review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Someone reviewed this movie as a 'waste of time' because he/she was expecting the 'beautiful scenery of Brazil and Portugal' but then everything looked 'washed out' or gloomy, or something to that effect. I believe this person missed the entire part of the film. This is reality. The point of this movie is to show that life is not, indeed, ideal, and to show what people go through in their lives for family, love, and survival. A young man leaves his slum in Sao Paolo, Brazil, to go to Portugal to visit his mother's home country after her death. He discovers that not everything is free, and that Brazilians are looked down upon by native people from Portugal. He eventually finds a life, a love, but the story does not end as expected and this is not a 'fairy tale' story. The part that got me most was the ending song, 'Zeca Bailero (Honey Baby)' by Gal Costa. It fit so well with the movie; especially the ending. | 0 |
This is one of the greatest films ever made. It's an all-time classic. The character played by Ned Beatty undergoes one of the greatest on screen transformations ever portrayed. He is a shallow, almost useless, overweight insurance salesman. He is proud of his ignorance, and yet judges the 'backwards hicks' to be the ignorant ones. When he compliments the old man on his hat, and the old man responds, 'you don't know nothing',' the tone is set. It's true. He really doesn't 'know nothing'.' But one backwoods anal rape later, the man is practically a warrior. His shallow fake bravery is toned down into serious resolve. The old self is forever dead, left in some far off woods, soon to be under hundreds of feet of water. And what of Lewis, our intrepid guide? Lewis is a philosopher/hunter/warrior, and he's just about nuts. Burt Reynolds proved himself as an actor way back in 1972 in this film, completely giving himself in to this wonderful role. Who wouldn't want to have a friend like Lewis if one was to venture into the dangers of a forgotten/soon to be left behind world like the one our hapless travelers find themselves in. This film speaks to us on so many levels. The story feels real. It works as a complete action/adventure, with wonderful cinematography, and deliberate, grinding pacing. It works as a bit of a horror film, with the danger and almost surrealism of the encounter with the vile rednecks who objectify their 'sow' Ned Beatty. But it also works as an art film, using incredible amounts of symbolism to convey truths that go to our very core. I have seen this film at least fifty times, and every time it comes on, I find I have to watch it. You have to watch it quite a few times to even begin to comprehend it. This is one deep movie. This is one well-acted movie. And this is one hell of a story. I gave it a 10 out of 10, and put it in my 10 all time greatest films ever made, along with Schindler's List, Casablanca, Taxi Driver, and Sling Blade, among others. Movies that make you think. Movies that take you beyond having to think. Movies that use a STORY to make their point, without trying to preach to you. If you think you know Deliverance, you might, but again, you might not. It really is that good. | 0 |
This was thought to be the flagship work of the open source community, something that would stand up and scream at the worlds media to take notice as we're not stuck in the marketing trap with our options in producing fine work with open source tools. After the basic version download ( die hard fan here on a dial-up modem ) eventually got here I hit my first snag. Media Player, Mplayer Classic & winamp failed to open it on my xp box, and then Totem, xine & kaffeine failed to open it on my suse server. Mplayer managed to run it flawlessly. Going to be hard to spread the word about it if normal users cant even open it...<br /><br />The Film. Beautiful soundtrack, superb lighting, masterful camera work and flawless texturing. Everything looked real. And then the two main characters moved.... and spoke... And the movie died for me. Everything apart from the lip syncing and the actual animation of the two main characters ( except for Proog in the dancing scene ) looked fluid and totally alive. The two main characters were animated so poorly that at times i was wondering if there are any games on the market at the moment with cut-scenes that entail less realism than this.<br /><br />Any frame in the movie is fantastic.. as a frame, and the thing is great if neither actors are moving. I'm so glad i haven't actually recommended this to anyone. I'd ruin my reputation.<br /><br />Oh, and final fantasy had a more followable and cunningly devised plot.<br /><br />this movie would get 10 stars if it wasn't for the tragedy that sits right there on the screen. | 1 |
'Kalifornia' is one of my all-time favourite movies, and it easily could be labeled as one of the best psychological thrillers of the 90`s. The film has a very stylish surface to it, but behind that are a lot of disturbing and honest depictions of homicidal maniacs and the terrifyng violence they inflict upon others. One of the film`s strongest aspects is it`s performances, Brad Pitt is startlingly great as a trailer-trash psycho named Early. Pitt potrays his frightening character almost flawlessly. Juliette Lewis is equally as good playing his naive girlfriend, her innocence is almost heart-breaking. 'Kalifornia' has a very simple plot to it, that goes steadily and slowly forward for about an hour, but it suddenly plunges into a harrowing spree of murder, as Pitt unleashes his psychotic personality. There are alot of shocking scenes, and it all mounts to a power-house climax that will haunt you for days. 'Kalifonia' is a film that should really be watched for it`s intense look at how monstrous a human being can be, and not only for it`s violence and gore. | 0 |
In the fifties the age restrictions for films in Brazil were the following: no restriction, 10 years old, 14 years old and 18 years old. Usually the westerns were allowed for ten years old, when they had a bit more of violence they would go to 14, but it was rare to see a western restricted for younger than 18. Winchester 73 was one of those, and I think this explains very well how this film was considered different from average. The hero, James Stewart was fighting against his own brother who had killed their father. He was looking for revenge and seemed quite traumatized, far from the average good guy. Anthony Mann tried variations on this type of character in the next films he did with Stewart. Shelley Winters, the leading lady was far from virtuous, she kept following the man who stayed with the rifle. Dan Duryea as Waco Johnnie Dean is one of those great villains that will always be remembered. The story of the film, which always follows the man who stays with the rifle, is one of the best suited for a western. It was to be made into a Fritz Lang film, which did not come through. When it was offered to Mann he made a point of starting from zero again and not taking anything that was prepared for Lang. With Winchester, Mann created a different conception of western, but still maintaining all its traditions. Winchester still is a great film to see again and again, but nothing will be comparable to the impression it made in those who saw it when it was originally released. | 0 |
This film is much the same as Cannibal Holocaust. If it weren't for the needless animal killing in the name of 'shock' ('Ooh look at us, we're hardcore, we've added real death to our films') these films would make their way onto my dusty classics shelf - I'm a huge fan of cannibal films and zombies. But as it stands, it's another example of shock horror clutching at the last straws of the pile in a desperate effort to make a poor film generate more hype. To sum up, a crusty gore flick with limited appeal. A fan of 70's gore should give this a try, but anyone with modern ethics and tastes should pick something a little better written for their popcorn-fest. | 1 |
There are some things I can never understand. Such as this movie. What if I were to create a really really cheap and crappy looking Dino and crocodile polygon model in Maya and then proceed to cut and paste that into an amateur video clip having people scream and getting eaten by the same thing? How can anyone even believe that an utterly fake CGI dinocroc that looks completely out of place, would influence the events in this movie? I know that its B-grade, low budget and all but the producers could do better than making a piece of crap that no one will ever seen see or sit through. It just does'nt make sense. Are people really so stupid that they would sit through this? Apparently so. For laughs? No, this thing isn't even worth laughing at. | 1 |
*MANY MANY SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW* This movie was horrible. I am a huge baseball fan so I thought I'd watch it, and I was very disappointed. It started out okay.. When I saw the bad influence DeNiro had on his young son, I was hoping that he would become a better father throughout the movie or something. Anyways, at the beginning it seemed as if DeNiro was supposed to be the protagonist. He was the only one that believed in Bobby, and he had his adorable son that he was losing custody of, which gave me a reason to feel bad for him. He wanted to help Bobby by talking to Primo, when out of absolutely nowhere he brutally stabs Primo to death... Not to mention that sketchy reoccurring song 'I WANT TO **** YOU!!!!' at random unfitting moments.<br /><br />Later, when DeNiro saves Bobby's son from drowning, I was hoping that the movie could redeem itself.. He could forgive himself for killing Primo if he saved Bobby's son. But of course this is far beyond the depth of the movie, because all he cares about is getting CREDIT for the murder, and does so by stealing Bobby's son, car, and dog and holding them hostage- Bobby just has to hit a home run and announce that DeNiro is a 'true fan' while displaying a picture of him biting a knife.<br /><br />Now we get to the completely unrealistic scene at the end... It is pouring like hell and we are expected to believe that the game hasn't been called. Then DeNiro somehow magically appears on the field in an umpire suit and calls Bobby out at home, proceeding to pull out his knife and start stabbing everyone that runs onto the field. There are seemingly no officers on the field (but the police are on their way), so DeNiro steps on the mound and prepares to pitch a knife to Bobby when he gets shot to death. But don't worry, this cheerful and pleasant movie has a happy ending, because Bobby find his son.<br /><br />This is NOT a sports movie. It is NOT about a fan. As far as I know, fans are not rabid psychopaths that threaten, rob, and throw knives at their admirees. This is likely to be the sickest movie I will ever see in my life. The plot was shallow, the soundtrack sucked, the movie had no purpose whatsoever. I warn you not to waste your time on this disgusting excuse for a film. | 1 |
Damn, I've seen this movie for at least 4 times now and I still don't get bored watching it.<br /><br />The visuals are so good and together with the music which is totally awesome and perfect fitting this movie is mind-blowing to me.<br /><br />The CGIs are quite bad IMHO, but the whole visuals with the black and white feeling about it and the totally sterile interiors were just... Just a genius perfect combination for such a movie. The whole feeling about the feeling is indescribable, the plot is so good.<br /><br />However although, the movie had little flaws, like e.g. sometimes I thought the movie was a bit too 'slow', but I don't mean the scenic parts by that, I totally loved those.<br /><br />Also I got distracted very often by the totally complex story, like when he is in the underground bunker-like thing of digicorps, where all their data is saved, and has this conversation with the guy down there... but that may also just be me :D And the end could have been displayed somehow more emphasized, they should have made the getting-back-true-memory-part a bit longer and 'louder' but then again without all these flaws the movie would have been so good i would have never stopped watching it again and again... | 0 |
Was struck at how even the acting was throughout. William Haines had an acting range that is wonderful for silent film. Not over the edge. There are moments where the camera work is most excellent, and combined with the story, like when he is waiting to see the Superintendent, very well done.<br /><br /> Thoroughly enjoyed the flick.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I am truly sad that this is the first bad review I've ever made for a movie...EVER.I could stand to watch this movie, and it is the second movie in all the movies I've seen that is just...a downgrade. The first is Open Water, that just had NO point whatsoever. The Next Karate Kid didn't have any mention of Daniel(correct me if I'm wrong, please.),and that ending line came as a shock. It was like, 'If must fight...win.' then it showed the bird flying around and the pan flute was playing, and I was like, oh. Okay, so it'll take a while for this next part. AND THEN THE CREDITS HIT THE SCREEN.<br /><br />GEEZ MAN!! Hopefully, I will never have to review a movie in a bad manner again, I apologize for those of you who like The Next Karate Kid, I really, really do... | 1 |
If, like me, you like your films to be unique, and unlike the majority of other movies, then I wholly recommend that you check out The Beast. The film is a grotesque, erotic, fantasy fairytale that centres around a mythological 'Beast' that is rumoured to wander the grounds of a French mansion and lusts after women. The film is very daring with it's subject material, and that is something to give it credit for. The theme of bestiality is a definite taboo, and for good reason, I might add; but the film conveys it; straight and to the point. Like other films that handle a taboo subject at their centre, The Beast could have gone around it, and made us use our imagination to fill in the gaps, but Borowczyk didn't do that, and he is brave in that respect, especially as making a film like this will leave him open to all kinds of criticisms, but the fact that he went ahead with it, in my view, means a big thumbs up for the guy.<br /><br />The film starts off with a sequence that sees a randy male horse mount a female. This opener puts an exclamation mark on the film and prepares the audience, in some ways, for the incredible, tour de force of eroticism that they are about to see. The scenes which see the beast mate with the woman are gratuitous and shocking, and are bound to offend many people (hence the reason it was banned for over 20 years), but these scenes are not merely an excuse for Borowczyk to shock the viewer; this film has a defining point. As said during the film; the only difference between man and beast is intelligence. Both man and beast have instincts, only man knows how to control them. The Beast explores this difference between man and beast through sexuality; the fantasy sequence in which the beast appears epitomises the control of human desire, and it is only when the central female character lets go of her control that she can see the beast. The film has strong themes of the age-old story of 'beauty and beast' weaved into it, and overall this is a shockingly morbid tale of lust, but not without a moral.<br /><br />Many criticise the scenes around the film's shocking sex sequences for being boring, but these scenes are important to the film's story. Without these scenes, we wouldn't get to know the characters or the story of the beast, and, most importantly; the story of 'beauty and the beast' would not be able to have it's horrifying conclusion dealt to the audience, and as that is one of the key elements of the film; it would be a real shame. Besides that, Borowczyk keeps his audience entertained through these scenes, not with shocks, but with dialogue and the upper class persona of the family, along with the beautiful shots of the mansion's ground would not be seen, and therefore the stark contrast between that and the events later on in the film would not exist either.<br /><br />Overall, The Beast is a shocking film. It's portrayal of a taboo subject and the shocking way it is portrayed will ensure that this film is not for everyone. However, if you can get over the film's shock, and embrace The Beast; what awaits is a skilful and beautiful piece of art that should not be missed by anyone that is willing to give this film a chance. | 0 |
I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.<br /><br />These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.<br /><br />I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to this one. | 1 |
Tarzan the Ape Man is a remake of the 1932 film of the same time, and like that earlier film, it has little resemblance to Burroughs' literary character. But while the 1932 Tarzan was reduced to 'Tarzan - Jane' speech, this Tarzan, played by Miles O'Keeffe, doesn't speak or even grunt. He does do the the Tarzan yell a couple of times, which sounds like it was sampled from the earlier film.<br /><br />No, Tarzan plays second banana to Bo Derek as Jane. Or rather, as third banana to Bo Derek's left breast and her right breast. This movie has no point but to show Derek naked.<br /><br />The two action scenes in the film are presented in slow motion, and are really bad. More evidence that no one cared.<br /><br />Bizarrely enough, Tarzan has an orangutan side kick in this film. Maybe he car pooled in from Sumatra with the Indian elephants that are also on display. | 1 |
What if a platoon of G.I.'s from the Japanese army were to be send back in time 400 years right in the middle of the feudal wars that led to the formation of the Tokugawa Shogunate? Great pitch right? The movie does exactly what it says on the tin.<br /><br />Thankfully the writers didn't bother to explain the, usually ridiculous in sci-fi movies, scientific mumbo jumbo of time transport. No how's or why's. They just did. However the time transport sequence itself is trippy as hell and quite beautiful, if not a bit dated. Not as silly as one would imagine.<br /><br />The rest of the movie follows the premise to a T. But while it loses a bit of steam with the various subplots that follow the G.I.s arrival to medieval Japan, it picks up with a devastating battle sequence. Undoubtedly it's the main order of the day. The whole concept and by extension the movie itself, was probably originated from this simple pitch: what if G.I.'s equipped with the latest in modern warfare were to fight samurais? And boy does it deliver.<br /><br />The main battle sequence that spans more than half an hour is probably one of THE best of its kind in 70's action/war movies. Not only is it relentless and exhausting in pace and length, it's also a terrific mish-mash of styles and techniques that only unique premises like G.I. Samurai can deliver. I mean, where else would you get the chance to feature tanks, ninjas complete with shuriikens, a helicopter and samurais in the same shot? The G.I. platoon led by lieutenant Iba tears literally through hundreds of extras, gunning them down with machine guns, mortars, grenades and tanks.<br /><br />This mish-mash of styles is with one foot firmly rooted in the sprawling jidai-geki epic of Kurosawa's Kagemusha or Hiroshi Inagaki's Samurai Banners, while the other is in western action and war movies. There are stylistic touches (like the wonderful slow-motion shots and bloody violence) that bring Sam Peckinpah or Enzo G. Castellari circa Keoma to mind. Japanese cinema has always been influenced by westerns and other Hollywood works and vice versa, and G.I. Samurai effortlessly turns this east-meets-west melting pot into an exciting film.<br /><br />The film-makers thankfully take the whole thing seriously and the movie benefits immensely from it. Not that tongue-in-cheek mentality is completely absent, it's just that it doesn't try to pander to so-bad-it's-good audiences that enjoy laughing at their movies. The budget was probably hefty, as it is evident in the hundreds of extras, elaborate costumes (very decent for a production that is not a traditional jidai-geki) and special effects. The camera-work and editing are all top notch, almost better than a movie with no higher artistic ambitions deserves.<br /><br />It's not withouts its flaws either of course. There are many 'song' scenes, where all sorts of 70's Japanese rock, disco and country songs play over montages (there's a bonding scene, a love-interest scene, a 'war is hell' scene etc). The songs themselves are pretty lame and corny and detract from the whole thing. Although it clocks at a whooping 140 minutes, it flies like a bullet for the most part. Still some scenes, flashbacks and subplots in the first half could have been clipped for a tighter effect.<br /><br />The cast also deserves a mention, featuring such prominent names as Sonny Chiba, Isao Natsuyagi (Goyokin, Samurai Wolf), Tsunehiko Watase (The Yakuza Papers) and Hiroyuki Sanada, all of them hitting the right notes. | 0 |
Many critics have felt offended that R.W. Fassbinder has portrayed both protagonist Wilkie and the Nazis in this movie in a human-like manner. Connoisseurs of other Fassbinder films, however, will realize that 'Lili Marleen' (1981) belongs to Fassbinder's 'women movies' like 'The Marriage of Maria Braun' (1979) and 'Lola' (1981). Fassbinder was convinced that 'stories can be told much better with women than with men', because, according to Fassbinder, while men usually fulfill their determined roles in society, 'women are capable of thinking in a dialectic manner'. Dialectics, however, means that there is not only a thesis and its antithesis like usually in our black-and-white world, but a synthesis where the oppositions coincide. Moreover, dialectic means that because of the third instance of synthesis the absolute opposition of the difference between thesis and antithesis is abolished. Concretely speaking: Starting from a dialect point of view and portraying the fascist state, the underground fighters must necessarily use the basic means like the rulers do, and between offenders and victims there is thus a chiastic relation, so that every offender is also victim and every victim is also offender. Fassbinder has illustrated this abstract scheme, that transcends classical logic, in his play 'The City, the Garbage and the Death' (1975) which was filmed by Daniel Schmid under the title 'Shadow of Angels' (1976).<br /><br />Therefore, approaching an a priori controversial topic like Nazi Germany, in a dialectic manner, the depiction of this time in the form of a movie gets even more controversial, especially for people who cannot or do not want to see that our recognition of the world is by far not exhausted with a primitive light-switch schema, but needs the third instance of synthesis as controlling instance of its opposite members thesis and antithesis. The mutual relationship between offenders and victims has to scrutinized, since it is simply not true that the offenders are the bad ones and the victims the good ones. In a synthetic viewpoint, the bad ones participate on the goodness as the good ones participate on the badness. They are mutually related. In a world-view based on classical logic, a relation between good and bad cannot even been established, and in an ethics based on this insufficient system of logic, the bad conscience of the survivors of Nazi Germany, feeling (illogically enough) responsible for the deeds of their ancestors, exclude the possibility of a relationship between the two extremes and thus a synthesis in the form a new evaluation based on this relationship as well. From Fassbinder's dialectic viewpoint, it follows that neither Lili Marleen nor Lola nor Maria Braun can be condemned for their 'misuse' of the ruling system for their private purposes, because they don't misuse them, they just use them. In the opposite, since victims must repeat the actions of the offenders as the offenders must repeat the actions of the victims, because 'good' and 'bad' are no longer simple mirror images of one another like in two-valued logic, their strategies are legitimated by the chiastic structure of a logic that describes our world, that is not black and white at all, much better than a black-and-white logic. | 0 |
Ronald Coleman had been a star of the screen for several years when talkies came in, and what a boost it was to his career. His Oxford English accent is so enthralling I could listen to him recite the farmer's almanac and not be bored.<br /><br />Coleman plays Willie Hale, a 30ish playboy from a wealthy family who spends his time womanizing and gambling. Yet, he's a likable rogue - not only likable from the standpoint of the audience but by family and friends too. He has yet again gone broke due to his constant gambling and sells off his possessions in a foreign location to settle his debts and provide passage back home to England. When he gets there, he at first is met by a father who insists he'll kick him out - he's had it with Willie and his layabout ways. However, five minutes alone in a room with Willie and his charm, and Willie is not only forgiven by dad, dad has given him one hundred pounds to boot.<br /><br />Willie then goes for a day's recreation with his sister and her friend, Dorothy Hope (Loretta Young). Dorothy is set to be engaged to the Grand Duke Paul that very night, mainly just because her dad wants royalty in the family, and there is nobody else special in her life. That changes after her day with Willie, and soon there is a scandal brewing as Dorothy refuses to go through with the marriage as planned.<br /><br />Ronald Coleman is always a delight to watch in these early talking films he did for Sam Goldwyn where he is playing the confident adventurer or cad or both. He has a demeanor akin to Errol Flynn, but he is unable to display Flynn's physical agility due to a disabling wound he received during World War I. However, what he lacks in physical agility Coleman always made up in agility of soul. Loretta Young, only 17 when this picture was made, shows the beginning of her trademark sweet girl that can erupt into a ball of fire when the occasion calls for it. Myrna Loy plays Willie's girl from the past - Mary Crayle - a showgirl. Here Myrna is still playing a part similar to the exotic vamp parts she got stuck with so often over at Warner Brothers when she was a contract player from 1926 until shortly before this movie was made in 1930.<br /><br />This is pretty much a light and breezy romantic comedy from start to finish. If you're in a mood for the kind of escapist entertainment that lightened the hearts of audiences during the Great Depression, this little film fits the bill. | 0 |
This is the kind of film that, if it were made today, it would probably star Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant; actually, now that I think about it, this one is quite liable to be remade one day. It's pleasant, but with no depth whatsoever. It suffers from the almost fatal miscasting of James Stewart in a role he is about 20 years too old for, and as a result there is no chemistry between him and the beautiful Kim Novak. Ernie Kovacs, in the small supporting role of an aspiring writer, is the only actor in the film whose performance approaches what you might call 'wit'. (**1/2) | 0 |
Maureen O'Hara is always beautiful and appealing. Here she plays an actress terminally ill. We don't know with what.It is a bit of a precursor to 'Love Story' in that respect.<br /><br />William Bendix is good, as is most of the supporting cast. John Payne is meant to be grieving but he seems to sleepwalking. The girl who plays the child he and O'Hara adopts does her best with a contrived plot device: Of course! Adopt an orphan. She will live on after the passing of your wife. It's a sweet movie but it doesn't feel sincere.I was hoping to be moved. I was, by O'Hara's gentle performance. But I don't like to feel manipulated. | 1 |
After watching about half of this movie I noticed something peculiar ... I found myself constantly switching through tv-channels to see what else is on - not exactly a good movie trait.<br /><br />This movie is listed as being in a number of genres, and I must say it mostly failed misserably in every one of them. 80% through the movie I switched over to watch an old rerun instead. Bottom line - the whole movie felt as if the ones making it didn't exactly know what to make and ended up in a concoction with no discernable taste. | 1 |
Ever want to see a movie where Chuck Norris takes the bad guys aside and calmly discusses with them the errors of their ways until they see the light and, with tears in their eyes, they shake hands, right the wrongs of the world together in peace and harmony and forever end the reign of evil in the world?<br /><br />Well, forget it, Jocko. <br /><br />'Breaker! Breaker!' instead goes right for the drop-kick as our truck-drivin' man Chuck steers his big rig into the small backwoods town where his little brother is being held by a corrupt judge and his even-more corrupt law-men. <br /><br />Chuck karate kicks, chops, slices, juliennes and crinkle-cuts every baddie in sight until not an evil-doer dares raise his head. A lot of fights are in slow-motion, for excitement purposes, but just help pad out the movie to fill 86 minutes.<br /><br />And there's a lot of fights here, which leave just about 15 minutes for plot development...and that's about all the plot you get. But what did you expect: calm discussion?<br /><br />One star for 'Breaker! Breaker!'; and that's a small 10-4, good buddy. | 1 |
The Canterville Ghost (1996).The director made this too sappy a production. Maybe it's the generation, but I really liked the Charles Laughton version. There is a time and place for 'emoting' and this production does not translate very well. Patrick Stewart, reciting Shakespeare was very good, but still inappropriate. Would neither recommend nor watch again. The close-ups and padded text and sub-plots were lost on me. Adding extraneous material and scenes takes away from a truly great work. The screenplay writer should find another profession in which to misplace his talent, maybe afternoon soap operas would be a better venue. Check out the really good version and pass on this one. | 1 |
This movie was terrible...How can somebody even think that this movie was like the ones back in the 'good old days' when Tim Thomerson was not even in it. And to make things worse, they used clips from old trancer movies. Thats just terrible. NO trancer movie is complete without Tim Thomerson.I love Fullmoon films, and i have been watching them since i was 4 years old. I have been through everything they have done and this movie almost made me lose it. Now i got a couple of lines to fill so i will keep going. Their way of breeding new trancers is completely stupid as well as way to send Jack back in time. What happened to the TCL Chamber. AND finally! What happened in the end of trancers 5 where lina says and i quote 'Jack Has given me something special' AND her and some other broad looks at her stomach. I don't know...maybe a BABY is in there. There were so many other places of going to, but fullmoon S'd the Bed | 1 |
Arguably the most disgusting thing to come out of Australia since Vegemite... Predictably distasteful comedy with Barry Humphries in a dual role as boozy Australian diplomat Les Patterson and undercover agent Dame Edna! So many bodily function gags that even the Farrelly brothers would have been sick, and several gross-out moments, especially the effects of the horrible H.E.L.P. virus. Only for fans of extreme toilet humor. Oh, and that´s the 'NeverEnding Story II', NOT the 'Mad Max' George Miller, who directed... *½<br /><br /> | 1 |
.... may seem far fetched.... but there really was a real life story.. of a man who had an affair with a woman, who found out where he and his new wife were staying,, and she killed the wife,, making it look like a murder rape.......<br /><br />in her delusion she had told everyone that the man had asked her to marry him.. so she quit her job in Wisconsin... and moved to Minnesota..........<br /><br />last I heard she was in a mental institution, Security Prison....<br /><br />she was still wearing the 'engagement ring.' that she has purchased for herself... and had told everyone that he had bought it for her.<br /><br />The events took place in a small town in Wisconsin,,,,,,, and the murder happened in Minnesota......<br /><br />There even was a feature story in 'People' magazine... Spring of 1988, I want to say on Page 39. I remember this as I was in college at the time,, and a colleague of mine had met the individual in the Security Hospital.... | 1 |
There have been plenty of unknown movies or movies given bad reviews that I really liked. This was not one of them.<br /><br />It was overacted and used camera techniques that made me feel like I was watching a soap opera. It was ludicrously predictable and took most of the movie to get going then left you asking 'that's it?'. Once I decided not to take the movie too seriously and watch it from a purely corny point of view it became more enjoyable. This is one movie that would have wound up on MST3000 if it was still on. | 1 |
This is quite a dull movie. Well-shot with realistic performances especially a very good one from Depardieu as a cad and bad boy with realistic locations mood and art-house connotations all over, it fails because the director takes no position, stand or critical commentary on the topic he stipulates. One of France's revered and regular working partner on films with Depardieu - I believe they made 7 together - Pialat fails to engage. It seems to be a treatise on why women fall for the bad boy who will hurt when they have a ready caring boyfriend and good-hearted husband around. Isabelle Hupert who plays the philanderer with nonchalant distinction offers opprobrium answers like 'I don't know'; 'I like his arms'; 'I like the way he makes love' to her inquiring husband who tries to kick her out of the house but palliates and reconsiders because... I assume he loves her. So he accepts and hope for what? That she will one day wake up and come to her senses. Things like this are not answered in Pialat's condescending docu-drama style with long speeches and even longer scenes that don't add up. I know the answers do not add up but please take a stand. Jules et Jim, this is not. The final shot as cold as the movie we have just watched is a heartache and headache only to the most forgiving. | 0 |
I haven't read through all the comments, but at least one poster mentioned that the 30 minute version might possibly be abridged. I'm curious about that myself because the later parts of the film just didn't make much sense to me even when I rewatched them. 30 minutes seems really short for a movie in 1917 also. 'Poor Little Rich Girl' which was Tourneur's next film is 65 minutes long and 'Pride of the Clan' which was his previous feature was 84 minutes long. So I'm relieved to see that I wasn't crazy, there must be part of this film missing and that's why the resolution didn't make much sense.<br /><br />It's hard to review or comment on a movie that you're only able to see half of... but I would recommend this film anyway because of the really fascinating view that it provides us of the insides of an East Coast movie studio of the time. It's the earliest film I've personally seen that's based on the movie industry itself. The main character is a movie star played by Robert Warwick, who was later a mainstay Hollywood character actor and appeared in almost all of Preston Sturges' films. He plays a western actor perhaps vaguely modeled on William S. Hart, who Warwick does resemble somewhat. After the really fascinating sequences set in the studio we see them on a location shoot where he discovers a country girl (Doris Kenyon) and convinces her to come to New Jersey for a screen test which goes very poorly. After that point the movie seems to be missing major pieces in the form we have now.<br /><br />Again, I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in film history for the documentary value, but in the form we have it doesn't hold up much as a movie and isn't a particularly good example of Maurice Tourneur's work. | 0 |
I was totally impressed by Shelley Adrienne's 'Waitress' (2007). This movie only confirms what was clear from that movie. Adrienne was a marvelously talented writer-director, an original and unique artist. She managed to show the miseries of everyday life with absurd humor and a real warm optimistic and humanistic tendency. Ally Sheedy steals this movie with a terrific performance as a woman who has fallen over the edge. Male lead Reg Rodgers, looking like Judd Nelson, is fine. There is also a great cameo by Ben Vereen. The song at the end of the movie 'The Bastard Song' written by Adrienne can stand as her optimistic eulogy: <br /><br />'It's a world of suffering,<br /><br />In a sea of pain,<br /><br />No matter how much sun you bring,<br /><br />You're pummeled by the rain...<br /><br />Don't let the heartless get you down,<br /><br />Don't greet the heartless at your door,<br /><br />Don't live among the heartless' | 0 |
Definitely not a good film but nowhere as bad as some would paint it to be. Nightmare in Wax tells the story of a man, having had his face disfigured in a typical flashback scene, wreak his vengeance on those directly responsible and those indirectly for the losses in his life - most notably the love and companionship of a beautiful young actress. Cameron Mitchell plays the artist with his typical flair, albeit limited flair. Actually, I thought he gave one of his better performances. What exactly does that mean? Mitchell wears an eye patch, endlessly smokes cigarettes, wears a motley tunic, and talks to his creations in wax. They are not your ordinary wax dummies, but rather people still alive controlled by some serum that makes them lose control of all neurological function. They become zombies in effect. I thought the premise here was inventive if nothing else. It has some ludicrous explanation, but does serve the plot. This is a film of the 60s to be sure with some psychedelic camera-work by Bud Townsend and company. The acting is mediocre but Mitchell, Scott Brady, and Barry Kroeger give interesting turns. The wax figures of Hollywood's bygone era are done very effectively and most of the location shooting was very credible. The end of the film dissipates into something not quite real - either another example of 60s cultural cinema or the end of the scriptwriter's creativity. I'm banking on the latter. Despite its many flaws, I enjoyed the film. The opening scene showing an actor being needled was effectively done as was a police chase on the waterfront. | 1 |
An idiotic dentist finds out that his wife has been unfaithful. So, no new story lines here. However, the authors managed to create a stupid, disgusting film. If you enjoy watching kids vomiting, or seeing a dentist imagining that he is pulling all his wife's teeth out in a bloody horror-type, go see (or rent) the film. If not, move on to something else (MY FAIR LADY, anyone?) | 1 |
This really is by far the worst movie I've ever seen in my whole life (I'm approaching 47)! The description on the back of the cover equaled the scrolling text right at the begin of the movie. The further plot was nil and even a bunch of corpses would have shown more life in their 'acting'. I viewed the full length of it and was really relieved when the final character's death signalled the end of my suffering! The location was either some kind of vaults or a grimy beach. I suppose, that home-video equipment served as camera and the lighting was sub-standard. The dialogues were uninspired and devoid of meaning. As were the actors faces. Which brings me to the topic 'make-up': By the looks of it they got it as gimmicks in some teen-ager's magazines 'my first own make-up' or similar. What made me buy the DVD was the name 'Lovecraft' printed on the cover. The only connection with this brilliant mind's works was the use of the name 'Necronomicon', which was wrongly translated as 'Book of Light'. The 4,70 EURO I paid for this DVD were a complete loss, for the DVD went into the recycling box without any further ado. | 1 |
The number of times I've had tears in my eyes when watching a movie are few. And there is only one time when I have really cried and that was when I saw this movie. This movie has some kliches but I really don't care. I cry even as I write this and it was quite some time since I saw it. It is perfectly acted and all the production values are good, but what really matters is the simple and wonderful message. We all know it in our hearts, but it is not always easy to remember that the only thing that really matters in life is LOVE in all it's forms. It's only when we love that we're truly alive. I know how sentimental I sound and I promise I'm not usually like that. I'm quite a cynic. This movie has brought out stronger feelings of both sorrow and happiness in me than any other movies and it will probably always be the first movie I recommend others to see. | 0 |
This inept adaptation of arguably one of Martin Amis's weaker novels fails to even draw comparisons with other druggy oeuvres such as Requiem For A Dream or anything penned by Irvine Walsh as it struggles to decide whether it is a slap-stick cartoon or a hyper-realistic hallucination.<br /><br />Boringly directed by William Marsh in over-saturated hues, a group of public school drop-outs converge in a mansion awaiting the appearance of three American friends for a weekend of decadent drug-taking. And that's it. Except for the ludicrous sub-plot soon-to-be-the-main-plot nonsense about an extremist cult group who express themselves with the violent killings of the world's elite figures, be it political or pampered. Within the first reel you know exactly where this is going.<br /><br />What is a talented actor like Paul Bettany doing in this tiresome, badly written bore? Made prior to his rise to fame and Jennifer Connelly one can be assured that had he been offered this garbage now he'd have immediately changed agents! Avoid. | 1 |
Having been a faithful Asterix fan all of my life, I have to say that 'Asterix and the Vikings' is probably the most well done of all the Asterix films. Its got some very funny jokes in it and the animation is superb. As many people have pointed out, it doesn't really follow the plot of the comic ('Asterix and the Normans') very closely, but in many ways that's just as well, because that book stands out in my mind as one which poked a great deal of fun at the culture of the sixties, and much of it is very dated today.<br /><br />What really rubbed me the wrong way, though, is how they incorporated a Disney-style plot into the film which took much of the focus away from Asterix and Obelix. We have a misunderstood boy who doesn't fit in, Justforkix. We have a tom-boy girl who doesn't fit in because she wants to be treated as equal to men, Abba. They meet and fall in love, but their love is threatened because boy is ashamed to be totally honest with girl, but in the end their love wins out. This has been the plot of so many Disney (and, be fair, other studios too) films that its not funny and the plot was old twenty years ago. I mean, they even gave Justforkix a whimsical animal sidekick.<br /><br />Not only did I find this derivative and clichéd, but it really detracted from the story and left me dissatisfied.<br /><br />I think that it speaks volumes about how superb the rest of the movie was that I still think very highly of it, despite the way the plot got hijacked. | 0 |
How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.<br /><br />Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create. | 1 |
The story overall, though quite graphic, is actually decent and reasonably interesting to readers. However, the movie was absolutely dreadful. The story was good, but the acting was terrible. I was crying the whole time because i knew i could never get my spent time back. Don't see this movie. If you do, bring a pistol with a bullet in it, and a few bullets if you're going with friends. I feel sorry for everybody who had anything to do with this film. I also feel sorry for everybody who had to watch the film. Avoid this film at all costs, and if your mother forces you to watch, kill her. Hahahahaha! See! I'm a psycho now!!!! IKWTCBS turned me into a psycho!!!! | 1 |
Having seen 'Triumph of the Will,' I can only say this movie is ghastly, even measured against the historically low 'standards' of the time. Naturally it's all totally fabricated and prejudicial. This is what one would expect of 1930's German propaganda. Unfortunately, the quality of the presentation, itself, is hackneyed and cheap. It's also so blatantly ridiculous that even contemporary Germans must've left the theater holding their noses. In a genre renowned for its base appeal, lack of originality and unapologetic wrong-headedness, this film doesn't even qualify as 'bad.' It would have to improve significantly to attain that status! | 1 |
This is one of those films that I remember being in the can for years before anything happening w/it. I don't think it's terrible, but it's not really good either. Alec Baldwin was pretty good, but the plot is it kind of flimsy at best. The cast is pretty good in what they're given, but again you are only as good as the script. Baldwin directing this although I could have sworn he didn't direct all of it, I thought I read somewhere or lots of re-shoots wasn't bad but he definitely has some potential in there. Although his work on '30 Rock' is nothing short of genius & should keep him busy for a little while longer. I just hope the show bows out gracefully a la Seinfeld, but maybe not even that long. 9 years it went. So if you want to see a film that you won't get much from, but won't really hate either well this is for you. I can't remember the last time a film had been wrapped so long before finally being released & only on DVD at that. It was nice to see Alec Baldwin & Anthony Hopkins again together since their excellent yet not much people have seen 'The Edge.' Now pick up that excellent film for some real entertainment. | 1 |
While the new Pride & Prejudice film is gorgeous to view, and the soundtrack is lovely, we are not seeing Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The film is for some reason set back in the early 1790's, rather than the Regency period where the novel is set, as scholars have long shown. The Bennets' Longbourn estate is ram-shackled and looks like Cold Comfort Farm. Yet the Bennets in the novel are gentry class; they own a farm, but the pig does not walk through the house, nor is the farmyard of manure and chicken droppings contiguous to the home. Scenes are re-set from the novel,and lest we forget, Jane Austen placed scenes in certain locations for a reason. For example, the film puts the big Darcy proposal scene outside in a storm in front of a Neoclassical temple, as opposed to inside the Collins' parsonage: Why did Jane Austen put it in the parsonage? Because while Lizzy and Darcy speak with total, if brutal honesty to each other in this scene, the Collinses have never shared an honest word. Why the rain and the outdoor proposal? It looks like Jane Eyre meeting Rochester! And when Elizabeth walks across a windy field to stand on a cliff and view the panorama, one expects her to cry, 'Heathcliffe' at any minute! Austen has been Bronteized! Judy Dench is a GREAT actress, but Lady Catherine is supposed to be tall and striking. The petite Tom Hollander is a brilliant actor: but Mr. Collins is described in the novel as tall and heavy-looking, which suggests that his terrible dancing with poor Lizzy is elephantine. Matthew MacFayden is another favorite of mine from MI-5 on A&E; in P&P, however, he is more the young Heathcliffe, never smiling--though Austen observes in the novel that Darcy smiles at Lizzy quite a bit, and she realizes this when she sees his wonderful smiling portrait at Pemberley--a portrait that in this movie is for some reason replaced by a sculptured marble bust.And much of Austen's dialogue is changed to modern speech. Mr. Bingley has been turned into such a clown that one wonders why Darcy would have him as a friend and why Jane Bennet would love him. The bottom line is that while this is a great movie to watch and hear, it deviates from Jane Austen's novel so much that any student who watched it, thinking she could substitute viewing for reading, would fail! | 1 |
You could stage a version of Charles Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol' with sock puppets and I'll probably watch it. Ever since I was a child, this has been one of my favorite stories. Maybe it's the idea that there is good in everyone, and that therefore no one is beyond redemption, that appeals to me, but for whatever reason I never miss an opportunity to watch one of the many screen adaptations of this timeless classic when they're on TV as they inevitably are this time of year.<br /><br />What makes this version really stand out is the somber gravitas that the cast bring to their respective roles. Lines we've heard dozens of times in the past take on a whole new intensity, and each character becomes more real and believable in the hands of this wonderful ensemble.<br /><br />George C. Scott was nominated for an Emmy in 1985 for this role. It is to his everlasting credit that rather than sleepwalking through this oft-portrayed role of Scrooge, he instead gave it a fresh interpretation that was, in my opinion, one of his finest performances ever. He wisely did not attempt a British accent, instead delivering his lines in that famous gravelly voice. His Scrooge is not merely a cranky old man (as he is so often portrayed), but a man who harbors a profound anger against the world. As he is visited in turn by each of the Three Spirits, we understand how this anger took root, grew, and ultimately strangled his soul. As he is forced to review his life, we see him alternately softening, and then relapsing again into unrepentant obstinacy. And in the great dramatic scene when he, kneeling and weeping at his own grave, begs for mercy as he attempts to convince the third spirit of his repentance and desire to alter his life, we see a man who has been utterly broken and brought to his knees literally and figuratively. Scott has made Scrooge utterly believable and painfully human.<br /><br />Impressive as Scott's performance is, the ensemble of supporting actors contributes significantly the this version's dark beauty. Fred Holywell, Scrooge's nephew, is an excellent example of this. Often portrayed as an affable buffoon, here he is played by Roger Rees with an emotional intensity missing from earlier portrayals. When he implores Scrooge, 'I ask nothing of you. I want nothing from you. Why can't we be friends?', we see in his face not only his frustration, but his pain at Scrooge's self-imposed separation from his only living relative. It is a moving performance, and one of the movie's most dramatic scenes.<br /><br />Even more magnificent is the performance given by the wonderful English actor Frank Finlay as Scrooge's late partner, Jacob Marley. In most versions of this tale, the scene with Marley tends to be a bit of a low point in the film, simply because it's difficult to portray a dead man convincingly, and the results are usually just plain silly (ooooh, look, it's a scary ghost.......not!) In this version, it is perhaps the most riveting scene in the whole movie. Marley's entrance, as the locks on Scrooge's door fly open of their own accord and the sound of chains rattling echo throughout the house, is wonderfully creepy. But Finlay's Marley is no ethereal spirit. He is a tortured soul, inspiring both horror and pity. Marley may be a ghost, but his rage and regret over a life wasted on the pursuit of wealth, and his despair at his realization that his sins are now beyond redress, are still very human. As portrayed by Finlay, we have no problem believing that even the flinty Scrooge would be shaken by this nightmarish apparition. Finlay really steals the scene here, something not easy to do when you're opposite George C. Scott.<br /><br />And it just goes on and on, one remarkable performance after another, making it seem like you're experiencing this story for the first time. Edward Woodward (remember him from the Equalizer?) is by turns both jovial and menacing as the Ghost of Christmas Present. When he delivers the famous line, 'it may well be that in the sight of Heaven you are more worthless and less fit to live than MILLIONS like this poor man's child' he is no longer a jolly Santa Claus surrogate, but an avenging angel who gives Scrooge a much needed verbal spanking.<br /><br />Susannah York is a wonderfully tart tongued Mrs. Cratchit, and David Warner brings marvelous depth to the long suffering Bob Cratchit, a man who goes through life bearing the triple crosses of poverty, a sick child, and an insufferable boss. His face alternately shows his cheerful courage, and also, at times, his weariness, in the face of intolerable circumstances. Later, in the scene in which Scrooge is shown by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come the Cratchit family after the death of Tiny Tim, Warner's performance, while hardly uttering a word, will move you to tears. | 0 |
What a stupid idea. Ewoks should be enslaved and tortured. Utterly useless as a species... Fine you want ten lines of text regarding my unending hatred of Ewoks? Fine, here it is, fool. First of all, they are an inferior race that would be slaughtered en mass had Lucas not pussified the entire series with their foul presence. They're little bears with large asses, and they probably smell like donkey crotch. Yeah, I said it, donkey crotch. They have little to no technology whatsoever, resorting to using sticks as makeshift weapons. I'm surprised they even had access to fire. Their guttural language makes my skin crawl. Can't...suppress...anti-Ewok...RAGE! AHHH!!! | 1 |
Sickening exploitation trash plays like a bad (and reverse) 'Death Wish' ripoff - but the ugly and untalented Tamerlis makes Charles Bronson look like Al Pacino with her performance. As for Ferrara's 'stylish' direction, when a film is so vile, dumb and deeply offensive, it's hard for the viewer to pay attention to such details. | 1 |
This movie is absurd. Absolutely terrible. Michael Keaton and Andy Garcia must really have needed the work to do this movie. The plot is totally not believable! Michael Keaton agrees to donate bone marrow to the dying son of a detective, but then escapes. He manages to elude the police throughout the hospital - not believable that he would have so much knowledge of the hospital. He takes an extremely convoluted route to get out of the hospital, blowing up the power generators and a pedestrial bridge (why?). And to top that Andy Garcia (father of the dying boy) and a doctor help the criminal so as to get the bone marrow. The plot is such baloney! Maybe the worse movie I have ever see. | 1 |
This is a great movie. The best role Peter Strauss ever did. The music is good, the message harsh, the actors great and the story is both emotional and raw. Only in the seventies did they make them like this one! | 0 |
I loved that this film recognizes the intelligence of the viewer, allowing the layers to peel from the characters through their interactions with each other about the unspoken loss that has so affected each of them. <br /><br />The cinematography is a beautiful, and is an inspired reflection of the vision of someone I believe is an extremely talented new filmmaker with the maturity and artistic insight to tell a story that others with much more experience have failed to accomplish. I see a bright future for this writer/producer/director who had the ability to focus on a goal and accomplish it with integrity.<br /><br />Kudos for this achievement. | 0 |
OK. I know that the wanna-be John Hughes movies of the 80s were all unilaterally flat, so the expectations for this film ran pretty low.<br /><br />Still, after sitting through this crap there's one key thing I can't seem to get out of my head:<br /><br />I just sat through an 80s Rob Lowe movie that had no nudity and only hints of sex in them.<br /><br />The acting is awful, the characters boring and flat, the portrayal of Oxford an absolute insult, and the rowing scenes unexciting, uneventful, and inaccurate.<br /><br />Unless you've got some wierd Ally Sheedy or Amanda Pays (or I guess, Rob Lowe) fetish, there's really no reason to see this one. | 1 |
So I had heard from a few people that this film had brought them to tears in the theater. As I watched it for the first time I was expecting another romantic, tear-jerking Barbra Streisand film; Something like The Way We Were. I was certainly wrong. The chemistry between the two main characters, Esther Hoffman and her John Howard, was nonexistent, making it impossible to get attached to the characters. There wasn't anything romantic about it. Streisand's character fell for an alcoholic drug addict who couldn't sing a single note without making me want to hit the fast-forward button. At one point her character finds her husband in bed with another woman and she forgives him about five minutes later. There's nothing romantic about a deadbeat rock star and a woman who can't seem to realize it until he actually dies. Parts of the movie seemed to drag on and on, and I kept asking myself when it was going to end.<br /><br />The death of John Howard was completely predictable. There was totally obvious foreshadowing of his reckless behavior early on in the movie, and when he died I felt no emotion whatsoever. It wasn't a tragic accident, it was him basically being an idiot. Not to mention throughout the movie I was distracted by his hideous beard.<br /><br />The only parts of this movie worth seeing are the Streisand songs. The ending of the movie when she sings 'With One More Look At You/Watch Closely Now' was my reason for giving this film a whopping 3/10. Those 7 minutes were the only part of the movie I actually felt an emotion other than irritation and anger. | 1 |
Dominion tank police is an exercise in contradictive film making. The storyline across the 4 parts blends mindless action, slap-stick humor, touching humanity and thought provoking philosophical questions. It's hard to believe that there was only one director, as the style changes from episode to episode. A must-see movie for anyone who likes anime. | 0 |
If this movie was about a fictional character, the movie could stand on its own and be judged objectively. Unfortunately for the viewer, the movie is based on 'facts' that are shaded very unfairly toward Ruben Carter. Many of the smaller facts were disregarded (Carter was NOT number one contender at the time of the murders, there is no proof at all that he saved a friend from a child molester in his youth), but some of the larger facts, like apparently being robbed of a decision to Joey Giardello because of 'racist' judges, is inexcusable to those of us who have seen the fight on tape, and completely disrespectful to Giardello. Why Hollywood feels the need to make a hero out of someone who, at best, was in trouble and around trouble much more than any normal person should be (was arrested multiple times for beating women) is strange to me. Ruben Carter was never, by viewing his actions in the 60's and even now, when he refuses to speak to his son, a person that people can look up to. Everyone knows that Jewison can direct, and Washington can act, but why they chose this story as their vehicle is beyond me. Is Hollywood so much in need of a black hero that they need to bend the truth in all of their bio pics to make them believable? (Heres a suggestion How about Denzel playing a movie about himself? Now thats inspirational) Based on all of the inaccuracies in the movie, I would suggest passing on this one. | 1 |
Certain elements of this film are dated, of course. An all white male crew, for instance. And like most Pre-Star Wars Science Fiction, it tends to take too long admiring itself.<br /><br />But, still, no movie has ever capture the flavor of Golden Age Science Fiction as this one did, even down to the use of the 'electronic tonalities' to provide the musical score. Robbie the Robot epitomized the Asimov robots, and was the inspiration for all that followed, from C3PO to Data.<br /><br />The plot line, of course, is Shakespeare's 'The Tempest'. Morbius is Prospero, and exiled wizard who finds his kingdom invaded by interlopers... It was a movie that treated Science Fiction as an adult genre, perhaps the first. | 0 |
Don't get me wrong. I really love the 'arena-martial arts genre', and I get more and more surprised over how many films like this there are out there. This one is one of those, and it's not even close to be one of the best. With Mathias Hues in it, I thought it would be good. He can't save this movie though, and to be honest, he wasn't very good either. Just don't pay attention to what other people say; The fighting scenes in this movie are NOT good at all. I really know what I'm talking about, since I have seen so many movies like this. There are also a bunch of scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot whatsoever. I guess they added these only to make the movie last a little bit longer, in addition to manifest the bad guy as,uuuuuuh.......bad (like we didn't know that already). | 1 |
Its a truly awful movie with a laughable storyline.some awful acting.and a script that Ed Wood might be ashamed of.Wagner is laughable in this. He plays his role like number two in Austin Powers.Easily the worst of the Airport movies.1 out of 10 | 1 |
During my struggle to stay awake during this borefest, I fought through my near-dosing off to discover some silly plot regarding fraternity schmucks, quite incredibly obnoxiously annoying, running into trouble with a psychotic , radioactively damaged half-human/half cyborg named Splatter who sends his soldiers after them for the murder of their prestigious, politically vocal leader(..for whom Splatter killed himself, setting them up to take the blame so he could become the leader). These face-painted freaks form a group who express their feelings anarchically, though non-violently, living on dilapidated streets abandoned by the 'civilized world' voicing their concerns regarding nuclear disarmament. Anyways, most of the film has these five frat goons running throughout darkened streets with graffiti walls, as Splatter and his punks pursue them. Thankfully for these guys, they find a punk chic to assist them on their journey out of this rather ugly terrain with which they're unfamiliarized. This territory the frat guys are immersed is a veritable labyrinth of streets and alleys with the idea of an exit out most difficult particularly when crazies and Splatter's bunch occupy nearly every turn.<br /><br />Yeah, I was duped like others thanks to the HR Giger poster which is most excellent. If only he had been the designer of this dreck..this is not the case and we, the viewer, are left a film modeled after, of all movies it seems, Walter Hill's THE WARRIORS, except this film doesn't have the style or grit that film has. The film has a plethora of unfunny bits and lame confrontations between the frats and the punks with hand to hand combats often laughable. The setting is rather interesting, and there are some atmospheric uses of neon light, but it's not the environment that's the problem..it's the plot and characters within the environment that grow tiresome. The saddlebags under my eyes weighed heavier every minute this movie continued. Yes, Texas CHAINSAW stars Edwin Neal(..quite a funny voice-man, who has an entertaining interview on the DVD I rented for this flaming turd of a film)and Marilyn Burns have 'key' roles as opposing members of their faction against the government resulting in the final conclusion within a building complex at the end. Neal's character Splatter uses these metal spikes which emerge from his metal arm to kill his victims. | 1 |
Nice way to relax. I am packing my suitcase now so I can go and be with Caroline Munroe. Phony monsters and scenery make for 89 minutes of harmless fun. Something you can enjoy with your family and not be offended. | 0 |
Officially the first martial arts movie in USSR cinematography featuring actual martial artists like Tadeush Kas'yanov and Russian Bruce Lee - Talgat Nigmatullin. Bad people highjack a ship in the high seas but fortunately just about everybody on board is a trained martial artist. A collectible for martial arts aficionado. | 1 |
As I post this comment, IMDb currently rates Alfred Hitchcock's subpar Saboteur a 7.3/10. Personally, I rated it less than half that. Honestly, I can't tell how a movie this bad could've come from what is probably the most consistently good director I know of. I've seen about 10 other Hitch movies from the 30's-60's. Vertigo is thus far my hands down favorite while Saboteur is easily the worst. It's hard to believe that 7 years earlier Hitch used the very same formula in The 39 Steps far more competently. My recommendation would be to see that instead and avoid this like the plague. It's the only Hitchcock movie that I turned off before before the end and have no desire to go back and see the rest. If you must watch it, then rent or borrow. Don't make the mistake I did and buy the DVD on good faith earned through Notorious, Rebecca, Vertigo, Rear Window, etc. Even a master screws up sometimes, I guess.<br /><br />EDIT: Maybe I was a bit harder on this film than I should've been. It's certainly nowhere near Ed Wood or Manos or anything like that, but there's three reasons I feel I must rate it so low:<br /><br />1) The name 'Hitchcock' brings with it certain expectations of quality. This film delivers on a few of them, but they're way overshadowed by the darn near non-sensical plotting.<br /><br />2) I want to compensate a bit for all the 8+ ratings this film is getting. Hitchcock is like the John Coltrane of directors. True fans will find reasons to consider anything by him a work of art, but the high rating on IMDb gives more casual movie enthusiasts like myself the impression that this movie is far better than it actually is. <br /><br />3) I spent $18 on this. Maybe if it'd cost me $5 or even $10 I'd probably be a bit less bitter. ;) | 1 |
I don't know who could find fault with a simply human and funny film like this with lots of delights for your heart. I enjoyed each minute of it and guessed the ending half way through the movie -- but that did not disappoint me at all. It will not only touch your heart but it's such a good family friendly film--we need many more like these! | 0 |
After learning that her sister Susan is contemplating divorce, Kate decides to travel to the distraught woman's remote country home and spend some time with her. When Kate arrives, however, Susan is nowhere in sight. That's because someone has murdered her and stuffed the body in a trunk in the basement. As a storm rages outside, Kate tries to figure out where her sister could have gone and places her own life in great danger...the killer is still on the premises! In her first post-BEWITCHED vehicle, Elizabeth Montgomery gives a solid dramatic performance. Merwin Gerard's teleplay is based on a short story by McKnight Malmar. Malmar's tale was first brought to television in 1962 as an episode of Boris Karloff's THRILLER anthology series. THRILLER stuck very closely to the story, which is kind of a pity, for it could have used a little punching up. Granted Malmar wrote a moderately creepy number, but Gerard (creator of the ONE STEP BEYOND show) adds several clever ingredients that heighten the tension and suspense. | 0 |
It would seem we should acknowledge Scandinavian cinema for more than merely the Dogma 1995 movement as cooked up by the Danish all those years ago. Den Brysomme Mannen, or The Bothersome Man in English, is a surreal and deeply thought through film yet deeply entertaining and rich in content both on and under the surface. As a film alone, it is a scathing comedy on society and attitudes in the post-modern world we live in; a world that judging by The Bothersome Man has reached the regions of Norway and the like. But along with this black comedy feel to it, it would seem the film delves a little deeper and raises issues, at least to me, of metaphorical religious spaces and our human instinct to want to uncover the truth amongst so much material in our world that perhaps seems alien to us.<br /><br />This was, in truth, a fantastic introduction to contemporary Norwegian cinema for me. The film very much falls into that category of the European art cannon with its deep themes and ambiguity shrouded atmosphere whilst maintaining an open finale and not so much a narrative as a procession of events that may mean one thing or another. So many times we've seen films that use the set up The Bothersome Man adopts and so many times it's turned into a close to predictable routine revolving around a detective story or a chase story or something along those lines but this film allows its setting and situation to act as a mere backdrop for its protagonist, named Andreas (Fausa Aurvaag), to explore who he is; where he is and what the possible mysteries behind this location really are.<br /><br />The set up I'm talking about involves said hero arriving at a location with no prior memory or what happened before this. I'll jump right in and say it's in my opinion he's dead and has been sent to some sort of purgatory, as have all the city's inhabitants. Everybody in the city that Andreas mixes with are of the same age; same mentality and same attitude suggesting to me that most of them are victims of their own suicide and have been sent to a purgatory devoid of any emotion, feeling, colour or most importantly, pain. <br /><br />When we first see Andreas, he gets off a bus which he later discovers is uncanny in its abilities, and approaches a petrol station in the middle of rural nowhere. He is scruffy and has a huge beard but soon he will be the opposite, sporting a suit and tie; clean shaven face and a home of his own complete with new job in which the film makes one of the best transforming shifts between the rural and the urban that I've ever seen. But the new job as well as the new city is uneasy; you can take breaks whenever you like; bosses are unusually kind and there just seems to be no emotion or reaction to anything. These ideas are best put across in a cinema when Andreas, still a relative newbie to the city, is crying and is clearly affected by a film on show but everyone else watches in stone faced style. There is also the initial example when one man has jumped from a window and lies impaled on some spikes but everybody walks on by without fuss.<br /><br />To back up my idea on everyone already being dead and the city acting as a sort of purgatory, death and harm in general is impossible. There is a particularly nasty scene involving an electronic paper guillotine and someone's thumb, but everyone's reaction to the event is stone faced and it grows back within the hour. Similarly, a suicide attempt involving trains later on comes to nothing and instead we get the point of view regarding what it's like to be dragged down tube tracks with invulnerability on your side. The city acts as a barrier, a painless society in which the masochistic need to self-harm oneself is impossible; a place in which sexual relations can occur and break-ups equally so but both under emotion-less and passion-less circumstances; a place in which people can attempt suicide but it is impossible to actually die. The city adopts these powers because the damage has already been done in 'real life' and thus, the film says you cannot kill yourself twice, indeed you cannot feel pain or emotion in an afterlife of purgatory.<br /><br />But the film's best part is the one that sneaks up on you. Judging by the closing five minutes of the film and the side-story that opens up involving some music coming from another man's house, it would seem there is a fine line between the spaces the film dictates as 'heaven' and 'hell'. We get to see these spaces only very, very briefly so briefly that they consist of a single shot. The 'heaven' is a colourful kitchen with music and children playing: it offers life, hope, emotion and happiness whereas the hell is a snowy nowhere which haunts you thanks to its hopeless build up and eerie cut off point. The introduction of these two spaces at the very end of the film suddenly informs you of the reality Andreas and co. faced: purgatory and everything that came with it, the afterlife just was not ready for Andreas and his freethinking, adventurous mind and look where the thinkers end up. | 0 |
Absolutely unwatchable, lowest quality film making. This film makes 'Show Girls' look good. The acting is insufferable. The cinematography gives a bad name to amateurism. No wonder it went right to video and bypassed the theaters. This film wasn't released...it escaped. | 1 |
Bugsy Siegel was 31 when he went out to the West Coast. In addition to his dreams about Las Vegas, he toyed with the idea of acting. He was a good looking guy and about 7 years younger than his pal George Raft, so it wasn't such a crazy idea.<br /><br />Warren Beatty was 54 when he made this movie and despite the hair dye, he's too old for this part. Beatty was miscast; Bugsy should have been played by someone like Alec Baldwin. Bugsy was a tough guy feared by his contemporaries; Beatty just doesn't radiate menace.<br /><br />This was a vanity project for Beatty, who hasn't come to terms with the fact that he's no longer a leading man.<br /><br />The other big annoying miscast is Mantegna as George Raft. Raft had a distinctive voice and mannerisms, none of which Mantegna even attempts to match. You never once believe that Mantegna came from the streets.<br /><br />Warren Beatty and Robert Redford have both been pretending to be younger for years by massive use of hair dye, and now it;ll be a shock to suddenly go gray and play character parts. | 1 |
If anybody really wants to understand Hitler, read WWI history not WWII history. Find out what happened during that war, how soldiers had to live around dead corpses all the time. How so many soldiers went insane, from what they saw during WWI, at the time they called it 'shellshocked' now the call it post-traumatic stress disorder. If you learn the true horrors of WWI, you will begin to understand Hitler. You will understand how a human being can become desensitized to death, not because their evil but simply because it was the only way for them too cope with the horrors around them.<br /><br />This movie unfortunately misses that, as so many others do. Read some books on the subject and you should watch the movie 'paths of glory', the only good WWI movie ever made. You will see the frustration of the soldiers in that movie, the sense of helplessness, and a utter devaluation of human life, as nothing more than bullet catchers.<br /><br />Thats what this movie misses, its really the key point to understanding Germany. A lost war, where millions and millions of Germans lost their lives, for no real reason. Then comes an utter economic collapse, following the war. Those are the factors that create extremism.<br /><br />The loss of family members and massive poverty will create always lead to extremism. Unfortunately this movie ignored these factors, and has just become another throw away piece of crap to throw on the pile. With really no real value, there are fictional movie's based upon fictional characters that could give you a better idea of Hitler than this does. They just threw Hitlers name on this so it would sell more. | 1 |
This film had all the ingredients of a good adventure movie, but it revealed incompetence at almost every level.<br /><br />The presence of Roger Moore in the cast list is usually a sign that the movie is not going to be anything more than mediocre, because Moore always has lead roles and he can't act. But this movie also had Ian Holm and Lee Marvin in it, and was based on a Wilbur smith book, so I thought I'd give it a chance when I saw the DVD for sale in the bargain bin...<br /><br />It was a mistake. The opening scene appeared to start in the middle of a reel, with sound suddenly appearing as if the first second of the soundtrack had been truncated. The scene showed a dreadnought at sea with a German crew. This bad editing was a sign of things to come, but the scene with the dreadnought was interesting enough to keep me watching. The special effects were good, and the crew wore the proper uniforms and spoke in German, indicating that the director at least paid attention to historical detail. I was surprised. <br /><br />So I kept watching, and then Moore appeared and my supicions were confirmed. Bad acting, clichéd lines, clichéd cinematography and cheap humour...but worst of all, there is a disastrous attempt to blend the light-hearted feel of the film with serious drama and tragedy. It just does not work.<br /><br />The film ends as suddenly and as badly as it started in the middle of a reel. | 1 |
'The Golden Child' was Eddie Murphy's first film since his megahit 'Beverly Hills Cop'. And even though it's not as good as 'Cop', it's a fun comic adventure. Murphy stars as a finder of lost children who's assigned a most unusual case. His assignment: to find the title character, a child with mystical powers. This movie could have been titled 'Beverly Hills Cop and the Temple of Doom' since parts of this movie plays like a Spielbergian adventure, kinda like an Indiana Jones comedy. It's got comedy with laughs, and adventure with special effects. Lots of fun.<br /><br />*** (out of four) | 0 |
Towards the end of this thriller Ally Sheedy's gaunt latter-day image is used creatively to make up more than one hauntingly evil image. She convinces one that, if a nasty Bette Davis-type role were to come her way, she could carry it off brilliantly. Unfortunately, I can't find many other reasons for seeing this. If you've wondered what Sheedy looks like in a pair of old-fashioned glasses (but why should anyone?) then here's your answer. For the rest, Sally Kirkland's sex-starved crazy woman is really tiresome, and even if you like this sort of thing more than I do you'll have to admit that the tension sags badly during these scenes. Savage's drunken brute of an insurance agent is equally distasteful but at least it's a small role. Of the leading actors, Nicholas Walker inspires no sympathy at all for Paul Keller's plight and his acting is wooden. Dara Tomanovich is better and during her scenes with Sheedy the level rises a little. Sheedy's meticulous, understated performance (though she often seems to be on automatic pilot) is admirable in itself but out of context with the rest. The sets are drab, the camera-work undistinguished. | 1 |
This movie wasn't awful but it wasn't very good. I am a big fan Toni Collette I think she is a very beautiful and talented actress. The movie starts off about Robin Williams who is a writer and gets a book from a 14 year old kid. The book is great and he cant't believe a kid wrote it. Toni Collette plays the kids guardian who you don't know if this kid really exists or if she's making it all up. I am not gonna ruin the movie but I will say this the movie is not scary.<br /><br />The acting is pretty good and Toni Collette's performance was awesome as well as Robin Williams. <br /><br />The movie was a huge disappointment in my opinion I would wait for it to come to DVD. | 1 |
This Columbo episode is probably noted more for the director, Steven Spielberg, as one of his early films. It should be looked at for Jack Cassidy's role as the murderer who kills his partner in writing to maintain his lifestyle. Jack Cassidy would appear in a later Columbo. After all, Columbo meets his match in Jack Cassidy's character. He is a mystery writer who plots to perform the perfect murder. After his first murder, his next victim would be the annoying general store owner/widow who would blackmail him for money. Rather than losing more money, he kills her. It is very entertaining to watch Cassidy and Falk as always. Falk's familiarity as Columbo makes him watchable after viewing this episode repeatedly over the years. What television today forgets about the success of years is that people will want to watch the shows again and again if they like the characters. It's not about who does it, how and why, it the familiarness of Columbo and his likability which scores high with viewers like myself. | 0 |
I have just caught this Movie on TCM, and can understand why George Murphy went into Politics if this was the best MGM could serve up to him. It is so slow-moving that the attempt to make it a real film-noir effort does not come off. It featured two of my favourite<br /><br />players in Eve Arden (completely wasted) and Dean Stockwell(the best actor in the Film), but what really hit me was that the leading lady Frances Gifford went through some 90 minutes (it seemed longer!) without changing the expression on her face--her fainting scene was comical. John Hodiak played his role OK, but the script let him, and the rest of the cast, down very badly. I gave it 4 stars mainly because of the photography. It would have been on the first half of the Program when double features were the go. | 1 |
THE PERVERT'S GUIDE TO CINEMA (2007) **** <br /><br />If Loving Cinema Makes Me A Pervert, So Be It!<br /><br />If you are a true 'moviefreak' like me then I'm sure you can't get enough of films about film-making and I don't mean necessarily the dry documentary know and then. I mean a total discourse on the film viewing experience. Well if that's the case have I got a lulu of a film experiment for you.<br /><br />In Sophie Fiennes (sister of Ralph & Joseph if you were wondering) has noted philosopher cum cinephile Slavoj Zizek give his analysis on cinema with some impressive (and often outrageous) takes on everything from the silent era of Chaplin thru the modern age of the Wachowski Brothers analyzing, probing, and pontificating about the psychosexual underpinnings, socioeconomic, political and of course indefinable magic of the film going experience with his unflagging, determined and near-frenetic dissertations. To go from explaining how The Bates' house in PSYCHO is actually the mirrored psyche of the conflicted Norman Bates with each level as his Ego, Superego & Id is one thing but then to suggest the same thing about each Marx Brother in barely a beat is a remarkable test of faith that wins over the skeptic layman.<br /><br />Although I had no idea who Zizek was he resembles a hybrid of filmmaker Brian DePalma, European actor Rade Serbedzija and the hyperkinetic energy of filmmakers Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese with his sibilant tongue and passion, the host comes across as a mad prophet. <br /><br />Fiennes cleverly inserts Zizek into several of the film clips' backgrounds peppered throughout making for a humorous tone but still lets the ranting and raving continue full throttle giving pause for argument in three acts covering the gamut of films by the likes of Kubrick, Lynch, Hitchcock and films as diverse as THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE RED SHOES, and FIGHT CLUB. <br /><br />There's something for everyone and if one man can provoke an argument or at least a reason to discuss a film's themes even if they are Freudian/Jungian to a fault then I say this collection of film theory is worth the watch. Seek it out now if you can before it comes to home video; it's the only way to appreciate it. | 0 |
A ham actor without a penny. Who better than Michael Caine to play such a character? He is totally and utterly hilarious but, as in most of Caine's performances, he goes for it for real. The film seems to be a showcase of Dylan Moran and he's splendiferous in his double act with Caine. This, however, is where the script falters. Moran's impersonations should have been incorporated in a rather more organic way. They are too much of an act on their own and makes the potential plausibility of the plot fly out of the window. Never mind. Get it if you can find it. There is enough in it to make it a pleasurable journey. | 0 |
Tell the truth I’m a bit stun to see all these positive review by so many people, which is also the main reason why I actually decide to see this movie. And after having seen it, I was really a disappointed, and this comes from the guy that loves this genre of movie.<br /><br />I’m surprise at this movie all completely – it is like a kid’s movie with nudity for absolutely no reason and it all involve little children cursing and swearing. I’m not at all righteous but this has really gone too far in my account.<br /><br />Synopsis: The story about two guys got send to the big brother program for their reckless behavior. There they met up with one kids with boobs obsession and the other is a medieval freak.<br /><br />Just the name it self is not really connected with the story at all. They are not being a role model and or do anything but to serve their time for what they have done. The story is very predictable (though expected) and the humor is lame. And haven’t we already seen the same characters (play by Mc Lovin’) in so many other movies (like Sasquatch Gang?). I think I laugh thrice and almost fell a sleep.<br /><br />Well the casting was alright after all he is the one that produce the screenplay. And the acting is so-so as expected when you’re watching this type of movie. And the direction, what do one expect? This is the same guy who brought us Wet Hot American Summer, and that movie also sucks. But somehow he always managed to bring in some star to attract his horrendous movie.<br /><br />Anyway I felt not total riff off but a completely waste of time. Only the naked scenes seem to be the best part in the movie. Can’t really see any point why I should recommend this to anyone.<br /><br />Pros: Elizabeth Bank? Two topless scenes.<br /><br />Cons: Not funny, dreadful story, nudity and kids do not mix together.<br /><br />Rating: 3.5/10 (Grade: F) | 1 |
Eyes of the Werewolf (1999) is a really bad movie. The premise was real good but the overall execution was just terrible. I wished the filmmakers would have taken their time with this project instead of rushing it into production. Some blind dude gets some new eyes, bad thing is that they belong to a mean old werewolf. Nasty things begins to happen to the dude as he turns into a cheesy looking creature. Can he find a cure before his hot girlfriend finds out? Who is that weird little troll who helps him out and what's up with that female cop? If you really want to find out, check out Eyes of the Werewolf!<br /><br />Not a bad idea for a movie. I just wished the filmmakers would have spent a lot for time in pre-production before they decided to shoot the movie. | 1 |
I really enjoy this particular production of 'The Mikado.' The producers added a few touches throughout to make it more amusing for modern audiences -- for instance, 'As Some Day It May Happen' (the 'little list' song) is completely updated, and a few lines are ad-libbed throughout the play. Liberties were also taken with the setting. The costumes are not Japanese, but rather 1920s English (although some of the 'Tittipudlian' girls wear '20s-inspired kimonos). This production is well-choreographed with some 1920s dance styles, and there are some extra dancing maids and bellhops to keep your eyes (as well as ears) entertained during the songs. If you're a Gilbert & Sullivan purist these changes may bother you, but I think they're fine -- and I love the costumes! <br /><br />Felicity Palmer (Katisha) is absolutely hilarious; all of her scenes make me laugh out loud (one of my favorite add-ons is when she first makes an entrance -- the dancing bellhops annoy her with their antics, so she screeches at the top of her voice, 'STOP IT!!!'). All of the other main characters do a fine job as well. I particularly like Mark Richardson as Pish-Tush (that toupee!) and Lesley Garrett as Yum-Yum.<br /><br />You must keep in mind that this is a stage production being filmed and set your expectations accordingly. There is no change of setting, although the filmmakers used some 1930s film techniques to add interest. If there is one draw-back to this production, it is that the stage makeup wasn't modified for close-up shots with a camera. Foundation lines are often visible and there seems to be a surplus of eyeliner, lipstick, and blush everywhere. I've seen this sort of thing happen before with films of plays, and it's a little jarring at first. However, I hope you'll get used to it and enjoy 'The Mikado' for what it's worth -- a thoroughly enjoyable rendition of a classic! | 0 |
Excellent special effects make this disaster move very plausible. One can see that the producers went to some trouble to get the displays on the computer screens just right - it all makes it very convincing. The sets are also very authentic looking. A good choice of music rounds off the film nicely.<br /><br />Acting is good and the presence of David Suchet adds some weight to the cast of course. Compared to other movies of this genre, Flood is right up there with the best of them. Thankfully, the 'human drama' aspect has not been overdone, as is often the case with this type of movie. The human suffering is portrayed in perfect balance with the actual flooding scenes.<br /><br />And of course, the movie confirms what many of us suspect anyway: weather forecasters so often do not get it right! :) | 0 |
After traveling around the world, it dawned on me that Australia really lacks one thing that other countries have: history.<br /><br />Fortunately or unfortunately, Australia wasn't establish following a war, it has not had a civil war and most of its political history is rather..... boring! Nothing 'big' happened to mark some sort of turning point in Australia's history.... until the dismissal of the Whitlam government by the Governor-general of Australia - John Kerr.<br /><br />For those who are Australian, you can skip this paragraph and move onto the next. This is for the benefit of curious non-Australians! Australia was colonised by the British. As time went on, it became apparent that Australia was capable of standing on its own two feet. Accordingly, the UK granted Australia permission to establish its own parliaments, laws, courts and so on. The law and politics of Australia would no longer be provided directly from the British; rather, Australia would be run by Australians in their own right, even though the courts, precedents, parliament and so on is largely modeled on the British system. This shift was codified in the Australian Constitution. Despite the fact that the constitution lawfully establishes Australian governments, law-making procedures, courts (but for those who are curious - no bill of rights), their are two 'pro-crown' sections that were included and remain there to this day. These are more or less regarded as the 'reserve powers of the Crown (king/queen of Great Britain).' The first group of sections relates to the creation of the office of the Governor-general. Briefly, the governor-general is considered the Queen's chief representative in Australia and is described as the 'Executive' branch of the Australian Government. When a piece of law is passed by the Australian parliament, the constitution states that it only becomes law when it is signed by the Governor-general. As such, the Govenor-general is regarded by some as nothing more than a rubber stamper performing an archaic and unnecessary constitutional function on behalf of the Crown. Theoretically, the Governor-general can refuse to sign a law passed by Australian parliament if he thinks fit. For instance, if parliament passed a law which allows the police to shoot dead any Australian over the age of 50 (hypothetically of course) then the GG could refuse to sign it and it would not become the law of the land. However, this power is theoretical and has (to date) never been exercised. By 'convention' (which is the buzz word of the events leading to the dismissal), the Governor-general virtually acts at the behest of the Australian government and therefore, if the government passes law and the Prime Minister instructs the Governor-General to sign it, he will, almost always without question. In fact, by 'convention' the Governor-General acts in accordance with the advice provided to him by the Prime Minister of the day (and the Prime Minister alone). The second aspect is section 64 of the constitution which states that the government ministers hold office at the Governor-general's 'pleasure.' Now the events of 1975 - covered in this film - gave rise to a precedent on this particular section: if the governor-general is somehow 'displeased' with the government and/or Prime Minister, it would appear that this section allows him to lawfully sack the government (which happened in 1975... hence the title of the film 'the dismissal.') Whether 'at the Governor-General's pleasure' can be construed as 'the unfettered right to dismiss' is a contentious point though that led to rather heated exchanges amongst Australians at the time - especially considering that the governor-general is not elected by the people of Australia.<br /><br />Now that this background aspect is out of the way, let's get back to discussing the film. It was well made. The pace was patient, but didn't drag at all. The drama was well contained and very realistic. It didn't over-dramatise the events and most importantly, it did not present its point of view from one political perspective. On the contrary, I felt that it was fair and balanced, even though concluding text before the credits indicates that the film-makers probably didn't approve of the Governor-general's decision to dismiss the Whitlam government. But I wouldn't describe the film overall as bias in one direction or the other.<br /><br />In terms of accuracy, it was virtually spot on. The film-makers certainly did their homework and evidently read the books and writings from all the principle players concerned. There were a number of finer details that were somewhat skipped over, largely because they took a long time to explain and ultimately had little impact on the events of 1975, so I forgive them for that. Further, I think it was difficult to recreate the public sentiment of that post-Vietnam war era, but Noyce pretty much pulled it off.<br /><br />Finally, I was pleased that the film attempted to raise individual policies of both sides without becoming analytical, obsessive or judgmental over them. Moreover, any that we're raised, for example Connor's pipeline, had a great deal of relevance to the story. The film makers realised that their task was to tell the story of the events leading to the dismissal and not to present a political endorsement or opposition in relation to policies and viewpoints. This was smart because it meant that the film can't be accused of misrepresenting one side's policies.<br /><br />The dismissal is probably the most incredible piece of political history that has occurred in Australia in its short life. I am glad that it has been crystallized in celluloid. Essential viewing for any Australian. | 0 |
I remember this show as it became a regular viewing on a Saturday evening.<br /><br />Sabrina is a young girl who moves in with her aunts who as it turns out are witches and she is one to. So Sabrina must learn how to control hr powers and use them effectively. She also must deal with school a vicious rival named Libby, her ditsy best friend and boyfriend Harvey Kinkle...<br /><br />The show was funny and entertaining. It kept Saturday evenings entertaining for a 10 year old boy..and made him laugh out loud...And flirt with 'Libby'.... | 0 |
This is kind of a weird movie, given that Santa Claus lives on a cloud in outer space and fights against Satan and his minions...but it's still kinda fun.<br /><br />It has some genuine laughs...whether all of them were intentional is certainly debatable, though. This movie is not good, but I can say I really enjoyed watching it.<br /><br />I would recommend this movie over 'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians', 'Santa Claus' with Dudley Moore and John Lithgow, or 'The Santa Clause' with Tim Allen. | 1 |
Great 1980s Comic Strip comedy set in the South West of England. It is a tale of sex, drugs, cream teas and murder by the seaside. Adrian Edmondson, French and Saunders, Nigel Planer (hilarious in drag) and Robbie Coltrane play a part. Dennis (Edmondson) tries to impress girlfriend by boasting he is involved in a multi-million pounds drug deal. This leads to complications with hilarious results. I am trying to find out the original picture ratio for this film but it does not appear under 'Technical Aspects' of the IMDb site. I spotted the DVD in the shop and it appears to be in 1.33:1 (full screen) format. Was the film shot in this ratio or was it originally a widescreen film with a pan and scan DVD? It would be useful to know as I hate pan and scan films. So come on IMDb. Could you find out for us? | 0 |
This film is notable for three reasons.<br /><br />First, apparently capitalizing on the success of the two 'Superman' serials, this low budget feature was made and released to theaters, marking George Reeves' and Phyllis Coates' initial appearances as Clark Kent / Superman and Lois Lane. Part of the opening is re-used in the series. Outside the town of Silby, a six-mile deep oil well penetrates the 'hollow Earth' allowing the 'Mole-Men' to come to the surface. Forget about the other holes (those in the plot).<br /><br />Second, unlike most SF invasion films of the fifties, the hero plays a dominant (and controlling) force in preaching and enforcing tolerance and acceptance of difference against a raging mob of segregationist vigilantes. No 'mild mannered reporter' here! Clark Kent, knowledgeable and self-assertive, grabs control of the situation throughout ('I'll handle this!'), even assisting in a hospital gown in the removal of a bullet from a Mole-Man! As Superman, he is gentler than Clark towards the feisty Lois, but is also the voice of reason and tolerance as he rails against the vigilantes as 'Nazi storm troopers.' <br /><br />Third, you will notice that the transition from the Fleisher-like cartoon animated flying of Superman in the two serials to the 'live action' flying in the 'Adventures of Superman' had not yet been made. | 1 |
I actually like Asylum movies. I've made it a habit to see as many as possible. Even the rip-offs they've done have been cool like EXORCISM And WHEN A KILLER CALLS. This is just plain lame. I can't believe that the same people who made DEAD MEN WALKING and DRACULA'S CURSE actually made this movie too!!! It's not even laughably bad like JOLLY ROGER or ALIEN ABDUCTION (which, by the way are pretty bad). This is just BAD! I mean, I can appreciate and/or forgive bad acting or lame special effects in an Asylum movie, but this film takes itself way too seriously. I really hope that SNAKES ON A TRAIN is better. Now that's a movie I can't wait to see. | 1 |
As far as cinematography goes, this film was pretty good for the mid 50's. There were a few times that the lighting was way too hot but the shots were generally in frame and stayed in focus. The acting was above average for a low budget stinker but the direction was horrible. Several scenes were dragged out way too long in an attempt at suspense and the effects were non-existent. The attack by the skull in the pond should have been completely removed from the final cut and every attempt to bring life to the skull was obvious with stick pokes and strings. I also couldn't help but think the budget didn't allow them to furnish the house so they kept making references to the movers and that all the things in storage should be coming soon. Honestly...it would have been more entertaining if it were a worse movie. It wasn't bad enough to be a 'good-bad' movie but wasn't good enough to be 'good' either. Get the MST3K version...it's more fun. | 1 |
I really enjoyed watching this movie about the Delany sisters. I knew of them, but that was all. This movie opened my eyes to their bravado and courage. What a pair. What sacrifices they made to live life on their own terms. This is not only a movie for African Americans, but for all Americans. It is sort of a history lesson and a documentary rolled into one and combined with an entertaining movie biography. The acting was superior by all included and we really do get a glimpse of the hardships these two sisters went through for many years. Both sisters are quite different from each other. They came from a very loving and very strict family with high, maybe even impossible standards of perfection. It is sad to see how Sadie's father refused to allow his daughter to continue to see her boyfriend due to a possible misunderstanding. I thoroughly recommend this movie and I am glad I caught it on television the other day. | 0 |
Filmed by MGM on the same sets as the English version, but in German, Garbo's second portrayal of 'Anna Christie' benefited from practice and her apparent ease with German dialog. Garbo appears more relaxed and natural under Jacques Feyder's direction than under Clarence Brown's, and her silent movie mannerisms have all but disappeared, which made her transition to sound complete. The strength she brought to the character remains here, although it has been softened, and Garbo reveals more of Anna's vulnerability. The entire cast, with the exception of Garbo, is different from the previous version of the film, and Garbo benefits from not having to compete with Marie Dressler, who stole every scene she was in during the English-language version. In Feyder's film, Garbo holds the center of attention throughout, although the three supporting players, particularly the father, gave excellent performances.<br /><br />Feyder's direction was more assured than Clarence Brown's, and his use of the camera and editing techniques did not seem as constrained by the new sound process as did those of Brown. The film moves with more fluidity than the English language adaptation, and the static nature of the first film has been replaced with a flow that maintains viewer interest. Even William Daniels cinematography seems improved over his filming of the Brown version. He captured Garbo's luminescence and the atmospherics of the docks with style. Also, the screenplay adaptation for the European audience made Anna's profession quite clear from the start, and the explicitness clarifies for viewers who were unfamiliar with the play as to what was only implied in the Brown filming. However, the film was made before the Production Code was introduced, which made the censorship puzzling.<br /><br />Garbo's Oscar nomination for 'Anna Christie' was always somewhat mystifying, and I suspected that the nod was given more in recognition of her relatively smooth transition to sound films than for her performance. However, some of the Academy voters may have seen the German-language version of the film, and they realized, as will contemporary viewers, that her 'Anna Christie' under Feyder's direction was definitely Oscar worthy. | 0 |
*****Classic ****Excellent ***Good **Fair *Tragic<br /><br />Review:<br /><br />Oldboy is not for everyone. It's pervasive violence, its live octopus eating and it's unimaginary story.<br /><br />The film focuses around a man who's been kidnapped and is imprisoned for 15 years, Oh Dae-Su is released, only to find that he must find his captor in 5 days. Now the story though may seem gripping to start with but once watching this bloated and un-original blood fest it develops into a mash of bitter blood and a forceful film.<br /><br />It's directing is on par of average and by no means the standards of what a South Korean thriller should be. Oldboys acting scenes are paralleled with dull humour and a poorly writtern script.<br /><br />Oldboy is occasionlly presented with thin straw performances that one could only feel shameful about.<br /><br />Verdict:<br /><br />Not for everyone but it's scope and vision isn't clear enough to see further than the grey abyss of fog.<br /><br />*Tragic | 1 |
Revisiting old films that you thought were average isn't necessarily a good thing. They sometimes get worse. Championed by the Fangoria camp (in Gorezone they labeled it 'the scariest film since Texas CHAINSAW'
um, no), LUTHER THE GEEK inexplicably developed a cult following as an 'intense' horror picture. Actually, it is just an average stalk and slash
uh, bite film that briefly sets itself aside from the pack by featuring a killer who clucks like a chicken. Yes, clucks like a chicken. To the filmmaker's credit, at least they didn't make the killer sound like a duck a la THE NEW YORK RIPPER. That would just be silly.<br /><br />Narrative logic is completely abandoned in LUTHER THE GEEK. I'm not saying that slasher films are abound with reason, but at least in HALLOWEEN Michael Myers escaped. Luther is actually paroled after a lengthy scene where people argue he is reformed, even though he clucks like a chicken and has razor dentures (which he apparently fashioned in prison). It is the kind of film where a couple sees a bashed in door and the girl dismisses it by saying, 'Oh, my mom must have forgotten her keys. She forgets a lot of things since my dad died.' The kind of film where the hysterical mother runs into a cop looking for Luther and tells him, 'The killer is in my house!' So what does he do? He grabs her and literally drags her back to the house and says, 'Just show me where he is and I'll do the rest.' Why not call back up? <br /><br />It is too bad the film is filled with such horrible action and dialogue because the Luther character is actually pretty interesting. Most of the credit goes to Ed Terry, a dead ringer for Tom Noonan in MANHUNTER, who gives the clucking Luther a genuine air of menace. In the hands of a right director, LUTHER THE GEEK could be on the same level as SONNY BOY or SANTA SANGRE and be a true cinematic oddity. But Albright is not that director and merely places the fascinating character of Luther in tedious slasher trappings. | 1 |
I don't know how people can watch this - the only people who enjoy watching this are those who have no feelings and emotions and enjoy watching people die, houses burn down, car crashes, babies die, and cast members being killed off every week. Its the most absurd thing on television and i still don't know how it pulls in the ratings. Its so depressing. I can imagine the writers sitting down and saying - 'so who shall we kill of next week then' or 'whose house shall we torch in a months time?'<br /><br />Its the most depressing, absurd and most stupid thing on TV at the moment, and i cant understand peoples motives for watching this depressing pile of crap anymore | 1 |
A great performance by Clint Eastwood and particularly John Malkovich in my opinion his finest one to date. Malkovich had this one nailed right down to the floor it's incredible. Eastwood is Agent Mike Horrigan, an aged and cynical Secret Service Agent who is finishing out his career busting counterfeiters and chasing down routine assignments. But one assignment which appears to be run of the mill at first turns complicated and deadly serious. Horrigan and his new partner Al are sent to investigate a threat on the President by a 'wacko'. As fate would have it Horrigan has stumbled not upon a delusional nut but a professional lone wolf who has a big bone to pick with the White House. As Horrigan dives deeper into 'Booth's' world he attracts the bad guy's unwanted attention and unbridled admiration for him. Horrigan was JFK's top agent and present in Dallas, Texas when he was assassinated and blames himself for what happened. Now he feels it's up to him to stop the current Head of State from joining the list of dead Presidents. But this killer has turned the tables on Horrigan and now he's the hunted one in a life or death cat and mouse game. Who will win? Who will die? It's a race against time to save the Pres from a chameleon-like enemy who can get to anyone. My favorite Secret Service movie and as good a nail biter as any. | 0 |
I don't know who to blame, the timid writers or the clueless director. It seemed to be one of those movies where so much was paid to the stars (Angie, Charlie, Denise, Rosanna and Jon) that there wasn't enough left to really make a movie. This could have been very entertaining, but there was a veil of timidity, even cowardice, that hung over each scene. Since it got an R rating anyway why was the ubiquitous bubble bath scene shot with a 70-year-old woman and not Angie Harmon? Why does Sheen sleepwalk through potentially hot relationships WITH TWO OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND SEXY ACTRESSES in the world? If they were only looking for laughs why not cast Whoopi Goldberg and Judy Tenuta instead? This was so predictable I was surprised to find that the director wasn't a five year old. What a waste, not just for the viewers but for the actors as well. | 1 |
Considering the big name cast and lavish production I expected a lot more of this film. The acting for the most part is great, although the story they have to work with is mediocre at best. However the film still warrants watching because of the acting and the stars and some and up and coming young talent. | 0 |
I'm not even gonna waste time on this one; it's not funny, not scary, practically unwatchable and only occassionaly gory(the FX suck though(no pun intended)). This is a disclaimer; WATCH AT YOUR PERIL! Ask yourself 1 question; Are slugs scary? | 1 |
Only one thing could have redeemed this sketch. A healthy gunfight between the happy couple, the exotic model at the delicatessen, and the old-timer from the motel who was (it would have turned out) secretly watching from the woods and had been aging rent-boy to the guys when they'd shared the rubber house. <br /><br />In the process, they could have blown that freezing shack to smithereens, resolved most of the snags; such as the 'whore bitch' ode on the windscreen, the reason why the protagonist had 'no friends,' as well as explaining his coolness under pressure from bloody tampon, incessant phone calls . . . and that crawl-space chic, the green thumb, and his attraction to the simpler life. Quite the technician with the human body, though. Ex-abortionist? Morgue attendant? A bit of a heartbeat would have been nice.<br /><br />It was fun watching these people move around, I guess, but Eleanora's silly Italian games were suffocatingly stereotypical while the caretaker had been to too many yoga classes: a dick, a mind, and a pick-up truck about summed it up for him. I also wished they could have had a bit more luggage: Eleanora is ready to go after putting some black underwear into her nifty red suitcase and the caretaker just needs a cardboard carton there at the motel.<br /><br />Trifling matters, you may well say. I agree, although the niggling bits just didn't add up right in this rush job. Good owl-wrangling, though, and I really felt cold all the way through. | 1 |
This is a haunting short film. Both James Franco and Rachel Miner deliver performances that hurt, ring true and stay with you. Since this is called a tragic story this isn't much of a spoiler. But I wanted to change the outcome, even though it is right for the story, because I had already come to care about these people. I can only think of a few short films that have had that effect on me. Beautifully shot, acted, edited. High caliber work all around, even to the use of just the right sound and/or music to advance the story. The end credit song finished the job, wringing even more emotion from me. This is first rate from beginning to end. Kudos to the writer/director and all involved.<br /><br />This is my first review of a film in the comments section. I promised to do so in exchange for a copy of the DVD. The review could be good or bad, just my honest opinion. This is it and it's the least I can do. I am so glad I got to see it. | 0 |
Parker (Johnathan Schaech) is an aspiring writer who is still looking for his big break. In the meantime, he works as a telephone adviser for a Manhattan psychic hotline. One day, most unfortunately, his apartment building burns down. Parker and his cat make it out alive but are now stuck with the arduous task of finding affordable housing in the Big Apple. Word comes to Parker that a lady, Samantha (Alison Eastwood) is searching for a roommate but will only accept a gay male. Since Parker is straight but the price is right, he decides to pretend that he is gay. Samantha likes him from the start and welcomes him as her new cohabitant. But, poor Parker. Sam is lovely, intelligent and very desirable. How will he be able to keep his true nature under control? Besides, doesn't Sam have a successful businessman-boyfriend anyway? This is a sweet, likable, and humorous film with two very attractive stars in Eastwood and Schaech. Naturally, the plot is a string of 'how can I keep up this ruse' scenes, with Sam asking Parker for shampoo while she is showering or pleading with him to hold her in bed when she receives bad news. Also, it is necessary for Parker to produce his own 'fake' gay mate, Boris, when Sam insists upon fixing him up with a man she knows. Hopefully, the gay community will not find this too offensive, as this viewer thought most issues were treated with sensitivity and subtlety. For a small scale movie, the costumes, sets, and camera work were quite nice, also. Therefore, if you love those funny tales of love, get this one soon. You will like what you see, I know it. | 0 |
Pet Sematary is a very good horror film and believe it or not somebody can make a good horror film out of a Stephen King novel. Mary Lambert does a great job with this film and manages to bring across King's creepy story pretty well. Most people may avoid this, but they should check it out. | 0 |
OK, I just flipped channels and caught DW3. I watched it knowing it would be trash..BUT..as a person who has seen tons of films, this one stands up there as one of the most purely bad films I have ever seen...I'm not kidding. It is so bad you have to watch it, like a bad accident you can't turn away from. Sometimes these kinds of films work, IE, Troma movies...but watching Martin Balsam and Charles Bronson slum it up like this is painful....What's even funnier is I pulled up IMDb to see what other people said and it actually scores a 4.1/10??? I can't believe it made it past 1.5! Equally as funny is this is not even the pinnacle of this series...somehow this garbage warranted part 4 and 5? And to top it all off, some dude's comments on here referenced this as the best of the series and his favorite film of all time??? Statements like that scare me about this world! | 1 |
Slim Slam Slum is a sad and disappointing picture. There is absolutely no reason to this sorry excuse for a picture. Don`t go there, what ever you do, don`t. Watch TV-Shop for 10 hours straight instead. That way you will be slightly amused. | 1 |
Susie Q is an original and isn't like those other bad Disney film, ***spoiler*** a boy named Zach moves to a new town and has trouble at school, he is good basketball. a girl in the 1950's died with her boyfriend, when their car was crashed off a bridge. Susie (Amy Jo Johnson) from the power rangers - pink ranger- is helping Zach as a ghost to get a necklace along the way he must explain to his sister about her ghost, and finally getting this necklace, Susie returns to the bridge she died on and then she gets in the ghostly car of her boyfriend and they float up. later as he misses her he finds a girl who looks just like her. (do you believe in reincarnation?)Susie Q is a good movie to see now and then but they barely give because Disney needs to fill everything up with stupid movies and shows i give it a<br /><br />7/10 | 0 |
I thought Hedy Burress (who managed to escape from the watery grave of part one) was going to be in part 2 Guess not. I just think they should of killed her off like in Friday The 13th Part 2 (you know what I mean).<br /><br />This movie like Scream 3, and Urban Legend 2 followed movies within a movie.<br /><br />This was PURE CRAP! The whole Movie within a Movie crap.<br /><br />BAD STAY AWAY! | 1 |
Seldom is seen a film sequel that surpasses or even equalls the greatness of it's original predecessor. Such a film is VIrtual Encounters 2.<br /><br />It's about a couple guys in college who sell virtual sex to the entire campus. If you like seeing naked chicks, this one delivers. Six-foot tall Chrissy Styler is an amazing specimen and you will be dreaming about her for days if you ever have the good fortune to catch the unrated version. She wears just the right amount of body glitter in her multiple nude scenes and her giant cans appear to be real. ( = Giddyup!!<br /><br />W/the exception of James Cameron's 'Aliens,' Francis For Coppola's 'The Godfather Part II' and - of course - the Zuckers' 'Airplane 2,' this is the only sequel in movie history that takes a classic film and improves upon it. <br /><br />It's criminal the way this film was ignored by the academy. Nikki Fritz and that broad who gets tied up in the beginning (as well as the brunette who gets a rubdown towards the end) all deserved Best Supporting Actress nods. <br /><br />Shame on you, Hollywood!!! | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.