by Decoteau is part 3 - Toulon's Revenge.<br /><br />Granted, I do favor the scenery in the film. <br /><br />Yuck! | 1 |
I expected a bad movie, and got a bad movie. But I couldn't really imagine in my worst fantasy how bad this movie was. I don't even want to try to explain what Blood Surf is about. Is not about blood surfing, but a big a$$ crocodile. They are complaining about the fake shark in Jaws, but Spielberg was wise and didn't show the shark until the end. Here the crocodile is shown a lot of times, and it's the worst fake crocodile I have ever seen, and they don't try to hide it. If you want to see a good fake crocodile watch Lake Placid. <br /><br />The director had an opportunity to make a decent surf/shark movie, but he had to make a bad b-monster movie. He had the chance to make an original surf movie, but he wanted to make a monster movie. So you have understand how bad this movie is, does it have some good parts? Not really, it got some nudity, and a sex scene that is taken straight out of a playboy movie. The acting isn't half bad either, and Kate Fischer looks good. Too bad she doesn't take her top off. The lead actors aren't bad either. They had some potential. The location was beautiful and the movie start good with some nice surf scenes. The blame is on the untalented writer and director. The dialogue is some of the worst I have ever seen, and the script is really badly written, and the director got no talent what so ever, and not much of a fantasy either.<br /><br />Don't watch it. Even if you want to watch the beautiful Kate Fischer. It isn't worth it. Watch Sirens to watch Kate nude, and watch Lake Placid if you want some good crocodile action.<br /><br />3/10 because I'm in a good mood, and Maureen Larrazabal looks good naked, and Kate looks good (but is bad actress,)and Dex Miller, Joel West and Matt Borlenghi did a good job with the piece of sh#t they had to work with. | 1 |
As is nearly always the case, when Britain comes up with an entertaining and/or successful sit-com or quiz show, the Yanks will come along and poach the format and produce their own, grossly inferior, version. Man About The House is, of course, no exception to that rule. The Yanks' version ( Three's Company ) was unwatchable, braindead pap that seem to run forever. A prime example of quantity over ( non-existent ) quality. The original, on the other hand, is a fondly-remembered gem that had the savvy ( like Fawlty Towers ) to pull the plug at precisely the right time ( unlike the 637 episodes of 'hilarity' that Three's Company came up with ). Jo was cute, there was brilliant chemistry between the Ropers, Richard O'Sullivan made it all look so easy, the scripts, whilst not exactly Oscar Wilde-standard, were consistently funny and Chrissy was THE most drop-dead gorgeous woman who has walked the face of this planet since The Dead Sea was merely feeling unwell. 'Nuff said. | 0 |
I can confidently say that this is the worst film I have ever seen, and I usually love foreign films. The movie is nothing more than poorly-made violent pornography. If you choose to see it, prepare yourself for endless sexism, gratuitous nudity shots, and a stupid sensationalized rape scene, which I'm sure is the main appeal for the people who like the movie. <br /><br />Additionally, the plot meanders aimlessly, and none of the characters is likable. Many scenes are filmed from the woods surrounding the river the girls are on to give a constant feeling that someone is stalking them, which was a pathetic attempt to make up for the lack of story to tell.<br /><br />Perhaps I wouldn't have wasted my time to see the movie, if it had been accurately described in reviews. | 1 |
William M. Thackeray once said 'A good laugh is sunshine in the house.' When I watched Take Away, I must say that the sun did shine in my house. This film was superb, the opening was very cleverly done, the story held together well, in a nutshell two fish'n chip shop owners who normally enemies are forced to form an alliance of sorts to engage in a David and Goliath struggle against a fast food chain which builds a restaurant on their street. The ending was hilarious even though I have found many who disagree with me on that one.<br /><br />The film was though very discreetly, portraying contemporary Australian ethnic stereotypes, in particular the collision or culture clash if you will between the traditional Anglo Australian and Italo Australian stereotypes, and how they found a sort of 'unity though adversity', very nice.<br /><br />I found Vince Colosimo's performance as 'Tony Stilano' an Italo-Australian Fish 'n Chip shop owner in his thirties to be first-class, his acting was very genuine and convincing, through his performance he managed to really bring to the surface the essence, or I should say the soul of the Italian Australian stereotype, which in reality is not too Italian but not too Australian either, Colosimo found that balance, breathed into its lungs and gave it life.<br /><br />The Cinematography could have been better, more shots of the local area would've been nice, from what I can see it was in Melbourne, but where in Melbourne? to me it looks like somewhere between Ivanhoe to Bullen, though I am not 100% sure on that one.<br /><br />I don't know why so many people are comparing this film to 'The Castle' though they have similar themes running through them, Take Away stands in a league of its own.<br /><br />I think the film was Excellent with a capital 'E' it has everything, it's funny, the jokes are great, it deals with contemporary issues facing Australian society, the story holds well, I loved it! I highly recommend it. | 0 |
I've never understood this type of spoof movies. You get some serious/semi-serious movie that everyone knows about and takes the seriousness out of it through immature fart-jokes and such. We've seen it many, many times, and it's never really been funny. It's just an easy way to laugh at something you don't understand, in my opinion. This seems to be one of the more obscure and less liked of the genre, though I honestly don't see anything in this that is much worse than that of Spy Hard or Hot Shots. This movie, as is clearly understood simply from the title, concentrates on making childish fun of Pulp Fiction. That's the main reason I decided to watch it, as I found that film to be overly indulgent of Tarantino's sick mind and powerfully overrated. I had hoped for one or two good jokes, making fun of the overly violent and pointless type of movie that Pulp Fiction was in every aspect, in my (anything but) humble opinion. I was sorely disappointed. The plot is pretty much a rip-off of Tarantino's film, with a few scenes spoofing other, often better, films, in the same childish and humorless fashion. The pacing is poor, and often you'll sit there, being able to guess the outcome of every scene, predicting every joke, often thinking of a better one at the spot, bored out of your mind. The acting is bad. The characters are clichés and stereotypes, and are intentionally paper-thin in order to make fun of the characters they're based on... problem is, it doesn't work. It just makes the movie that much harder to sit through. The humor is juvenile and lame. The only positive thing I can say about this film is that they managed to find some actors that looked like the people they were supposed to look like. The film is an awful waste of the actual real actors involved. Possibly slightly entertaining to fans of the typical spoof movies of the same kind. I recommend this only to people who truly loathed Pulp Fiction, or fans of the Zucker parody films. Everyone else: avoid. 1/10 | 1 |
They missed up the film when the tried to use some one diffrent. They should of keeped Ralph Macchio as Danny instead of changing it. And made more Karate Kids with him in it.And also many people were woundering what happen to Danny when they jumped from 3 to 5 and no four. | 1 |
In fact, everyone responsible for this dreck ought to be whipped, dragged, and hung! IF this is what great Eugene O'Niell drama is like I never want to be victim to viewing it ever again. There are so many things WRONG w/ this feature where does one begin? First, Elmer Bernstein's bombastic score is present thru out the entire film even in the quiet scenes where background music subtracts from the character's motivations. Second, these characters are NOT pleasant people and while some reviewers might enjoy that I personally disliked every scene in which Ives ate up the scenery, but that was the way his characters was written: to be disliked. W/ Loren it just never is made clear whether she's good or bad
and all her babbling about how she's going to change things back to the way they were before the baby arrives
well, I saw what was coming clearly. Perkins is miscast and then he plays the role like a warm-up for Norman Bates (which he played two years later) even wanting to take blame for the murder at the end. Hokey! Third, this film is a studio sound-stage production and it suffers because of it. The story would have benefited from location shooting to develop a sense of 'place' regarding the farm (which all the main leads are fighting over). As it is filmed there's no sense of value to the property because the film has a studio sound-stage feel to it that isn't convincing. This is a really awful film. | 1 |
With the exception of about 10 sublime minutes with HB Warner on the celestial train, this was 94 minutes of jaw-dropping horribleness! The acting was atrocious, but the story is what I really found appalling. The acting was wooden and stilted, even by early talkies standards (the exceptions being Lee Tracy and HB Warner, neither of whom can do wrong). Rose Hobart was absolutely horrid and lifeless as Julie (as she likewise was in 1932's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, an otherwise excellent flick). And the rest of the cast was worse, there being no words to describe their awfulness. <br /><br />Worse than the acting, however, was the story. For some unknown reason, Julie loves Liliom, a cad and user of women with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He marries Julie but doesn't support her, instead lying in bed all day or hanging out with his low-life criminal pal (Lee Tracy). And, oh yeah, he never has a kind word to say to Julie and he regularly beats her. Julie loves him nonetheless and continually makes excuses for him, which only seems to make him more abusive. What's even sicker is that this movie presents this story to us as a love story. Somehow we are supposed to see Julie as a noble character whose pure love redeems Liliom. WTF? <br /><br />The last 1/3 of this movie takes place after Liliom has killed himself (a robbery plot goes awry and Liliom plunges a knife into himself rather than being taken in by the police). As he lay dying, he tells Julie 'I beat you all the time, but I'm not sorry for it.' When he at last dies, she finally tells him she loves him. (Neither character ever said 'I love you' to the other while they were alive.) After his death, God's Chief Magistrate gives Liliom one more day on earth so that he can 'do something good' for his unborn daughter. The price for this is 10 years in hell. After 10 years, Liliom is allowed one day on earth to see his now 10-yr-old daughter. He approaches her in the front yard of her home and tries to cajole her into letting him 'do something good' for her; he tries to get her to play cards, he tries to give her Gabriel's horn, but she's not interested and rebuffs him. So he slaps her. He. Slaps. Her. And then he disappears back to the afterlife. Looking on, we see his daughter tell Julie about this. The girl says the slap didn't hurt, that it felt like a kiss. This is supposed to be the movie's magical moment. The girl asks her mother if such a thing is possible, and Julie replies that 'someone can be beat you and beat you and beat you and not hurt you at all.' Then the music swells and Liliom rides up to heaven in the celestial train. BLECH! <br /><br />There was one saving grace to this film, and that is the interview between the Chief Magistrate (HB Warner was truly magnificent here) and Liliom on the celestial train. The Magistrate had some very profound things to say to Liliom about life and second chances and death. This scene alone made me bump this rating from 1 to 2 stars. Regarding Liliom's suicide as a means for escaping his problems, the Magistrate says 'People suppose that when they die, their difficulties are ended for them. You thought that by killing yourself that you would cancel all your responsibilities. It is not as simple as that. On Earth your name is still spoken; your face is still remembered. As long as one is left who remembers you, so long is the matter unended. Until you have been completely forgotten, you will not be finished with the Earth, even though you are dead.' Some great sublime transcendental stuff amongst some of the most horrible trash I've ever seen. <br /><br />By the way, this story has apparently been filmed many times both as 'Liliom' and as the musical 'Carousel.' | 1 |
This is a beautiful, rich, and very well-executed film with a rich and meaningful story. Basically, it tells how an old master story teller needs to find a (male) heir to carry on his craft, but ends up not getting what he expected in his very male-dominated world. The characters must then deal with their situation and the old master must grapple with the conflict between his desire for a companion and heir and his and society's traditional notions.<br /><br />The story is fun, emotional, and complex. The exploration of the characters, their lives, and emotions, is rich and compelling the character development is strong while the characters are complex and not one dimensional at all. The film expertly conveys the old man's emotions and his desire to find an heir, and compellingly shows how he and the kid handle the situation. There is also humour, sometimes quite subtle, at appropriate points. The film also examines the good and bad of traditional Chinese culture, creating further interest and depth to the film.<br /><br />The directing, acting, and scenery are all outstanding. Added to the other strengths, this creates rich and convincing visual images and compelling, real characters. As a result, the film evokes strong empathy for, and feelings about, the characters.<br /><br />Some have claimed that the ending weakens the film, but I do not necessarily agree. Perhaps it could have been stronger with a different ending, but any improvement in the overall film would have been rather small. | 0 |
1931 also presented 'an American tragedy', the original tale of 'who will he take up with, poor girl or rich girl'. this was a truly entertaining film. Babs stanwyck was a pretty as she could be, ditto sally blane. Monroe owsley, unmemorably played Babs's husband. i had never heard of him, but i thought he bore a good physical resemblance to bing Crosby of 'the big broadcast' ('32), even a receding hairline and wingy ears. Ricardo cortez, the rich playboy with a heart of gold. a true movie pioneer going wayyy back. the dilemma is resolved at the end, to the strains of the title and i believe Annette hanshaw had the hit recording, although the off-screen voice did very well. i also enjoyed the dance hall scenes. i'm sure they were authentic; the band, a leading one of the time was superb. good job, Lionel Barrymore!!!! | 0 |
Darr, although a copy of some Hollywood flick, is one of the best films I have seen. It is not only beautifully portrayed but also has great songs and beautiful scenery. Shahrukh is his usual self. His expressions and voice matches his character. I was pleasantly surprised by Sunny Deol's portrayal in the film. He is a bit romantic and lovable in the film, unlike his other characters in his other films.At times you feel like Justice hasn't been done to his character. Sunny was intended to be portrayed as the good guy in the film but ends up looking like the villain at the end. Juhi Chawla is beautiful and bubbly. She is her usual self. In short, A great love story with passion. | 0 |
The movie began well enough. It had a fellow get hit by a glowing green meteorite, getting superpowers (telekinesis, x-ray vision, invulnerability, flight, the ability to speak to dogs, superspeed, heat vision, and the ability to make plants grow large and quickly), and fighting crime. From there on it's all downhill.<br /><br />Meteor Man gets a costume from his mom, fights with the resident gangs, and has many aborted encounters with the gang leaders which serves to set you up for the disappointing, overlong, and stupefying ending.<br /><br />It wouldn't be so remarkably bad if it weren't like watching a boxing match where the two fighters pretend to hit each other while the audience stands looking onward while the fighters just continue to dance.<br /><br />Despite all of this nonsense the movie has good points. It states clearly that if you try to take on a gang alone then they'll come back to your home and hurt you. It states that gangs & communities need to see their real enemies (the big bosses that use them for their own ends to crush honest people into a ghetto existence). It also states that people do not need superheroes if they are willing to work as a community do destroy the predators that harm them. The only message it really lacks is that the voters should ensure their elected officials (Rudolph Giuliani, Marion Barry, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, & George H.W. Bush) aren't crooks too.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Here we've got an intelligent mixture of typical hongkongmovieshootouts, worlddestructionthemes and intelligent filmmaking. Not that the script has not its big holes and a few specialeffects are a bit cheaplooking. But the cinematography is a optical treat and the soundtrack is first rate. The blend of fast actionsequences and colorful slow, sometimes nearly poetic parts, has no comparison in its kind of movie, so a classification is rather hard. The closest genre is a disaster or terroristmovie with deeper human and political notes than usual. Well worth to be seen worldwide in cinemas. But i am hoping this for so many other (mostly asian) movies before and nobody seems to believe me. Unfortunately. | 0 |
I love the series! Many of the stereotypes portraying Southerrners as hicks are very apparent, but such people do exist all too frequently. The portrayal of Southern government rings all too true as well, but the sympathetic characters reminds one of the many good things about the South as well. Some things never change, and we see the 'good old boys' every day! There is a Lucas Buck in every Southern town who has only to make a phone call to make things happen, and the storybook 'po' white trash' are all too familiar. Aside from the supernatural elements, everything else could very well happen in the modern South! I somehow think Trinity, SC must have been in Barnwell County! | 0 |
This movie will go down down in history as one of the greats, right along side of Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and On The Waterfront. Someone please convince Leno to do a sequel! Leno and Morita are a comedy duo, the likes of which haven't been seen since Abbot and Costello. The evil that emanates from Chris Sarandon, Tom Noonan, and Randall 'Tex' Cobb will give you the chills. Dingman's character as the buffoonish oaf hearkens back to the days of Shakespeare's comedies. And the climax. My goodness, the climax. I won't ruin it for you, but it makes the explosion of the Death Star pale in comparison. If you can track down this hard-to-find gem, do yourself and your family a favor and buy it immediately. I'm still holding out hope for a special edition DVD one of these days. | 0 |
After the unexpected accident that killed an inexperienced climber (Michelle Joyner). Eight months has passed... The Rocky Mountain Rescue receive a distress call set by a brilliant terrorist mastermind Eric Quaien (John Lithgow). Quaien has lost three large cases that has millions of dollars inside. Two experienced climbers Walker (Sylvester Stallone) and Tucker (Micheal Rooker) and a helicopter pilot (Janine Turner) are to the rescue but they are set by a trap by Quaien and his men. Now the two climbers and pilot are forced to play a deadly game of hide and seek. While Quaien is trying to find the millions of dollars and he kidnapped Tucker to find the money. Once Tucker finds the money, Tucker will be dead. Against explosive firepower, bitter cold and dizzying heights. Walker must outwit Quaien for survival.<br /><br />Directed by Renny Harlin (Driven, Mindhunters, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4:The Dream Master) made an entertaining non-stop action picture. This film is a spectacular, exciting, visually exciting action picture with plenty of dark humour as well. This was one of the biggest hits of 1993. This is one of Harlin's best film. Lithgow is a terrific entertaining villain. Stallone certainly made an short comeback of this sharp thriller. This is probably Harlin's best work as a filmmaker.<br /><br />DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an terrific-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has an running commentary track by the director with comments by Stallone. DVD also has technical crew commentary as well. DVD has behind the scenes featurette, two deleted scenes with introduction by the director and more. Do not miss this great action film. Screenplay by Micheal France (Fantastic Four) and actor:Stallone (The Rocky Series). Based on a premise by John Long. Excellent Cinematography by Alex Thomson, B.S.C. (Alien³, Demolition Man, Legend). Oscar Nominated for Best Sound, Best Sound Editing and Best Visual Effects. Panavision. (****/*****). | 0 |
Ossessione is in very bad state but is now undergoing a full restoration at Digital Film Lab in Copenhagen. The material used is a 'Master positive' 2nd generation originally from the print Visconti managed to hide from the fascists. It has been scanned on the Spirit 4K (as 2K RGB data) then processed using DaVinci Revival restoration software. After this the rest is manual labor and we do not anticipate finishing before early spring. Sometime next year it should be available on DVD and hopefully also released on HD DVD. This film is beautiful and we hope the restoration effort will be enjoyed by many generations to come. | 0 |
i was enjoying this movie most of the time, but i kept getting the feeling that i was watching a children's movie. i honestly think that somebody wrote a pg script and then, while filming, decided to add in some blood, nudity and language. it was a big let down. there's that believe the children magic that exists in movies like 'babe' (the pig) or 'angels in the outfield' that defeats the evil tooth fairy. the parents end up believing their daughter about her ability to see the ghost and utilize this skill to supernaturally defeat the tooth fairy. when i bought this movie, i thought it would be a b-film response to the dreadful darkness falls; somehow manage to make a better film with 1/4 of the money, but they don't. they made a worse film and will probably lose the same proportion of money lost on darkness falls. | 1 |
Accepted...let's see. The only reason why i had chosen to see that movie was the hot dog shown in commercials when Shrader(sp?) said, 'ASK ME ABOUT MY WEINER'. After that i HAD to see that movie and i watched it with a couple of my friends...and WOW amazing. One of the best films of the year. THe entire movie i was laughing like crazy! The plot in this story is that Bartleby (Justin Long) doesn't get accepted into any of the schools he applied, so he makes another fake college for him and his friends so that he can fool his parents that he DID make it into college. So he makes the finishing touches and he fools his parents...until, more students look at the website and see the clicker (ACCEPTANCE IS ONE CLICK AWAY) and all these rejects come to this school. They face many problems and they just cant seem to get anything right 10/10 LOVED IT NOW WATCH IT | 0 |
What can you say about the film White Fire. Amazing? Fantastic? Disturbing? Hilarious? These words are not big enough to describe the event which is White Fire. From wobbly, garbled beginning to profound end, this movie will entertain throughout.<br /><br />Our movie begins in the woods of a country somewhere in the world. A family is hiding from unmarked soldiers in costume shop uniforms. When the father separates from the mother and their childen, you get a real sense of what kind of movie you're about to watch. Father makes sure to roll down hills in his all white outfit, and is polite as he gets people's attention before he shoots them, but alas, dad is burned alive in what looks like a very unsupervised, unsafe stunt. Meanwhile, mom and the kids are running down a beach with an armed soldier trailing about 5 feet behind them. He too gives a stern warning before action in the form of a bizarre 'HALT!', and then promptly wastes the mother. This action sequence sets up the happy childhood of our heroes Bo and Ingred.<br /><br />So now we fast forward about 20 years (30 if you're honest about the hero's age) to beautiful Turkey, where Bo and Ingred have settled as professional thieves, or diamond prospectors, or something. Ingred works at a diamond mine where she helps herself to the goods, while Bo (masterfully played by the dynamic Robert Ginty) drives around the desert in his denim outfits. Bo and Ingrid have an interesting relationship. They don't seem to have any friends other than each other, and they spend all of their time together. That coupled with the fact that Bo has expressed his desire to sleep with his sister as evidenced in lines such as 'you know its a shame you're my sister' he says to her while she's stark naked, make for a very dynamic duo. Bo is then crushed when Ingrid is killed, as he wanders the beaches of Turkey with his ceremonial pink grief scarf. A renewal of hope occurs when Bo finds a girl who looks like Ingrid, and gives her plastic surgery to make her look exactly like Ingrid. This opens the door for Bo to have sex with his sister without it being technically wrong. Bo is a real fan of ethical grey areas, and he is overjoyed with his new love.<br /><br />So anyway, there's a lot of fun action scenes, ridiculous violence, great acting, impossible to follow plot-lines, Fred 'the hammer' Williamson (for some reason), and a big chunk of dirty ice which is supposed to be a giant diamond (which later explodes). All of these things are great, but the Bo and Ingrid relationship is what makes this movie special....really special. So I heartily encourage everyone to behold the majesty that is White Fire. You may be glad you did..or not. | 0 |
Another Norman Lear hit detailing the problems that African Americans had to go through in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s.<br /><br />With Esther Rolle and husband along with 3 children living in a Chicago high-rise project in a predominantly black neighborhood, the show depicted what black people were going through with a landlord (black agent Mr. Bookman) as well as prices and the day-to-day problems of just existing.<br /><br />The 3 children depicted how people seem to face their problems differently- from the comical JJ to the militant Ralph Carter, to their daughter who also aspired to attain success, this show was a perfect description of African-American life. | 0 |
Alright, before we review, I have to ask: why isn't this listed individually? It may have been merely a TV item in Italy, but to international Lamberto Bava fans this is its own FILM. In America this film is distributed on VHS and DVD as either 'The Ogre' or 'Demons 3'. Yes, I know it has nothing to do with 'Demons' apart from one cast member and the crew. But yes, I personally was upset that this was so hard to find on this site which is otherwise so useful.<br /><br />Finally, let's review 'The Ogre'. I've seen the trailer for this many times on YouTube and honestly found that rather scary. The movie itself (it is feature length, therefore making it a movie) has many many strong parts and does manage to scare. I was displeased by the last act, but on the whole I don't regret having bought the DVD before seeing it (available from Shriek Show). I guess the film's TV origins explain the last act. I won't give out any spoilers.<br /><br />The plot is somewhat familiar: an American horror writer vacationing at an ancient spooky castle with husband and son only to find it exactly resembles the setting of her childhood nightmares. There are faint echoes of 'The Shining', but this is a different brand of supernatural horror. The woman (Virginia Bryant) finds more and more proof that this is the real life place of her nightmares, but her husband won't believe her. Great atmosphere and terror follow.<br /><br />The multiple nightmare sequences were pretty freaky. The Ogre cocoon effect was good, it reminded me a bit of Uncle Frank's resurrection from the first 'Hellraiser'. There's also a few good shocks and a well done underwater scene. I give them props that the film never stooped to imitating American films with similar concepts, namely 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'. 'The Ogre' is an original. And the monster itself was a scary one, when it was presented correctly.<br /><br />On the Shriek Show DVD there is a Lamberto Bava interview in which he is careful to mention that this is not part of his classic 'Demons' series. He also gives a lot of credit to the real castle in which the movie was filmed. Indeed, this setting contributes a lot to the film. The Simon Boswell music helps too.<br /><br />There's lots of good stuff here. 'The Ogre' is not perfect, but it is very much worth seeing. Take it is a lesser Lamberto Bava achievement. | 0 |
All the funny things happening in this sitcom is based on the main character Jim being either a bad father, a bad husband or generally just enormously selfish. How can that be funny? Of course a character in a sitcom has to be flawed, but Jim's character is flawed in an extremely unsympathetic manner.<br /><br />And why it that? My guess is that it's because 'he should now better'. Jim's not a stupid guy, he can take care of things and he's got the opportunities to do so. But he chooses not to. It's a conscious choice he makes, when he chooses to not play with his kids, not go shopping because he doesn't want to buy 'lady products' and it's a choice he makes, when he puts down his relatives.<br /><br />The other characters seems to only be in the series so Jim can have someone to be a jerk to. If the Cheryl character was a real person, she would have left him years ago, and not stay with the deadbeat for 8 years. But alas, she's just a catalyst for Jim's quirky middle-class extreme selfishness. | 1 |
'A young man, recently engaged to be married, is the victim of a traffic accident and dies as a result of his injuries. His father, desperate to revive his son, agrees to let a scientist friend try his experimental soul transmigration process to save him. After the young man returns to life, the father and fiancée notice a dark and violent change in the young man's behavior, leading them to believe something went horribly wrong in the revival process,' according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />At one point, Edward Norris (as Philip Bennett) is asked, 'What do you think this is, Boys Town?' Mr. Norris should know, since he was in 'Boys Town'. 'The Man with Two Lives ' is more like 'Black Friday' minus Karloff and Lugosi. You do the math. This film might have been a contender, with a re-worked script; it does feature an intriguing final act. After a tepid 'shoot out', hang in for the drama to pick up with a well-played scene between star Norris and pursuing detective Addison Richards (as George Bradley).<br /><br />**** The Man with Two Lives (1942) Phil Rosen ~ Edward Norris, Eleanor Lawson, Addison Richards | 1 |
Okay, the recent history of Star Trek has not been good. The Next Generation faded in its last few seasons, DS9 boldly stayed where no one had stayed before, and Voyager started very bad and never really lived up to its promise. So, when they announced a new Star Trek series, I did not have high expectations. And, the first episode, Broken Bow, did have some problems. But, overall it was solid Trek material and a good romp.<br /><br />I'll get the nits out of the way first. The opening theme is dull and I don't look forward to sitting through it regularly, but that's what remotes are for. What was really bad was the completely gratuitous lotion rubbing scene that just about drove my wife out of the room. They need to cut that nonsense out.<br /><br />But, the plot was strong and moved along well. The characters, though still new, seem to be well rounded and not always what you would expect. The Vulcans are clearly being presented very differently than before, with a slightly ominous theme. I particularly liked the linguist, who is the first Star Trek character to not be able to stand proud in the face of death, but rather has to deal with her phobias and fears. They seemed to stay true to Trek lore, something that has been a significant problem in past series, though they have plenty of time to bring us things like shooting through shields, the instant invention of technology that can fix anything, and the inevitable plethora of time-travel stories. Anyone want to start a pool on how long before the Borg show up?<br /><br />All in all, the series has enormous potential. They are seeing the universe with fresh eyes. We have the chance to learn how things got the way they were in the later series. How did the Klingons go from just insulting to war? How did we meet the Romulans? How did the Federation form and just who put Earth in charge. Why is the prime directive so important? If they address these things rather than spitting out time travel episodes, this will be an interesting series.<br /><br />My favorite line: Zephram Cochran saying 'where no man has gone before' (not 'no one') | 0 |
It's a road movie, with a killer on-board. Brian Kessler (David Duchovny), a sophisticated, urbane writer, wants to conduct field research on American serial killers. But, neither he, nor his girlfriend, Carrie (Michelle Forbes), has the money for a cross-country tour of murder sites, so they advertise for someone to share travel expenses. Who they end up with is a young couple, Early Grayce (Brad Pitt) and his girlfriend, Adele (Juliette Lewis), two better examples of 'poor white trash' you will never find in all of cinema.<br /><br />Indeed, Early and Adele are what make this film so entertaining, as they babble, cackle, confide, muse, speculate, drool, and otherwise behave in ways I haven't seen since reruns of 'The Beverly Hillbillies'. Early's idea of California: 'People think faster out there, on account of all that warm weather; cold weather makes people stupid'. That's enough to convince Adele: 'I guess that explains why there are so many stupid people around here'. To which Early responds proudly: 'It sure does'. Early continues to instruct Adele about California: 'You never have to buy no fruit, on account it's all on the trees ... and they ain't got no speed limits, and I hear your first month's rent is free, state law'.<br /><br />But poor Early has some, well, mental problems, which become ever more obvious to Brian and Carrie as the four travelers proceed west across the U.S. As they enter the desert Southwest, with its beautifully stark landscape, 'Kalifornia' starts to look more and more like 'The Hitcher' (1986), and Early starts to act more and more like John Ryder, everyone's maniacal hitchhiker, whose terror seemed so unstoppable.<br /><br />In 'Kalifornia', the acting is uneven. Duchovny's performance is flat. Brad Pitt is surprisingly effective, despite his overacting at times. Michelle Forbes is great as the avant-garde, photographic artist. But my choice for best performance goes to Juliette Lewis. With her nasal voice and heavy-duty Southern accent, she is stunning, as the naive, highly animated, child-like Adele.<br /><br />Toward the end, the film takes on a Twilight Zone feel to it, as our travelers enter a Nevada nuclear test site with a dilapidated old house full of test mannequins. The plot dissolves rather messily into unnecessary and preposterous violence, an ending that was somewhat disappointing.<br /><br />Overall, however, 'Kalifornia' is an entertaining film, thanks to a clever concept, great scenery, especially in the second half, good cinematography, great dialogue, and that wonderful performance by Juliette Lewis. | 0 |
The acting was bad, the script was bad and the ending was just terrible...the only good comment i could make about this movie would be the special effects and make up...but apart from that...this movie would be one of the worst movies of 2001...why on earth did they have to remake such a perfect movie and ruin it...why!!!! | 1 |
I remember watching this film back in 86' when it first came out & what an awful film. The acting was atrocious the plot was so flimsy it would or is that should have blew away in a breath of wind. I think it put me to sleep on more than one occasion & i was not tired that i remember. Please avoid at all costs better still have all your teeth taken out with no anaesthetic cos that would be more entertaining. It's just a pity i couldn't give it a zero or a negative score. I wish i had not wasted my money getting this one from the video shop all i can say was that the tape it was on was still brand new practically hardly surprising as the film was so poor. If i remember right i sat & watched it with a girl i really wanted to go out with & the fact she was sat next to me was still not enough to keep me awake thats how bad this film was. | 1 |
'The Gingerbread Man is the first thriller I've ever done!' Robert Altman <br /><br />In 1955 Charles Laughton directed 'The Night of the Hunter', a spooky slice of Southern Gothic in which Robert Mitchum plays a scary serial killer. One of the film's more famous sequences consists of two kids escaping from Mitchum on a rowboat, the kids frantically paddling whilst Mitchum wades after them like a monster. <br /><br />Seven years later Mitchum played an equally spooky killer in 'Cape Fear', another film set in the American South. That film featured a local attorney trying to protect his family and likewise ended with Mitchum terrorising folks on a boat. In 1991 Martin Scorsese, trying to branch out and tackle something more mainstream, remade 'Cape Fear', boat scene and all.<br /><br />Now we have Robert Altman's 'The Gingerbread Man', another slice of small town Southern Gothic. Altman says he consulted 'The Night of the Hunter' for inspiration and tackled such a mainstream film purely because he wanted to 'spread his wings and try a popcorn picture', but what he's secretly attempting to do here is deconstruct the canonical films of the Southern Gothic genre.<br /><br />So instead of a showdown on small boat, we get a showdown on a giant ship. Instead of two kids being kidnapped, we get two kids being safely returned to the police. Instead of money being hidden, we have money being readily given via a last will and testament. Instead of the righteous attorney of the 1961 film and the deplorable attorney of the 1991 remake, we get a rather three-dimensional lawyer in Kenneth Branagh. Instead of the monster chasing the family we get the hero chasing the bad guys. Instead of the monster breaking into the family's house boat, we have the hero hunting the monster on board the monster's 'house ship'. Similarly, instead of a murderous serial killer we get an innocent weirdo played by Robert Duvall. . .etc etc etc.<br /><br />Altman goes on and on, reversing everything just a little slightly, pulling at the edges and doing his own thing. His touch is most apparent during the film's first half-hour, the film existing in an uneasy space between conventional plot-driven movie storytelling and Altman's fondness for overlapping dialogue, casual narratives, prowling camera movement and the way that characters aren't so much introduced as they are simply part of what's going on.<br /><br />Still, despite Altman's best intentions, the film never rises above mediocrity. Altman's too bound to the conventions of the 'thriller format' to do much damage, his style is too lethargic to generate tension and the film is simply not radical enough to counterpoint other canonical films in the genre. 'Gingerbread Man' is thus too mainstream to work as a more pure Altman film and too Altman to work as a mainstream thriller.<br /><br />The film's not a complete waste, though. Robert Downey Junior, Kenneth Branagh and the usually intolerable Daryl Hannah, all turn in juicy performances. The film also has a nice atmosphere, set against a approaching hurricane, and the final act contains some interesting twists and turns. While it's not the complete disaster that Scorsese's 'Cape Fear' was, the film still never amounts to anything special.<br /><br />7/10 In the late 90s Altman made 3 successive films set in the American South: 'Kansas City', 'Gingerbread Man' and 'Cookie's Fortune'. Unlike 'Gingerbread Man', both 'Kansas City' and 'Cookie's Fortune' tackle the genre on the broader, more looser canvases that Altman was most comfortable with. <br /><br />'Kansas City' is the more important of these two films, its hierarchies of class, politics and crime, and its desire to break radically away from typical gangster genre frameworks, would prove influential on all serious 21st century film crime writers (see, for example, 'The Wire'). That said, 'Cookie's Fortune', while a much slighter tale, is perhaps the better picture.<br /><br />Note: Altman claims that this is his first thriller, but he directed 'Images', an art house thriller, in 1972.<br /><br />Worth one viewing. | 0 |
'The Brain Machine' will at least put your own brain into overdrive trying to figure out what it's all about. Four subjects of varying backgrounds and intelligence level have been selected for an experiment described by one of the researchers as a scientific study of man and environment. Since the only common denominator among them is the fact that they each have no known family should have been a tip off - none of them will be missed.<br /><br />The whole affair is supervised by a mysterious creep known only as The General, but it seems he's taking his direction from a Senator who wishes to remain anonymous. Good call there on the Senator's part. There's also a shadowy guard that the camera constantly zooms in on, who later claims he doesn't take his direction from the General or 'The Project'. Too bad he wasn't more effective, he was overpowered rather easily before the whole thing went kablooey.<br /><br />If nothing else, the film is a veritable treasure trove of 1970's technology featuring repeated shots of dial phones, room size computers and a teletype machine that won't quit. Perhaps that was the basis of the film's alternate title - 'Time Warp'; nothing else would make any sense. As for myself, I'd like to consider a title suggested by the murdered Dr. Krisner's experiment titled 'Group Stress Project'. It applies to the film's actors and viewers alike.<br /><br />Keep an eye out just above The General's head at poolside when he asks an agent for his weapon, a boom mic is visible above his head for a number of seconds.<br /><br />You may want to catch this flick if you're a die hard Gerald McRaney fan, could he have ever been that young? James Best also appears in a somewhat uncharacteristic role as a cryptic reverend, but don't call him Father. For something a little more up his alley, try to get your hands on 1959's 'The Killer Shrews'. That one at least doesn't pretend to take itself so seriously. | 1 |
I love this movie. Even though I rated it a '4', that's because the acting, the plot and the budget were all slated to the 'B' universe even before this movie was released. But that's OK! It is an entertaining film that has a lot to offer! <br /><br />I remember what Leonard Maltin said about 'Plan 9 From Outer Space': a film so bad that it's great! Lacking the UFO - alien plot, The Thing the Couldn't Die relies on the supernatural (divination, a buried head looking for it's body, hypnosis, etc) to tell it's story. The acting is stilted, the camera work second class and the settings are limited, but boy! what a movie! This film is available in the bootleg market. If you find a copy, buy it! | 1 |
If we compare the movie industry with an ocean, we have the tendencies to observe only the surface. Driven by the strong Hollywood marketing force, we all saw war movies like Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket. But underneath the splashy waves grow in silence, from time to time, less known pearls. When you pick one and look carefully at it, you wonder why this pearl lie almost unknown and why it's not already on the crown.<br /><br />'Stalingrad' is such a gem. Why, it has a bunch of multi-million dollars rated actors? No. It have thousand of extras? No. It have breathtaking, spectacular, shiny computerized visual effects?. Not at all. So, what's so special? Well, in one word, it's pure past reality recreated and transposed to celluloid fifty years later. The tragedy of the most bloody battle in the history is here. Filthy, wounded soldiers, Russian civilians who lost everything during the invasion, burning villages, collapsing buildings, decayed suburbs, gunfires, explosions, tanks in flames, soldiers shot, burned alive, ground by tanks in their pits or shred to pieces - you got all. But the real horror is elsewhere. People are reduced to simple pawns, without the power to change anything. The soldiers we follow in film try to leave the combat zone and they fail. The civilians stay in prostration in the middle of nowhere, only crying for their children killed. Mercyless, the huge grinding machine of war melt together humans, equipment, villages, cities - and ask for more victims and destruction, over and over.<br /><br />In all this collective insanity a group of German soldiers struggle to survive and to keep at least a minimum level of normality. They do their duty and fight bravely. But, as everyone know, a battle is almost lost when people start to loose confidence and faith. We see how all those people are abandoned, how they plan to desert, how they struggle to catch the very last plane to Berlin (full of wounded), how some very bad injured soldiers were treated as simulants and shot, how they were forced to execute a small group of Russian civilians, including a young boy, how they later discovered a place literally full up to the ceiling of food and drinks - destined only for some 'superior' officers, of course. One by one, they drop dead. The end of the movie is one of the most bitter, depressing and touching ending I ever saw, all on the magnificent score of The Munich Philarmonic Orchestra. The war destroyed everything in its path.<br /><br />This movie is a must-see for everyone. A true movie-lover should have it in his/her collection. The strong anti-war message must be a warning for all of us. Unfortunately, the mankind never learn, nor the politicians. Self-destruction is in our DNA and the human pain seem to last forever. Can we be enough reasonable to stop THE WAR? | 0 |
The Last Hunt is one of the few westerns ever made to deal with Buffalo hunting, both as a sport and business and as a method of winning the plains Indian wars. Before the white man set foot on the other side of the Mississippi, the plains used to have herds of American Bison as large as some of our largest cities. By the time of the period The Last Hunt is set in, the buffalo had been all but wiped out. The 20th century, due to the efforts of conservationists, saw a revival in population of the species, but not hardly like it once was.<br /><br />Robert Taylor and Stewart Granger are co-starring in a second film together and this one is far superior to All the Brothers Were Valiant. Here Stewart Granger is the good guy, a world weary buffalo hunter, who has to go back to a job he hates because of financial considerations.<br /><br />The partner he's chosen to throw in with is Robert Taylor. Forgetting Taylor for the moment, I doubt if there's ever been a meaner, nastier soul than Charlie Gilsen who Taylor portrays. In Devil's Doorway he was an American Indian fighting against the prejudice stirred up by a racist played by Louis Calhern. In The Last Hunt, he's the racist here. He kills both buffalo and Indians for pure pleasure. He kills one Indian family when they steal his mules and takes the widow of one captive. Like some barbarian conqueror he expects the pleasure of Debra Paget's sexual favors. He's actually mad when Paget doesn't see it that way.<br /><br />No matter how often they refer to Russ Tamblyn as a halfbreed, I was never really convinced he was any part Indian. It's the only weakness I found in The Last Hunt.<br /><br />However Lloyd Nolan, the grizzled old buffalo skinner Taylor and Granger bring along is just great. Nolan steals every scene he's in with the cast. <br /><br />For those who like their westerns real, who want to see a side of Robert Taylor never seen on screen, and who don't like cheap heroics, The Last Hunt is the ideal hunt. | 0 |
ok. for starters, taxi driver is amazing. this, this is not taxi driver or amazing. what it is is bad. but i thought it was bad funny, which means that it did have some redeeming qualities. like the dialogue...wow. there was more or less no plot, the characters were all stupid, and the movie was preachy. there were some places were i thought the movie would dive into taxi driver type violence, which would have hit the message at the end of the movie on the head much harder. i can't even believe that there are like 20 other people who have seen this movie. yeah, it's worth watching if you are real bored and you want to reaffirm the fact that anyone can make a movie, or at least can try to. | 1 |
I bought a DVD collection (9 movies for 10 Euros) where this one was included. It turned out to be the 'uncut version' whatever that means. Beside the low average quality and short scenes there was one thing that was really strange - the soft sex scene. It started with a close up of 2 bigger breasts. After around 2 minutes I had an expression on my face which fitted the term 'boooooooooooooring!' quite perfectly. 7.5 minutes of not even bouncing concrete like tits (at this point the term breasts is a bad choice) is far beyond from entertainment.<br /><br />The rest of the movie was more like 'people aren't /that/ stupid, are they?' <br /><br />Lucky me, the DVD was scratched and I got my money back. | 1 |
'The Love Letter' is one of those movies that could have been really clever, but they wasted it. Focusing on a letter wreaking havoc in a small town, the movie has an all-star cast with nothing to do. Tom Selleck and Alice Drummond had so recently co-starred in the super-hilarious 'In & Out' (also about an upset in a small town), in which they were both great, but here they look as though they're getting drug all over the place. I can't tell what the people behind the camera are trying to do here (if anything), but they sure didn't accomplish anything. How tragic, that a potential laugh riot got so sorrowfully wasted. | 1 |
I finally rented this video after searching for it for many months. Initially I only wanted to see it because I'm an out and out Neil Pearson fan (Patrick, boyfriend of Isobel, the lead). However, the movie stands up very well without Neil (although he handles himself very well in this movie, he is overshadowed by the three main female characters). It's an eerie, intense movie, the sort the Brits do so well - definitely a 'chick flick' the house and it's isolated setting giving the movie an almost 'Wuthering Heights' aura. The movie is full of tension and the ending, shocking, yet somehow inevitable. I'm glad I watched it, it was worth the wait | 1 |
I finally found a version of Persuasion that I like! Anne doesn't look like a scullery maid in this version, just a very thin, aging, pretty woman, quite like she's described in the book. Captain Wentworth doesn't look like he's 50, nor does he look perpetually angry but rather, as he's described in the book, he hasn't aged as much as Anne and is quite handsome. And they play their parts with such conviction and realism...that's what acting is all about. They were believable. They created real characters, and it was like the characters in the book came to life. If you haven't seen this version, I urge you to find it, order it or request it from either a bookstore, or a library if you must. It's worth the price and worth the wait. <br /><br />I watched the 1995 version, and the 2007 version and this one towers over the other two. Why it isn't rated higher is beyond my comprehension. The book conveys the tenderness of their relationship and this movie makes the book come to life. | 0 |
I like dark humor and non-PC stuff, but not if it is with no purpose but to elevate yourself. Bashing a group of people without any trace of self-irony is crap.<br /><br />There are people who could make concentration camp jokes funny, but whoever made this film unfortunately failed even in the VERY easy task of making fun about Turks in Germany. It is a very easy task, but if your are the Germany equivalent of an inbred redneck (=inbred Southerner from a village where virginity is often lost to farm animals) you certainly will fail at this and also at life. I have heard and seen so many funny stuff about minorities in Germany, but this 'movie' (this piece of crap being listed here is an insult to the next worst movie) sucks like the calf the makers of this movie met some years ago. | 1 |
The trailer to this film focused so much on the chain (of course, because it's so sensational) that it missed most of the movie, which is about a developing, although rather simply drawn, relationship between Lazarus and Rae as they attempt to recover from their past pains with each other.<br /><br />Of course, with the premise of a nymphomaniac in chains, it's no surprise that there's plenty of implied sex involved. However, at it's core, Black Snake Moan is a basic tale of redemption and the healing power of helping another person along. Maybe it's just me though, but I think poor Lazarus should've had his story focused on more. He's a hurting man after his wife leaves him, but we never fully see how helping Rae resolve her past pains heals him too. It's just implied that it does--in essence, he plays the wizard that helps the young Rae overcome her curse, through a big ol' chain and some blues.<br /><br />I like the story, but I wish it were a bit more even and didn't have to rely on the sensational. The side characters were fairly decent, if simple and I liked the music. The acting was good enough, although I can't be certain if the Rae character is fully believable. But that might just be my naivety.<br /><br />All in all, I liked the film, but I wasn't compelled by it. Maybe it's that I'm too critical, but the story seems a little too convenient to be fully believable and so, while it all seemed very cool, I could never truly buy it. The chain thing was a little too far-fetched for me. Still, this can provide some entertainment for those looking for dramatic redemption stories with a shot of the blues. 7/10 | 0 |
Three of the things you can say about Spalding Gray are: he certainly marched to the beat of his own 'drummer;' he was never at a loss for words; and he obviously felt that those watching and listening to him would be interested in every aspect of his life, experiences and thoughts - no matter how trivial at times.<br /><br />Most of us are not quite as far 'off the wall' as he was. Most of us aren't as interested in sharing the most minute parts of ourselves with others - even one-on-one or in small groups, let alone on stage.<br /><br />But that doesn't make it any less-interesting to watch and listen to this erudite, unusual man. And after seeing one of his performances, on reflection, we can find many of his articulate musings were perhaps more relevant to our own lives and thoughts than we may have first thought.<br /><br />Granted, he was a 'New York/avant-garde' type of personality, and undeniably a bit 'strange.' (There are those who would maintain describing someone as 'New York' and strange' was being unnecessarily redundant.)<br /><br />I give him a '10' for the talent he presents in this genre which is his specialty. | 0 |
This movie is not only about feelings and human emotions, it is also about everything that could be but it's not. Poetry in movies can be awfully boring and annoying, but this movie is delightful to be watched. Not to mention the amazing Irène Jacob, a great actress in France - one of the best, actually. When the movie ends, you can only feel sorry. After all, when something is truly great, we want more (Well, for another great movie by K Kieslowsky with Irène Jacob we can always watch La double vie de Veronique) | 0 |
I was at a friends house for Thanksgiving and watched a DVD of the movie, Eddie Monroe. I've been a fan of Indie Films for almost 20 years, (I loved the Brothers McMullen), and was impressed how good this movie is. My friend, who works at Magno Sound, told us that this movie was shot on Super 16. The photography was so good, it looked as though it was a 35mm shoot. Furthermore, the music combined with Fred Carpenter's direction, was art. The storyline was original and led up to an ending that surprised all of us watching...very cool. The acting by the entire cast was good, especially the actor who played, Uncle Benny. He was amazing. This film was a nice holiday treat, and I was delighted to be one of the first to view a movie that many will be seeing in the future. | 0 |
Independent film that would make Hollywood proud. The movie substitutes good looks for good acting, a cryptic plot for a good story line, and self-absorption for character development. May be I missed something, go see it for yourself. | 1 |
The story is seen before, but that does'n matter if you can figure out to make a proper storyboard. It is clear that the director haven't spent his work on the storyboard. Alongside this, the cameraman spent far too much time leaning angles that do not match the message of the movie. The funniest is, however, if you take a look at the movie's website, you can read that it was on purpose that the director has chosen to make the film with bad camera angles. Because it remind us about hunting. But I have never heard of hunting with poor camera angles ;-) It will have 1 stars because the story is OK. It is a pity that Ti West, has not spent more time to review his story. It is as if the movie was more important than the planning. Because you have a camera does not mean you should make a movie right away... come. Everyone can make a movie, but not all will be just as good. So a word of advice to Ti West are: stop and labeling what you want. Use your time to start planning and not filming until everything has come down on a storyboard. You certainly have the ability and desire - so don't abuse your talent. | 1 |
What a terrible film. It sucked. It was terrible. I don't know what to say about this film but DinoCrap, which I stole from some reviewer with a nail up his ass. AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! sigh.. It's not Roger Corman that I hate, it's this god-awful movie. Well, really? But what can you expect from a movie with Homoeric computer graphics. Which is another thing, the CGI sucked out loud; I hate this movie dreadfully. This is without a doubt the worst Roger Corman B-Movie, and probably the gayest B-Movie too. It's-it's--- DINOCRAP! I'm sorry, I must have offended some nerds in these moments. It's just an awful movie... 0/1,000 | 1 |
I've been a fan of Heaven's Gate since its first release. I've seen it at least half-a-dozen times and have long thought of it as a masterpiece. So, it was with excitement and a sense of anticipation that I took myself off to see the restored director's cut.<br /><br />To my surprise, I was disappointed on seeing it again and have since revised my estimation of the film. Heaven's Gate touches upon greatness in parts, but overall, lacks the thematic and narrative consistency and the passionate urgency characteristic of a truly great film.<br /><br />Firstly, two technical problems: The sound quality is diffuse throughout the film, verging on inaudibility at times. Some of this, perhaps, is intentional - a way to mimic the chaos and confusion of history as it is unfolding. But at key points, one is unable to register what it is the characters are saying.<br /><br />The cinematography is similarly diffuse. The images lack sharpness and particularity of detail. The result is a certain graininess and lack of pictorial sharpness which succeeds in blurring foreground and background.<br /><br />Structurally, the narrative is off-key throughout, as if Cimino can't quite make up his mind as to the effect he is after. He wanted an epic, for sure. But a pastoral or dramatic epic? The film sits uneasily and unconvincingly between styles, and perhaps even genres. At times it reminded me of Terrence Malick's 'Days of Heaven' or even 'Elvira Madigan' in its languid pace and elegant scene painting. At other times it threatens to turn into a robust 'western' more akin to 'The Wild Bunch'. In fact the latter film offers an instructive reference point for an assessment of 'Heaven's Gate' as it shares the same period concern and employs a similar tone of ambivalent nostalgia for a darker yet more heroic America. <br /><br />This structural and thematic uncertainty isn't helped by the poor-quality script which often sounds forced and jarring to the ear. The result is an inauthentic sense of period speech. <br /><br />The near-greatness of Heaven's Gate resides in its set pieces. The roller skating sequence, in particular, is astoundingly beautiful, one of the most evocative scenes ever put to film.<br /><br />Another set piece which works very well in terms of unifying theme, mood, and setting occurs when Kristofferson and Huppert go riding in the new rig to the lake and she washes herself while he naps in the shade. The languid pacing, evocative music and monumental scenery combine in this scene to convincingly portray the love story which might just lie at the heart of the film - and which could have been its saving grace if pursued more convincingly.<br /><br />Some critics have complained about the length of the film. This in itself doesn't bother me. A good film can't be long enough. The restored minutes are critical in restoring the motivation and characterization absent from the cut version, and they are full of pictorial interest.<br /><br />Perhaps the chief glory of Heaven's Gate lies in the achingly evocative soundtrack. The repeated waltz motif and its different scorings throughout(full band, guitar, solo fiddle etc,)lends a haunting quality to the foreground action and establishes a thematic consistency lacking in the narrative itself.<br /><br />Despite its obvious flaws, most notably the absence of a compelling narrative, there is a sense of grandeur about the film. One leaves the cinema with a rueful sense of missed greatness and a wish that Cimino could revisit the film -with the wisdom of time and hindsight, to put right what is so badly amiss. | 0 |
Along with 'King of the Rocket Men', this was still being repeated on BBC TV in the early to mid eighties. If I was loading up a time capsule of this period both these series would definitely go in.<br /><br />Someone watching it for the first time will think it is silly but this is one of the best examples of the 'Serials'. Don Del Oro will make you laugh (When I was little my nickname for him was Mr Dustbin head) and it was funny upon being shot at he says 'Your bullets can't harm me' then he stumbles back, seemingly less than happy. I also like the way he dispenses with Sebastian in the first episode.<br /><br />I watched this again because I had good memories of it from years back, there are some good stunts and good music, it has the ingredients you expect including water,rockfalls,runaway carts... Apart from the first episode(with Ralph Faulkner)the swordplay wasn't nearly as good as I remembered it, and yes it features the inevitable 'flashback' episode! It gets 8 out of 10 because it still suffers from slow pace, padding and the other tricks. If you are interested in these serials I recommend the book by William Witney, 'In a Door, Into a Fight, Out a Door, Into a Chase' although there is only a small entry about this series in it. | 0 |
There are not many movies around that have given me a feeling like Stardust did all throughout the course of the film. As magically fairy-tale-like as The Princess Bride, Stardust is most definitely the most wonderful fantasy spectacle of the 2000's as well as the 1990's. Exciting, hilarious and equipped with wonderful imagery as well as unforgettable characters, Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert DeNiro's especially, I challenge anyone to watch this movie without a smile. From the first ten minutes of the film you know perfectly well how it will end, but it is the journey and not the destination that enthralls the viewer from start to finish.<br /><br />Ten stars, and not a decimal less. | 0 |
In this movie, Chávez supporters (either venezuelan and not-venezuelan) just lie about a dramatic situation in our country. <br /><br />They did not say that the conflict started because of Chávez announcement firing a lot of PDVSA best workers just for political issues.<br /><br />They did not say anything about more than 96 TV interruptions transmitted by Chávez during only 3 days in 'CADENA NACIONAL' (a kind of confiscation o private TV signals). Each one with about 20 minutes of duration.<br /><br />They did not tell us anything about The quiting announcement made by General en Jefe Lucas Rincon Romero, Inspector General of the army forces, who is a traditional supporter of Chávez. Even now, in despite of his announcement, he is the Ministro de Interior y Justicia. After Chávez return he occuped the Charge of Ministro del Defensa (equals to Defense Secretary in US).<br /><br />They did not say anything about Chávez orders about shooting against a pacifical people concentration who was claiming for elections.<br /><br />They did not say anything about the people in this concentration that were killed by Chávez Supporters (either civilians and Military official forces).<br /><br />They present some facts in a wrong order, in order to lie.<br /><br />They did not say anything about venezuelan civilian society thats are even now claiming for an elections in order to solve the crisis and Chávez actions in order to avoid the elections.<br /><br />That's why i tell you.... This movie is just a lot of lies or a big lie. | 1 |
This has to be the best adaptation I have seen it's my favourite and I think it stays very close to the book.What really makes this a must see though is the casting of the two lead actors.The wonderful Timothy Dalton is the best Rochester I have seen on screen brooding and tragic,while Zelah Clarke is the perfect combination of strength,courage,shyness and gentleness as Jane. The story(as i'm sure most people know)is this,the young and plain Jane Eyre is a teacher at a charity school for girls in the 1800's who advertises her services as a governess in the newspapers.She is offered the post of governess at the big mansion Thornfield Hall to tutor Adele the young ward of the halls mysterious and respected owner Mr Rochester. As the months go on he falls in love with Jane and puts into effect a few situations to try and see if Jane is as madly in love with him as he is with her.However there is a secret still waiting to be discovered at Thornfield Hall and when it is it's effects are devastating.This is a moving and well acted drama with nice locations and gorgeous costumes plus as I said earlier excellent acting especially from Zelah and Timothy. | 0 |
To grasp where this 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN is coming from consider this: Its final number is sung by Barbra Streisand in a seven minute and forty second close-up, followed by another two-and-half-minute freeze frame of Ms. Streisand -- striking a Christ-like pose -- behind the closing credits. Over ten uninterrupted minutes of Barbra's distinctive visage dead center, filling the big screen with uncompromising ego. That just might be some sort of cinematic record.<br /><br />Or think about this: The plot of this musical revolves around a love affair between two musical superstars, yet, while Streisand's songs are performed in their entirety -- including the interminable finale -- her costar Kris Kristofferson isn't allowed to complete even one single song he performs. Nor, though she does allow him to contribute a little back up to a couple of her ditties, do they actually sing a duet.<br /><br />Or consider this: Streisand's name appears in the credits at least six times, including taking credit for 'musical concepts' and her wardrobe (from her closet) -- and she also allegedly wanted, but failed to get co-directing credit as well. One of her credits was as executive producer, with a producer credit going to her then-boyfriend and former hairdresser, Jon Peters. As such, Streisand controlled the final cut of the film, which explains why it is so obsessed with skewing the film in her direction. What it doesn't explain is how come, given every opportunity to make The Great Diva look good, their efforts only make Streisand look bad. Even though this was one of Streisand's greatest box office hits, it is arguably her worst film and contains her worst performance.<br /><br />Anyway, moving the melodrama from Hollywood to the world of sex-drugs-and-rock'n'roll, Streisand plays Esther Hoffman, a pop singer on the road to stardom, who shares the fast lane for a while with Kristofferson's John Norman Howard, a hard rocker heading for the off ramp to Has-beenville. In the previous incarnations of the story, 'Norman Maine' sacrifices his leading man career to help newcomer 'Vicky Lester' achieve her success. In the feminist seventies, Streisand & Co. want to make it clear that their heroine owes nothing to a man, so the trajectory is skewed; she'll succeed with or without him and he is pretty much near bottom from scene one; he's a burden she must endure in the name of love. As such, there is an obvious effort to make the leading lady not just tougher, but almost ruthless, while her paramour comes off as a henpecked twit.<br /><br />Kristofferson schleps through the film with a credible indifference to the material; making little attempt to give much of a performance, and oddly it serves his aimless, listless character well. Streisand, on the other hand, exhibits not one moment of honesty in her entire time on screen. Everything she does seems, if not too rehearsed, at least too controlled. Even her apparent ad libs seem awkwardly premeditated and her moments of supposed hysteria coldly mechanical. The two have no chemistry, making the central love affair totally unbelievable. You might presume that his character sees in her a symbol of his fading youth and innocence, though at age 34, Streisand doesn't seem particularly young or naive. The only conceivable attraction he might offer to her is that she can exploit him as a faster route to stardom. And, indeed, had the film had the guts to actually play the material that way, to make Streisand's character openly play an exploitive villain, the film might have had a spark and maybe a reason to exist.<br /><br />But I guess the filmmakers actually see Esther as a sympathetic victim; they don't seem to be aware just how cold-blooded and self absorbed she is. But sensitivity is not one of the film's strong points: note the petty joke of giving Barbra two African American back up singers just so the film can indulge in the lame racism of calling the trio The Oreos. And the film makes a big deal of pointing out that Esther retains her ethnic identity by using her given name of Hoffman, yet the filmmakers have changed the character's name of the previous films from 'Esther Blodgett' so that Streisand won't be burdened with a name that is too Jewish or too unattractive. So much for ethnic pride.<br /><br />The backstage back stabbing and backbiting that proceeded the film's release is near legendary, so the fact that the film ended up looking so polished is remarkable. Nominal director Frank Pierson seems to have delivered the raw material for a good movie, with considerable help from ace cinematographer Robert Surtees. And the film did serve its purpose, producing a soundtrack album of decent pop tunes (including the Oscar-winning 'Evergreen' by Paul Williams and Streisand). But overall the film turned out to be the one thing Streisand reportedly claimed she didn't want it to be, a vanity project. | 1 |
I saw this film numerous times in the late 60's/early 70's whenever it reared it's head like a reindeer with rabies every November-December as a Saturday matinée kiddie show.It was always stiff competition for THE CHRSTMAS THAT ALMOST WASN'T (oops-can I SAY 'Christmas'?), perhaps the greatest,most iconic Christmas-season film of all time.But that's another review.<br /><br />At the time,I marveled that the on-screen tint of SANTA CLAUS was almost 'pink and white', so much had the color of the sprocket-torn prints changed color.<br /><br />The film is kinda creepy! I thought so then--and still do, actually. I was highly entertained then, as I still am! It's amusing in a 'retarted-elf' sort of way. By the way,the image quality looks much better on the DVD I have now than it did in the theater, circa 1969-74.<br /><br />If you are expecting maybe 'the lost RANKIN-BASS Christmas special-forget it! If you want FELLINI DOES Christmas--read on...<br /><br />By nature, the dubbing on these foreign films (the original version here was in Spanish)always makes them seem 'surreal'. This adds to the films inherent oddness. It is also pretty scary in that a 'mishevious demon' (as described in the original US trailer) spends the entire film trying to turn decent kids 'evil'. One particularly nightmarish scene has a young 'latch-key' boy wishing he had parents for Christmas-suddenly the 'port-a-family' emerges out of giant 'Christmas presents-of-the-mind' until he realizes he's just daydreaming! See this,Christmas lovers--and if you're a stoner, save your stash--this film will make you think you're hallucinating...without drugs! | 1 |
This movie was shot using a digital camera, and it shows. There were enough annoying digital tricks used to alienate the viewer, also with the help of a terrible score. As if that weren't enough, the acting was also terrible. Now in Hartley's movies the acting is always peculiar, but here it was just BAD, especially by Satan (Thomas Jay Ryan)and Harvey, who (thank god) doesn't get to say much. After all these external problems it is also very unfortunate that the story itself is not that good, either. The jokes are predictable and unbelievably straightforward, and the events just rumble on from one incident to the next. The so-called book of life with Armageddon inside isn't much more than an excuse to see actors struggle to say their lines. All in all this movie is a waste of time and money and effort. Thumbs down. | 1 |
I was very disappointed by this movie. I thought that 'Scary Movie' although not a great movie was very good and funny. 'Scary Movie 2' on the other hand was boring, not funny, and at times plain stupid.<br /><br />The Exorcist/Amityville spoof was probably the best part of the movie. James Woods was great.<br /><br />Now, I'll admit that I am at a disadvantage since I have not seen a few of the movies that this parodies unlike the first, where I had basically seen them all. But bad comedy is still bad comedy.<br /><br />Something that really hurt this movie was the timing, which ruined some of what might have been good jokes. Scenes and jokes drag out way to long.<br /><br />Also, the same jokes keep getting repeated again and again. For example, the talking bird. Ok it was funny the first and maybe even the second time. But it kept getting repeated to the point of annoying. The routine between the wheelchair guy and Hanson (Chris Elliott) was amusing at first but it kept getting repeated and ended up stupid and even tasteless.<br /><br />Some jokes even got repeated from the first movie. For example, the 'creaming' I guess you would call it of Cindy (Anna Faris) was funny in 'Scary Movie' because Cindy had been holding out on giving her boyfriend sex for so long, that essentially he had blue balls from hell and it was funny when he 'creamed' her. But this time around it was out of place and not funny.<br /><br />The bathroom and sexual humor in general was more amusing and well timed the first time around. The scat humor was excessive though and rather unneccessary in the second film.<br /><br />Tori Spelling was annoying and really had no place in this movie.<br /><br />But I did enjoy Shorty (Marlon Wayans) who in my opinion was the funniest character in the first film. The scene with him and the pot plant was one of my favorites from the second film.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I love the Wayans family and their humor. That is why this film is so disappointing . . . they have a lot more comic ability than endless scat jokes. | 1 |
A sober, reflexive piece, a little miniature which blossoms into a magnificent humane pictorial sequence which goes beyond a mere dramatization for the screen. This quiet little story will hold you enthralled - if you do not have too many problems with the various Spanish accents ranging from Mexican to Peruvian, and Marisa Paredes' more authentic Iberian Peninsular usage! Garcíadiego has accomplished a perfect adaptation from the novel: even the grand maestro García Márquez should be proud of her superb work. And hats off to Arturo Ripstein who has so ably concerted the whole effort into a gem, a ruby, and so refined, so elegant, so sensitive, so touchingly.....<br /><br />El Coronel - Fernando Luján - is waiting to get his pension, while he continues to live in his ramshackle timber dwelling deep in the Colombian jungle (however, filmed elsewhere, NOT in Colombia) with his fighting cock and his wife (in that order?). And that is all there is to it.<br /><br />But, oh, so much more.... This film is a rhapsody.<br /><br />I must see this poetic little piece again as soon as possible. Worth the high side of 8 out of 10, which is very high on my scale.<br /><br />This is not light commercial Hollywood stuff. | 0 |
Wow, where do I begin? After suffering through this wretched $1.00 rental (thanks a LOT, Family Video) I just had to make a few comments. I did not bother to write down the names of the 3 actors in the film, but hopefully you will know who I am talking about.<br /><br />A monster truck terrorizes the countryside and chases two college-aged buddies to their doom. They encounter a hot girl wearing slutty clothes. I mean, this just sounds fantastic in theory. I was laughing hysterically at the DVD box while I walked it up to the girl behind the counter at the video store.<br /><br />Acting: the hot girl, played by Aimee Whatever, is visibly laughing through many scenes where she is supposed to be scared. The other two major actors in the film, the fat prankster and the vanilla straight-guy are both terrible. The fat guy thinks he's Jack Black. He's not. The other actor, our hero, over-emotes and misses all his cues and comes across as some generic character you might see in a made-for-Nickelodeon movie about skateboarding in the early 90's. Look: I don't expect great performances in movies like these, but at least the actors can make an effort to not be annoying. You can be an incompetent actor but still be agreeable (i.e. John Wayne). At least that Aimee gal is attractive.<br /><br />Script: Holy ****, who thought this dialogue was funny? I wouldn't have the nerve to play this out in front of my grade school drama class, much less pitch it as a film script. Unfathomably bad. More on this later.<br /><br />Production: OK, this is the one place where the film definitely succeeds. Production quality is amazingly high. The look of the film is very good. Apparently the only talented person who worked on the movie was the director of photography.<br /><br />OK, here are my biggest gripes: 1) The guy driving the car never drives faster than 25 miles an hour.<br /><br />2) The guy driving the car is well out into the country before he realizes there is a fat man in a mask in his back seat. He is supposedly meticulous about recording gas mileage and keeping his antique car in good condition but he does not notice a 300lb Jack Black impersonator in the back? Come on.<br /><br />4) Characters never change their clothes. There are two hotel scenes. Presumably, showers are available to our characters yet over the 3 days this movie takes place, none of the characters bothers to change their clothes.<br /><br />5) Comedy. Lighthearted, slapstick comedy does not mix with horror. Period. You can't have our characters running away from a monster truck one second and the next second have them verbally jousting one another with some dopey light/comedy music playing. This kind of pacing virtually ruins any tension in the movie. Movies like Evil Dead 2 which mix comedy and horror understand that tension can be loosened yet never completely eliminated with humor. Monster Man doesn't get it.<br /><br />I'm irritated that what could have been a VERY funny horror movie was ruined by a director who thought he was a lot more clever than he really was. Oh well. | 1 |
Sitting down to watch the 14th season of the Bachelor ('On the Wings of Love'), I knew I would be in for an 'interesting' time. I had watched some of the previous seasons of the Bachelor in passing; watching an episode or two and missing the next three or so. I find that the Bachelor is often appealing and intriguing, though its quality and morality are often lacking.<br /><br />'On the Wings of Love' details the journey taken by Jake, a 31 year old commercial pilot from Dallas, Texas, to find true love, as true a love as one can find in a season-long reality-drama dating show. Jake meets 25 beautiful girls from all over the country. He begins to get to know them a bit, but it is mostly superficial; how well can you get to know someone in a few 5 minute conversations? Jake tries to make his true intentions known from the very beginning, at least to the audience. He noted that he doesn't just want love or a good time, but he wants a fiancé or wife. We can only assume that he has made this clear to the women in the competition as well. If that is the case, it might explain, to a degree, some of the women's actions. The women are super competitive. While they don't even know Jake at all yet, they are still in it to win it no matter what the cost.<br /><br />Not only were the women competitive, but they were also confident and catty. Threats, backstabbing, and warnings of 'Watch out!' all show that these women weren't there for a good time either. Jake noted that he was not just looking for sex appeal, but looking for 'a connection.' However, the girls pulled out all the stops to try to impress Jake with said sex appeal. They arrived at the mansion in skimpy dresses either low-cut or short.<br /><br />While some girls seemed to maintain their sense of decorum, others missed that memo altogether. One girl, Channy, noted that Jake was a 'good guy' to whom she could be a 'naughty girl.' She went on to say that Jake could land on her 'runway anytime.' She got flack from the other girls for her provocative statement which showed their take on these situations.<br /><br />So, a reality dating show couldn't be that bad, could it? Besides the obvious issue of sex-driven attraction, there are other issues that mar this seemingly harmless show. Is this the right way to find a future mate; vying for someone's attention by flaunting oneself to extreme proportions? Unfortunately, however, that is what America has reduced dating to these days: pleasure and sex without commitment and a little happiness on the side.<br /><br />Another problem is the premature emotional attachment by which many of the girls bound themselves to Jake. A few girls in particular seemed to be overly attached. One girl said 'If I don't get that first impression rose it will kill me!' As mentioned before, they don't even know him yet and she was talking about a specific rose, not just one of the 15 roses to keep from being eliminated.<br /><br />Michelle, in particular, seemed to have some issues with attachment to Jake. The other girls noticed it too. After one particular Michelle outburst, Vienna asserted that Michelle had a 'mental breakdown and we've only been here an hour.' Michelle got the last rose of the evening on the first show narrowly missing elimination and was extremely emotional about it. The other girls thought it was simply ridiculous. Another girl also cried, but because she was eliminated.<br /><br />It began with Survivor, and from there it just took off reality TV. It shows our entertainment interests as a country; if we weren't watching the shows and giving them good ratings, the networks would not continue to run them. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that enough of America is hooked. One thing is clear: America (in general) loves reality TV and its ensuing trappings.<br /><br />This begs me to question: why is it that we even like reality TV? What is it about it that draws us to it? Is it because we see the similarities to our own lives, or is it because we want to be sure that we are more stable and less pathetic than others? Whatever it is that draws us to it, we should be careful of the media and entertainment that we allow to fill our minds. I'm not saying that all reality TV shows are bad; however, I am saying that we need to evaluate each one.<br /><br />Episodes used for critique: Season Premier and Episode 2. | 1 |
A bit slow (somehow like a Sofia Coppola movie) but still a very captivating film about the discovery of sexuality by three teenage girls. The magic of the movie lies in its capacity to bring back many memories to how it felt like to be their age. The confusion and the insecurities are portrayed in a very simple way but so true to life. The music is perfect and the acting is amazing. The camera works beautifully also. I highly recommend it for those who are not afraid to look back at this particular period of life when we discover our sexual impulses and our desires. I would also say that it is a fine film for young people going through that period. So many movies have been made about adolescence but this really captures the true essence of discovering the adult world of romance and its complexities. | 0 |
This show was incredible, but too esoteric for most people. If you had never truly seen a European variety show in the 70's or 80's (or at least a Mexican one) the entire show would probably be lost on you. If you had, this show was a dead on skewering satire of the phony spectacle and shallowness that these shows dive into at their worst. Helmed by a chain-smoking suave wannabe with a pencil moustache and his ultra-glamorous and immasculating harridan of an EX-wife, 'Viva Variety' is a variety show that tries to get off the ground every episode but always descends into in-fighting and acts gone very wrong. The hosts are joined by 'Johnny Bluejeans', a dim witted side-kick who seems to have been named because blue jeans are a very popular product in his country and that means the kids will like him, which of course, they don't.<br /><br />The result was a hilarious spoof of variety shows in general. Imagine the arguing that probably happened BACKSTAGE during the last days of the 'Sonny & Cher Show'. Now imagine it's happening ONSTAGE in front of you and the stars are trying to keep their composure. Now add cheesy acts and a Euro-riche mentality (tuxedoes, gowns, booze, accents and smokes). NOW you have 'Viva Variety'.<br /><br />Have you ever heard a musician whose music was pretty much written for other musicians? Too conceptual? Viva Variety did this for comedians. WAY too esoteric for the standard American audience. It was funny as Hell. And doomed. | 0 |
Cuba Gooding Jr. is a secret service agent who blames himself over the assassination of the U.S. President, i'll point out straight away that this is not the type of role that this very talented actor is noted for, and this film shows us why. He teams up with a persistent news reporter (Angie Harmon) to uncover the conspiracy surrounding the president's death, and so on, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />Even with a cast of James Woods, Cuba Gooding Jr, Anne Archer and Angie Harmon 'End Game' fails to grab your attention, plain and simple; some of the action is good, the acting isn't all bad and the story although clichéd and done before could have lead to an entertaining and enjoyable movie - WELL IT DOESN'T! The writing of the script and the direction makes absolutely sure of that, at no point does it suck you into the story or make you give the slightest thought to any of the characters.<br /><br />4/10 It's Boring, Predictable and Dull. | 1 |
My main criticism is quite simply that it isn't long enough or detailed enough. I would have loved to see more of everything: the building of the vessel, the engineering, the training, the first lift to orbit, preparations for departure, Venus Orbital Injection, everything. I would have liked to see more of the first leg, Venus to Earth, instead of zipping there like a n°10 corporation bus. In fact, I would have liked to see a series on the scale of Earth Story made of this, with a full hour dedicated to every planet and maybe another to the loop around the Sun. As it was, I was left hungry. On the other hand, I do understand budgets and viewers' attention-spans.<br /><br />Re the science: Let's be fair about the speed-of-light time-lag: they did mention at the beginning that there was a lag in conversations, but they let this evaporate once they reached the outer planets. Some kind of conversation had to be presented to the viewers, and we have to assume that the lag was edited out for the sake of palatability; so no complaints there. But zero for noisy spaceships. The only film in which spaceships make no noise was Kubrick's 2001, and even then he copped out by using the noise of the crew breathing in their helmets - which *was* pretty effective. I wish the makers of Space Odyssey had realized just how eerie the sight of vast rocket-motors blasting in absolute silence might be but alas, Pegasus lets out much the same roar as every other cardboard spaceship in every other cardboard SciFi film.<br /><br />But the rest of the science was excellent. No complaints there, in fact praise for bringing out the radiation problems as well as they did. I just hope that having done this film won't discourage the BBC from making a really detailed version, but I suppose that's not for next week or next year either... | 0 |
First off I really enjoyed Zombi 2 by Lucio Fulci. This film was utter trash. I couldn't stand to watch it. The storyline was a joke, the acting was a joke, and the fact that Zombi 3 has nothing to do with Zombi 2 is even more a joke.<br /><br />We jump from Voodoo to DEATH 1 THE HARMFUL AGENT BRINING People BACK TO LIFE. Whatever, this movie isn't worth the $1.00 it cost to rent it. I really enjoyed lucio fulci movies but this one was horrible. If Zombi 3 is an indicator for how zombi 4 and 5 are going to be I think I will just skip them.<br /><br />Zombi 2 is an awesome flique tho. | 1 |
Has anyone else noticed that this version is basically a scene-by-scene remake of the 1933 version, with some of the scenes taken out? It makes me think less of a film that does that, showing a definite want of creativity. In all fairness, I tend to be biased in favor of Katharine Hepburn, but this version of the film seems like cinematic plagiarism. The 1933 version was nice and sweet, though a little awkward in presentation and transition at times, and then this version took the script, the music, and even a fair amount of the scene blocking from the earlier version. I don't understand the point of making the film again when the method of remaking it was to basically redo George Cukor's film with everything the same except the people working on it. | 1 |
Pretty crazy whodunit featuring an all black cast trying to figure out who murdered the philandering trumpet player who was just about to go to Hollywood to Make It Big. Was it his wife? His Girlfriend? His Would-Be-Girlfriend? Her Father? His Butler? The newspaper guy? Who knows? And who cares? The result of this is just a little underwhelming, and the actors here don't really get me in a mood to care one way or another finding out. Why snake venom as a weapon? Who knows? Who cares? The music in this is alright, but there's little of it, and most of it is pretty 'let's get this over with' This isn't worthy of your time. There are better all-black casted movies out there. | 1 |
My mom and I went to see this film because my brother is serving in the U.S. Peace Corps in the same region in which it's set. Halfway through the film, I decided that given its failure to measure up to what it pretends to accomplish, the title is pretentious. The subject it deals with could have made for an excellent documentary, but because of its poor execution, it left me far less educated about the issue than I had hoped to become. I agree with laura-jane from Canada ('Powerful Message but Lacks Focus.'). I also agree with the user who commented that this filmmaker's narration-free style is the opposite of that of Michael Moore, but I don't agree that it presents varying points of view and invites the viewer to decide for him- or herself. I do agree with one user's comment that 'a lesson is better learned when we draw the conclusions ourselves'; however, our conclusions can't be anything but poorly founded if we are presented with little relevant information from which to draw them.<br /><br />The main points of the documentary seemed to be that 1) The African people who live near Lake Victoria are very poor and suffer greatly. 2) The introduction of perch to Lake Victoria, inflicted by Europeans, ruined its ecosystem. 3) The communities surrounding Lake Victoria are financially dependent on the perch economy.<br /><br />The best things I can say about the film is that it attempted to relate the perspectives of the average people in sub-Saharan Africa, which, unfortunately, is an anomaly among films, and that it attempted to portray poverty as the result of a dysfunctional economic system rather than a universal, inevitable phenomenon. I liked the irony it captured in the massive amount of fish leaving the country in the face of a famine. I appreciated the portrayal of how out of touch the U.N. team assigned to the region was with the people. Like almost all documentaries that don't have the word 'women' in the title, this film fails to do a good job representing women's voices -- the majority of the talking done in interviews is that of men.<br /><br />Maybe I need to watch the film a second time in order to catch some key points I might have missed, but I failed to detect Sauper's theory of the relationship between the introduction of perch to Lake Victoria and the unjust living conditions for Africans living near the lake. Furthermore, I could be wrong, but it struck me that Sauper could do well to improve his interview skills. Not only did the questions he asked and the responses he included seem to be arbitrary, but he seemed to have a real knack for making interviewees awkward and uncomfortable.<br /><br />The most compelling development in the film is the suggestion that the exportation of perch now functions to mask the importation of arms and that the real economy screwing over Tanzanians is that of war, not fishing. Sadly, Sauper shies away from conducting a thorough expose of the idea (or at least extending the interview with the reporter who seemed to know what he was talking about in regards to the weapons importation) and cops out with a 'decide for yourself' approach.<br /><br />If Darwin's Nightmare was meant to dispel the myth that first world exploitation of the third world gives them 'a chance for a better life,' it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to depict how the weapons manufacturing industry in the U.S. and Europe is responsible for much armed conflict around the world, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to portray what drives people to prostitution, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to cast light on the inability of the U.N. to carry out its mission, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to say that meager income Tanzanians earn from the perch isn't worth the human cost of tinkering with mother nature to create a profitable product, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to imply that Tanzania would be much better off had Europeans never come, it didn't do a good job of it. | 1 |
Bubbling just beneath the surface of Showtime is a good idea. Actually, it's more like two or three ideas that constantly fight for screentime. This film doesn't just have its cake and eat it too; it has the whole bakery.<br /><br />Detective Mitch Preston (Robert De Niro) has a drug bust interrupted by the media and a brash, cop-slash-actor named Trey Sellars (Eddie Murphy). When Preston's partner is shot, he angrily shoots the camera out of the hands of a pestering newsman, and the tiff lands him in a new reality cop show produced by Chase Renzi (Rene Russo). In the first of many errors and oddities in the movie, that injured partner is never heard from again or alluded to for the remainder of the film.<br /><br />De Niro's best gag is his speech to a classroom of small children to open the picture about how TV cops don't act like real cops. Funny thing is, as the movie progresses, his character and Murphy's begin to act more and more like the clichés they supposedly clash so strongly with. In a smarter movie, De Niro's diatribe could have played as ironic comment; here, it only shows to point out how truly lame the movie is. While a spoof of a reality based cop show could be funny, the team of writers and director Tom Dey (Who made the far superior Shanghai Noon a few years ago; see that movie instead) seem to be on unsure footing, and instead of slamming the TV industry, they really let them off light (The harshest thing they seem to be able to say about network execs is they like to play ping pong at work). Russo's character has a glint of fiendish delight in her eye, but her dialogue and actions rarely match the actress' enthusiasm. <br /><br />With little on screen to keep my attention, my mind began to wander, and that's dangerous in a movie with this many plot holes. For instance; if Showtime (the name given to the cop show) is such a popular smash, why doesn't anyone seem to recognize De Niro and Murphy when they are on the job? For that matter, if their investigation of smuggler and all around mean guy Vargas is being televised, why the heck hasn't someone mentioned to him that they are on his trail? Then again, given this villain's actions maybe I shouldn't be surprised; this is the same joker who is very angry at an associate for using his new supergun without approval, jeopardizing a deal, and then dispatches him how? By using about ten of the superguns to level his entire house, of course! That's like putting out a fire with a bigger fire. <br /><br />Occasionally, Showtime gets laughs, but there simply aren't enough for the film's nearly two hour running time. Even worse, the really smart gags suggest that this movie really could have been on to something, if only they had put in a few more drafts of the script. Murphy mugs and talks as fast as he can with minimal results, and De Niro looks flat out bored through most of this. After a completely unnecessary fistfight between cops and gangsters (That remarkably results in no injuries and no arrests) Russo's character shouts `That's great television!' Perhaps it's great television, but it's far from a great movie. | 1 |
I loved this show. I used to actually leave the pub ten minutes before closing and run down the road to catch it. I remember Daniel Peacock's sketch about Gandhi in the newsagents as a masterpiece. The set design and lighting were out of this world, creating an atmosphere that you felt you were actually living in. V unusual for a comedy.<br /><br />Unfortunately I have only encountered one other person (apart from the other reviewer here) who ever knew that this programme existed. In fact I have to thank the IMDb for coming into existence and proving to me that I hadn't in fact imagined the whole series in a drunken haze, which I was seriously starting to believe! | 0 |
I don't want to go off on a rant here, but.....this is the worst 'film' I've ever seen. Worse than The Avengers. Incompetent directing, disjointed writing, and awful acting are the only consistent elements throughout. Shot on very cheap video, it looks like a high school project, but without the emotion. The lighting frequently looks like a single Sun-Gun. The sound is slightly better than a single mic on the camera, but everything else about this thing is just awful. The plot heads off in strange directions with no foundation or later resolution, the techie elements are patently absurd, and the editing looks worse than a rough cut. It's not even bad enough to be funny. It's just bad. BTW, the packaging is intentionally misleading.<br /><br />Lion's Gate owes me $4.00. | 1 |
Some movies you'll watch because they touch your soul or challenge you in ways that grow.<br /><br />Some you'll watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience; these won't directly feed you, but they'll help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. And after all, the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept.<br /><br />And then there are movies that do neither of these things, that you will watch out of obligation, or because you have a need for historical context. These are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life.<br /><br />The problem is of course that often you don't know which of the three a film will be, going in. You might get some indication from people you trust, but because a life in film is so personal, you really won't know until you go on the blind date.<br /><br />For me, this was pretty worthless. Yes, yes, I know for many Bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. And you should know (if you don't) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films, very strange indeed.<br /><br />It isn't that this isn't cinematic, or symbolically deep, or apolitically/politically friendly to the way I think. Its how it gets there that is off base. Its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me.<br /><br />Part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art, which means that it is successful commercial art. Which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. Surely all this is true.<br /><br />When the term 'surreal' is used, generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. But when it is used correctly, meaning according to consensus theory, it always revolves around Bunuel, and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with Dali. So because they invented surreal cinema, they define and control the term. That by itself chafes me, and I have my own alternative definition that doesn't come from their philosophy.<br /><br />Its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. It isn't a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy, an anti-order. Its packaged anarchy, carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them.<br /><br />So okay: against linearity, against narrative, against history, against religion (an easy one), against deliberate love. But for an illinear linear narrative, for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors; what else can they do?); for a sort of transcendent 'accidental' love.<br /><br />It is its own enemy. If there were a Bunuel alive today as he sold his image, the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal.<br /><br />My regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic, I cleave to the Spanish and avoid the French. But in the matter of the surreal, I'd like to you consider the reverse: get your surrealism from Alfred Jarry, not Bunuel.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements. | 1 |
Chris Smith's American Movie is an insightful examination of the American dream. The movie focuses around Mark Borchardt, an independent film maker from Wisconsin. Mark has dreamed of becoming a great writer and director since he was a teenager and had an out of focus hi8 camera. The movie follows Mark through his attempt to make his dream feature film, Northwestern. There are a number of hilarious scenes in the film as Mark goes through pre-production of Northwestern and later his short film Coven (pronounced co-ven, the correct pronunciation, Mark says 'Sounds too much like oven,') which he plans to use to raise money to complete Northwestern. This film's insight and humor is on par with Roger and Me, Michael Moore's great film. I first viewed it at a chaotic Sundance Film Festival screening that brought out the spirit of the movie- a giant air duct fell from the ceiling at the beginning of the movie, hit seven people and caused a twenty-five minute delay; half way through the film the sound started fluttering and the projector had to be stopped to fix it, and in the last twenty minutes the projector stopped and the film burned up. Despite the delays, the audience stayed through the movie and gave it a standing ovation. American Movie also won the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary at the end of the festival. I highly recommend this fine film, worth sitting through any hellish screening. | 0 |
Can u believe a college professor made this film?????<br /><br />The same man who made DHOOP<br /><br />The film is horrible and has some of the weird scenes ever<br /><br />The main message is nice but presented badly<br /><br />The film looks like a collage of amateurish scenes, miscasts.etc and bad performances<br /><br />Direction and everything is poor<br /><br />Music is okay<br /><br />Emraan's naughty streak works and he does well Tusshar is bad Tanushree and Isha are bad Paresh annoys when he looks at the mirror | 1 |
The film was shot at Movie Flats, just off route 395, near Lone Pine, California, north of the road to Whitney Portals. You can still find splashes of cement and iron joists plastered across the rocks where the sets were built. And you'll recognize the area from any Randolph Scott movie.<br /><br />I won't bother with the plot, since I'm sure it's covered elsewhere. The movie stars three athletes -- Fairbanks fils, who must have learned a good deal from his Dad -- Grant, an acrobat in his youth -- and MacLaughlin, a professional boxer from South Africa. Their physical skills are all on display.<br /><br />Not a moment of this movie is to be taken seriously. It's about Thugees, a sect in India, whence our English word 'thug.' I can't go through all the felicities of this movie but probably ought to point out that the director, George Stevens, was a polymath with a background in Laurel and Hardy movies -- see his choreography of the fight scenes -- and went on to the infinitely long dissolves of Shane and The Diary of Anne Frank. Dynasties rose and fell. Geological epochs came and went, while Liz Taylor and Monty Clift kissed in 'A Place in the Sun.' Here, in his comic mode, he excels.<br /><br />This is a story of male bonding and it would be easy -- too easy -- to read homoeroticism into it, as many people do with Howard Hawks. Or hatred of women. But it isn't that at all. Sometimes things portrayed on screen don't deserve too much in the way of heuristic attention. Men WILL form bonds by working together in a way that women do not. (Women share secrets.) Read Deborah Tannen, nobody's idea of an anti-feminist. Well, when you think about it, that's what evolution should have produced. For most of human history -- about nine tenths of it -- hominids have been hunters and gatherers, and the men tend to hunt and the women to gather. Hunting is more effective as a team enterprise. Men who were not very good at bonding were Darwinianed out, leaving men who have a lot of team spirit. And Grant, Fairbanks, and MacLaughlin have got it in spades.<br /><br />Sorry to ramble on about evolution but I'm an anthropologist and it is an occupational disease. Did I ever tell you about the horse in Vaitongi, Samoa, that slipped on the cement and fell in the bathtub with me? You've got to watch the hooves.<br /><br />Joan Fontaine is lovely, really. Only got to know her in her later years and wondered why she was in so many movies. I lived in Saratoga, California, where her sister, Olivia DeHavilland, grew up and went to a convent school. Pretty place.<br /><br />If you miss this adventurous lively farraginous chronicle of the British Empahh at its height, you should never forgive yourself. It's so famous that it's parodied in the Peter Sellers movie, 'The Party.' Yes -- the colonel's got to know. | 0 |
It's as if the editor and screenwriter only had 40 minutes of real running time. This is supposed to be a remake of a Chinese film, which is obviously far superior to this trash. It's clear that some brainless Hollywood suit or writer decided that this movie would be mano a mano, man against man, instead of just letting the story play out with the personalities of the characters that were built in the first 40 minutes. At this point in the film, the characters just don't act like regular people and not even like their own personalities. It makes little sense. It's quite clear why this film flopped. It's just not believable at all and that's too bad - it started out with promise. Don't be fooled. | 1 |
After her Oscar-nominated turn in 'Secrets & Lies', Brenda Blethyn starred in the equally great 'Saving Grace'. And let me tell you, this is not the sort of movie that you find every day.<br /><br />After her husband commits suicide, Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) discovers that his irresponsible financial decisions have left her with a massive debt. Fortunately, she finds a way to make ends meet: marijuana. That's right, Grace starts cultivating it.<br /><br />Every aspect of this movie was played to great effect; there isn't a dull moment anywhere in it. And I sure didn't see that end scene coming! But anyway, you gotta see this movie. You just might feel more than a little festive after seeing it. If nothing else, it might function as a good lesson about knowing one's finances. But of course, there's a LOT more to it than that! | 0 |
A lot of promise and nothing more. An all-star cast certainly by HK standards, but man oh man is this one a stinker. No story? That's okay, the action will make up for it like most HK action flicks. What? The action is terrible, corny, and sparse? Dragon Dynasty's releases up to this point are by and large superb and generally regarded as classics in Asian cinema. This is a blight. They managed to wrangle a couple of actors from Infernal Affairs, but they can't bring life to a disjointed script. There are scenes of dialogue where two or three lines are spoken with a cut in between each and no continuity in what the characters are saying. You almost feel like they're each giving a running monologue and just ignoring the other characters. Michael Biehn is made of wood, really? Sammo Hung uses a stunt double? No way. Yes way. Stay away. | 1 |
Jim Carrey is back to much the same role that he played in The Mask, a timid guy who is trying to get ahead in the world but who seems to be plagued with bad luck. Even when he tries to help a homeless guy from being harassed by a bunch of hoodlums (and of course they have to be Mexican, obviously), his good will towards his fellow man backfires. In that case, it wasn't too hard to predict that he was about to have a handful of angry hoodlums, but I like that the movie suggests that things like that shouldn't be ignored. I'm reminded of the episode of Michael Moore's brilliant The Awful Truth, when they had a man lay down on the sidewalk and pretend to be dead and see who would actually stop and make sure he was okay. The results were not very promising, so it's nice to see someone in the movies setting a good example.<br /><br />Jim Carrey plays the part of Bruce Nolan, the nice guy mentioned above whose entire life seems to be falling apart. Or even better, it seems to be breaking up by the blows of bad luck like an asteroid entering the atmosphere (a little metaphor that comes up when Bruce miraculously finds himself a gigantic news story later in the film). Bruce is nearly 40 years old and all he has to show for it is a position as a news reporter of the sort that reports on such exciting news as the local bakery that's seeking to bake the world's biggest cookie. He's desperate to obtain the job of head anchor at the TV station, but he loses his cool on live TV when he hears that the job went to his rival colleague. You have to love how they time the revelation of this news to him seconds before his first live report. Needless to say, he loses his temper on live TV in one of the funniest scenes of the entire film.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman delivers a fantastic performance as the Man himself, displaying a God whose infinite wisdom is somewhat reflected through Freeman's massive talent as an actor. He is the kind of God who takes his job very seriously, but in such a way as to advise his followers (as well as the viewers of this movie) that there are times when you need to slow down and do some manual labor in life. I love his line that some of the happiest people in the world come home smelling to high heaven at the end of the day. There are a lot of people in the world (maybe more than our share in America) who are so absorbed by their money and their possessions and their jobs and everything that they completely lost touch with the natural side of themselves as humans.<br /><br />One of the biggest strengths is that the movie is able to provide great advice to people in general about improving their lives, and this message is clear and acceptable regardless of the viewer's religion. I, for example, tend to reject organized religion in all forms and I see God and Satan to be metaphors for different aspects of nature and human psychology rather than actual figures who ever lived or continue to live. But despite the fact that I don't believe that God exists as an entity overseeing the universe or as a janitor dressed all in white who mops the floors of his downtown office in his spare time, I was able to appreciate the messages that were delivered in this movie.<br /><br />Jim Carrey's movies display this fantastic evolution that ties them all together and makes the newer ones look even better just because you can see how far he's come. If you compare Bruce Almighty with movies like Ace Ventura (both of which I loved, by the way) or a lot of what he did before he got into film, it's amazing how far he's come. He has moved from cheesy TV comedy to cheesy comedic films to comedies that are truly intelligent and meaningful like this film as well as others like The Truman Show, Man on the Moon, and The Majestic (easily one of his greatest films ever). Jim Carrey has unmistakably moved from the cheesy comedy of his past to become one of the most important comic actors working today.<br /><br />Jennifer Aniston also once again provides an excellent addition to the movie (as she did in the side-splitting Office Space) as Bruce's girlfriend, who becomes increasingly exasperated by Bruce's growing stress about his life as well as his negligence to ask her to marry him. There is definitely some low-brow comedy in the film that doesn't really fit with the importance of the film's meaning or the quality of the delivery, such as the dog reading the newspaper on the toilet and the whole monkey scene, but it was definitely pretty nice to see Ace Ventura's friend Spike make a cameo appearance. As Stephen King very well knows, it's always nice to see familiar characters. It's almost like seeing family again.<br /><br />Bruce is endowed with the powers of God for a given period of time so that he can understand life a bit better, and he says a lot about himself when he uses the powers only for his own purposes rather than to help all of the people who pray to him. The thing I love about this is that, like I said before, religion is absent from my life, but I was able to watch this and learn a lot about myself as well by thinking about what kinds of things I would have done had I been endowed with such powers. The movie allows us to learn vicariously this way, which empowers the message even more.<br /><br />The scenes that involve the news station are easily the funniest in the entire film, such as the scene when Bruce loses his temper about the anchor position, the Jimmy Hoffa scene (who was conveniently buried with an original birth certificate and a complete set of dental records), the scene where Bruce's rival colleague is made to go nuts on camera, and my favorites, the ones at the beginning and the end involving the local bakery's cooking. The movie has plenty of time for Carrey to deliver some excellent jokes, such as when he says to God (who reveals that he's the janitor, the proprietor, the electrician, etc) that his Christmas parties must be real bashes, and to be careful about drinking, because on of him might need a ride home! I also loved the end when he says that behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes. A little too true, and as Gallagher would add, behind every great man is also an amazed mother-in-law.<br /><br />Bruce Almighty is one of the more memorable comedies to have come out for quite a while, and is probably the only directly religious that I can remember seeing that I am anxious to buy on DVD to add to my personal collection. It is a comedy written and performed in good taste, but with enough relatively low-brow humor to keep the kids entertained. This is a meaningful comedy for the whole family, which is becoming rarer and rarer these days. In a world that is about to be flogged with yet another American Pie film AND another Scary Movie (which are only scary because of their sheer barbarous idiocy), it's nice to see that there are still people making comedies worth watching. Don't miss this one. | 0 |
This movie has recieved horrible ratings from just about everyone who has voted here but i am here to say if you like movies like Dude Wheres my Car and Dumb and Dumber this movie is for you. If your into movies like Citizen Kane and Casablanca id have to sugest you in a different angle. Yet i still love this movie and everything about it even if it is kind of 'kiddy' this is one of the few movies me and my freinds have been able to keep watching over the years and quote whenever possible. GREAT MOVIE. This movie should the AFIs number 1 because its so friggin' high class. The only problem with this movie is you may have trouble seeing it because it was a made for tv movie on a channel that no longer exists. So i dont know how to get this movie, id like to buy it for dvd but i cant find it anywhere. I still have it taped from when it was first on, you can come over if you want and watch it bute i might be sleeping. this movie rocks and thats basicly all you need to know. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.