review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
I gave 1 to this film. I can't understand how Ettore Scola,one of the greater directors of Italian cinema, made a film like this, so stupid and ridiculous! All the stories of the people involved in the movie are unsubstantial,boring and not interesting. Too long,too boring. The only things I save in this movie are Giancarlo Giannini and Vittorio Gasmann. Hope that Scola will change radically themes and style in his next film. | 1 |
Well I've enjoy this movie, even though sometimes it turns too much to a stereotypical situation. I didnt understood at this time if the 'Punishment Park' has exist in the past, but I think the matter isnt really here.<br /><br />You have to look at this movie in a different manner. It shows how much violence you can find in our world. It reminds us that we live in a world who is lead by violence and that nobody can escape from it. If anyone refuse to 'take his responsabilities' then you will be thrown out of our society...All our history is made by wars, we should never forget this. In fact its only when we will finally accept the truth that, maybe, we will change and understand that our 'intellectual skills' have improve. So we could use them to find others ways to resolve our problems.<br /><br />In 2 words this movie is a must see, maybe it will help us to accept the truth... | 0 |
Although it can be VERY tedious at times, this movie is really not all that bad. The acting is fairly well done, if stereotypical, and the production values are pretty high considering some of the Sci-Fi movies that were to come later in the decade.<br /><br />My biggest problem with this film are some of the very outdated characterizations in it. There's the guy from Texas, the 'professional' scientist, and worst of all the woman scientist who finally realizes her womanhood. For a film seeking to make a statement about mankind, it loses some of it's impact by reducing its characters through sexist stereotypes. | 1 |
Few people realize it, but there was world literature in the ancient world before the Greeks came on the scene. Besides the literary remains that are in the 'Old Testament' of the Jews, there were considerable works from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The summit of the former were the religious poetry and 'The Epic Of Gilgamesh'. The Egyptians produced many poems, but there main addition was a tale of adventure of a traveler and physician called 'The Story Of Sinuhe'. It is from this work (actually a fragment, that we don't know the ending of) that the novel 'The Egyptian' came from.<br /><br />The story is unique (as is the movie). 'The Egyptian' was a best seller in the early 1950s, and Darryl Zanuck decided to take a chance making it: yes he wanted a showcase for his girlfriend Bella Darvi as Nefer, as well as the rest of the cast (Victor Mature, Edmund Purdom, Peter Ustinov, Michael Wilding, and Gene Tierney), but he was aware that these films rarely made large box office. One can chalk up this as an example of Zanuck trying something different.<br /><br />The number of movies that deal with ancient Egypt are very small. 'Land Of The Pharoahs', 'The Egyptian', 'The Ten Commandments' (both De Mille versions), 'Moses', 'Holy Moses!', 'Cleopatra', 'The Mummy' (all versions), 'The Scorpion King'. If there are 20 films about ancient Egypt it's is tremendous. But 'The Egyptian' is unique. While the second 'Ten Commandments' discusses Ramses the Great (Pharoah Ramses II - Yul Brynner) and his father Seti I (Cedric Hardwicke), and the films on Cleopatra deal with her, few other names of ancient Egypt crop up in film. Egypt's greatest Pharoah was Thutmose III, who conquered most of the known middle east of the era of 1470 B.C.E. or so. No film about him has appeared, nor of his usurping predecessor, history's first great female ruler Hatschepsut. But the only known Pharoah who attempted a religious revolution that approached what the Jews (and later the Christians) attempted - a type of monotheism - is the subject of 'The Egyptian'. This is Pharoah Akhnaton.<br /><br />In reality Akhnaton was practicing a personal form of monotheism that was not meant for public consumption. But it angered the priestly class who worshiped Amon, rather than Aton. Due to our uncertain historic records (although Akhnaton's official records - the 'Tel-el-Amana' letters - are quite complete as far as they survive), we do not know if the Pharoah was killed in a palace coup or not. However he died, he was succeeded by a young brother or son of his whose name is better recalled than any other Pharoah except Ramses: Tutankhamon.<br /><br />This film is actually quite good as far as it goes. Wilding makes a good natured Akhnaton, who is too weak to be as effective as a religious reformer is supposed to be. Mature is good as the ambitious (and - outside the film - ultimately successful future Pharoah) Horemheb. Tierney and Purdom do well in their lead parts and Ustinov is good as Purdom's friend. Also good is Ms Darvi, in a large supporting part. In a wonderful cameo is John Carridine, as a philosophical grave robber. The film is certainly worthy of viewing, as one of the few attempts to show part of the history and culture of Ancient Egypt. | 0 |
Before the Internet this movie could never have been made but the idea that the Web is full of evil is the idea behind it.Unfortunately thats all it was-the generally opinion that nowadays the Web in the wring hands can create as much chaos as anything in real life. Since the late 90s somebody found out that you could create a virus which would disable a computer.The point? Just to do something plain evil by remote control so its the cyber equivalent of robbery with violence.Which is basically what spam is without the violence-its conning you into parting with your money and has been going so long its a wonder anybody takes any notice of it nowadays so they get cleverer and use real names as doing something illegal isn't a priority, We see the Internet get worse by the week-the social networking sites or chat room which lead to evil and the child porn sites which ARE illegal. So the idea of a movie which invites people to click a name is just the same old thing-there actually IS a site called Horrorvision which is a porn site-but this one KILLS the people who enter its portals. The story though is so disjointed its boring with it and comes to no conclusion. The definitive movie on this theme of destroying an Internet Service Provider has yet to be made but clearly many DO need destroying as they won't be shut down when there's money to be made. Calling this a horror film is rather misleading as it bores not frightens | 1 |
I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the 'dress rehearsal' version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration. | 1 |
Oh my god! This movie insults the intelligence of everybody. I mean really, who thinks three kids can fight 30 to 40 ninjas and win. Not to mention the brainless humor thrown in. This film is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad. The movie is an omen, the only thing it's good for is a time killer or unintentional laughs. | 1 |
I was totally engrossed in this film from the first to last minute. It is brilliantly shot, with lots of interesting and original camera angles and techniques employed. The plot surrounds a deaf woman who is picked on by friends and colleagues alike. She hires an assistant at work, with her true intention being to find love. He's an ex-con and she takes advantage of him to wreak revenge on those who have hurt her. In return she must help him with a heist that requires her lip reading skills to pull it off. The film transcends into a dark film noir, with a couple of truly excellent scenes, and an even better finale. The real beauty in this film comes from the way the director takes advantage of the leading character's disability. The use of sound keeps the tension consistent, and the dramatic shifts from silence to noise keeps the blood pumping, that's for sure. Throw in a little black comedy and undertones of erotic sexual repression you've got the makings of a great film. It's the sort of film Hollywood really wants to make, but just can't. | 0 |
This modern film noir with its off beat humour and dizzying succession of plot twists delivers a story full of surprises, dangerous characters and excellent entertainment from start to finish. It's impossible not to empathise with the honest, unassuming hero or to be gripped by the ways in which he tries to navigate his way out of the terrible predicaments that he finds himself in, so all you can do is fasten your seat belt and enjoy the ride.<br /><br />The story of an ordinary guy who makes a poor decision and then finds that the repercussions propel him into an uncontrollable sequence of events from which he is unable to extricate himself is pure film noir. The same is true of the themes of murder, deceit, corruption and duplicity which are pervasive throughout. Many of the familiar noir visual motifs are also present, such as the way in which cigarette smoke is lit, the rain soaked roads at night, the heavily shadowed interiors and the lines of shadow (created by louvred doors) across people's faces.<br /><br />Michael Williams (Nicolas Cage), an injured war veteran without money or a job, stops off at a bar in Red Rock, Wyoming and is mistaken by the proprietor Wayne Brown (J T Walsh) for a hit man that he's arranged to employ to murder his wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle). Michael, a naturally reticent person, does nothing to disabuse Wayne of his misapprehension, especially as he could use a job and at first doesn't realise what he'd be expected to do. After having been told what his mission is and been given a $5,000 advance, he goes to see Suzanne and warns her about Wayne's plan. She doesn't seem overly concerned about the danger she's in and offers Michael double the fee Wayne had offered, for him to eliminate her husband.<br /><br />Michael decides to take the money he'd received from both parties and leave town. His plan fails however, when he accidentally drives into a man who is standing in the middle of the road and decides to take him to hospital to receive treatment for his injuries. At the hospital, things get more complicated when it emerges that the patient is Suzanne's lover and he has two bullets in his stomach. This leads to the local law enforcement officers getting involved and the revelation that Wayne is the Sheriff!! From this point on, things get even more complicated and also decidedly more dangerous especially when the real hit man, Lyle from Dallas (Dennis Hopper) arrives on the scene.<br /><br />'Red Rock West' has some great moments of suspense, (an example of this is the scene in which Michael makes his escape from Wayne's bar) and also some great performances from its very strong cast. Nicolas Cage's expressions are extremely natural and convincing as he reacts to a variety of situations with anxiety, surprise or uncertainty and J T Walsh is also particularly good as a deceptive character who's always concealing more than he's actually saying. Dennis Hopper is intensely threatening as the vicious contract killer (a role he plays with great gusto) and Lara Flynn Boyle looks suitably cold and calculating as the femme fatale. Dwight Yoakam also provides some good support and moments of humour in his cameo role as a no nonsense truck driver.<br /><br />Incredibly, 'Red Rock West' was originally destined to be denied a general cinema release but has justifiably emerged from its modest beginnings to eventually be recognised as the great movie that it really is. | 0 |
This is a very strange film, with a no-name cast and virtually nothing known about it on the web. It uses an approach familiar to those who have watched the likes of Creepshow in that it introduces a trilogy of so-called 'horror' shorts and blends them together into a connecting narrative of the people who are involved in the segments getting off a bus. There is a narrator who prattles on about relationships, but his talking adds absolutely nothing to the mix at all and just adds to the confusion. As for the stories themselves, well.. I swear I have not got a clue why this movie got an 18 certificate in the UK, which would bring it into line with the likes of Nightmare On Elm Street and The Exorcist. Nothing here is even remotely scary.. there is no gore, sex, nudity or even a swear word to liven things up, this is the kind of thing you could put out on Children's TV and no-one would bat an eyelid. I can only think if it had got the rating it truly deserved (a PG) no serious horror fan would be seen dead with it, so the distributor probably buffeted the BBFC until they relented. Anyway, here are the 3 tales in summary: 1. A man becomes dangerously obsessed with his telekinetic car to the point of alienating his fiancee. 2. A man who lives in a filthy apartment is understandably freaked out when a living organism evolved from his six-month old tuna casserole. 3. A woman thinks she has found the perfect man through a computer dating service.. that is until he starts to act weird.. And there you have it. Some of them are pretty amusing due to their outlandish premises (my favourite being number 2) but you get the feeling they were meant to be a) frightening and b) morality plays, unfortunately they fail miserably on both counts. To sum up then, this flick is an obscure curiosity.. for very good reasons. | 1 |
The movie is really about choices. In the oppressed state of affairs as seen in Fire, where good women had to be obedient and do what was correct in the eyes of tradition, there seemed few options for Radha and Sita. However, granted that it was not their only option. What is life without desire, Radha questions Ashok. Yes, it's true that life provides us with a number of options but how many we can take depends on a number of external factors. When your world is confined to a small Indian household, being a dutiful daughter-in-law to a silent but observant still powerful matriarch, a dutiful wife of 13 years to a man who has taken a vow of celibacy due to your not being able to have a child, a man who only wants you lying next to him to prove his strength in eliminating his desires. I felt the ladies had little choice but to find solace in each other's company. I guess the fact that so many women applauded Ms Mehta's work, was because it provided them with an option to think for themselves. An option to do what was perhaps unacceptable. The lesbian scenes I felt was merely to put that point across. Every scene in the movie from the first at the Taj Mahal to the last at the Mosque, is etched in my mind. How frustrating to be a prisoner of your feelings and desires. To feel that you had to forgo the human touch to be a dutiful wife just because it is expected of you. To have to suppress any desire you might have and to crave for the human touch. What then is the meaning of our existence one wonders. In the scene where Sita is crying alone in the room and Radha comes in to comfort her, their lips accidentally brush against each others and it awakens a feeling in them. Something they have both been deprived of.<br /><br />Bravo to Ms Mehta in translating her vision so clearly. I especially like the flashbacks to the young Radha trying to 'see' for the ocean. It is a metaphor for freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to transport ourselves to places we would normally be unable to reach. In those scenes, it is gently told to us that her sense of duty has also been passed down from her mother who I assume lives within the rich Indian traditions of duty in marriage. The movie is beautifully filmed and enhanced by the musical score by A.R. Rahman. Since the film, I have become ardent fans of the two lead actresses and the director. I look forward to more of Ms Deepa's future productions. | 0 |
As a great fan of the Hammer Studios and enthusiastic watcher of their Gothic Horror films, I wonder what took me so long to start watching their TV-series 'Hammer House of Horror', which only ran for one season in 1980. Now that I've seen the first four episodes of the show, I can say that it easily satisfies my expectations so far. While this first episode 'Witching Time' is maybe not the most imaginative Horror story ever told, and doesn't quite deliver the marvelous Gothic atmosphere that I love Hammer's films from the 50s to the 70s for, it doubtlessly does accomplish to tell a surprisingly spooky tale and create some genuine creepiness within fifty minutes. Film score composer David Winter (Jon Finch) is tormented by the 17th century witch Lucinda (Patricia Quinn)... While he story may be simple, but for a running time of less than an hour, it is effective and delivers many creepy moments. Northern Irish actress Patricia Quinn, who is probably best known for her role in 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show' (1975) as well as the fantastic Monty Python comedy 'Monty Python's Meaning of Life' (1983), is wonderfully malicious in her role which fits her like a glove. Jon Finch is also quite good as David, and while Prunella Gee, who plays his adulterous actress wife, may not be the best actress ever, she is definitely nice to look at. The episode is accompanied by a nice score which plays along well with the atmosphere. Overall, 'Witching Time' is a very entertaining episode with several truly creepy moments, and decent opener to the series. | 0 |
Set in South Africa, a young black guy tries to land a part in a 'gangsta' movie. But with no knowledge of street life, he's told to find out what that life is really like or he won't get the part. He manages to work his way into a gang led by an old friend of his from school and his chances of appearing in the film decline as he commits crimes to be accepted. But for the gang's leader, the burgeoning disaster of his new friend's life suggests a golden opportunity to do something better with his own.<br /><br />While that may sound relatively interesting, it's anything but. The first half of it is incredibly meandering and tedious, while the 'hijacking' only takes place towards the end with some very poorly executed low speed car chases. In those 'chases', only two police cars are used, both of which are early 90's Nissan Sunny's. Not only would these be rather cheap to pick up (and I find it rather hard to believe they'd be using such mundane old cars in South Africa in the year 2000), but as far as I can remember, there's only 2 involved and none of them get a scratch once. The car chases are very badly shot, with distant and badly timed camera angles and minimal traffic on the roads, and they're all over in around 2 minutes at maximum as you're supposed to believe that a very small kid is actually a highly skilled driver who can easily evade the police despite the driving being pedestrian and utterly unexciting. This now leads me onto the characters and the acting, which are equally bad. The aforementioned kid who drives the car, looks about 13 years old and supposedly is extremely skilled at losing the incredibly inept police. Everybody else is equally unconvincing, so much that they even look bored at times themselves.<br /><br />At the closing scene of the movie, our main character ('Sox Moraka') is asked by the gang leader to steal a car from a car park. While having trouble opening it, the Police arrive and ask him what he's doing and he replies by telling him it's their car. After a brief argument they try to arrest him and he then holds the Police at gunpoint and jumps back in their car. After he's in, the Police return fire and in turn he gets wounded. After another pathetic chase sequence, they decide to abandon the car and set it alight to destroy any evidence. What follows here is one of the most downright laughable and hideously awful special effects I've ever seen. When the car 'explodes', superimposed flames suddenly appear from every window with awful sound effects that aren't even in time. It's so badly done and so phony looking that it's hard to even put it into words, and really needs to be seen to be believed. If you watch it in slow motion it looks even funnier. I've seen better effects than this in murder reconstruction documentaries. The car is a Volkswagen Golf MK2 GTi. Something that wouldn't be worth a huge amount at all, and they seriously couldn't afford to destroy it with a real explosion? I'd love to know how large the budget for this movie was. It feels so cheap that I'm surprised it made it outside of South Africa, and even more surprised it made it to a DVD release.<br /><br />I know it's not a big budget Hollywood production. I know it's meant to depict gangs in impoverished townships of South Africa who steal cars from the middle class in and sell the parts on the black market, but with the laughable effects, poorly executed car chases, awful acting and ludicrous characters, any sense of reality is completely lost.<br /><br />Overall, I most certainly do NOT advise you to watch this. If you want to have a laugh and see one of the most poorly done, low budget messes of amovie ever created, then I'd recommend it for that, and only that.<br /><br />It is a wretched, poorly made, poorly edited, poorly paced and tedious piece of low budget drivel that fails on all counts. I've seen many South African movies, including lots of cheap NuImage/Nu-World action pictures, and despite their cheesiness, they're far better than this on all counts. | 1 |
So i had low expectations for this movie to start with, but it failed to meet even those. while there were some funny parts, even one or two laugh out loud parts, this movie fell terribly short of what i would call good. the funniest jokes were unexpected and over very quickly, leaving us sitting there going 'WTF just happened?' in addition, there were a few jokes that just dragged on and on and on. the part where he falls down the mountain had me yawning. also, the editing was really lacking. there were some poor scene transitions, but that seems to be the style nowadays. It made me laugh, but i wouldn't watch it again, and I'm very glad i waited for it to rent. give it a chance, you might enjoy it, but don't think you are in for anything along the lines of the 40 year old virgin, or Superbad. | 1 |
Yeah, I remember this one! Many years since I actually watched it. The story was entirely surreal, but nonetheless great! What anyone who rates and reviews movies ought to bear in mind is what the respective movie aims at. It's the same with 'First Kid', which follows a similar pattern. Certain movies - like this one here - just aim at plain and comical nonsense. Such movies can't be rated from the point of view of a hypercritical reviewer. Of course these movies lack quality, lack a sophisticated storyline, very often lack first-class acting, but if they do fulfil their primary premise - that's okay. I don't have this movie here on my list of all-time favorites, but I still thought it was funny, had some very enjoyable sequences and made a good story. Brian Bonsall is a smart actor anyway. | 0 |
Most people who have seen this movie thinks that it is the best movie ever made. I disagree but this movie is very very good. Tony is a bad ass guy and knows that he's intimidating and uses it to get ahead. It's about him and how he goes from washing dishes to having a huge house and a office with cocaine all over the desk. If you want a family movie then this isn't the way to go but if you want mobsters and vengeance and stuff like that then you'll like it. | 0 |
I must admit this is one of Cameron Diaz's unheard of films and i was also surprised that she had an important role but she was not the lead. I was very touched by it as i really can identify the pain of the loss of a loved one as i have experienced it from close quarters.<br /><br />Both Camilla Belle and Jordana Brewster were really good in their portrayal of the protagonist Phoebe and i must also hand it to the casting people for finding two actresses who look so alike that i really thought they were sisters(in real life). This is one of those movies Cameron did for the sake of acting and not for star billing.She looked the part of the gorgeous ,rebellious hippie who wants to change the world though sometimes she comes off as a rebel without a cause.<br /><br />Coming from a dysfunctional family where her only source of strength being her big sister Faith, little girl Phoebe is understandably very upset when faith leaves for Europe. As she grows up she goes off in search of her sister and gradually gets disillusioned by the truth about her sister and falls for her sister's boyfriend.<br /><br />Great story and equally great location shooting around European.I will watch it again. | 0 |
Scientist working frantically in seclusion finds a way to locate the impact crater of a meteor carrying a new radioactive element. All (pseudo)science and breakthrough technology talks of the 1930s are right there, including the idea that radioactivity could heal any illness if properly harnessed. When he summons his rivals -who had cast him out of the scientific community and ridiculed him - to witness his discovery, they propose a 'joint' expedition to Africa...of course they end up stealing much of dr. Rukh's original discovery, giving him only residual credit. In addition to that, an effeminate weakling who looks like a supporting comedy actor from the worst Abbot&Costello (Lawton) literally steals dr. Rukh's young trophy wife (Drake), who falls head over heels for that scrap of a human being. Having grown horns like a deer wasn't going to make dr. Rukh (Karloff) any friendlier, so he embarks in an undercover revenge mission...killing 2 of his foes and friendly dr. Benet (Lugosi), the only one who had helped him...finally succumbing to the deadly radiations that had allowed him to embark in his revenge to start with but ( to my utmost dissatisfaction ) sparing the adulteress and that poor excuse for a human being she had married. Acting is mostly fine, with Karloff & Lugosi being very good. Check the hysterical chambermaid scene... Other characters aren't worth mentioning... Recommended, much like ALL old Universal horrors... | 0 |
I've read all the rave reviews here and am impressed with the imagination of those who loved this film. I can't say that I found much to recommend it. The Leonard Cohen sound track is not only excessively heavy-handed but dreary beyond measure. The film looks authentic enough, but something's got to happen for it to work, and nothing much does: a cursory plot (not a real problem for me), not much character development, nothing thematically. It just slogs along. Flawed as it is, Cimino's 'Heaven's Gate' has some moments of genuine wonder and is a film I'd sooner watch again. For a brilliant reconception of the West, HBO's 'Deadwood' is much superior to 'McCabe.' | 1 |
I was particularly moved by the understated courage and integrity of l'Anglaise, in this beautifully acted, intellectually and visually compelling film. Thank you so much, Monsieur le directeur Rohmer. | 0 |
I read the novel 'Jane Eyre' for the first time back in 1986. It was round that time that I saw the BBC-version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. It was an excellent version and very much like the book. Years later, I laid eyes on this version and was horrified. William Hurt is totally miscast as Mr Rochester. Mr Rochester is a passionate character, where as William Hurt portrays him as a block of ice. The same goes for Charlotte Gainsborough. It was like watching two zombies together. This is story about love and passion, but I couldn't see it in this version. No, back to the BBC-version. A wonderful time is guaranteed. | 1 |
Oh, this is such a glorious musical. There's a bit of miscasting -- Frank Sinatra is sorely miscast as the Jewish Nathan Detroit, though it only becomes evident on 'Sue Me', which is a distinctly Jewish song. Sadly, the filmmakers decided to cut out one of the best songs from the show, 'Marry the Man Today', and replaced it with an inferior Sinatra showpiece. With these two flaws in mind, the movie is otherwise magnificent. Jean Simmons shines as Sarah Brown. Marlon Brando can't sing worth beans, but pulls it off anyway. Stubby Kaye wonderfully reprises his Broadway role (it was written for him). Damon Runyon's language and pacing and humor come through quite well. This is on my see-it-every-chance-I-get list. | 0 |
An absolutely atrocious adaptation of the wonderful children's book. Crude and inappropriate humor, some scary parts, and a sickening side story about the mom's boyfriend wanting to send the boy away to military school to get him out of the way makes this totally inappropriate for the kids who will most likely want to see it because of the book (3-8) yr olds. Don't waste your money, your time, or your good judgement. | 1 |
What can I say??? This movie was so Dumb & Stupid I thought it was a Psychotic DRAG Comedy - They should rename it 'Bitching Pregnant Cat Fight!' What a stupid waste of time , if you want to see(DIE DIE!!! 'I WANT YOUR BABY DRAG QUEEN) Jennifer Tilly being her Freaky self then just rent out one Of the 'Chucky' movie, oh ya , 'The Bride Of Chucky.' It's more fun watching the Two Ugly Plastic dolls (one of them Jennifer Tilly turned into the UGLY Female version of Chucky) having Squeaky plastic rubber sex then watching Daryl Hannah being pregnant , Dumb & stupid; & Jennifer Tilly Grinding up her Husbang in a Food Processor reminded me of my Mother trying to do House Work! OK it's just BAD!!! | 1 |
The only reason I give this movie 8/10 stars, and not 10, is because 1) Sinatra is awful and 2) the love interest of Kelly's character leaves much to be desired, (IMHO). Do love that Dean Stockwell, Quantum Leap - Al, is the little boy. The dance sequence with Jerry Mouse is one of the most entertaining and amazing dance sequences I have ever seen. Tom and Jerry is still a personal favorite of mine and my daughter's. I'm 28 and she's 4, so while the character is less iconic than Mickey, he is still a favorite of many children and adults today. Kelly is as always captivating, his eyes full of fun and excitement. In every movie I have ever seen him in, he always steals the show. One of the best dancers of the 20th century. It is no wonder Paula Abdul 'sampled' Kelly's moves. I would also list Gene Kelly as one of the most beautiful people of the 20th century. If you were to watch only one part, don't miss Kelly's dance with Jerry Mouse. You will NOT be disappointed. | 0 |
The great talents of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressberger are noticeable in their wonderful 'A Matter of Life and Death'. It was part of the recent tribute to Mr. Powell that played at the Walter Reade in New York. This film, in particular, shows us one of the best British films from that, or any other era.<br /><br />'A Matter of Life and Death' has a brilliant cinematography by Jack Cardiff, a man who knew how to work wonders with a camera. Particularly impressive is the contrast from the monochromatic tones given to the scenes played in heaven, and the colored ones when the action comes back to earth. This was quite a coup, and well ahead of its times. The black and white sequence that involves the long staircase where Peter and the Conductor are chatting has to be one of the most amazing things on any film.<br /><br />Much has been said in this forum about the film, so our comment will be about the great acting Powell and Pressberger got out of the large, distinguished cast, who responded magnificently to the directors' guidance.<br /><br />David Niven, is Peter, whose aircraft is hit and his best friend dies as a result of it. This film marked one of the highlights in Mr. Niven's career. He was an excellent film actor as he shows us in this movie. Kim Hunter is surprisingly good as June, the woman who talked to Peter as his plane was falling from the skies. As fate would have it, Peter and June fall in love at first sight.<br /><br />Some of the best British film actors grace this film with their presence. Robert Coote, is Bob, the man who is admitted to heaven, but he is surprised his friend Peter never made the trip with him. An excellent star turn by Marius Goring, who as the Conductor 71 steals the film. Mr. Goring, who had worked with the directors, is one of the best things in the movie. Also, Roger Livesey, as Dr. Frank Reeves, does one of the best appearances of his career, as well as Raymond Massey, who is seen as Abraham Farlan.<br /><br />'A Matter of Life and Death' is a timeless film that will always be seen with gratitude toward its creators. | 0 |
While many unfortunately passed on, the ballroom scene is still very much alive and carrying on their legacy. Some are still very much alive and quite well, Octavia is more radiant and beautiful than ever, Willi Ninja is very accomplished and gives a great deal of support to the gay community as a whole, Pepper Labeija just passed on last year of natural cause, may she rest in peace. After Anji's passing Carmen became the mother of the house of Xtravaganza (she was in the beach scene) and she is looking more and more lovely as well. Some balls have categories dedicated to those who have passed, may they all rest in peace. There is currently another project underway known as 'How Do I Look?', you can check out the website at www.howdoilooknyc.org. | 0 |
I sort of liked this Columbo movie its atmosphere, which was real thriller like and its approach even at times reminded me of film-noir, in the movie its first 30 minutes or so. It's really nice and done in a good old fashioned way, with the right camera angles and use of light. It doesn't mean instantly that this movie is a brilliant one though but its solid enough to consider this a good late Columbo movie entry. It's definitely a better movie than the average 'later' Columbo movie entry.<br /><br />26 years after his previous Columbo movie appearance, George Hamilton returns once again to play the main lead opposite Peter Falk, again as the murderer, in a total different and new role of course. I liked him in his role and he was a good Columbo 'villain', who gave the good old Lieutenant some good competition. They had some nice sequences together. Problem with the 'modern' new Columbo movies always sort of had been that it didn't feature a good well known actor opposite Peter Falk. This movie obviously doesn't suffer from this problem. But I must say though that this movie doesn't feature Peter Falk at this best. He has certainly played the character better and his performance isn't quite consistent enough within this movie, which is probably also due to he movie its director Daryl Duke, who also directed the really dreadful movie 'Tai-Pan', among many other projects.<br /><br />It has a rather good and enjoyable story but the fact that the same sort of plot to cover up the murder had been used before in an earlier Columbo movie also doesn't help of course. It got used before in the 1975 movie 'Columbo: Playback'. Nevertheless it of course also still has plenty enough 'original' moments of its own with its story, even though of course in essence every Columbo movie is more or less the same. But oh well, that is what made the Columbo series so great and consistent. If it ain't broke don't fix it.<br /><br />It also is true that within this movie more clues than usual are left out for the Lieutenant, which doesn't mean that the movie its murderer is more stupid or sloppy but I more see it as the writers being more overly enthusiastic than others. It doesn't make the movie or story bad and it in fact perhaps even makes it more enjoyable, to see Columbo hard at work and discovering all kind of small but important clues. Luckily the movie is also filled with some enjoyable effective relieving Columbo-comedy.<br /><br />Simply a good late Columbo movie entry.<br /><br />7/10 | 0 |
'This might mean the end of the white race!' gasps a general as a dozen Native Zombies wander around the battlefields of Europe during the 'Great War'. An expedition sets out tor the long-lost, back-projected city of Kennif-Angor to stop this sort of thing and keep the battlefields clear for decent honest white people to slaughter each other by the tens of thousands.<br /><br />It is a bit hard to tell when people are zombies or not in this film as the acting is so wooden. Even by 1936 standards the acting in this film is bad. From a previous decade. It looks like it came out of a correspondence school text book on 'How to Act' <br /><br />------------- Chapter Three: Emotions -------------<br /><br />'How to express fear and loathing (Female) Clench both fists. Place fist of one hand on heart. Open mouth as it to scream. Place other fist, palm out, against mouth. Hold pose for 10 seconds longer than is comfortable then quickly turn head 90 degrees away from direction of loathed object and sob'.<br /><br />'How to have difficult, heavily emotionally charged scene with ex-fiancé explaining your love for someone else. Do NOT make eye contact. Do not move. Do not show any emotion. Do not move your eyes too much as you read your lines off the studio wall.' <br /><br />To give us a respite from the leaden acting the director cunningly cuts in long pauses where nothing much happens except that film keeps running through the projectors. Thus 35 minute's worth of story is padded out to 60ish minutes.<br /><br />The revolt of the zombies when it comes is so slow! Released from mental bondage the armies of ex-zombiefied minions turn on their former master by ambling slowly up hill and then sort of stabbing a door a bit and smashing a window. 'Yea... let's... oh, I dunnno yeah. Let's get him grrr. Frankenstein must be destroyed - manana.' (though I have just found a bit of hidden symbolism. Jagger is shot by a Native as some sort of ironic counterpoint to all the Natives being shot by the Germans at the start of the flick. see, even downtrodden Natives don't want the end of the White Race!) The chase (it you can call it that) through the back-projected swamp is hilarious and worth the admission price alone. Roy D'Arcy has a hell of a time camping it up, but is totally wasted, as Col. Mazovia.<br /><br />There is one interesting moment in this film. A nice little montage of the zombied natives and white cast members falling under the evil eyes spell. face after face, cross-fade into one another. It works, though there is a strange little blip in the middle of each close up like a frame has been cut. I guess these must be Neg Cutters' frames between the fades.<br /><br />Best watched with friends and in a silly mood. | 1 |
The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it was bad enough to be comedic. Everyone in this movie looks like a porn industry drop out. I have actually seen better acting in low budget porn. I though I had actually rented some kind of gay porn after this classic scene: Jim: Watch your ass Nick: You watch yours (together): I wont leave you behind!<br /><br />The first action sequence shows how awful the production is, but its really kind of funny: Good guys have transformer weapons! In one scene, they all have fake HK MP5 sub-machine guns. Next scene, AK-47 replicas! And then, to top it all off, they do some weapon swapping between scenes with a couple of M-16s!! I think they had a budget shortage for guns, not enough to go around between the good guys and bad guys. Fight scenes are poorly coordinated and fake as all hell. You have to remove the pin/spoon from a grenade for it to explode on its own. You can't fire a shoulder launched missile of any kind while riding inside a helicopter. Weapons that you throw away don't suddenly re-appear. When a gun is out of bullets, throwing it away is still pretty stupid. Unless you have no idea how to reload them.. Big slow trucks driving around in first gear make for awkward action scenes. I really cant believe movies like this are actually produced. This movie would be hilarious on nitrous oxide or maybe just drunk. | 1 |
What an incredible story and what a beautiful film! Hat's off to Ben Daniels, Lavinia Currier and the great Honore de Balzac. This captivating film conveys the passion experienced by the characters so effortlessly and yet so powerfully. I watched it mesmerized, almost holding my breath as the story developed towards its inexorable end. This film's execution was almost flawless: simple and pure, it plays with our hearts, guiding us in understanding the strange platonic, absolute thus possessive bond between two creatures not meant to be part of each other's world. Both are capable of affection, yet ironically, it's the more 'evolved' one who becomes dependent and possessive, unable to accept the other's freedom. It's one of the most fascinating and intriguing look at the many forms of love, and an incredible study on how oppressive and destructive human love can be sometimes. <br /><br />Only a rudimentary mind would associate this story with any kind of bestiality. | 0 |
RKO studios decided to borrow both William Powell from MGM and Jean Arthur from Columbia, for one of their more big budget efforts to cash in on the popularity of The Thin Man. They succeeded to some degree.<br /><br />A lot of folks forget that in addition to and earlier than Nick Charles, Bill Powell also played in a few Philo Vance films in the title role. So by this time he was pretty well set in the role. Doctor Bradford is not doing as many liquid lunches as Nick Charles, but the basic blasé Nick is still there. One difference is that while Nick Charles married an heiress, Doctor Bradford works for a living as a physician. That helps in his avocation of detective and in fact it does in this film.<br /><br />He's got two murders to solve. A jockey falls off a horse coming into the homestretch of a big race and dies for no apparent reason. The trainer suspects something afoot, but he's bumped off by the more conventional method of a bullet. This is after he comes to Bill Powell for help.<br /><br />Myrna Loy was a more steadying influence on Bill Powell than Jean Arthur was. Arthur plays it as more of a dizzy dame than Loy did. But it works here and she and Powell have good chemistry.<br /><br />The ever dependable James Gleason is the police inspector in the Sam Levene/Nat Pendleton role. All they needed here was Asta and possibly Eric Blore as Powell's butler was essaying that part.<br /><br />If Powell and Arthur were signed at this studio we might have seen a whole slew of Bradford films. | 0 |
Pet Semetary (1989) 9/10 The Creed family have just moved into the small town of Ludlow. The family consists of a father, Louis, a mother, Rachel, a brother Gage, and a daughter, Ellen. They are greeted with kindness by Jud Crandall. Jud is 89, and could basically tell you about the entire history of Ludlow.<br /><br />Behind the Creed's new house, there is a path leading to a pet cemetery (spelled pet sematary). When Ellen wants to go up to see it, Jud willfully takes the family on a trip. That is the start of hell for the Creed family.<br /><br />When Rachel and the kids are gone, Ellen's cat Church dies. Jud feels that Ellen isn't ready for the death of her cat, so he suggests Louis follow him further up the path, past the pet cemetery.<br /><br />Jud tells Louis of this burial ground, once used by Micmac Indians. Louis buries Church, without Jud's help. A couple of days later, Church returns, alive, but from hell.<br /><br />This movie was one of two horror movies that could actually scare me, aside from 'The Exorcist.' The greatest performance would ever be Zelda, Rachel's sister with spinal meningitis, or Victor Pascow, a ghost who tries to help the Creeds from making the mistake of bringing back things from the dead.<br /><br />The music in this movie plays an extravagant part. It is at the same time sad and mysterious. It goes along with the movie wonderfully.<br /><br />9/10 | 0 |
I got this movie in a bargain bin, hoping for an amusingly bad flick. Boy was I disappointed. (except for avon.) You see, the movie is indeed horrible, but so horrible, it isn't even laughable. The plot, oh wait, there is no plot. I suppose you could say it's about the main character rising up in the ranks of street fighting. At the end of the movie, the directors decided to either not make any more sense, or, more likely, died and had a monkey finish directing the movie. DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT THE ENDING SPOILED! although the ending doesn't really spoil anything. The main character somehow ends up in a room filled with mirrors, a la Enter The Dragon, and then gets real angry, has stupid flashback, and hits a mirror. The end. Wheeee.<br /><br />The only redeeming factor of this movie was Avon's scene. He's talking to the rival street fighting boss and says something along these lines, completely deadpan: 'Do not worry about him anymore sir. I have killed him in a sophisticated manner. I wined him, I dined hm, we went to a disco. We was havin a lot of fun. And then I killed him.' at which point the boss says 'good work avon. You're number 1.' And avon says 'Number 1! Alllriiiiight! Alriiight!' The scene continues with avon continuing to say 'alllrriiiight!' over and over. The next scene is of a dead Avon floating in a pool. Intelligent? I think not.<br /><br />Lastly, I own the 'Homeboy' version of this movie, meaning the title on the box I own is 'Homeboy.' It shows a huge guy holding a giant gun and screaming. This never happens in the movie. This man is never in the movie. High quality.<br /><br />Note--I am new to this reviewing, but hell yes I am going to keep it up. | 1 |
So it might not be entirely historically accurate. And there is little or no real character development. But for Jake (son of Ridley) Scott's first attempt, it's well worth the ticket price.<br /><br />Captain James MaCleane (Jonny Lee Miller looking as good as ever) may be a gentleman, but he hasn't got the money or the clothes to prove it. Plunkett (Robert Carlyle with all his clothes on) is an apothecary-turned-outlaw. The circumstances of their strange meeting involve a dead body, a ruby, and eventually a partnership as the Gentlemen Highwaymen. As the tag line says, 'they rob the rich... and that's it.' There isn't really much background, or even in-depth development, but the object seems to be to relieve the aristocracy of enough money and jewels to pay for the two Highwaymen's passage to America. One small problem: MaCleane falls in love. With the Chief Justice's ward, Rebecca (Liv Tyler). Who happens to also have caught the eye of the Thief Taker General.<br /><br />The plot is original enough, the casting is excellent (especially Alan Cumming as the drag-queenish Lord Rochester, Carlyle and Miller--also together in 'Trainspotting,' they haven't lost their dynamic), the costuming is fantastic, the makeup is outrageous, and the music is hard-edged techno with a strangely classical undertone. Jake Scott has an eye for light and shadow, a good sense of balance between spectacle and plot, and he isn't squeamish about showing the more unpleasant side of 17th century London. And lucky for us, he likes close-ups of faces, especially eyes. Jonny Lee Miller's eyes. And Liv Tyler's, too, but hey, who is this movie about? Rebecca? No. Plunkett and MaCleane. But there's more to this movie than just pretty faces. At the risk of sounding cliche, it's a fast, furious, and sometimes frustrating ride with the most noble highwaymen since Robin Hood. Decadent, sleazy, and violent, Scott's debut film makes for an entertaining evening at the movies.<br /><br />As MaCleane says, 'I was terrific, and it was a bloody good laugh!' | 0 |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Mr Bean (Rowan Atkinson) is in this world, but not of this world. His mind simply doesn't seem to comprehend things the way an average person would and his life is one long disaster because of this, getting himself into constant mishaps and far out, zany situations, which he is left to sort out on his own as he doesn't seem to mix with anyone and he rarely speaks. But he never gives up and, despite the simplest of tasks being a constant struggle for him, applying his own zany methods of solving the problem always pays off for him in the end.<br /><br />To look at the sorry state of modern British humour, with all it's focus of sex and general vulgarity, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that a show like Mr Bean was made at one time. There's nothing unsuitable going on here, just good, clean U rated humour of the type Tommy Cooper and the like made in the 50s. And I find it just as laugh out loud funny now in my early 20s as I did when I was a young boy in the early 90s.<br /><br />Although I can look at it a little deeper now and see there must be more to this character than than meets the eye. There must be a reason why he does things the way he does and things seem to keep going wrong for him. As others have noted, it looks like he may have a type of autism. In fact I'm so convinced about it that I really think were a professional psychologist to analyse him, I think Mr Bean could be the first famous, fictional character to be diagnosed with something like Asperger's Syndrome.<br /><br />If you'd like to see some truly hilarious British humour at it's very best before it all became obsessed with sex and vulgarity, then this would come highly recommended. Shows like Little Britain do work because it's well realised but it's really just as vulgar as the rest. Shows like this show we were more restrained and civilised once, and hopefully we might start putting out this type of humour more again sometime soon. ***** | 0 |
Why do people bitch about this movie and not about awful movies like The Godfather. Titanic is the greatest movie of the 21st Century.With great acting,directing,effects,music and generally everything. This movie is always dumped by all because one day some one said they didn't like it any more so most of the world decided to agree. There is nothing wrong with this movie. All I can say is that this movie, not only being the most heavily Oscar Awarded movie of all time, the most money ever made ever and sadly one of the most underrated movies I've ever seen. Apart from that it is truly the best movie of all time. The only movies that come close to being like all the Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings trilogy or anything by the masters Hitchcock or Spielberg or Tim Burton. These are all good movies and directors but none match up to James Cameron's Masterpiece TITANIC. | 0 |
Honestly, at first, I watched this movie because of the gratuitous sex scenes I heard it possesses but by actually watching the film, it just made me realize that there are still good and sensible movies out there. Truly, it is one of the most well-crafted and touching movies I've ever watched. I'm a teenage bisexual and the film spoke to me about my predicaments - sex, religion, love, acceptance, etc. It gave me an idea on how to deal with these issues with the help of my self and others around me who love me for who I am. Cox really handled the movie well by sprinkling dozes of heart-warming lines and a bit of sexuality in it. It made the movie more interesting. Some people compare it to Brokeback Mountain but I don't agree myself. Brokeback Mountain has more drama while Latter Days is well-balanced. | 0 |
This exploration of a unique decade in US cinema begins with the fall of one ailing, out-of-touch empire and culminates with the unstoppable rise of another, equally associated with escapism and box office receipts. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Or, as Peter Fonda observed in Easy Rider, 'We blew it.' In between, from Bonnie And Clyde to Star Wars, the young Turks (some under the guerrilla tutelage of Roger Corman) were creeping under the wires to produce some of the greatest artworks of the 20th century. While the story is already familiar from Peter Biskind's Easy Riders, Raging Bulls directors Demme and LaGravenese are less concerned with muckraking than in providing a platform for the filmmakers and stars themselves.<br /><br />Everyone from Martin Scorsese to Francis Ford Coppola and Julie Christie is interviewed and a roster of well edited clips places the decade in a socio-cultural and economic context. If their responses are self-congratulatory (to say the least), they're also highly quotable, funny and revealing, making this something of a cinephile's wet dream. Director William Friedkin reveals how the original The Exorcist poster was to feature a little girl's hand holding a bloodied crucifix and the legend 'For God's sake, help her', before he complained. Former Warner Bros.' head John Calley recalls that when he first saw Robert De Niro in Mean Streets he assumed Scorsese had secured a psychopath's day release for the shoot.<br /><br />Happily, a certain amount of hard perspective has crept into the mix, as might be hoped from a politically motivated, consciousness-expanded generation; Hopper stresses 'there's a lot of real crap in there too'. Julie Christie observes that 1970s US cinema was 'not a good time for women'. But if Demme responds with a spoonful of sops to women's movies - brief clips of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, They Shoot Horses, Don't They and Klute - we're soon dragged back to the usual male wall-pissing contests.<br /><br />The shift from tough, socially-conscious film-making to no-risk crowd-pleasers like Jaws for 'Nam-weary, fantasy-craving audiences is also documented, though a little rushed. But kudos too, for the inclusion of lesser-sung, but equally relevant films like Panic In Needle Park and Joe. 'We weren't handsome,' muses Bruce Dern on his contemporaries. 'But we were f****** interesting.' | 0 |
Although little more than a pleasant 11-minute musical diversion (it's rightly billed as a 'Tabloid Musical') EVERY Sunday is one of the most famous and precious documents in cinematic history, since it provides an invaluable look at the burgeoning talents of two of the screen's most talented and beloved musical performers: Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland.<br /><br />Although often cited as an screen test of sorts, produced by MGM to test the adolescent appeal of studio contractees Durbin and Garland whose options were reportedly coming up for renewal, this assertion is not entirely accurate. By the time EVERY Sunday was produced in July, 1936, Deanna Durbin's contract with MGM had already lapsed and she had been immediately signed by Universal a month earlier, in June 1936.<br /><br />However, a provision in Durbin's MGM contract permitted the studio to exercise an option on her services for up to sixty days, providing she had not yet begun work on a picture at her new studio. As Durbin's debut vehicle, THREE SMART GIRLS, was still not ready to begin filming, MGM chose to exercise its' option and, although officially under contract to Universal at the time, Durbin found herself back on the MGM lot filming this agreeable short subject with fellow adolescent singing hopeful, Judy Garland.<br /><br />This, along with Garland's far more extensive prior professional performing experience/training (which included appearances in several earlier movie shorts), may explain why EVERY Sunday often seems to favor Judy Garland over Deanna Durbin, giving Garland more lines to speak and an original song ('Americana') to sing, while Durbin offers the popular classical art song, 'Il Bacio' by Luigi Ardiiti. Certainly, it would make perfect sense that MGM would want to favor one of its' own contract players over another from a rival studio.<br /><br />Ironically, although Garland's character is the more overtly pro-active one of the two girls in this short, it would be Durbin's feisty and impulsive 'Little Miss Fixit' screen persona at Universal which would propel her to instantaneous worldwide super stardom as the world's first 'Teen Idol' with her debut vehicle, THREE SMART GIRLS, while Garland's more passive 'wistful wallflower' adolescent image would see her generally cast in supporting roles opposite frequent screen partner Mickey Rooney and (in ZIEGFELD GIRL) the up-and-coming Lana Turner. Not until her fifteenth MGM feature, 1942' FOR ME AND MY GAL (which was also her first fully 'adult' role) would Garland achieve the solo above-the title billing and 'solo attraction' status of a true superstar that Durbin had attained instantaneously six years earlier.<br /><br />It is entirely inaccurate, therefore, to assert that Garland was the only 'superstar' attraction of the two girls, as Durbin attained this status with press 'n public, almost a decade before her MGM rival. Literally in foreclosure at the time of her signing, the on screen evidence strongly suggests that Universal was much quicker to realize Deanna's full superstar potential than MGM was with Judy, and it's worth noting that almost every notable accomplishment Garland achieved at MGM, from superstar billing, to having starring vehicles specially written to showcase her talents and appeal, to being invited to plant her footprints in the forecourt of Graumann's Chinese Theater, to receiving an 'Honorary' Oscar' in recognition for her talent, Deanna Durbin received well before her gifted MGM contemporary.<br /><br />In any case, EVERY Sunday is a delightful, utterly unpretentious musical short. Its plot line (Durbin and Garland use their singing talents to save Durbin's grandfather from being forcibly retired by the town council from conducting his Sunday concerts in the park), presages the plot lines of both Garland's 'Let's Put On a Show' musicals with Mickey Rooney and Durbin's 100 MEN AND A GIRL. Unlike Garland's later BABES films, the short never treats the insubstantial storyline seriously, and consequently, its' eleven minute running time flies by.<br /><br />Of course, the true magic of EVERY Sunday is in observing the already remarkable performing talents/screen presences of Durbin and Garland at the very beginning of their legendary careers. Both girls, even at this early stage, possessed remarkable screen presences and are utterly natural and unaffected in their presentation as both singers and actresses. Garland fairly explodes off the screen with vitality as she literally punches out the lyrics to the jaunty 'Americana.' As she socks across the number with appropriate hand gestures, Judy literally seems to be chewing on the words of the song as she screws up her mouth and bugs out her eyes in her intense eagerness to show what she can do.<br /><br />By contrast, Durbin's presentation of 'Il Bacio,' is far more demure and subdued. Although entirely appropriate for her 'classical' selection, Durbin's delivery of Arditi's waltz is much more of the traditional 'stand 'n sing' variety than Garland's physically emotive turn. Nevertheless, though 'miniature diva' Deanna does nothing to call attention to herself, with her candid eyes, dazzling smile and artless delivery, she easily holds the screen with 'jazz baby' Judy, and their delightful duetting of 'Americana' in the short's finale makes one regret all the more that producer Joe Pasternak was never able to realize his dream of pairing Durbin and Garland in a musical feature film (because Universal refused to loan 'Number One Asset' Durbin out).<br /><br />A priceless document of the nascent talents of two remarkable and utterly unique talents. See this one if you get a chance! | 0 |
Want to watch a scary horror film? Then steer clear of this one. There's not enough beer in the world to make this film enjoyable.<br /><br />However, there is enough scotch. Single-malt, if you can manage it.<br /><br />If the previous comments weren't enough to keep you from watching this film sober, allow me to assist. NASA sends one man and two unpaid extras into space to orbit Saturn. A really big solar flare causes Colonel Steve West to bleed from the nose. Things go downhill from there, and wackiness ensues.<br /><br />I actually read the book adaptation, which was published and released only in the UK. MILES better than the film, and the book was dreadful. At least some pretense is made towards suspense, and some sort of explanation of events is pulled out from the author's (rhymes with 'gas').<br /><br />Not to say that the film is completely without merit. Rick Baker learned that he really ought to read a contract before signing on to a film, and Jonathan Demme found that he's really better suited to direct.<br /><br />Yes, there is an MST3K episode featuring this flick, but it is, of course, edited quite a bit. Without the obligatory flashing of the breasts, not even the healing power of scotch can save you.<br /><br />Please, just go watch Raiders of the Lost Ark if you want to see a guy melt. See Space Cowboys if you feel the need to see astronauts. I can not, in all good conscience, recommend this film to the sober film-going public. | 1 |
Yeah,it's low budget. Yeah,it's one of Candy's earliest films, but it is maybe his funniest! John Candy was not so far removed from his SCTV days in 'Going Berserk' and it shows. If you don't crack up when Candy tries to help a guy with his groceries while being hand-cuffed to an escaped cohort in the process of having sex with his girlfriend with only the apartment door separating them (huh?, see the movie!), or the way Euguene Levy (the creator of Kong Fu Yu) is talking to his mom on the phone, or just the countless number of facial expressions that only Candy could deliver you better check your pulse! If you like the John Candy of 'Only the Lonely' this is may not be a movie I would advise you to see, but if you enjoy the SCTV days of John Candy, this movie is a must see! | 0 |
Yet another venture into the realm of the teen-gross-out-comedy, set on a college campus featuring a nerd's quest to coolness, and how he decides to blackmail a trio of popular jocks into making him get the girl. It's all been done before, and it's all been done in a far more satisfying manner. The gross-out humor that has made teen flicks like 'American Pie' and 'Dude! Where's my Car' so popular is taken completely out of context in this installment, appearing so completely at random that the viewer can only frown and disapprove. The film is badly written, and the actors never succeed in making any of it even slightly bearable. I won't even dignify this terrible picture by divulging, as it's a waste of my time and yours. At best, Slackers never manages to entertain or induce laughter, and at worst it is excruciatingly bad and at times completely unwatchable. <br /><br />Jason Schwarzman, who impressed in his debut Rushmore, humiliates himself by appearing in this picture and one wonders how a career can end up in the toilet so fast. Please avoid, please avoid. Save your money. | 1 |
There is no way to put into words just how bad, how shapeless, paceless and laughless these 'Vice Academy' films really are. You have to experience one for yourself. For the third time in a row, writer-director Rick Sloane does not show even an ounce of writing or directing talent. There is nothing here that a person above the age of 5 will believe or laugh at, yet the (very brief) nudity and other 'plot' elements make the films unsuitable for kids. Which leads me to believe that they are really aimed at adults with the mental capabilities of 5-year-olds. Elizabeth Kaitan makes a more than welcome replacement for Linnea Quigley - she is winningly bubbly and cute, and her wonderful big smile is about the only thing that can make a viewer smile as well. But watching her and the other girls in this film is like watching a bunch of flowers in a desert covered with horse manure. (*) | 1 |
Never I have seen a movie so terrible that i've gone insane. It was a HUGE waste of time seeing this crappy film. There are a lot of things i hate about this movie: The songs is so terrible (yet a little bit catchy) i hit my head on the wall(especially from the song 'Grandpa is gonna sue the pants out of Santa' which i hit 10 Times *shrugs*), the character design, and that evil, greedy, and Bitchy cousin Mel.<br /><br />I cannot stand her for one second, she has got to be one of the most bitchiest person i've seen. Even though i kinda like her southern voice. <br /><br />The only bright-side is that Austin Bucks is played by the person who is the voice of Liquid Snake from Metal Gear Solid.<br /><br />I would not recommended to people to watch for the holidays as it was a HUGE disgrace for x-mas. | 1 |
Drones, ethnic drumming, bad synthesizer piping, children singing. The most patronizing 'world music' imaginable. This is a tourist film, and a lousy one. What really kills it is the incoherent sequences. India, Egypt, South America, Africa, etc, etc. No transitions, no visual explanation of why we're suddenly ten thousand miles away, no ideas expressed in images. Just a bunch of footage of third-worlders with 'baskets on their heads' as another reviewer said. Walking along endlessly as if that had some deep meaning. If these guys wanted to make a 3rd World music video, all they had to do was head a few hundred miles south of where the best parts of Koya were shot, and film in Mexico. That would have been a much better setting for 'life in transformation.'<br /><br />But no. What they decided on was a scrambled tourist itinerary covering half the globe and mind-deadeningly overcranked filter shots. The only thing to recommend this film is that it doesn't suck quite as much as Naqoyqatsi.<br /><br />RstJ | 1 |
Blond main character, always believes in everyone and when you stick together you can do ANYTHING! Shy guy best friend with curly hair (rip off of Gordo) wants to be a movie director has a secret crush on zoey. Spanish best friend (rip off of Miranda) Weird smart girl Quinn (rip off of Lary Tudgemen)and the popular stock up prep Logan (rip off of kate)And Zoey's little brother Max, annoying (rip off of Matt)<br /><br />Zoey is the semi popular girl, with 2 best friends. The only thing it's missing is the funny little sacastic cartoon Lizzie Mcguire has, and Hillary Duff was a lot cuter. Jamie Lynn Spears looks more like a tooth pick in a tube top. | 1 |
Very Slight Spoiler<br /><br /> This movie (despite being only on TV) is absolutely excellent. I didn`t really pay attention to the differences in looks or accents, so I can`t really comment on that. The acting in this was so good I had to pinch myself and say 'Remember, it`s only a movie, this DIDN`T REALLY HAPPEN'. As I sat and listened to Harris and Quinn talk, I knew that it was exactly what John and Paul would be talking about had they actually had this meeting. The offhanded comments and burns from John were right on with his character(especially in the restaurant!), as was his depression while Paul was very easy going and laid back. Both actors did and excellent job and I was thrilled to have seen this movie. It`s a wicked experience for any Beatles fan. And prepare for a few surprises! | 0 |
I admit to having been a fan of the original stage production. I never saw the movie version until very lately on cable, and watched it with anticipation, to see my memories brought alive again, because I adored the original show. Imagine my dismay.<br /><br />This has to be the worst translation of a Broadway show to film ever made. They changed the story, they changed the songs, they lost the soul. I was expecting a trip down memory lane, singing to the extraordinarily touching Music and the Mirror, At the Ballet, and Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen. Not! Not only did they adulterate the music to an almost unrecognizable point, but they messed up the storyline, adding songs and exterior plotlines (hello Cassie and Michael Douglas) not present in the original, and injecting 'drama' where it wasn't necessary. The original had enough pathos on its own. If you were a fan of the original Broadway show, don't bother. I'm sorry I wasted my time, and diluted my memories, watching this tripe. | 1 |
I understand wanting to make a movie that is edgy and different. I understand the previous reviewer comments that this is a miss-understood movie. My point is as soon as this movie ended my first comment was: ' this is what happens when a rich princess wants to be a movie star and has no talent'.....she uses daddy's' money to make a movie she wrote, directs, and pays for.....obviously to close to the movie to realize there was no character development and no directions such as a beginning, middle and ending.....the voyeur part was good and edgy but what was the point? I saw a women go to a house, find some pictures, screw the caretaker, come out side on a very cold night (not believable) to check on noise and runs over her caretaker lover....movie ends......some one educate my ignorant arss?? I really want to know what the point is....what was the directors' vision.....why no development of the dead lover? Why no background on the caretaker? What is the point of the night vision? What is the point of the lipstick on the car? Why a dead caretaker? Why tell us about an escaped mental patient/peeping tom? What's with the urn? Oh and the lamp is that suppose to signify whose' house this is? Territorial? Why? Why would the caretaker feel like it's his house? that aspect was never pursued......as for William Defoe...I rented this movie because he was in it and known for edgy characters.....write back and do tell me what I need to learn....I am just a mom in middle America who loves movies....Chris.... | 1 |
Seriously, all these Satan comes to Earth movies always involve the Catholics. Why doesn't Lucifer ever mess with the other denominations.<br /><br />The plot is that Asmodeus (Played by former Jason Vorhees Kane Hodder) has a plot to become human (but wasn't he always a demon) by getting this young girl who is his sister pregnant with his child. Except maybe she isn't his sister. The plot isn't clear on this, and they inter-splice these scenes where he is seeing a shrink about his problem.<br /><br />The lead girl gets pregnant while still a virgin, with an incredibly creepy scene of her father giving her a gynecological exam to prove her hymen is still intact.... Eeeewwwwww. Her sister (played by a washed up and looking much worse for wear Denise Crosby) concludes that this is a sign from heaven. Praise be! <br /><br />Well, the demon baby takes mom's body for a joy ride and picks off, in order, a truck driver, her friend's boyfriend and her friend, all being watched by an ex-military priest whose mission is to kill the baby when it is born. We discover that Asmodeus is actually a Catholic Cardinal who is running the whole thing.<br /><br />The ending is pretty much incomprehensible, and if you could make it that far straight through, you have a stronger stomach than I did. (I paused the film a couple of times, it was so awful.) | 1 |
I think 'The Best of Times' was a lost cause from the get go. The initial premise (guy drops the winning touchdown pass against a rival high school team, can never seem to get over it and then tries to reunite the two teams to play again) is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. Since Ron Shelton went on to write much better sports films I wonder if there was more to it then that. I hope this film wasn't green lit with Shelton pitching the story as I wrote above.<br /><br />So we have the premise. Going from there you would think, or hope, that there might be a few twists along the way to keep things lively. No such luck. This script follows every predictable cliché you can think of. There isn't a moment in this film you won't see coming a mile away before the film reveals it and the ending.... well if you can't figure out the ending by the end of the first reel then you haven't paid attention or seen any other sports movie in your life.<br /><br />Robin Williams and Kurt Russell star (and bore) in the leads. Williams is the poor schmo who dropped the big pass and Russell is the quarterback who threw the fateful pass. Gee, do you think Russell will suit up just once more to see if he and Williams can right a wrong that the town has never forgotten? This is such a lame duck comedy with a lame duck script that one can only shake their heads wondering what might have been. Sure there are a few chuckles and, to be honest, there is one truly funny scene. Williams and Russell have marital problems and the wives invite them over for dinner to resolve things. Neither guy realizes that they have been invited over on a Monday and, yes, Monday Night Football is on. Keeping in mind that the two teams playing have a combined one victory, the men (Williams especially) try to resist the temptation to find out how the game is going. The scene dissolves into some hilarious bits as Williams goes to check the score by using a bathroom visit as a ruse. When he returns he coughs the score to Russell. Later as Russell is starting to make the moves on his wife Williams wheels the television into their view from another room.<br /><br />It's an inspired and funny scene in a mostly uninspired and stupid movie. | 1 |
OK look this show is the worst show on nick@ night. I love so many shows on nick@night and I love them. When this show came on to nick@night I was so annoyed. It's such a boring show and it is corny. Out of all the times I've watched I found one episode slightly funny. This show has some of the most unfunny and stupid jokes ever. This show sums up to terrible. Give props to Fresh Prince of Bel-air and George Lopez. This show is boring and not the least bit clever. This show should have been canceled much earlier. I don't think it deserves to be played on nick@night alongside some great classic shows. This show is lacking cleverness, good jokes, and style. | 1 |
Action. Comedy. Suspense. This movie has it all.<br /><br />The Plot goes that 4 would be professional thieves are invited to take part in a heist in a small town in Montana. every type of crime movie archetype character is here. Frank, the master mind. Carlos, the weapons expert. Max, the explosives expert. Nick, the safe cracker and Ray, the car man. Unfortunately for Frank, he is apprehended by 2 bumbling detectives ( portrayed very well by Ed O'Niel and Daniel Roebuck ) that have been chasing him from New Jersey write after he sends out the letters to the other 4.<br /><br />Our 4 characters meet up at the train station and from the beginning none of them like or trust one another. Added to the mix is the fact that Frank is gone and they are not sure why they have called together.<br /><br />Now Frank is being taken back to New Jersey by the 2 detectives but soon escapes on foot and tries to make his way back to the guys who are having all sorts of problems of their own.<br /><br />Truly a great film loaded with laughs and great acting. Just an overall good movie for anyone looking for a laugh or something a little different | 0 |
There seems to be a spectrum of cinema. On the left, there are movies made mostly for entertainment and/or commercial purposes. In the middle, there are movies that are both entertaining and artistic. On the right are movies that are not as commercial, but are focused more on cinema as art than cinema as product.<br /><br />I'm not here to say any one part of the spectrum is better than any other, but that when a movie goes too far to either end, it's rarely good. Such is the case with Naqoyqatsi.<br /><br />I had no idea what to expect when I saw it advertised. A few friends were going and asked if I wanted to come along. None of us knew what to expect, and by the end, none of us were pleased.<br /><br />Yes, there are breathtaking images. Yes, I'm amazed at the lengths the filmmakers went to in searching through archival footage. Yes, the soundtrack is enjoyable to listen to, and probably the best part of the experience. The thing is, this goes so far to the right side of the spectrum I mentioned that I can't say anything nice about the movie as a whole.<br /><br />It's preachy. It's a jumble of symbolism and obvious morality. It's not saying anything new or forcing the viewer to examine life in a new way. It's just telling us things we already know (that is, if we can even figure out what it's saying).<br /><br />This movie is simply art for art's sake. An attempt to say 'Look at how deep and thought-provoking we can be by using montage!' When a film becomes more about how clever or intelligent its creators are than about its subject, it ceases to be a film and simply becomes celluloid self-gratification. | 1 |
Shaky hand held cameras (this piece was shot for television mind you, not film) not only keep you utterly conscious of how horrible the cinematography is in this film, but make you absolutely unable to become immersed in the story. Poor Miss Austen must be rolling in her grave. All I can say is, if you enjoyed the novel, stop there, until the BBC creates one of their smart & sensible period masterpieces (like Pride & Prejudice with Colin Firth, which, speaking for what I imagine in my opinion, Austen would have revered). The BBC would never dare overdub cheesy saxophone solos and Indigo Girl hollers over a shot of an historic castle and a loving embrace. Giles Foster seemed to be often confused that they were editing the music to The Specialist. If you want Austen as you love her, look for the BBC logo... | 1 |
This is a slick little movie well worth your time to find and see.<br /><br />It really speaks to all those mundane choices we all make every day and (like an H.G. Welles Story I can't quite recall) may live to want back.<br /><br />Keep in mind that this is a SHORT (very short). It starts out slowly but just as you begin to think it has become boring =bang= it's over. And, believe me, the 'punch line' is one you will remember.<br /><br />I'm not sure if the producers are going to make it available for purchase - or available on the web but either way you'd be happy you took the time to get hold of a copy - of that I am sure. | 1 |
After a snowstorm, the roads are blocked and the highway patrolman Jason (Adam Beach) comes to the diner of his friend Fritz (Jurgen Prochnow) and advises his clients that they will only be able to follow their trips on the next day. Among the weird strangers, Jason meets his former sweetheart Nancy (Rose McGowan), who has just left her husband in Los Angeles. Along the night, without any communication with his base, Jason faces distressful and suspicious situations with the clients, and finds some corpses, indicating that among them there is a killer.<br /><br />'The Last Stop' could be an average thriller, but the screenplay is simply awful. Most of the characters are despicable persons and the motives of the surprising serial killer are never disclosed, and the viewers have no further explanation why the killer decided to kill the guests. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Encurralados' ('Trapped') | 1 |
What can I say? I ignored the reviews and went to see it myself. Damn the reviews were so right. What a waste of money considering it's budget.<br /><br />Good thing, I went to see Kill Bill after this one.<br /><br />To see a really scary movie, would be Crossroads!<br /><br />Bottom line-- I like 'Girl in Gold Boots' better than this crap. | 1 |
I'm not sure this review contains spoilers, but I'm playing it safe by indicating there might be. Regardless, it's unlikely anyone will watch this film who isn't familiar with the book.<br /><br />There's an old wisecrack about laboring mightily and bringing forth a mouse. 'Comanche Moon' is such a mouse.<br /><br />The novel focuses more on the Indians than the Americans. In adapting it for TV, McMurtry and Osanna rightly reasoned that the audience would be more interested in the whites than the reds. Unfortunately, there's little in the novel that we don't already know about Gus, Woodrow, and their friends. So the movie gives us mostly a portentous prehash of what will occur in 'Lonesome Dove'. The Indians -- who have their own story to tell -- are largely relegated to the background -- so much so that someone who hasn't read the novel will rightly wonder why it's titled 'Comanche Moon'.<br /><br />The novel has no overall story line, or much of a 'point'. This could have been fixed in the movie, by more strongly drawing the contrast between the Indians losing their lands and way of life to the encroaching Americans, who bring 'civilzation'. This opportunity was missed.<br /><br />Unlike 'Lonesome Dove', 'Comanche Moon' has few extended scenes that develop character or relationships -- at least among the Americans. The extended scenes with the Indians have been largely removed or shortened. And for a (net) four-hour film, it is remarkably episodic and choppy. One gets the feeling the script was originally longer, and cut to reduce the production costs.<br /><br />The screenplay comprises mostly clichéd dialog, aphorisms, and platitudes. Coming from the author of 'The Last Picture Show', it's a startlingly bad script. McMurtry and Osanna had the opportunity to fix problems with the story and characterizations, but did not.<br /><br />Some of the best dialog from the novel is missing or altered, for no obvious reason. For example, Clara (Cassie) shows her intense hatred of Woodrow (Jack) by condemning Gus (Ennis) for always running off to be with his 'pard'. That tart little revelation of Clara's sexual jealously is gone. Then there's the scene where the ur-dense Woodrow warns Maggie not to let Jake Spoon 'compromise' her. The exchange in the novel is shorter and harsher; the film tones it down, and doesn't portray Woodrow as quite the socially stupid, emotionally frozen stone he is. (When I read that scene in the novel, I wanted to punch Woodrow in the stomach -- or worse.) There are other changes, some of them understandable. Inish Scull's eyelids are not cut off; to do so would like have required expensive CGI. But Buffalo Hump has no hump! (Perhaps it was felt unreasonable to ask Wes Studi to schlep around such a huge prosthesis.) And Buffalo Hump's character is 'kindler and gentler'. He is nowhere nearly as grotesquely violent as he was in the novels.<br /><br />The only good thing about this near-turkey is Steve Zahn's remarkable performance -- not so much as Gus McCrae, but as Robert Duvall playing Gus McCrae. It is uncanny. He perfectly duplicates Duvall's mannerisms and manner of speech, without ever appearing 'deliberate' or self-conscious. As was Duvall, he is wholly 'within' the character. And he actually shows us Gus becoming 'more Gus' in the third part.<br /><br />The best thing about 'Comanche Moon' is that it won't spoil our affection for 'Lonesome Dove', not just a great Western, but a great American film.<br /><br />PS: For those who think Rachel Griffiths was over the top -- that's the way she was in the book. | 1 |
I saw Borderline several years ago on AMC. I've been looking for it ever since. It was haunting: visual, textural, sensual. This movie took me somewhere like a dream and I didn't care where. I will never forget the curtain blowing in the breeze. I still remember the way it made me tilt my head. I remember my facial expression when I saw it. I didn't know what had happened when the movie was over, but I find life is that way. It didn't bother me. The unfairness of the ultimate rejection of an innocent character strikes me as sadly real. I loved the faces, the way the camera dwelt upon them. The camera gazed at the set with the unfocused eyes of a daydreamer. Borderline was real to me in a way movies aren't. It was exactly the lack of explanation, color, sharpness that made it enter my consciousness like a thief in the night. I love this movie. Someday I will own it. | 0 |
I tried to like this program; I really did. I even bought the pilot film, first on VHS and later on DVD. However, I couldn't get into this story because its two main characters: 'David' (Bruce Willis) and 'Maddie' (Cybill Shepherd) just seemed to in love with themselves, for one thing. I admit was some clever dialog in the shows, which was a key part of the success of the TV program, and I did appreciate of lot of that dialog. <br /><br />Basically, this was almost like the old screwball comedy movies of the '30s and '40s with male versus female. You get lots of arguing, accusations, yelling and screaming. A lot of people apparently love that sort of bickering, but I hate it, so I never got on the Moonlighting bandwagon. <br /><br />Only Allyce Beasley as the hapless aide 'Agnes,' was entertaining. It's too bad she had such little air time. Shepherd was nice on the eyes and I suppose women would say the same for Willis, but too much arguing between the two finally turned me off. | 1 |
Your time and brains will be much better spent reading or listening to Charlie Wilson's War. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, plays the most enjoyable character in the movie, Gust, the Greek, and he plays him as a eunuch. Gust, in the book, is hard core and completely free to speak his mind. In the movie, he's not even shown as being equally important to Charlie. And poor Charlie is never shown donating blood (which he did every time he visited the camps in Pakistan). In short, the movie is too bland, and the history is too old for our modern time. We don't really care about the end of the cold war and the defeat of the Soviet Union (which happened in spite of Reagan, not as a result of) by a well financed group of people who were extremely willing to fight. Not quite the lesson we need to be hearing and seeing considering how well the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going. (As I read the book, I kept getting that deja vu feeling, except it was present day). | 1 |
One of the lamer wedding movies you'll see. Smacks too too much of its time period so it was out of date before it hit the theaters. The ethnic stereotypes are like a Henny Youngman joke, except they just aint in the least bit funny here. Molly Ringwald, well what else needs to be said. Give you a clue to the silliness, she destroys a $10,000 wedding dress, because 'It just won't be me' makes it into this rag, with straps and puts on a top hat, and everyone smiles cutely at her moxy, rather than ringwalding her neck. Its a helluva a cast too, check out how heavy Ally Sheedy is. Wheeeew! | 1 |
A solid B movie.<br /><br />I like Jake Weber. His understated delivery is refreshing in a time of over the top performances. I liked the relationship between the father and son. I liked the family dynamics. The Wendigo looks silly, but it is a representation of the kid's toy and the dead deer. It's an amalgamation like, see? This is a psychological story, not a Freddy slash em up instant gratification flick. Watch it and reflect on your inner child and what the movie might have to say to you and you'll be fine.<br /><br />Nice work. | 0 |
I've just had the evidence that confirmed my suspicions. A bunch of kids, 14 to 22 put on the DVD of 'Titanic' on a fantastic state of the art mega screen home entertainment type deal. Only two of them had actually seen it before. But they all had seen the moment of Kate, Leo and Celine Dion so many times that most of them felt they had seen the whole movie. Shortly after the epic started, they started to get restless, some of them left asking the others -- 'call us when the iceberg appears' Over an hour and a half into the movie, only the two girls who had seen the movie before, were still there. They started shouting: iceberg, iceberg. A stampede followed, they all came back to see the sinking of the Titanic. They sat open mouthed, emitting Ohs and far outs. So, just like I thought when the movie first burst into the scene. What is this? One and a half hours waiting for the bloody thing to sink but what about the rest of the of it. Dr. Zivagho, for instance, had a similar running time, but think how much takes place in that film within the same period of time. In 'Titanic' Leo teaches Kate how to spit. Look at the faces and hands of the, supposedly, creme de la creme in the first class dining room of the ship. Look at the historical details, if you can find them. The storyline is so thin that they have to introduce guns and shootings in a ship that is about to sink. The real sinking here is of film standards. All the efforts are focus on special effects and opening week ends. The film went on to become the highest grossing movie of all time so, what do I know? | 1 |
This is possibly the worst of the worst. I am a huge fan of the horror movie industry and I can believe this movie was allowed to be made. The acting was juvenile and the story completely idiotic. The camera work was also juvenile. One scene that comes to mind is outside a store. It is nighttime and you can see the moon, yet the characters all have shadows that cast on the wall. There was no street light to be seen. One character gets gutted at one point, yet manages to resurface later after removing herself from a post. Come on!!! It felt like I was watching a middle school play. I kept expecting the characters to wave to their family members off camera and mouth 'hi mom'. I can only give it two positive comments...it ended and it was good for a laugh. Please do not rent this movie!!!! | 1 |
Two years after this short, the last 'Our Gang' short was made. After seeing this, you wonder how it even lasted that much longer. The quality of 'Our Gang' nosedived soon after moving from Hal Roach to MGM, and this short is a perfect example. The gags are all very unfunny and Froggy's last line of this being the happiest day of his life paints a bad picture in your mind of what it's like for him the rest of the time. A very poor example of film making. | 1 |
First of all, the nature in the movie is beautiful, and there is a bit of Mongolian music. Well, the horses looked Mongolian and the camels, but that's about all what was Mongolian in it. Oh, Borte is played by a Mongolian actress, albeit a lame performance. But she is pretty, which redeems a bit the lack of performance on her part.<br /><br />But, I totally failed to understand what was the point of this painful-to- watch piece of 1.30 hour fantasy created by Mr.Bodrov. The plot totally lacked any sense of cohesion. There was no logic behind the development of the plot. In fact, there was hardly any story at all, just a number of loosely tied scenes with a bunch of guys in 'Mongolian' clothes, speaking some kinda pidgin that is supposed to sound like Mongolian. Most actors were either Japanese, Russian or Chinese, most scenes were shot in China, Kazakhstan or Russia and there were a lot of disturbing pathos about what is it to be a 'Mongolian'. The dialog is primitive and the scenes with dialog are slow. The battle scenes are laughable. All the supernatural pathos is lame and is obviously there only to make up for the lack of the story.<br /><br />The Japanese actor was like a wooden doll, and looking at him one wouldn't get any idea how this person could become a leader who could unite the nomadic tribes. He looked sleepy, soft, stiff and pitiful for the most part of the movie.<br /><br />And I don't even want to start on the subject of the historical relevance of this piece of cinematic waste. To see Chinggis-khan half of the movie as a slave, to see his two first kids be born from other men, to see his wife selling herself to the Tangut merchant... my blood starts to boil. And where is the beautiful story about the friendship between Temujin and Jamukha? One could make a great movie out of it. Where is the story of the rise of Temujin? Of his childhood, of his relationship with his family, with his brothers, of how he struggled to survive among mighty enemies of his family? where is Van khan, who helped him a lot? where is the depiction of life in the steppe, of the life of the nomads, of their traditions, of their relations with the other nations around them?<br /><br />Where is development of the characters? We totally fail to see what brought Temujin together with Jamukha and what brought them apart and most important, how Temujin became Chinggis-khan, how he, an outcast with no wealth and military power managed to unite the Mongolian tribes and create such an organized and effective war machine that crushed one nation after another and created the largest land empire in history. All this could make several interesting and dramatic stories with complicated plots and deep characters, but unfortunately we didn't see any of it in Bodrov's creation, not even a glimpse. | 1 |
I was in my early 20's, just graduating from college when this movie appeared. Seeing it was event of great impact, not only because of the high quality of the film (as evidenced by its many awards), but because of its place in the historical context of 1959. Because of social progress since then, it is nearly impossible to fathom that my college had only begun admitting (carefully screened) black students in 1953. A mainstream, high-budget extravaganze with an almost entirely black cast was a distinct novelty in 1959.<br /><br />The movie was given a deluxe roadshow (reserved seat) presentation in only the best theatres, complete with a souvenir program detailing the lavish care that had been taken with lighting and color, multi-track stereo sound, etc. Almost every black entertainer that we white people had any knowledge of was in the movie. Gershwin's music, superbly performed, and the sheer universal humanity of the story was tremendously moving.<br /><br />I was recently able to obtain a faded copy of a two-hour cutting of the film, and repeated viewings have confirmed my opinion. Time has made what seemed steamy sex scenes in 1959 seem quite tame, but the musical quality has not diminished. Sammy Davis and Pearl Bailey are masterful in their portrayals. What a crime that the young black artists of today are unable to see these performers at the peak of their careers! | 0 |
The fact that most of the budget for this presumably went on the heavy-duty cast list shouldn't have mattered if it had been staged with flair and imagination and some sympathy for the original's satirical intent. Instead we get risibly bad song and dance sequences featuring picturesque beggars and whores, and the final alienation is accomplished by pulling back to reveal the action has taken place on a music-hall stage, appropriately enough for a production that's more Lionel 'Oliver' Blair than Brecht. The acting talent is shamefully misused: Migenes and Walters are good but don't have to try very hard: Migenes at least has a great voice and some feel for the material. Julia looks perfect as Mack, but struggles with the character, straitjacketed by a fake plummy accent. Harris's Peachum is embarrassingly mannered and Polly is atrocious. The adaptations of lyrics, script and music are often awkward: it was a bad move to base the film on Marc Blitzstein's bowdlerised Broadway version, but at least his words were singable, unlike most of what's been interpolated in gestures of faithfulness. And the attempt at overcoming the low budget by filming at claustrophobic angles on mist-shrouded sets lit in garish blues and oranges as if by some bargain-basement Vittorio Storaro fails utterly -- the film just looks cheap, shoddy and thoughtlessly made. Disgraceful. | 1 |
There are moments when you don't want those deep drama-series. When you don't want series with heavy stories or a must to watch every single episode to be able to hang on. There are moments when you just want to watch a simple series, with lots of action and cool characters. For those moments, you have Cleopatra 2525.<br /><br />I was one of those who actually enjoyed Charlie's Angels. Critics said it was to superficial and silly. But the thing is, that's the point! People who can't relax and expected a serious movie hated it. It's exactly the same with Cleopatra 2525. It is superficial. It has silly and unrealistic characters. And that's why I like it. It isn't like any other series.<br /><br />The first season wasn't very good. The character Cleo was irritating and a little too much. The story was a little lame, and you didn't get to know the characters very much. But hey, they only had 20 minutes in every episode.<br /><br />In the last 5-6 episodes of Cleopatra 2525, they finally gave the series full 40-minutes length. And it was here I started to love it. The series finally started to grow into a very qualitative series. Too bad they had to cancel the series. Because the last episodes of Cleopatra 2525 actually was very good. I will never forget Hel, Sarge and Cleo. Unique characters that only the creators of Xena could have created! | 0 |
Bugs Bunny accidentally ends up at the South Pole while trying to vacation in Florida. Where he meets a little penquin, which he tries to save from an Eskimo. This short tries and the penquin is adorable, but in the end it's a bit too light in the laughs department. The Eskimo isn't really that great of a foil for Bugs and I just seen a lot better Bugs Bunny cartoons frankly, even other shorts when he's paired with other unknown antagonists. So I can't in good conscience recommend this one. However it is nice to see it in it's uncut form. This cartoon is on Disk 3 of the 'Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1' <br /><br />My Grade: C | 1 |
Women will like this movie better than men. Of course, women like all romantic comedies more than men - on average. I generally like romantic comedies quite a bit, however I considered this a 5.5 for the first 50% of the movie and about a 6.5 for the next 40% and about a 9 for the last 10%. So, begrudgingly, I will rate it a 7. I tape and keep all movies rated a 7 or better and none that are a 6 or worse - at least that's my objective. I have over 1200 movies, so why keep the dogs.<br /><br />My wife liked this movie quite a bit more than me, though I'm not sure why. I am a bigger Drew Barrymore fan than she is.<br /><br />The whole point of this movie was about a young woman who goes back to high school (undercover) to write a story about the high school experience nowadays. She was a dork in high school the first time around and has to learn how to be cool the second time around. Her journey toward cooldom, as well as her falling in love with a teacher, is the story.<br /><br />What drove me nuts for the first half the movie was just how mangy she looked. I wondered why they would pick her for this role until I realized how capable she is at looking like a dog. So much so that I truly don't think I want to see her in 15 years when she gets up in the morning. ARGH! Naturally, she transformed into a rather attractive (cute) woman by the end and she became very popular.<br /><br />The ending is about a 9.9 on the very sweet scale, so you sappers out there will like that. Otherwise, it isn't very memorable and easily missable. | 0 |
Great Balls of Fire is the movie you show to someone you really, really hate. It is absolute torture of the highest rank and is probably used by minions of a foreign power to extract info from captured intelligence agents. I've enjoyed some of Dennis Quaid's performances in the past, but he goes totally over the top in this film. He doesn't so much cross the line, he pole vaults over it, then comes back to jump over and over again. He struts and mugs as if on some incredibly bad acid trip. It's one of those rare performances where you wish you could enter the film and beat the man within an inch of his life for doing something so truly awful. Was he desperate to win a Golden Raspberry or some other award for bad acting? That's the only conclusion I can come up with. Thank you Dennis, you gave us a bad performance for the ages. Where was the director to reign in this guy?<br /><br />The opposite end of the extreme is Winona Ryder, she of the plastic features and plastic acting. I came across a review of her acting style that compared her to a wax dummy. That was of course an insult to wax dummies all over the earth, all of whom could have brough more humanity to the role of Jerry's underage cousin/wife. This brings up the film's mixed up message, that being it is 100% okay to marry your own cousin and have a child by the union. I fail to see what is so 'okay' about that, but it looks as though Hollywood thinks that underage incest is hunky dory. Talk about 'family values.'<br /><br />Another problem is the format. Is it a stright forward re telling of Lewis' life, or is it a musical? I'm not talking about the music, I'm talking about the truly weird scene where Jerry drives up to the school, starts to belt out a tune and everyone starts to dance like it was Broadway musical in search of a Tony. Fantasy and reality are thrown together in a mix that does not work. But who really cares? I don't. And neither should you. You can't get back the minutes of life you would waste on this film. So don't waste your time, it's too precious for something this misguided and poor. | 1 |
Whattt was with the sound? It sounded like it was all dubbed.<br /><br />Otherwise, bad. Plot = bad. Accents = bad (even Dougray, and we live in Scotland), Acting = bad, Harp = bad, Sex scenes - bad/cringeworthy.<br /><br />Still, we watched it until the end in disbelief. How could such a good roll call of actors perform so badly? Will they ever get a decent job again? <br /><br />Bad, Bad, Bad. By the way, we gave it 3 because we at least were enticed to watch it to the end due to its bizarre plot, etc.<br /><br />And to the older reviewer - I totally agree, it was like a romantic farce from the 1940s. How did it get made in 2004?<br /><br />OK, OK, there were some OK bits. They had a nice house in Bristol. Dougray had a nice boat. Jennifer looked nice in a little outfit. But how come the sister got all the men? | 1 |
As many have detailed here with a level of seriousness that I find amusing, this is *not*: <br /><br />A FILM. (cue dramatic music) <br /><br />It's just a so-bad-it's good, totally surreal, Jackie Chan stunt-for-all. The women fighters are totally kick-butt and Jackie is definitely put in his place. <br /><br />This is the movie you want to see with some good friends on a Sunday afternoon -- surrounded by munchies, ready to roar with laughter, cheer on the good guys, boo the bad guys, and continually yell, 'WHAT?' when something totally bizarre happens. Great fun!! | 1 |
Arthur Miller has always been known as one of America's great playwrights for works such as 'Death of a Salesman' and 'The Crucible'. 'Focus' is one of his lesser known plays brought to the silver screen. However, knowing what a great playwright Arthur Miller is, I doubt that his original play was very much like the movie. The movie comes across as empty and formulaic, with William H. Macy as a non-Jew mistaken for a Jew by anti-Semitic neighbors in WWII Brooklyn. Don't get me wrong: the acting is OK, and I presume that the people behind this movie were probably trying to make a point about racism, but the movie just doesn't work. Macy, Laura Dern and David Paymer just can't create an effective story with the material here. | 1 |
I notice that most of the people who think this film speaks the truth were either not born before the moon landings (1969-1972), or not old enough to appreciate them. I think it is much easier to question an historic event if you did not live through it.<br /><br />I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community. <br /><br />Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to 'prove' it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days. | 1 |
You know that mouthwash commercial where the guy has a mouth full of Listerine or whatever it is and he's trying really hard to keep from spitting it up into the sink? That's a great metaphor for this movie. I kept watching, even though it was really difficult. But keeping mouthwash in your mouth will leave you with a minty fresh feeling. This movie left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I should have spit it out when I had the chance.<br /><br />The premise is corny enough to be fun. For the first time in like a thousand years, Gargoyles have returned to Romania, and all of the priests who knew how to fight and kill these things are long dead. It's up to Michael Pare and some other secret agents to get to the bottom of things before the Gargoyles run amok. Unfortunately, the premise is completely lost in bad dialog and less than enthusiastic acting on the part of the human leads. The best acting is done by the CG Gargoyles.<br /><br />In the end, this movie feels like a poor man's Van Helsing. If you check your brain at the door, this might get you through a dreary Monday night. I gave it 3 out of 10 stars. | 1 |
The price of a dream - and some dreams can be 'too' expensive.<br /><br />Only having viewed the English-translated version, it is perhaps the reason for a low rating from this viewer.<br /><br />It made the overall film poorer than the story material hinted at...<br /><br />...and other comments seem to suggest the subtitled version would be better.<br /><br />But some plot elements remained unexplained, leaving an unfinished feel.<br /><br />It also leaves the thought 'is there a series to follow?'.<br /><br />A pity there was no more (at this stage at least, anyway). | 1 |
I've heard about this movie for many years, and finally got a chance to see it. A massive murdering of cheerleaders back in 1963 and 1969 eventually cause a cheerleading camp to close up. Fast forward to 1982, and Bambi, a former student, opens it back up with new recruits, among them Candy (Carol Kane), Glenn (Judge Reinhold), and Sandy (Debralee Scott). One by one, they are murdered by the killer, until only one remains. It is then when we find out who did it and why.<br /><br />Also in the movie are Tom Smothers doing a terrible accent as a Canadian Mountie, and Paul Reubens doing his Pee-Wee Herman schtick. The plot overall isn't very well developed, and quite lame, but some funny scenes do occur, namely the House of Bad Pies and the strip poker scene. The ending seems like it's thrown together, which is a shame.<br /><br />Overall, good for about ten or fifteen minutes total, the rest you can just fast forward through. Maybe catch it on TV, but it's not worth buying. | 1 |
For those of us Baby Boomers who arrived too late on the scene to appreciate James Dean et. al., Martin Sheen showed us The Way in this great feature.<br /><br />The premise is easy enough: cool hood meets small town sheriff and All-Hell ensues, but the nuts and bolts of this movie enthrall the car nut in all of us. <br /><br />No, this isn't Casablanca, nor is it great Literature, but it IS a serious movie about cars, rebellion, and the genius that is Martin Sheen.<br /><br />Enjoy this and appreciate it for what it is, and for what Martin will become. I loved this movie growing up as a teen in the 70's, and you will too. | 0 |
The fact that this film was shown at London's Barbican suggests to me that the print must have been acceptable enough for such a showing. Now the question is, Why isn't this long lost and important film available in DVD (or even VHS)? A large number of persons in Europe and the USA have for many years hoped to see this film, if for no other reason than the wonderful music written for it by Sergei Prokofiev. What does one have to do to get such a wonderful production as this available for a wider public, not just patrons to the Barbican at London? Having been a devoted listener to Prokofiev's music for many years and aware of this film, PLEASE, someone 'out there' do the right thing and bring it out as a DVD. | 0 |
It sounds as if it should be a biography of Claude Monet but it's actually a highly focused story of relationships between three adolescent girls on a French synchronized swimming team. There are no parents or teachers to speak of, no school, and boys are represented by one peripheral figure, the hunky Francois who enters the story determined from time to time and always leaves confused.<br /><br />Pauline Aquart is the youngest of the three, only aspiring to join the team she so much admires. She's kind of odd looking. She's not yet out of her adolescent growth spurt and has long, bony limbs, big feet, and no derriere to speak of. She's prognathous and sports these plump pursed lips. After a while her appearance grows on you and from certain angles she can come to appear enthralling.<br /><br />Adele Haenel is older -- more, well, more developed physically. What a glamorous figure she cuts in her swim suit, sauntering around, teasing the boys, swishing her long blond hair. But she's not what she seems. Or is she? I couldn't quite figure it out. The French are long on paradoxes and short on consistency. No wonder Francois is always sniffing after her.<br /><br />There's not so much ambiguity in Louse Blachere's character. She's on the team too but she's dumpy and plain, and sensitive about it, and has an intense crush on Francois. Blachere is a good actress and adds to the ungainliness of the character through her performance.<br /><br />The movie deals with the relationships between these three, meaning intrigues, deceptions, hidden feelings, and all the rest of what we associate with young girls who spend much time with one another. This is of course a tricky topic. It becomes trickier during the gradual development of a homoerotic relationship between Pauline and Adele. Not that you should expect this to be a soft porn movie. The only nudity we see is considerably less than a turn on, and what little sex there is under the covers, sometimes literally.<br /><br />I don't think I want to get into the plot or into its analysis too much, partly because it's suggestive rather than expressed through action, partly because it's complex, and partly because I'm not sure I got it all.<br /><br />Let me give an example. Okay. Adele is the girl the others envy. She's also quite distant and self satisfied. On top of that she is apparently schtupping every boy and man in sight if they can be of any use to her at all, from the handsome but dumb Francois to the bus driver she wants a favor from. She brags unashamedly about her expertise in fellatio. When Pauline approaches her about joining the swim team, Adele uses her as a lookout during assignations with the guys. A superior and self-indulgent narcissist, you know? But then the soi-disant slut takes the skinny Pauline under her wing and reveals to Pauline that she's still a virgin. Really? Yes, really. Pauline begins to draw closer to Adele and Adele finally confesses that she'd like to rid herself of her hymen and she would like Pauline to do it for her. Pauline, now drawn sexually to Adele, performs the task with subdued relish. NOW Adele would REALLY like to get it on with a man, preferably older and experienced. So she takes Pauline to a boite where she dances seductively with some guy until she follows Pauline to the powder room. The two girls stand there staring at one another, neither having overtly expressed a sexually tinged interest in the other. But Adele stands so close that Pauline slowly loosens her own reins, reaches up, and kisses Adele on the lips. Adele steps back, smiling, and says, 'There now, that wasn't so bad, was it?', and then walks back into the club.<br /><br />That's a pretty close description of whatever is going on between Pauline and Adele -- but what the hell IS going on? Initially, Adele treats Pauline like an irrelevant child, later like a close friend, finally like a potential lover -- and the minute Pauline responds, Adele walks off satisfied. Is she USING Pauline the way she seems to be using men? Does it satisfy Adele to know that she now has another person in involuntary servitude? I don't know.<br /><br />I've slighted Louise Blachere as the third member of the trio, the plain and overripe wallflower whose expression always suggests dumbfoundedness but who at least is thoroughly heterosexual and the first of the three to rid herself of that noisome virginity, but I've only skipped her for considerations of space.<br /><br />Should you see it? By all means. (Just compare it to the typical American movie about high school kids.) For men, some of whom have never penetrated the female mystique, this may give you some idea of what it looks like in medium shot. | 0 |
Jamie Foxx did an incredible job playing Ray Charles. I loved this movie because every so often there would be a flashback scene and then to the current movie. When Ray Charles was little, he went blind and his mother didn't baby him. She was a strong woman who didn't treat him any different because he was blind. She made him do things on his own and that really pushed him to become a great musician later on in life. His mother also sent him to school as well. Then when Ray Charles became a man, he could stand up for himself and take care of himself but there was a downfall into narcotics, sex and betrayal. When I am discouraged about something I can just think of this movie and it will inspire me. | 0 |
Keanu Reeves stars as a friend of a popular high school student who suddenly commits suicide...he and his friends go through emotional turmoil and share their reactions to this horrible incident...Good acting by Reeves and a young Jennifer Rubin..but on the whole is a little too much.. 4 of 10 | 1 |
I got myself a copy of this film thinking it was the 1964 film with 'Zombie Bloodbath' as one of it's alternative titles. Perversely, this film actually has a better rating on this site than the aforementioned title; which may mean that the other one is really bad! This film is pretty bad too; obviously you cant go into a film that calls itself 'Zombie Bloodbath' and expect to see a masterpiece, and in fairness it does live up to the title with the amount of gore on display...but it all feels very old and tired, which isn't helped by the atrocious acting and stupid plot line. It's just your average nuclear spill causing people to turn into zombies etc etc. The film kicks off with a sequence that sees people melting and that pretty much lets you know what you're in for; low quality zombie garbage. There's plenty of gore in the film, and it's a real good job otherwise the film would have been really boring. Zombie Bloodbath looks really cheap too, and was clearly put together by inexperienced filmmakers! The main influence seemed to be Romero's superior Day of the Dead, although it could really be just about anything that features zombies and gore. It all boils down to a typically predictable and pointless ending and overall I can't say I was impressed with it! | 1 |
Ned Kelly (Ledger), the infamous Australian outlaw and legend. Sort of like Robin Hood, with a mix of Billy the Kid, Australians love the legend of how he stood up against the English aristocratic oppression, and united the lower classes to change Australia forever. The fact that the lower classes of the time were around 70% immigrant criminals seems to be casually skimmed around by this film. Indeed, quite a few so called `facts' in this film are, on reflection, a tad dubious.<br /><br />I suppose the suspicions should have been aroused when, in the opening credits, it was claimed that this film is based upon the book, `Our Sunshine'. If ever a romanticized version of truth could be seen in a name for a book, there it was. This wasn't going to be a historical epic, but just an adaptation of one of many dubious legends of Ned Kelly, albeit a harsh and sporadically brutal version.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Ned Kelly is nothing more than an overblown Hallmark channel `real life historical drama' wannabe! The story plods along at an alarming rate (alarming because never has a film plodded so slowly!) The feeling of numbness after the two hours of pure drivel brought back memories of Costner's awful Wyatt Earp all those years ago. Simply put, nothing happens in the film, but it takes a long time getting to that nothing. This would possibly have been a tad more bearable if the performances were good (because the direction sure as heck wasn't). However, unless you are looking to play a game of spot the worst Oirish accent, then you're gonna be disappointed. Between that, the game of `Who has the stupidest beard?', `Spot the obvious backstabber!' (clue, they are all ginger for some reason), and `Nature in Australia.including lions', it is an experience similar to flicking through Hallmark, The History Channel, Discovery Channel, and Neighbours whilst suffering a huge hangover. Yup, nature pops up a lot, as to fill even more time (possibly an attempt to look arty), the film keeps showing pointless wildlife shots, and once all the native species are shown, here's a circus to allow for a camel and a lion (which is used during one fight to try to make us actually feel more sorry for the lion than the massacred people).<br /><br />This is a turgid, emotionless piece of historical fluff which should have gone straight to TV. There isn't even one good word I can say about this film. Even the usually fantastic Rush seems embarrassed to be here. When one of the characters comments that there is only 2 bullets left for him and his pal, I myself was wishing I had a gun to blow any memory of this film out of my head! | 1 |
As a Spanish tourist in Los Angeles and a fanatic movie lover I committed a terrible mistake. I went to see 'The Women' The remake of one of my all time favorites. I've seen the original many many times, in fact I own it. My rushing to see the remake was based on Diane English, the woman responsible for 'Murphy Brown' My though was: how bad can it be? She must know what she's doing. Well, I don't know what to say. I don't understand what happened. The Botoxed women is a rather depressing affair. Meg Ryan or whoever played Mary - she looked a bit like a grotesque version of Meg Ryan...another actress perhaps wearing a Meg Ryan mask - she doesn't bring to the character nothing of what Norma Shearer did in 1939. The new one is a tired, unconvincing prototype of what has become a farce within a farce. The 'friends' Annette Bening, Debra Messing, Jada Pinket Smith are as disconnected as anything I've ever seen and if this wasn't enough: Eva Mendes as Crystal, the character created by Joan Crawford in one of her best and funniest performances. Eva Mendes's casting is really the poster sign for how wrong, how ill conceived this commercial attempt turned up. I didn't give it a 1 out respect for Candice Bergen and Cloris Leachman | 1 |
Black and white satire of a Madison Avenue ad agency being taken over by blacks. They're headed by Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson) who is determined to change things. However he turns out to be even WORSE than his white predecessors. That's about as original as this gets.<br /><br />I'm sure this was considered daring and shocking in 1969 but it just seems silly today. The jokes are either unfunny (the president is a midget. HOW is this funny?), cruel or obvious and the film is full of unlikable characters. It's done in a very experimental way which makes it even harder to take...or understand. The movie just gets more bizarre and surreal as it goes along. The ending comes out of nowhere. To make it worse, with the sole exception of Johnson, ALL the acting is bad. Antonio Fargas (a regular in these types of films) is especially annoying as the Arab. This gets three stars because the commercial parodies (done in bright color) ARE amusing and there's a rare good line here and there. I heard this was a cult classic but this is more interesting than good. Skip it...unless you're in experimental 1960s films. | 1 |
I had been looking forward to How to Lose Friends & Alienate People for months, particularly due to the fact that Kirsten Dunst and Simon Pegg were starring. Simon Pegg is a comedic genius and Kirsten Dunst has always been a favorite actress of mine. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People hit the spot! Of course not perfect, but very enjoyable and funny. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People follows the life of Sidney Young, a smalltime, bumbling, British celebrity journalist, who is hired by an upscale magazine in New York City. In spectacular fashion Sidney enters high society and burns bridges with bosses, peers and superstars. After disrupting one black-tie event by allowing a wild pig to run rampant, Sidney catches the attention of Clayton Harding, editor of Sharp, and accepts a job with the magazine in New York City. Clayton warns Sidney that he'd better impress and charm everyone he can, if he wants to succeed. Instead, Sidney instantly insults and annoys fellow writer Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst). He dares to target the star clients of power publicist Eleanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson). He also upsets his direct boss Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston). Sidney finds creative ways to annoy nearly everyone. His saving grace, a rising starlet Sophie Maes (Megan Fox) who develops an odd affection for him. In time, Allison's friendship might be the only thing saving Sydney from his downward spiraling career. The storyline is very interesting and the acting was top notch with what the actors were given. Simon Pegg is still hilarious as ever! He makes Sydney bumbling, obnoxious, and annoying as real as it gets, but later in time making Sydney not just likable, but also a real character who you root for in the end. Kirsten Dunst and Jeff Bridges were brilliant! Kirsten had some very wonderful acting and hilarious scenes, and Jeff Bridges is just Jeff f*cking Bridges! How can you not like him?! He makes Clayton a very humorous character with some wit and overall you just love the guy. Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox, and Danny Huston were great as the supporting cast. Each had their own personality that were overall pretty unlikable, but that's what just made the film work. One thing I didn't enjoy was how one dimensional some of the characters were. I understand that most were the supporting cast, but some of the cast was underused and could've given the film some more spice to it. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People will never be on anyone's top 10 films ever, or even top 10 comedies ever, but it has a very high entertainment level and some scenes may even charm you as well. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is definitely one of the better romantic comedies of the year! 8/10 | 0 |
For those who are like me and are used to watch and enjoy high budget Hollywood films, on huge screens with a surround audio, this film seems to be so distant. However it surprised me how close can it be to any human while I watch it. It is so natural that you feel like nobody wrote a scenario or nobody directed it. You are the director and you are writing the scenario while you watch it. For me, the time I spend on watching a film is the only time which I go to another world. This film is the first sample for me which shows that it is not always a must to watch millions of dollars of budgeted films, surround audio capabilities to go to another world. This films sends you to another world (or maybe makes you return back to yourself) without millions of dollars of budget, or technical capabilities. I felt like that I'm reading L'etranger from Camus. | 0 |
I watched this last nite with an open mind. Sorry to say it is still bad. first, the movie is too noisey and you can't hear what people are saying. The accents are bad especially Richard Masur. What is the French chick doing in this film ??? Miscasting at its worst. Walken's makeup is strange. The Harvard scene is useless and not needed. Kristoferson's character is unlikeable and I wanted him to get killed and go away. Meanwhile, the Walken character gets killed too early and easily ( despite the makeup). The settlers are all stupid. GET ORGANIZED you bunch of hicks, people are coming to kill you !!!!! John Hurts character provides some humor buts thats all.<br /><br />I have nothing good to say about this excessive piece of crap. The only good thing is it ruined the director's career and killed United Artists.<br /><br />Still Crap after all these years. | 1 |
This is a lovely, spirit-restoring movie. From the use of the actual villa that inspired Elizabeth Arngrim to write the novel in the 1920s to the inspired casting, every choice was perfectly right! The quiet joy of this film doesn't stale after repeated viewings. Josie Lawrence, Miranda Richardson, Polly Walker and Joan Plowright seem to have been born to play these parts! I would dearly love to see Enchanted April released on DVD in a widescreen format. | 0 |
This film may have been the biggest let-down I've experienced in renting movies based on IMDb reviews. Overall, I simply found this to be a second-rate movie.<br /><br />Leslie Cheung is certainly passable as the antihero and Ma Wu handles his character with cheerful competence. On the other hand, Ma Wu's makeup (facial hair) is so obviously phony that I simply could not take him seriously. He looked like an overweight teenager dressed up for Halloween, complete with the $4.95 stick-on beard.<br /><br />The special effects were so-so, though the 'undead' in the cellar were pretty good. The tree-tongue looked like something from a bad 1950s monster flick, though the POV shots from the tongue's view more closely resembled Sam Raimi's trademark shots in the more recent 'Evil Dead' trilogy. The pyrotechnics were ho-hum and the final battle is about as dull as you can get. (In fact, it most closely reminded me of the 'Lost in Space' episode where the Robinsons are caught in a sandstorm and....) <br /><br />The plot was not particularly original and has been told countless times in the form of European fairy tales. There was no suspense and no plot twists. In fact, you know right away as you are introduced to the characters who is good, who is bad, and who is going to survive.<br /><br />I just returned this film to Netflix and then I sat down to write this review. The very first thing I did was check the production date. Yep, it says 1987...not the 1967 that I thought it might be. And that pretty much sums it up: The production values and FX are typical of the 1960s. The plot and action seem much older, as Hollywood was actually producing some interesting and challenging films in the 60s.<br /><br />** out of ***** | 1 |
My 3rd-year French classes always enjoyed this film very much. In a multi-cultural, inner-city high school, the film provided many subjects for discussion (in French in class, but I know a lot of discussion went on in English after class). The most obvious is the relationship between Protée and Aimée compared to the one between Protée and France.<br /><br />I always mentioned that I felt this film had one of the 'sexiest' scenes I had ever seen in a movie. One year, a 17-year-old African-American shouted, 'Yes!' when he figured out the scene: the one where Protée is helping Aimée lace up her evening dress, all the while both are examining the reflection of the other in the mirror. Directors use the 'mirror technique' when then want to focus on the inner conflict on the part of one or more character in a scene: this is a perfect example of the technique, and it is 'sexy'.<br /><br />Most students had trouble understanding the end of the film. One suggested that one theme of the movie was 'Africanism', and that no matter how much one loved Africa or Africans, one cannot 'become' African (like the driver tried to do): one must BE African. | 0 |
Well, this is about as good as they come. There are arguments about whether Hitchcock was only a 'master of commercial suspense' or maybe a 'compulsive technician' -- or was he really 'deep.' Nobody knows precisely what terms like that mean, but it's legitimate to ask if, at his best, he could not have been all three things at once.<br /><br />In this one he seems to be about at his peak. Hardly anything in it is accidental. It abounds with doubt, ambiguity, and wit. And the story is engrossing, Patricia Highsmith apparently having complexes similar to Hitchcock's own.<br /><br />I'm sure the plot has been thoroughly outlined elsewhere so I won't bother going into it. I'll just point out five on screen incidents that Hitchcock is undoubtedly responsible for.<br /><br />Bruno Antony (Walker) has followed Miriam (Laura Miller) and her two boyfriends to a carnival at night with the intent of murdering her. She's noticed his attention and is innocently flattered by it.<br /><br />1. Laura and her two friends rent an electric boat to go through The Tunnel of Love and then to an island in the center of the lake. Walker is right behind them, smiling, in his boat -- Pluto. 'Pluto.' It's not an allusion to the Walt Disney cartoon character. It's a reference to Pluto, also called Hades, a god of the underworld in Greek and Roman mythology. This tiny touch can't be an accident. And the 'underworld' that Walker represents is not just a literal hell, but the underworld of the human mind. I hate to say he's a Jungian 'shadow' but that's what he is. (Did Carl Jung see this movie? He was alive at the time of its release -- but probably not.) 2. Now, this is a deadly serious sequence, right? Walker is a lunatic who is about to murder a woman he doesn't even know. Imagine the way this would have been laid out by most directors. A night-time stalking through a crowded carnival, stealing from shadow to shadow, the killer peering from behind the canvas walls, and so forth. What does Hitchcock show us? When Walker first comes through the gates, concentrating on his victim, a little boy in a cowboy suit, holding a balloon, runs up and shouts, 'Bang! Bang! You're dead!' Walker jerks his head back in surprise and glares down indignantly at the kid. And when the kid starts to walk away, Walker darts his cigarette at the balloon and pops it, then continues his pursuit without another glance. That's one way Hitchcock treats impending doom.<br /><br />3. The famous strangling reflected in the fallen eyeglasses, which has been aped innumerable times.<br /><br />4. Miriam and her friends stop at one of those devices that you pound with a big mallet, sending a kind of hockey puck up the shaft to measure the strength of your blow. One of her boyfriend whams it and the puck doesn't reach the bell at the top. Under Miriam's delighted and admiring gaze, Walker smiles and rubs his hands together, then picks up the mallet, slams it down, and the puck bangs against the bell. She's thrilled. He puts the mallet down, looks at her, grins, and WAGGLES HIS EYEBROWS at her like a ten-year-old showoff! 5. After the discovery of Miriam's body, while whistles blow and people shout, Walker leaves the carnival and encounters a blind man waiting at the curb. Walker takes the old fellow by the arm and leads him across the intersection, gravely holding up his hand to stop the traffic. A macabre joke.<br /><br />These incidents and others all take place during the ten or fifteen-minutes of the carnival visit. (Robert Walker's performance is exceptional throughout.) It's essentially a kind of invitation to be noirish. (Cf: 'Ride the Pink Horse') But the menace of the scene is undercut by Hitchcock's insistence on irony and distance. None of the familiar noir techniques are employed. There's nothing really 'creepy' about it. And the murder itself is hardly a savage one. I don't think that any director other than Hitchcock would have handled it the way he did. It would have been all menace and shadows, hiding places, abortive attempts, scowls instead of grins.<br /><br />Not that it's an entirely flawless movie. A flawless movie is not yet with us. Some of the middle section is a bit slow going and Farley Granger, although a nice guy, is stolid, dull, and rather stupid. His new girl friend is just dull.<br /><br />Hitchcock was to treat the misattribution of guilt with deadly seriousness in 'The Wrong Man.' I'm not sure Hitchcock ever thought about the difference between legal guilt and moral guilt. The latter was imposed on him at an early age by his Catholic education. 'Original sin' -- you're BORN with it -- and all that. In filmed interviews, he always glibly explained away his fear of the police and of authorities generally by telling a story about his father taking him to the police station to put a scare into him after some peccadillo. We're justified in asking if that was only what psychoanalysis calls a 'screen memory.' I hope you get the pun. I know, I know. It's strained and inept but I spent a good deal of valuable time thinking it up. | 0 |
This TVM seems to have polarised opinions amongst the commentators on this page so perhaps I can settle everything by saying this is a very stupid not very well made television movie . How bad is it ? It's a teleplay that can't even decide what its name is because while everyone in America calls it LINDA it's known in Britain as LUST FOR MURDER and it's usually a bad sign when a movie has to change its name . And can I also point out that it's not a tongue in cheek spoof as somebody else claimed <br /><br />I will be honest and say the plot is rather sound . Linda and Paul Cowley meet another couple called the Jeffries who they get on very well with . They get on so well that they go on holiday together ( Make up your own mind if there's some wife swapping going on ) and Paul sees his wife kill the Jeffries . After that the plot takes a shock twist <br /><br />Writing the above paragraph I have suddenly realised the large amount of potential the story had and I won't say anything to put you off the premise . It's just that when the story continues after the events I've described things become more and more unlikely and bizarre . Not only that but the production values are fairly unimpressive with the actor playing Paul Cowley doing a very wooden voice over that irritates while most of the scenes - Exterior and interior - look like they've been filmed on a foggy day | 1 |
It's exactly what the title tells you...an island inhabited by fishmen. Shipwrecked doctor Claudio Cassinelli and crew land on the island, they're either picked off by the fishmen or roped into working for treasure hunting lunatic Richard Johnson. Cassinelli discovers that Johnson, who believes he's found the lost city of Atlantis, has been keeping disgraced scientist Joseph Cotten and his daughter Barbara Bach hostage for 15 years so the fishmen can uncover a treasure trove beneath the sea. Cotten, of course, is a complete madman. Bach and Cassinelli have great chemistry. This insanity was directed by Sergio Martino and is not, surprisingly, without merit. It's fast paced, reasonably well acted and the fishmen look pretty convincing (though it's unlikely anyone could prove that these things DON'T look like actual fishmen). There's an excellent music score by Luciano Michelini. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.