review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Spoken like a true hard-boiled u'an gangsta. The story is no worse than any number of gangster flicks, but never ever confuse this movie with The Godfather I or II, or Goodfellas. It is not in the same league.<br /><br />But what makes the film periodically painful to watch is all these Italian Americans swaggering around dropping bad gangsta lines in an even worse fake u'an accent. Pacino would have been great if they could just have dubbed him. I was looking forward to see Abrahams and Loggia, but their steenky accents spoiled the fun.<br /><br />Ah well, the script ain't too hot either. Don Corleone would have made this disappear five minutes after meeting him, smiling and patting him on the back all the while. | 1 |
This is a very odd movie for Harold Lloyd--at least in regard to the sweet character he played in movies throughout the 1920s and 30s. Instead of a nice guy, he and Snib Pollard are con men--out to rob everyone blind. In a particularly successful con, Chester pretends to have lost a 'very valuable ring' and a bit later, Harold finds it as a stooge is also looking for the ring. The ring, of course, is a cheap one dropped and then found by Harold, but the greed of the stooge is so great, he 'convinces' Harold to say nothing and sell him the 'valuable' ring and then they run away to enjoy their luck(?). Again and again they find patsies until they meet up with a woman who herself is a con woman (working with a guy doing fake séances). She arranges a nifty con and takes all the money they stole--and has a cop standing by to make sure they give her the money.<br /><br />As luck would have it, the two con men stumble into the lady's shady business when no one is home. Soon, the lady returns and messes with their minds--releasing a lot of dirty tricks to punish them for their wicked ways.<br /><br />All around, this is a completely odd and contrived film, but it is also exceedingly funny, as the jokes work very well and Lloyd and Pollard make an excellent team. Plus, while creepy and strange, I liked seeing Pollard dressed like a lady. | 0 |
Seeing this film for the first time twenty years after its release I don't quite get it. Why has this been such a huge hit in 1986? Its amateurishness drips from every scene. The jokes are lame and predictable. The sex scenes are exploitative and over the top (that is not to say that Miss Rudnik does not have nice boobs!). The singing is 'schrecklich'. The only genuinely funny scene is the big shoot out when the gangsters die break dancing, a trait that dates the movie firmly to the mid-eighties. It's really quite puzzling to me how incapable I am to grasp what evoked the enthusiasm of the cheering audiences in 1986 (and apparently still today, reading my fellow IMDBers comments). | 1 |
OK, If you're looking for another Bastketball Diaries, this is completely the wrong film.<br /><br />I revolves around two brothers. Max, the younger, has a major cocaine addiction. Adam, the eldest, is a doctor. This movie is suppose to show the plunge from reality to the extreme lows that drugs make possible. It however, does not. It shows that cocaine can be fun no matter what the situation happens to be present. Most of the movie focus is on Max and his parting ways. Eventually Adam, can no longer take the stress from his job and begins to use as well (perscription drugs).<br /><br />This movie has almost no climax. Doesn't descend into what cocaine really does to you, has boring and low-budget scenes, and the acting of the eldest brother, Adam, is horrific.<br /><br />I have no idea how this movie has managed to pass and receive awards, it is not a heart-wencher. If you want a clear and true story movie on the extreme world of drugs- rent, if not buy 'The Basketball Diaries'. And notice the difference.<br /><br />Try to avoid this movie but, if you think you will enjoy. Try and see for yourself... | 1 |
This was disappointing. It started well enough but as it went on and lost every opportunity to soar, it fell flat. Maria Schrader's acting is dreadful, never seeming to mean what she says, or even knowing what she says until she says it. She showed no genuine emotion at all, not for her beloved goy, or her mother's story. When with Lena she seemed to have little more than an academic interest in Lena's story. There never seemed to be a real relationship between Lena and her mother except her mother seemed to be having a good time at the wedding, which isn't much. The supposed parallel between Hannah's 'mixed' romance and her mother's relationship with her father was as cliché as they come, and failed miserably anyway. The wedding was completely unconvincing and a dumb finish. The climax of the protest was uninspiring, and no matter what Lena had or had not done to influence the outcome, she would surely have shown some complexity of feeling at the time, a haunted look, an inexplicable ambivalence. In fact, none of the characters in the film had any depth or spark. It was very hard to care about any of them, even little Ruth. Everything with Luis was a distraction. (Why did she dis him so when on the phone from the hotel? There was no context or explanation whatever for that.) If every reference to him was removed it wouldn't be noticed. <br /><br />A simple story made confusing by poor character development (who was whose mother, again??) weak acting, and directing that made everyone look like they were acting. You could almost hear 'quiet on the set!....' I started thinking this was worthy of a 7, but as the film went on it dropped rapidly to a 4, then earning a 3 after the silliness of the wedding scene. This was about as cold and sterile a movie as I have seen. A terrible waste of a good story. | 1 |
President Harry S. Truman once said that the only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.<br /><br />Seven years before Richard Rhodes' superb Pulitzer Prize-winning 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb', the BBC produced a seven-part miniseries, 'Oppenheimer', that was a character study of the people who designed and built the weapon that ushered in the Atomic Age, permanently joining science and technology to the state (and, in particular, the military), not merely making history, but changing the world forever.<br /><br />The production is impeccable, the casting nothing short of miraculous; not only the main characters, but even secondary characters bear uncanny resemblances to the persons portrayed. In particular are Sam Waterston in the title role of American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, who was based at the Los Alamos, NM, laboratory (the site for which he personally chose); Manning Redwood as General Leslie R. Groves, who oversaw the entire Manhattan Engineering District (the project's formal name); David Suchet as physicist, and ultimate nemesis of Oppenheimer, Edward Teller (who, nearly forty years later, whispered into Ronald Reagan's ear and brought us the Strategic Defense Initiative - 'Star Wars') and Jana Sheldon as Kitty Oppenheimer. The attention to detail is uniformly excellent throughout.<br /><br />Part thriller, part love story - and ultimately a tragedy, this series faithfully recreates a chapter in world history - and that of science - that we dare not forget. Highest recommendation.<br /><br />(NOTE: Viewers who enjoy this series will also enjoy Jacob Bronowski's 13-part series 'The Ascent of Man' and the BBC film of Michael Frayn's play 'Copenhagen'.) | 0 |
I saw the movie 'Hoot' and then I immediately decided to comment it. The truth is that NATURE needs protection from us because we are the dominant specie of this planet. Some people think that if they have money, they can do whatever they want to, which probably is like, but if they think about the future more then they think about themselves they would do something useful! This movie is not just about kids, this movie is showing us that the kids are usually the ones that care more about it then the adults do. When I was twelve, I saw some waterlilies and I knew they are protected by law and didn't even dare to touch them not fearing of the law, but fearing that I might harm them actually. (I am currently 15) What so ever, the acting was great, the 3 main characters are well interpreted and we all have to learn from them. I hope you all think about what you saw in that movie!!! and Enjoy! | 0 |
This is an awesome action film with great one liners from Arnie!. It's stylishly made, with lots of tense action to keep one satisfied. The Characters were awesome, and Richard Dawson, is very menacing as the main villain. Yes it has tons of plot holes,however it's highly highly entertaining, with a great ending as well. It had a great story, too it, and Arnie and Maria Conchita Alonso had great chemistry together. The Character development was also pretty good, with, some superb performances. The Directing is great!. Paul Michael Glaser, does a very good job here, with awesome use of colors, keeping it stylish throughout, awesome camera angles, and overall keeping the film at a very fast pace! good job. There is a little bit of gore. We get a few bloody gunshot wounds, exploding head, slit throat, bloody chainsaw slices, skinless corpses, blood, and an impaling. The Acting is great!. Arnold Schwarzenegger is AMAZING as always, he is excellent in the acting department , has tons of hilarious one liners, kicks that ass, and as always is a big physical presence!, and was tons of fun to watch! (Arnie Rules!). Maria Conchita Alonso, does well here, she was really cute, and had good chemistry with Arnie!. Yaphet Kotto, is decent here, with what he has to do, which is not much. Marvin J. McIntyre, is good as the geeky type guy, he was cool!. Richard Dawson is awesome as the main villain, and was very very menacing, and he was fun to watch. Jesse Ventura,Jim Brown,Erland van Lidth,Gus Rethwisch,and Professor Toru Tanaka, all do what they have to do very well as the stalkers. Overall a MUST see! ****1/2 out of 5 | 0 |
As an amateur historian of WW2/Nazi Germany, I couldn't wait for this to come out on DVD. I missed it when it was first on in 2003. I don't want to repeat what's already been said in the previous 8 pages of comments about the historical inaccuracies. A better job could've been done portraying the 'charming' Hitler. I also had a small problem with some of the casting choices, not so much for their acting, but for their appearances. Peter Stormare doesn't look much like Rohm, why didn't they make Babson as Hess wear a wig? And my biggest complaint..so much has always been made of Hitler's striking blue eyes, why didn't they make Carlyle wear blue contacts? On the plus side, I thought the actors who played Goring and Drexler looked pretty good. Again, as long as people watching this understand that this is supposed to be entertainment 1st, history 2nd I don't think a lot of harm will be done. | 0 |
If it would of had Jack Black listed as the leading actor I would of stayed away from this movie right away. It actually makes some of his movies look good compared to this movie.This movie should of been filmed as a cartoon for ages 3-8 and it would of been a lot better. It is nothing but a bunch of the stupidest skits from other movies put together to make one big mess.The movie looks like it was shot in about one day with no thought at all behind it. There's a few times where it looks like maybe there's gonna be a turning point and the movie well actually have plot to the movie or at least a storyline would develop but the stupid skits inserted just ruin the whole movie. | 1 |
To start with, I have to point out the fact that you're gonna feel completely lost for more than half an hour. Yeah, some things happen, but you don't know why or what for. When you finally figure things out you just realize that it's nothing but a twisted soad opera, dealing with mature prostitutes, dead mothers, illegitimate sons... The characters are rather poor and the actors (specially the young ones) don't help that much to make'em look credible. Only Marisa Paredes stands out, but she's a superb actress, no matter if the movie is pure rubbish.<br /><br />The only positive things to say about 'Frío Sol De Invierno' is that débutant Pablo Malo seems to have good intentions, and he's filmed a couple of scenes that are quite intense... Well, maybe the next time...<br /><br />*My rate: 4/10 | 1 |
The Midnight Hour AKA: Tell Me No Lies (as found in some video stores) can be judged in two different ways. One by it's Merritt as a movie, complete with a plot (no holes), good story and believable conclusion and the other is by the skin flick it is trying to be. This is certainly no more than a B-Movie skin flick, whose sole purpose is to show every girl in the movie in an overly long sex scene at least once.<br /><br />If you try to rate this as a regular movie, then this is bottom of the line drivel. HUGE plot holes ruin whatever storyline it has going for it. For instance, if a co-worker is killed, would you call the police or head home and hit the hot tub? Judging this movie by it's skin content, it's watchable... barely. The girls, for the most part, are all beautiful but quite obviously enhanced. The sex scenes were all long and overdone, though, and that made it's only redeeming quality a little boring.<br /><br />Amber Smith could probably be a decent actress if she wanted. She was not as horrible as you could imagine or maybe next to the rest of the cast, she seemed a lot better than she was.<br /><br />Zoe Anderson, who played Detective Arraya, should not even be watching a movie, much less acting in one. She looked good though, so we know why she was there.<br /><br />Overall, I would not really recommend this to anyone. Even if you're looking for a good skin flick, there are much better one's out there. I rate this 4 out of 10 | 1 |
I must admit that this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I thought Dennis Hopper had a little more taste than to appear in this kind of yeeeecchh. If this is supposed to be funny then I gotta look around for a new sense of humor. If you're thinking of buying this movie you'd better think again. | 1 |
The minute I started watching this I realised that I was watching a quality production so I was not surprised to find that the screenplay was written by Andrew Davis and was produced by Sue Birtwhistle both of these brought us the excellent 1995 production of Pride and Prejudice! So my only gripe here is that Emma did not run to 3 or 4 or maybe even six episodes like Pride and Prejudice. The acting was superb with I think Prunella scales excellent as Miss Bates but I loved Kate Beckinsale and Mark Strong just as much. The language is a delight to listen to, can you imagine in this day and age having a right go at someone without actually uttering a swear word? Samantha Morton was excellent as Miss Smith in fact the casting was spot on much as it was with Pride and Prejudice. I liked it so much that I watched it twice in two days!! So once again thank you BBC for another quality piece of television. I have seen the Paltrow version and it is okay but I do think the BBC version is far superior. An excellent production that I am very happy to own on DVD!!! | 0 |
Maybe it was the fact that I saw Spider-man the day before I saw Duces Wild, but I do not think that there can be any excuse for this movie being as bad as it was. The cast was there to do it, but it seemed as if once they found them selves with a decent cast they had to try and make them fit into the movie. The only problem was that they did not fit. I did not like any of the characters and the story was sketchy at best. I left wondering why i spent my money on this movie. | 1 |
This is a rip-off from Cellular. <br /><br />Bad casting... <br /><br />Bad direction... <br /><br />Bad Music...<br /><br />And the list goes on...<br /><br />well there was no direction since story, scenes and setting were lifted straight off of other movie. <br /><br />Even fight sequence is copied. One with the mace was from Kill Bill and another one with fire hose was from either a Jet Li's or Jackie Chan's movie (i am not able to recall the name of this movie)... <br /><br />Stay away from this cheap imitation and try to see the real thing... <br /><br />Cannot expected something original from any of the Bhatts any more!!! | 1 |
I liked this quite a bit but I have friends that hated this. There's no sex, but there's very little nudity in any of the episodes - which is a good thing. Also, Keitaro has a toilet fixation that's explored in at least half the episodes. (Toilets are way more advanced in Japan.) Hmm, I'm wondering why I rated this so high myself...? It certainly isn't that I like naked cartoon girls. In some ways, Keitaro Oe (the main character) is analogous to Johnny Bravo except instead of being an obnoxious, musclebound jock, Keitaro is a hyperactive nerd. Or you can think of him as Japan's answer to Leisure Suit Larry. He's easier to take if you watch it subtitled rather than dubbed, but he grows on you either way if you give him a chance. He IS the Goldenboy. <br /><br />The formula is the same for each episode. Boy meets girl, boy tries to win girl's heart despite being a dorky pervert, boy somehow succeeds against all odds. Typically, the girl doesn't realize she likes Keitaro until after he's beaten to a pulp and/or pulled off some spectacular stunt like engineering a modern operating system in one week or winning a race against a gasoline-powered motorcycle using his bicycle.<br /><br />Episode #1 features a rich software tycoon. I think animating her boobs put a major dent in the budget because she's the only female that has this kind of animation. She also dresses completely unprofessionally. Most people who rate this negatively probably never got past the first episode.<br /><br />Episode #2 has the rich, young daughter who likes to tease. She's only 16 but that's legal age in Japan (and in some states in the US, I might add). Her father is also a brutal yakuzza type that has a reputation for killing guys interested in his daughter. <br /><br />Girl #3 is the sweet innocent daughter of a noodle shop owner that's mixed up with a bad boyfriend. Aside from Keitaro running interference for the maiden and being kissed by a guy, there's almost no ecchi of any kind in this episode - a sharp drop from the previous two. Nevertheless, Keitaro and the evil boyfriend really pound each other.<br /><br />Episode #4 has Keitaro trying to impress a top-notch swimming coach. Keitaro seems more 'direct' about his intentions with this particular girl than any other... and she's pretty direct in return...<br /><br />Girl #5 is the biker babe. She's probably the most top-heavy of the 6 (although not super-buoyant like girl #1) and 'raciest' in terms of sexuality and vulgarity. This particular episode is easily the most over-the-top in terms of (lack of) realism. Keitaro should have broken every bone in his body at least twice during the race against the biker babe but I think the producers and writers said, 'It's just a cartoon! We can do anything!' This lapse in realism makes it a fan favorite.<br /><br />Finally, episode #6 introduces a new girl (that's works in animation) and the previous 5 girls help Keitaro as he tries to cope with impossible time and resource constraints to get an OAV out the door by the deadline. In terms of ecchi, this one's very tame as well, but there's plenty of humor. The ending has all 5 extremely pretty girls from the past team up to hunt Keitaro, who slips away unnoticed, ostensibly with the intention of gang-raping him. Yeah, that -ALMOST- happens in real life. Someone crossed Ukyo Tachibana (ala Samurai Shodown) with Steve Urkel(ala Family Matters)...<br /><br />All in all, there's no middle ground for this. You'll either hate it or love it. If you're new to anime, you probably don't want to start with this. At the same time, if you can stand characters like Happosai (from Ranma 1/2) or Johnny Bravo... or you like comedies that lean more heavily towards silliness but have very sexual overtones, you should give it a shot. | 0 |
Having worked in downtown Manhattan, and often ate my lunch during the Summer days in the park near City Hall, I would see the mayor come and go. It was great being able to go beyond the doors of City Hall and see what it looked like in the lobby and through out the entire building. Al Pacino,(Mayor John Pappas),'Gigli','03, gave an outstanding performance through out the entire picture, and especially when he gave a speech at an African American Church for a little boy who was slain. John Cusack,(Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun),'Runaway Jury','03, was a devoted servant to the Mayor and worshiped him in everything he attempted to accomplish. Bridget Fonda,(Marybeth Cogan), starts to fall in love with Kevin Calhoun and gives a great supporting role. Last, but not least, Danny Aiello(Frank Anselmo),'Off Key','01, played a mob boss who had some very difficult choices to make towards the end of the picture! Great film with great acting and fantastic photography in NYC! | 0 |
I cannot believe the same guy directed this crap and Dracula 2000. Dracula 2000 was innovative, fresh, and well written, if poorly acted.<br /><br />This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.<br /><br />Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).<br /><br />Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies. | 1 |
If you like the 80's rock, you should definitely see this movie! I've only seen it recently and completely fell in love with it!<br /><br />Overall, the movie is very entertaining, provides you with a great load of rock tunes and not a single second of the movie do I find boring! It was a great idea that some of the real-life musicians were in this, doing what they do best. I was happy to see Zakk, as well as Blas Elias, they all delivered solid performances. I tend to agree with a lot of people saying that the first half of the movie was much better than the second one, specially in the terms of the script.That could have been worked on a bit better, but not a major biggie. One thing that did bother me a bit was Jennifer Aniston's performance. I thought she wasn't the right person for this role,I just couldn't see her as a rock star girlfriend.But as the movie goes on, you somehow realize that she did a good job with this.There is a certain amount of honesty and sincerity she delivers that just doesn't live you cold. <br /><br />To summarize, a good and a funny movie, that doesn't go deep into characters but provides you with a good fun, a sense of nostalgia and of course the mighty vocals by Jeff Scott Soto and Mike Matijevic! | 0 |
The title comes from an alteration an adolescent inmate in a correctional facility makes on the front cover of his school book on government, titled 'The United States;' he adds 'of (his name).' <br /><br />Many characterizations in this movie work well -- the scenes between Leland (Ryan Gosling) and Becky (Jena Malone), Pearl (Don Cheadle) and father Fitzgerald (Spacey) as well as with Leland, Becky and sister Julie (Michelle Williams), among many others.<br /><br />But the central thread of this movie -- the fulcrum on which everything hangs -- is the character and motives of Leland. He's a somewhat shy, passive, nice high school student who daringly introduces himself to Becky whom (we find) is going to an alternative school because of a past history of drug problems. In Becky's family, she has a sister, Julie, who's just graduating from high school and preparing to go on to college; Julie's boy friend, Julie's age (and whose parents' had recently died) is also living with them. <br /><br />Leland lives with his mother; his father (Kevin Spacey) and mother have long been divorced and his father is a famous novelist. Leland is very perceptive. The young boy in 'The Sixth Sense' saw dead people; Leland sees teenage lovers and recognizes that years later they will divorce, that pain is going to follow many people's present experience of happiness. BUT, for reasons that are never made explicit, his prescient gift seems to operate some times, for some people, some relationships, and not for others. ???<br /><br />Parts of the movie feel a bit like a derivative quilt -- borrowing from 'American Beauty,' 'The Sixth Sense,' 'The Graduate,' and possibly some others I didn't recognize. That wouldn't be bad if only the character of Leland worked.<br /><br />I think Gosling did a great job of playing Leland but the script and the story imposed limitations. Would such an observant, meditative young man ever be homicidal? Even for altruistic reasons? Nothing in the film gives a reason for this. I'm a retired therapist with much experience working with families and teenagers; while many of the reactions shown in the film work -- this part, this most essential element certainly does not.<br /><br />And there is at least one other element which, in my experience, would not fit with real life although it's not as critical. The reason for the differences between the sisters, Becky and Julie, are never hinted at but that's okay. Once two sibs begin occupying different roles (one the all good girl, the other the troubled one), the roles themselves can begin driving each other to more extreme positions. For the troubled one, Becky, it's kind of, 'what do I have to do to be loved around here -- give up being me and become Julie?' And the pressure to live up to being the All-Good, parent-pleasing child, is no less intense on Julie. So, why would she break up with her boy friend of long-standing and of whom her parents so obviously approve?<br /><br />Don Cheadle was good as Leland's teacher; all others were good in their parts. 98% of the scenes were good. What was missing was that crucial slip in understanding human nature.<br /><br />Good acting; flawed story and psychology; worth seeing; not a total loss. | 0 |
This is the weepy that Beaches never was. As much as I wanted to love Beaches, it always seemed too hurried for me to 'feel' for it (its soundtrack is one of my favorite albums though). Stella, on the other hand, moves at a slower (and occasionally too slow) pace and though it's somewhat manipulative in its tears-inducing tale about a self-sacrificial mother, it works because Bette and the rest of the cast turn in great performances. 10/10 | 0 |
I just watched this movie in high definition on television. I am in a wheelchair due to a neuromuscular disorder and like to watch the few films made about those with physical disabilities.<br /><br />At first I found the main character somewhat noble and captivating. His message about the disabled and the life time he spent fighting to have the disabled recognized and integrated into mainstream society's job market is great. And my problem isn't with the real person who did these things. HE was a great man. But this film is completely hypocritical and diametrically opposed to the very message it is preaching, that I found it insulting.<br /><br />First of all, they didn't cast anyone in a title role with an actual physical disability. Sure they were competent actors, but it seems completely dis genuine to preach about hiring the disabled and then not actually HIRING THE DISABLED for anything in the film. Further compounded by the fact that in one scene mid way through the film a man is seen walking to a podium on crutches, appearing to have only one leg. But the CGI in this scene is so apparent it is shameful. What? They couldn't find an actual amputee anywhere for the film? For a 5 second shot it was more financially sound to do CGI effects than to just HIRE an ACTUAL amputee? At that point in the film I found it so fraudulent and completely against the message it was trying to convey that I came here to bitch and whine about it like the pathetic cripple I am.<br /><br />Figure that out. | 1 |
A group of friends receive word from a pal who has found gold in an old mind shaft nearby an ancient abandoned western town of Suttersville. Despite warnings by the local sheriff, Murphy(John Phillip Law), Old Man Prichard(Richard Lynch)a bedraggled hick who swindles tourists with supposed collectible Wanted posters, and kooky superstitious Aunt Nelly(Karen Black)to stay out of the mine due to it's notorious legend(..that an evil coal miner who sold his soul to devil and murdered a priest's(Jeff Conaway)daughter will return from the dead to kill those who remove the gold from his shaft), these people only see the green, not the blood red which could potentially ooze from their slain bodies. Finding the gold of Jeremiah Stone intact, they line their pockets and carrying cases, prepared for the bright futures that supposedly lie ahead. But, when you do not heed the warnings of those you consider backwoods loons, the obvious result will be gruesome death. Jeremiah Stone, as we see, is lying merely a skeleton near an alter containing skulls lined next to each other as the candles on top of them light up, the pickax underneath awaiting it's master, with dust particles returning him to a grotesque corpse with demonic exposition, his eyes aglow with wrath. This hapless group, hoping for some fun around the campfire with gold providing them with warm prospects for life ahead, will fall prey to the vengeful ghoul and his mean pickax. Another victim will meet the nasty end of a shovel thrown through the windshield of her vehicle, directing it's path straight into her neck. Another failed attempt to retreat has Stone causing a frightened victim to drive his car into a tree, his body engulfed in flames as he fails to escape without harm. Another, a local girl searching for her new friends, worried about their well being, receives the pickax buried into her stomach. Aunt Nelly informs those still alive about the Forty-Niner and the curse on those who raids his eternal stash..and pays the price for relating such information. Will anybody survive? Or, is the entire group fated to perish at the hands of the zombie miner?<br /><br />Make-up effects artist and monster creator, John Carl Buechler directs this supernatural slasher without worrying about logic or strong story-telling, opting instead to allow his zombie miner to destroy anyone and everyone who happens to be in his path. He provides just enough back story, and this is feeble at best, for the killer allowing special guest star, Karen Black(..oh how her career has sunken into the abyss)to explain to the viewer about him. The story given to us has the miner holding a priest's daughter hostage, threatening to execute her as the Suttersville authorities warn against such an action. Startling enough, Stone plants that pickax right into her back, with the opposition unloading their guns with little effect because he sold his soul to Satan. Retreating to his domain, the mine shaft, Stone sends out a warning against anyone even attempting to take what's his, the loot. Typical of most slashers in general, this bunch of twenty-somethings are your garden variety victims, with little development other than some banter and exchanging of words provides as filler until the undead maniac pops onto the scene to slaughter them. They are the usual group, from the city, trespassing unto unfamiliar territory, resurrecting an evil that should remain dormant. Like many of the later 80's slashers, a good deal of the violence is off-screen. What is on screen, the minimal gore, is rather mundanely presented and happens rather quickly. The ghoul make-up for the killer is only shown occasionally;he's mostly shrouded in darkness, the victims' horrified faces as he catches or chases after them are given more credence than the method of destruction. One thing's for certain, stunt men were set on fire many times. At least three times, a character is burned alive by either a lantern or flaming vehicle. Martin Cove has a minor cameo as Black's former husband, Caleb, now living with a much younger, and dense, honey. Vernon Wells(..of The Road Warrior and Commando fame)has the back story role of Jeremiah Stone as a human, still capturing the same type of menace he specializes in. John Phillip Law seems to be enjoying himself as the rather polite and hospitable sheriff, welcoming the outsiders to his neck of the woods. Buechler has quite an attractive cast of actresses, all wearing tight pants and smallish shirts, showing off their sleek and athletic figures, especially Elina Madison as easy-lay Roxann, always willing to remove her clothes for greedy jerk, Hayden(Rick Majeske). Stephen Wastell(The Ghosts of Edendale) is Axl, a rather clumsy foil, used as a butt of many jokes including his 'dump in the woods' scene and current unemployment status. | 1 |
Trilogies are very interesting. Some go out with a bang (Lord of the Rings), some get progressively weaker (The Matrix), some get lost in obscurity (Blade, Back to the Future), but some maintain the genius, that seemingly ever-growing bright light that floats beyond the surface of its flawless exterior. Case and point: 'Three Colors Trilogy'. This chapter in the trilogy, being the last one, is the most philosophical and thought-provoking. In 'Blue' we had a more visually stunning, more character-driven plot, in 'White' it was more of a light hearted, narrative-driven story where we listen more to what the characters say than anything. 'Red', however is focused on the 'what ifs' and 'how comes'. It questions our own fate and focuses mainly on the past and the future than the present.<br /><br />This chapter is about a young model who runs over a dog and brings him back to his owner. She soon finds out that the owner of the dog is actually a cynical retired judge who spies on his neighbors' phone calls through advanced spying equipment. All three films in the trilogies have very basic plot lines, but bring a lot more to the story. Consider in 'Blue', the story of a woman dealing with the loss of her loved ones. We are constantly shown ideas about the contemporary French society and how that reflects the character's behavior. 'Red' is not only about a young woman who finds shelter in an older man's life, but it is also about chance, hope, and fate.<br /><br />Irene Jacob stars as Valentine Dussaut, who at first finds the old man (Jean-Louis Trintignant), whom we never find the name of, extremely self-centered and disgusting. Though through self reflective analysis, and her voyeuristic intentions, she learns that the judge would be the perfect man for her, if only he was 40 years younger. Irene lives across from another, younger judge, who highly resembles the old man. This is the 'what if' that keeps circling in the movie. What if Irene were born 40 years ago? The old man would have been her perfect match. But what if the younger judge is actually her perfect match, since he so closely resembles the older one. Valentine doesn't know this, only we do, and Krzysztof Kieslowski subtly suggests this in almost every frame which Irene is in. We are constantly smacked in the face with his presence, as almost a suggestion of Irene's fate.<br /><br />I mention that the old man does not have a name for a reason. That reason is because it is very symbolic to the overall theme in the story. We are to compare the old judge to Auguste (Jean-Pierre Lorit), the younger judge, in more than one way. We learn that the old man once had someone he loved but she got away. In another scene, we see Auguste heartbroken as the love of his life gets away with another man. There are constant reminders of whether or not Valentine will ever meet this man. Even though they pass each other without noticing every single day. There is also the motif of the telephone, to Valentine it is a way of keeping sane and updating her life, to Auguste it is what leads to his heartbreak, and to the old man, it is the only thing he has left. These three elements serve to shadow the characters own psychology. It is a sort of statement about what they are and who they are.<br /><br />All three 'Colors' films stand for a certain principle, most common in France. 'Blue' stands for Liberty (the personal being), 'White' stands for Equality (being accepted by more than one), and 'Red' is Fraternity (to socialize, to learn). And although this final chapter is an obvious focus on the Fraternity principle, Kieslowski makes sure he brings in the other two as well, in order to connect all three stories. For example, we see the old man trying to reach out to Valentine and enlighten her with his spy equipment, which is a reflection of the Equality principle. We also see near the end that Valentine is doing some soul searching and that she's more concerned about herself than others (not picking up the phone when Michel calls), a clear example of Liberty. And with all three principles established, Kieslowski nicely connects all of the characters as well, in the final and most heartfelt scene.<br /><br />'Red' is about where you could have been if you were older or younger. It is about whether or not there is someone completely perfect for everyone, and whether or not one person can change your life. The final chapter in the most awe-inspiring trilogy ever made, this film breaks barriers in both directing and storytelling. It is not only about our modern life, but about where life could and should be in our modern time. And although the movie is more subtle than both 'Blue' and 'White', it boldly exclaims a statement of love and compassion.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine that 'Red' was Kieslowski's last film, and that he died at such a young age. Nevertheless, the trilogy will always be his masterpiece and we will always remember him for his work that ranks right up with Bergman, Fellini, and Wenders as a truly remarkable director who's never been awarded with an Oscar. Kieslowski, you have been missed! | 0 |
Two years after leaving the small town of Grover's Bend due to encountering the Krites, Brad Brown returns to spend time with his grandmother in time for Easter. Meanwhile the Krite eggs begin to hatch. As they cause trouble in the town, Brown & the townsfolk, as well as the alien bounty hunters who have returned to finish the creatures must fight the bloodthirsty furballs before they wipe out the town.<br /><br />The original Critters was a minor attempt to rip-off the family-horror flick 'Gremlins'. It became a cult favourite on the video shelves & was successful enough to warrant a sequel. This sequel plays down the horror & makes its entire focus comedy instead. Unfortunately the comedy part is extremely clumsy, as well as childish. The acting is on par with the rest of the film. It is just that the film suffers from a weak script. The visual effects are fairly well done.<br /><br />Grade: D+ Review by M. K. Geist. | 1 |
Stoic and laconic soldier Sergeant Todd (a fine and credible performance by the ever reliable Kurt Russell) gets dumped on a desolate remote planet after he's deemed obsolete by ruthless and arrogant Colonel Mekum (deliciously played to the slimy hilt by Jason Isaacs), who has Todd and his fellow soldiers replaced with a new advanced breed of genetically engineered combatants. Todd joins a peaceful ragtag community of self-reliant outcasts and has to defend this community when the new soldiers arrive for a field exercise. Director Paul W.S. Anderson, working from a smart and provocative script by David Webb Peoples, depicts a chilling vision of a bleak, cold and harsh possible near future while maintaining a snappy pace and a tough, gritty tone throughout. Moreover, Anderson handles moving moments of humanity well (Todd's struggle to get in touch with his previously repressed feelings is genuinely poignant) and stages the stirring action scenes with rip-roaring gusto. Russell gives a strong and impressive almost pantomime portrayal of Todd; he conveys a lot of emotion without saying much and instead does the majority of his acting through his body movements and facial expressions. Bang-up supporting turns by Jason Scott Lee as brutish rival soldier Caine 607, Connie Nielson as the compassionate Sandra, Sean Pertwee as the kindly Mace, Jared and Taylor Thorne as mute little boy Nathan, Gary Busey as crusty seasoned veteran Captain Church, Michael Chiklis as the jolly Johnny Pig, and Brenda Wehle as the sensible Mayor Hawkins. Better still, this film makes a profound and significant statement about the spiritual cost of being a merciless soldier and the importance of intellectual strength over physical might. David Tattersall's polished cinematography, Joel McNeely's rousing full-bore orchestral score, and the first-rate rate special effects all further enhance the overall sterling quality of this superior science fiction/action hybrid outing. | 0 |
The last film in Lucas' saga is a lavish, spectacular-looking production. It is often considered the ugly duckling of the original trilogy, but I think it is a notch above episode IV (and just a notch below episodes III and V). In fact, I think it is the third best film in the 6-part saga. As far as I'm concerned, it is still a grandiosely entertaining film. It is not a movie with a beginning, climax and ending; the film's mechanism operates with only one goal in its mind: bring closure to Lucas' universe. There is an air of finality attached to the whole thing, which makes the film a little too sentimental, but emotionally rewarding. Also, it is a lot of fun. New characters are introduced and old ones face new, unexpected challenges. C3PO and R2D2 provide (as usual) great comic relief. Leia and Solo are a wonderful romantic duo, and Luke is still a great character to identify with. Again, it is Luke's (and Vader's) inner conflict what gives the saga its backbone. Lucas' aggressive imagination is still very much apparent, and the film's themes of loyalty, hope, and redemption resonate strongly. I'm glad Lucas eventually dropped the idea of making episode VII, VIII and IX, because this film is a great bookend to a long, fascinating and captivating saga. Not a perfect movie, but fun in the best matinée style. | 0 |
Whenever people ask me to name the scariest movie I've ever seen, I invariably reply 'Black Noon' and to this day nobody's ever heard of it.<br /><br />I watched it alone some 30 years ago at the tender age of 13 when my parents had gone out for the evening. As far as I know its only ever been shown once in the UK and sadly is unavailable on DVD or VHS.<br /><br />If anyone can trace a copy please let me know.<br /><br />If I watched it again now it would probably be a big disappointment but it has always stuck in my memory as a particularly disturbing little film! | 0 |
This documentary traces the origins and life of the Zephyr skateboard team, using original film shot in the 1970s (mostly by Craig Stecyk) combined with interviews of the team members and other influential people today.<br /><br />The first part of the film documents how the 'Dogtown' section of Venice, CA came to be, starting back around the turn of the century when the town was created to be a Venice, Italy-like European city. By the 1970's, the one remaining local attraction, the Pacific Ocean Park, had been abandoned, leaving a beach with lots of exposed piers and other hazards. The poor kids living in the area had nothing better to do than surf, and they excelled despite (or perhaps because of) their surroundings. Because the waves dissipated in the afternoon, they took up skateboarding to fill their time, and the empty swimming pools caused by the drought during those years plus their surfing backgrounds led them to create the vertical skateboarding style that is mainstream today. <br /><br />I found that the film covered much more about surfing than I expected, which seemed like a bonus since I really didn't know much about surfing or skateboarding before I watched the film. The soundtrack, not surprisingly, was good as well. I also liked how these kids were just following their passion and generally ended up better off for the experience. The parts that didn't work so well for me were the drama that they tried to create, which seemed somewhat forced, and the team's somewhat overinflated sense of self-importance (although this is probably just left-over street attitude from where they grew up). This is not to say that they didn't have significant influence, but only that it seems extremely likely that there were other factors as well. <br /><br />One note: My wife is more affected than most to nausea when films use what we refer to as 'SpastiCam' (wiggling camera movements). This film is often guilty, so if you are so afflicted, be warned. <br /><br />I would recommend this film to anyone, but especially to anyone with skateboarding and/or surfing in their history.<br /><br />Seen on 5/11/2002. | 0 |
I thought this movie was very well put together. The voice-overs were also great. I liked how they all overcame their conflicts and reached their goals. I would recommend this movie to anyone. It was definitely worth the time and money to watch it. Atlantis has some comic scenes that made me laugh. Other scenes made me sad. And others made me glad. It is a movie any age can enjoy. From the moment Milo is the crazy 'profesor' or until he gathers the crew up for the fantastic voyage under the sea. After I watched the movie, I read the book. It was good as well, but the movie puts better pictures in your mind. It is just like the book. But go ahead and watch this movie! | 0 |
I was pleasantly surprised to find a very enjoyable film that kept my attention throughout. I am a horror fan and I see almost everything in that genre, but Dead Line managed to freak me out. The pace is very cleverly set and Andrés Bagg does a good performance as a desperate man. What is underneath the main plot? A trip to madness. How can you end up like that? Martin Sanders ask him self while he sees a homeless speaking to him self, alone in the street. Close to the end of the film, the character of Aaron Mandel asks the same question while he sees another homeless doing the same thing; not knowing, yet, that this homeless is Martin Sanders, answering the question of the beginning of the film. The broken eyeglasses in two are a clear symbol of rupture and division... of personality. The ending is jaw dropping and you just know that a sequel would have to be made. | 0 |
Always fancied this film from the video cover. Eventually got round to buying it for a fiver in a sale and boy what a film. A simply stunning performance from all of the case and it's filmed so beautifully. Even at times from a distance so you can barely hear what the dialogue is, as if you really are that distance away picking up bits of the tale. It's really moving, frequently amusing and very watchable. Not much dialogue but is filmed in such a way that you feel so much throuout. A 9/10 from me. A must see. | 0 |
Recognizing the picture of the diner on the cover of the DVD made me realize that this was a local movie. The word Detroit in the title furthered my suspecions and I did some looking up of things and yes, a local movie it was.<br /><br />So I picked it up. Someone I knew actually knew some of the producers/director (dont remember which) and said the producers/directors got people to PAY to be in this movie.<br /><br />Brilliant! What a great idea. The movie makers get some capital to do the movie with, thanks to their cast and crew. Then the investors (cast, crew, others) get some of the profits, I'm imagining.<br /><br />Profits!<br /><br />Um anyways. This film totally underwhelmed me. The special effects were special as in special children who ride the small buses to school. The acting was very amusing, not intentionally however. There's a great line where a guy says 'well? this bone aint gonna smoke itself!' as a pickup line. Unfortunately that is the only fun part of the whole film. The story? Well, I sort of followed it about 3/5 of the way in, then everything stopped making sense and as we were sitting there watching it, it suddenly ended. I mean as in,..no resolution of anything..like they ran out of time. 'Sorry folks, out of time, goodnight!'<br /><br />We sat there baffled and booing, and threw in another film. Then about 20 minutes later a neighbor of mine showed up..with one of the guys from the movie! We threw it back in and he (the actor) gave us a running commentary, which was awesome because he totally ripped on the movie!<br /><br />What more could you ask for??<br /><br />The most absurd scene for me was a motorbike chase scene were it was so dark that it could have literally been a guy running past with a flashlight and not a motorbike at all. That and the jaw droppingly in your face sudden ending is enough to make you howl. In pain! The zombies looked less like zombies than my coworkers do. And I dont work at the morgue either.<br /><br />So, I recommend seeing this if you can get someone from the movie to come over and give you a running commentary as to all the things that went on behind the scenes and make sure this person hates the movie because that just adds to the fun.<br /><br />Otherwise, give this one a pass. Rent something like Feeders if you want a jaw droppingly bad in a funny way movie... | 1 |
I agree that this film achieved its goals perfectly. I saw it on Showtime late at night as a teenager, and again in college. I thought it was funny. And there are boobs everywhere! It seems like in the late 70s and 80s there were loads of this type of film made, from R-rated films like 'Porkys' to soft-core 'Au Pair Girls'; it's a shame they seem to have fallen by the wayside in terms of popularity. The thing that made HOTS great was that, like the previous two films, it's a hell of a lot of fun. HOTS is like a girl-power version of 'Animal House', with the girls forming a sorority of sorts and engaging in campus bedlam. On a side note, whoever designed the 'Hooters' girls outfits must certainly have seen this film. | 0 |
Shame is rather unique as a war film (or rather quite the anti-war film) in that it not only doesn't focus on the soldiers or politics involved (there is politics but not how you'd think it'd be shown), it deals with its two main subjects as the only two beings that can possibly be cared about at all in this brutal, decaying society they inhabit. Ingmar Bergman, in the midst of his prime, and following two other heavily psychological films, Persona and Hour of the Wolf, is far more interested in seeing what the effect of war has on usually civilized beings, that it brings out the worst in them, and also in a cathartic way is a reminder of what is truly crucial in living. His two key actors are frequent collaborators and friends Max von Sydow and Liv Ullman (as the Rosenbergs oddly enough), who are musicians living on a farm on an island (not too dissimilar from 'Wolf' when one thinks about it).<br /><br />They see the tanks roll by, and a couple of old friends already getting worn down, but they try not to put it too much to heart; there's a sweet scene where the couple just talk, rather frankly but with heart (all one shot, as is repeated through the film is to perhaps create a sense of being provoked)...Then comes the trouble, including a fake film of propaganda made at gunpoint with the Rosenbergs, the psychological turmoil in being prisoners of war, and the terror involved with a 'friend' in the military (one of Gunnar Bjornstrand's most subtle works with Bergman). Needless to say this is not one of the easier films to go through in terms of Bergman's filmography, however for some it may be one of his more accessible works. His religious themes this time is kept very low key, even as the idea of keeping a sort of faith pervades the film's atmosphere. When there is war action it's shot in unconventional, quick ways (via great amigo Sven Nykvist).<br /><br />And the deconstruction of the relationship between Jan and Eva is corresponded successfully with the backdrop of a chaotic kind of war-ground where the lines are never too surely drawn. In a way this film, shot right at the height of the worst times in Vietnam, is even more relevant for today; I couldn't help but see chilling, uncompromising coincidences between Iraq and elsewhere with some of Jan and Eva's scenes with the fighters, or those 'in charge'. The very last scene, by the way, is one of Bergman's very best, all around (acting, directing, lighting). It's not the kind of war picture (or, again, anti-war, I find little of the John Wayne spirit in this Svensk production) that I would recommend right off the bat to my friends all into Saving Private Ryan- it has a little more in kinship with Paths of Glory, looking at the effects of the hypocrisy of war. But in reality, like any of Bergman's 'genre' films, it stands alone, however one that packs a wallop for the art-house crowd. | 0 |
I still find it difficult to comprehend that a movie as bad as this could be made in Hollywood. The acting and story is simply pathetic & the direction is awful. I don't see any logic behind this trash except may be that the director had nothing good to do. I took me ten minutes to realize that i had wasted my precious thirty rupees. It filled me with dismay that i was going to waste some more time of my life on this crap. I bet the movie was made in less than a day. I don't know what category it falls into. Please, avoid this movie at all costs, just do anything, even bang your head against walls but don't go for this movie. | 1 |
I was looking forward to this flick. Being an old Robert E Howard fan, mainly from a Conan stand-point. <br /><br />I was not expecting a great deal and thought they could not mess it up too much.... Oh dear - how wrong was I....<br /><br />The main flaw was it was fairly dull. It needed to zip along with a nice helping of supernatural goings-on, sword-fights and the like.<br /><br />You got some gore, but everything else was just pretty life-less. The middle section just seemed to involve 40 minutes in a muddy forest with slow plodding horse-drawn carts and even slower dialogue and character development!<br /><br />On the plus side = Costumes and effects were fine, but not enough to keep your interest.<br /><br />I think it would have been better to tone down the gore, up the tempo, and go for a 12A rating. As a Ten Year old boy, I may have liked this movie. Probably about the age I was first reading the Conan stories funny enough. Perhaps that says a lot about my anticipation of the film?<br /><br />Or....... Go really 'Art-House' with tone, direction, etc. But that's fairly high-risk as far as Box Office is concerned.<br /><br />Oh well.... Perhaps the next Conan movie will make up for it? | 1 |
I doubt if the real story of the development of Western Union would ever have gained a real audience. Instead of talking about the building of the telegraph system out west, it was the story of board rooms, dominated by one of the most interesting (and disliked) of the great 'Robber Barons': Jay Gould. Gould picked up the struggling company and turned it into a communication giant - and part of his attempt at a national railway system to rival Vanderbilt's. But this, while interesting, is not as exciting as the story of the laying of the telegraph lines themselves. At least, that is how audiences would see it. Jay Gould died in 1892. Had he lived into the modern era, and invested in Hollywood, he probably would have agreed to that assessment too.<br /><br />The film deals with how the laying of the telegraph system is endangered by Indians, spurred on by one Jack Slade (Barton MacLane). Slade, a desperado, is not happy with the development of a communication system that will certainly put a crimp in his abilities to evade the police in the territories. He is confronted by the man in charge of the laying of the telegraph wires, Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger), Creighton's associate Richard Blake (Robert Young), and a quasi-lawman Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott), who is Slade's brother. Blake, an Easterner with little understanding of the West, is romancing Creighton's sister Sue (Virginia Gilmore), but finds it hard to get used to his new surroundings. But he does become a close friend of Shaw, especially in trying to confront Slade.<br /><br />Slade was a real Western criminal, by the way, and the subject of a section of Mark Twain's ROUGHING IT. He was hanged in the 1870s. But he did not have any involvement in stirring up Indians against railroads or telegraph companies. However, MacLane makes him a memorably evil, and totally vicious type. His killing of one of the major characters is done suddenly and from behind - and he views the corpse as though he has just got rid of an annoyance. But Lang is responsible for that, as well as other touches. Look at the sequence with Chill Wills, where he is on a telegraph pole repairing it. He spits tobacco juice several times while talking to Young, who gets a little splattered. Then there is an Indian attack which we watch from the ground level. At the conclusion, Young suddenly gets splattered again, but it's not brown but red that covers him. He looks up at the pole's top, and there is Wills with an Indian arrow through him.<br /><br />It is an exciting film to watch, and well worth catching. | 0 |
In a quiet town a couple of girls witness the murder of one of their friends to a strange young boy named Milo, who lives on the other side of town. After the murder, his body is found in a river and his pronounced dead. So sixteen years later a weddings draws the girls back to their childhood town and Claire a school teacher becomes obsessed that Milo hasn't died as she has recurring visions of him and her friends are dying one by one and no one believes her when she claims Milo is apart of it. So now, she sets off to find out the horrifying truth.<br /><br />When I came across this film, I was pretty sceptical about it, especially when it had 'From the creators of Anaconda' on the front cover, but reading the odd little plot outline on the back of the video case, it sounded alright and rather refreshing for a change. Well, guess what? I thought it was a good idea at the time, but it was a totally different story when it came to watching the film. It just seemed to try to hard to be smart and very psychological based, but that latter element didn't come off that well for me and it was basically a prolonged and mostly unconvincing thriller. Hey, I'll admit it had its moments, but hardly enough to make it neither effectively chilling, or memorable. But, a bravo to the filmmakers, at least the story isn't a rehash of those slasher imitators that followed 'Scream' and shock horror, there's no self-referential humour evident
actually there isn't even a HINT of humour. Although, maybe it was too serious? Especially, since the plot is rather absurd, but that's not its main problem. What a disjointed plot we get, I didn't know about to much that was going on, as it seems to skim a lot stuff in favour for some supposedly shocking and disturbing sequences. No! More like irrelevant scenes and yawn inducing clichés that we see from time to time. Also you can see some influences from some 'good' 70's horror films, one being 'Don't Look Now'. This when our main character keeps on seeing the figure of her past in a slicker. The other would have to be one of my favourites 'Alice, Sweet Alice' with the person causing the trouble wearing a yellow slicker and committing grisly deaths. Interesting idea but it comes across quite shallow and too many faults pop up. I liked it more when the scenes dealt with the character's childhood, as the performances and circumstances had something creepy about it, but when it leans into their adulthood its tired and uneventful for most part and the performances weren't awful, but incredibly mundane and hardly involving is a good way of putting it. Most of the dialogue had me groaning in disbelief at how contrived and awkward it was. You'll be yelling 'no duh!' at the screen, because you just can't believe what you're hearing. The police detective gets the brunt of it! <br /><br />Quality wise - the film isn't bad, actually it's better then your usual straight to video I would say. Very slick stuff. With some inventive and prominent camera angles and a faint score that works reasonably well. Another factor that stood out and was a key to building on the moody atmosphere was the creeping sound effects and that bicycle bell does leave a ringing sensation in your ears. The setting of a quiet elementary school was well done and rest of the action takes place in a house. But, just don't be expecting any real suspense or surprises as the execution of these are non-existent. The deaths aren't pleasant and they're mildly bloody and it's more the aftermath to what happens to these bodies, which tries to disturb you. The villain in this piece, the mean-spirited child Milo Jeeder was mildly unnerving, well that voice and yellow slicker does make an imprint to begin with, but it does seem to lose its effect when we come to the films conclusion. The cheesy tag lines on the video compare him to (move over) Jason, (watch out) Freddy and (this isn't child's play) Chucky, but you got to be kidding me! Right? He's labelled 'The New face of evil', yeah sure. All he needs is to be taught some manners and problem solved. Overall, the film just left me with a sour taste, as I've could've gone without seeing it. I probably wished I did.<br /><br />Just don't expect too much in this blur of a film. Or, even better just skip it, as you won't be missing out on much, really. | 1 |
This is only related to the first movie by the name. The plot has nothing to do with the first and the whole movie stinks!!! I have no idea what they were thinking but this movie is so bad. Avoid this at all costs, the first movie in the series is acceptable as a slasher flick and so is the fourth but this one and the 3rd are rubbish!! | 1 |
The Dekalog 5 may be considered a violent accusation against the death sentence, according to the fifth commandment 'Thou shalt not kill': not by chance it puts the concept of a State fully complied with the provisions of an unjust law on the same plane as the figure of a Murderer. 'But the law might not imitate the nature, it might correct it,' states Piotr, the counsel for the defense, a real catalyst character, 'the punishment is a form of vengeance aiming at returning evil for evil without preventing the crime. But in the name of whom the law takes its revenge? Really in the name of the innocent ones?'. The horrifying and detailed sequences of the last half hour of a man sentenced to death give value to the uselessness of the deterrent function applied to the death penalty with the purpose of intimidating all potential criminals. 'Desperate plights don't demand desperate remedies', Kieslowski says in his message, teaching us how unrighteous can be the act of disobedience to a commandment of God that judges punishment the same way as crime is judged. There are three different moral attitudes here: the innate sense of rebellion of the MURDERER aiming at rousing the hostile torpor of the surrounding environment; the strong sense of chronic indifference of the VICTIM inclined to laugh at other people's requirements; the deserving behavior of the COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE always ready to fight against adversity, in favor of human life. The struggle for life is ruthlessly vivisected all of the time; the characters are plunged into scenes of affliction and distress, in an urban landscape accented with greenish tones and seen in its own reflections through the windshield of a taxi. Everything in 'Dekalog 5' conveys a dreadful sense of estrangement and isolation: descriptions of a waste undergrowth of violence and folly, scenes of precarious conditions of work, sinister appearances of buildings immersed in an anonymous aura of desolation, aimless wanderings through disenchanting environments. Jazek, the main character, is compelled to struggle with an opponent stronger than himself: a town completely wrapped in profound indifference, apparently hostile, deaf to all his mute calls for help, while a faded photo of a little girl in a first communion dress goes on gnawing his soul. He's irremediably directing his steps towards a disconnected route to damnation seen through the deformations of the 18 mm. wide angle camera lens aiming at distorting every details, altering the reality, making it fade out in remote and alien echoes. Kieslowski doesn't bring extenuating circumstances seasoned with honey-tongued tones of melodrama in favor of the defendant, differently from some Hollywood stereotypes like 'I want to live' (by Robert Wise). He doesn't slip on the banana peel of useless pathetic scenes to extenuate Jazek's guilt and to mitigate the brutality of the crime, not interested at all in proximate psychological motivations to justify any display of extreme or violent behaviors and refusing to include any useless judicial proceedings. In other words, in Kieslowsky's opinion 'a crime is always a crime': according to the principle of 'par condicio' he puts the prosecutor on the same plane as the condemned man, using many signs or symbols to represent a society seen in the most sinister light. And we can't remain indifferent: even if we don't agree with him, Jazek's screams of anguish touch our hearts with pity in the same manner that Terri Schiavo's entreating eyes do. | 0 |
One of the perks of my job is that when things are slow, I can watch the movie in our downstairs theater (I work in a little 2-screen theater) in the cry room and still keep an eye on the concession stand. I have seen Italian Job probably 20 times, and I'm still not tired of it. The atmosphere reminds me of Ocean's Eleven, although the acting isn't as good. Mark Wahlberg is ok, Charlize Theron appeals to the guys, but Seth Green is AWESOME in this movie. I thought Edward Norton did a very good job playing a dirtbag, although a lot of people disagree. I also enjoyed Mos Def as the explosives expert that's afraid of dogs. I highly recommend this movie, and will continue to watch it whenever I can! | 0 |
My Age: 13<br /><br />James Cole, played by Steven Seagal, is sent to help Detective Jim Campbell, played by Keenen Ivory Wayans, solve a series of killings in which the victims are crucified. Since Cole has arrived on the spot, he notices that the killings have changed a little, and thinks there is a different killer. It becomes personal when his ex-wife is murdered, and Campbell finds his fingerprints on the body. Campbell investigates the mysterious Cole, and finds out about a very shady past.<br /><br />I am not a fan of Steven Seagal. I enjoy action movies, but he is the worst actor I have ever seen. This film is not much fun to watch at all, incredibly dumb, and, obviously, Steven Seagal's acting performance is absolutely horrid. Keenen Ivory Wayans isn't too bad, though. The only redeeming thing in this film is the occasional good action scene, although most come round because of insanely stupid reasons. The plot in this film is absolute gibberish. I didn't care for it at all. The whole 'glimmer man' past of Seagal's character was stupid, all the Mafia fights and fights in the restaurant were there for almost no reason. Give this film a miss.<br /><br />Australian Classification: MA 15+: High Level Violence<br /><br />Rating: 35 out of 100 (quite generous) | 1 |
A middle aged man, Robert Jordan, set in his ways, takes on a boy scout troop after his predecessor leaves under duress. Jordan takes on the pack mostly to learn what the boys like so he can revive his flagging radio program which is losing it's appeal to the younger set. He has a rough go at first with the boys, especially so with Mike, an 8 year old who forms an attachment for the older man which is anything but reciprocated. Do things work out for Jordan and the scouts? Check out this entertaining and amusing film from the old days. | 0 |
'Fever Pitch' is a sweet and charming addition to the small genre of sports romances as date movies or movies a son could be willing to go to with his mother (though the guys in the audience got noticeably restless during the romantic scenes).<br /><br />I have lived through a milder version of such a story, as my first exposure to baseball was dating my husband the spring after the Mets first World Series win and then I watched the Mets clinch their next one because I was the one still up in the wee hours with our two little sons, who have grown up to teach me more about baseball through our local neighborhood National League team's other heartbreaking failures to win it again (and it was me who took our older son to his only Fenway Park game as I caught a bit of Red Sox fever as a graduate student in Boston).<br /><br />So compared to reality, the script believably creates two people with actual jobs. It is particularly impressive that Drew Barrymore's character is a substantive workaholic who has anti-Barbie skills, though she pretty much only visits with her three bland girlfriends during gym workouts that allow for much jiggling and the minor side stories with her parents don't completely work.<br /><br />It is even set up credibly how she meets Jimmy Fallon's math teacher and how she falls for his 'winter guy' -- though it's surprising that his Red Sox paraphernalia filled apartment didn't tip her off to his Jekyll-and-Hyde 'summer guy.' Their relationship crisis during the baseball season is also played out in a refreshingly grown-up way, from efforts at compromise to her frank challenges to him, centered around that they are both facing thirty and single. Fallon surprisingly rises to his character's gradual emotional maturity.<br /><br />While the ending borrows heavily from O. Henry, the script writers did a yeoman job of quickly incorporating the Sox's incredible 2004 season into a revised story line (with lots of cooperation from the Red Sox organization for filming at the stadium).<br /><br />The script goes out of its way to explain why Fallon doesn't have a Boston accent, as an immigrant from New Jersey, but that doesn't explain why his motley friends don't. The most authentic sounding Boston sounds come from most of his 'summer family' of other season ticket holders, who kindly kibitz the basics of Sox lore to neophyte Barrymore (and any such audience members).<br /><br />The song selection includes many Red Sox fans' favorites, from the opening notes of the classic 'Dirty Water,' though most are held to be heard over the closing credits as if you are listening to local radio and are worth sitting through to hear. | 0 |
As a father of four in his forties I thought this film made compelling viewing - if not edge-of-the-seat stuff. I deserves a far higher rating than the 4.3 that it had when I wrote this. (I gave it 7.)<br /><br />I agree with some of the comments about the characters but Cameron Diaz was, again, sparkling in yet another very different role. The plot was a little silly but the point of the film for me was beautifully summed up in the final, quite surreal, sequence. A moving ending for any parent.<br /><br />I could imagine that a young, single bloke might find the film quite boring but for other people not fixed on high doses of testosterone would find something sweet in this. | 0 |
Overall I would have to say that I liked the movie. Some of the fight scenes are really good. Especially the fight against Leung Ka-Yan. One point that really bothered me was the fact that they used an Asian to play a black man. I mean really. Talk about bad taste. During a fight scene, you see one of the fighters on the floor is laughing. Otherwise, Sammo copies Bruce Lee's fighting moves perfectly. 5 out of 10 Stars. | 0 |
By many accounts, Stu Ungar was not a very nice guy. He spat on dealers, stiffed people he owed money to, and was verbally abusive. <br /><br />Many filmmakers might choose to sugarcoat the man, making him into some sports hero that would triumph despite adversity. But High Roller doesn't do that. And that's a tough row to hoe.<br /><br />Instead, we have to look VERY closely to see a man that never matured passed the frightened little boy from the streets of New York, despite all his successes. And the only real approval he ever gets is from death himself. Very brave (because people won't get it) and very touching (when you do).<br /><br />What is also brave is the use of a Scorsese feel. 'Aha! How derivative,' people will say. Really? But there's virtually no violence. And Stuey LOVED gangster movies. Maybe the feel reflects the man Stu and not the director Marty? And if it really is a low budget film and looks that good, bravo!<br /><br />Finally, the linear flashback structure. Wow, will that get hammered. Yet, not only does it work, it works exceptionally well, even for those who don't see the connection to the 'Seventh Seal.' (PROOF: In SS, Knight plays game of chess with death: In HR, Stuey says 'We can play a hand of cards for, ya know'... Death says 'Never much good at cards..' Damn great last line.)<br /><br />No tricky effects or camera moves. No shaky camera. Nothing trendy at all. Just solid, tight storytelling.<br /><br />Maybe that makes the movie too basic and somehow flawed. But then again, so was the guy. And that makes it just about right.<br /><br />9/10 | 0 |
I love this film. It is well written and acted and has good cinematography. The story blends action, humor, mysticism, and tenderness with great sets and beautiful location shots. See it, buy it, show it to your friends.<br /><br />The acting is good and Murphy especially does a fine job portraying the reluctant/unlikely hero. I enjoyed all the characters and found them to be interesting and well developed with dynamic interactions.<br /><br />I cared what happened to these people and, while the outcome was pretty predictable (the good guys win, the hero gets the astonishingly attractive girl and the holy child saves lives--who doesn't see that coming?), it still made me happy when everything worked out well in the end. Thank God this film's dignity was never ruined with a crappy sequel. Grab some popcorn, cuddle up on the couch, and watch this fun, happy and entertaining film. | 0 |
The cover of the VHS says it all: 'Without doubt, the most powerful movie of its kind since the Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. I'm a huge fan of 70's and 80's slashers and I have to say, I agree 100 %. The characters are believable, the actors have an excellent charm (especially George Kennedy as the forest-ranger). There's the twisted atmosphere, that only TCM has, an astounding soundtrack to reflect the emotions and the filming locations that are the most beautiful in the history of horror. This has to be one of the most beautifully shot horror films of all time! Jeff Lieberman as a director of this 1981 low budget film does and excellent job and with his other works (Blue Sunshine, Wrong Turn) added, he must be one of the most underrated directors in the filmindustry today. | 0 |
If you are looking for a definitive biography of the life of boxer James Corbett, then this is probably not the film for you. The famed boxer receives a 1940s 'Hollywood-ization' of his life--making the story far more entertaining and engaging than real life. However, because the performances were so good (particularly by Errol Flynn) and the script so likable, the film's embellishments can be forgiven.<br /><br />Errol Flynn plays Gay Nineties-era boxer James 'Gentleman Jim' Corbett--a man who became world boxing champ in 1892. The film goes from his rather humble beginnings and follows his through his career through him winning the title match against John L. Sullivan. However, while it could have focused mostly on the matches, most are rather brief in the film (except for the final title match) and the emphasis is on Corbett's brash personality as well as his relationship with the lady played by Alexis Smith. Throughout the film, there is excellent supporting work done by a cast of wonderful supporting actors (such as the perennial supporting actor in Flynn films, Alan Hale) and the writing really helped bring these people alive.<br /><br />What is particularly nice about the film is seeing the athleticism of Flynn as a boxer. While a few of the shots are of doubles, almost all the boxing scenes are of Flynn and he did a convincing job as a pugilist. This was a nice departure for Flynn, who generally played 'pretty boy' roles or swashbucklers and this shows just how tough a character he was. To find out more about this, try reading a biography of him--he was quite the rough and tumble character before coming to Hollywood.<br /><br />Now as for the REAL James Corbett, read on if you aren't afraid of finding out how the movie isn't accurate. First, Corbett was NOT a poor guy coming from a poor family, but was college educated and bright. Second, while he DID get Alexis Smith at the end of the film, they also divorced a few years later. Third, the wonderfully touching final scene of the film between Sullivan and Corbett was probably the best part of the film, Sullivan was a jerk and this never could have happened--in reality, Sullivan was more the egomaniac and Corbett was not the fat-headed guy they portrayed in the film--though it made for a lovely film. | 0 |
One of my sisters friends lent me this game, and it is too damn hard! It carries the appearance of a kids game, but you have to learn how to do tons of intricate moves that require you to twist and turn your hands into all sorts of awkward positions, and you have to search seemingly endless levels for 100 notes, to improve your 'score'! You also have to find these impossibly hidden jigsaw puzzle pieces, that require you to do almost impossible tasks to get them! AND I AM ONLY UP TO STAGE THREE!!!!! Maybe if you have no life nad can stay home all the time you might get some enjoyment out of this, but otherwise keep away! AND IT IS DEFINATELY NOT RECOMMENDED FOR KIDS - THEY WILL PULL THEIR HAIR OUT WITHIN THE HOUR! | 1 |
The script was VERY weak w/o enough character arcs to make you care one bit about the characters or what happens to them. The script is way too talky and not enough gore or action to even call it slow paced. The story gets to the point that you just want everyone to shut up and die as quickly as possible so you don't have to listen to them talk this very muted, stiff dialogue. On a technical note, the music mix is way to high and makes it hard to understand what is being said most times. Then again, this could be called a blessing. Overall, this same story could have better been told in a short film w/ a running time under 30 minutes. The obvious 'in your face' homages to Sam Raimi and 'Evil Dead' would have been good had they been more subtle, but here they seem more like a bald faced rip off. C'mon, this kind of 35mm budget and THIS is the best that could be done? Still, the cinematography, lighting design and shots were very well done indeed. | 1 |
What more can be said? I have not been this fascinated with a young actress since Cate Blanchett burst upon the scene over ten years ago. And although both Blanchett and Blunt have played Queens now( seems to be the benchmark for up and coming actresses), the roles are complete polar opposites.<br /><br />Simply put if you are looking for high passion, compelling drama, and Machiavellian intrigue, this is not the movie for you. This isn't to say that the script or direction was bad, its just that the subject of the film did not lead too dramatic a life when compared to other notable royals like Elizabeth I, Anne Boylen, Henry VIII, Henry V, Henry II and Elainor of Acquitane. These are people whose lives were the stuff such as good soap operas are made of and whose policies and decisions altered the course of British ,and in most cases, world history. Victoria, in contrast, ascended the throne without incident, she quasi-governed a nation that was fast becoming a global power due to industrialization and the rise of the Navy, her State had a stable government led by competent and dynamic politicians, and she married young had a harmonious family life. The facts of her life are not the Sturm und Drag such as powerful dramas are made of.<br /><br />The heart of the film, aside from the attempt to dramatize her stultifying upbringing and the machinations surrounding her throne, is the story of the one thing that was truly shocking and surprising about her reign- a love story. Marriage made for financial or political reasons is with reason not necessarily the place to look for world shaking passion, yet Victoria will always be remembered in history as being sort of a Patron Saint marital fidelity, happiness and ideal family life. Thus, central to the film is the budding love of Victoria and her Prince Albert. I was very taken with Rupert Friend's characterization of Albert whom he portrayed as a kind, patient, somewhat earnest and maybe a touch naive young man, looking to' do good in the world and help'. In short, he is a good man with a good heart, not the most dynamic figure to base a drama around, but as that is not the point of the story, that does not matter. The heart of the character shines through thanks to Friend's understated yet earnest performance. <br /><br />As for the Queen, well..Emily Blunt is sublime. Her beauty cannot be denied, but she is more than something pretty to look at; her face is like quicksilver because of her expressiveness. The slightest arch of the eyebrow, glance of the eye or slight wry smile delivers so much. Again, this is not a bombastic performance of heavy speeches and impassioned pleas, its not that kind of movie. But what Ms. Blunt does do with the role is show the simple humanity of the character with potent subtlety. <br /><br />For example, we see the joie de vivre that has been kept in check by Victoria's mother ( Miranda Richardson) and her scheming adviser/lover Conroy expressed in the simple things like Victoria trying to sketch her dog. We see her delight and fascination upon first meeting Albert by her eyes being continually drawn to him. We see her nervous and overwhelmed when addressing Parliament upon her Ascension. And my favorite scene of all in the film- we see her nervous, happy, and hopeful as she steels herself to do what really most women never have to do in their life- ask the man she loves to marry her, a proposition so ridiculous for those times( and some would say now) that Victoria bursts out in nervous laughter before she can even say 'marry me'. Again, this is not a movie for over the top larger than life expressions, but more a study in the subtleties of a character and making the little things say so much.<br /><br />So, overall, I judge the film by what it is and what it tried to do and as such I give it a 7. I felt that some of the politics could be better explained and that some very fine actors were wasted with little do and little character development, namely Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, and the characters of Conroy and Lord Peal. Again, the film need not have spent a large amount of time on those characters, but a little more exposition would have helped to explain the political environment. Also I would have loved to have seen more of the adjustment to married life between Victoria and Albert, but that may be just my greed for more scenes between Friend and Blunt. <br /><br />In summary, don't view this film in terms of a historical drama but for what it really is, a love story between two characters that happen to be historical figures. I give this film a solid 7 for wonderful lead performances, brilliant costumes and scenery and the magnificent Victoria of Emily Blunt. And anyone who has any shred of romance left in them, you will be touched by the end of this movie. God save the Queen. | 0 |
First of all, I saw this movie when I was 7 years old at a Christian Scholl I attended. Needless to say that I was scared out of mind. Not because it was scary but because the content.Cmon...I was 7. Anyway, the cinematography was pretty bad and the acting was cheesy. That's very bad considering that I was only 7 and I remember that. The one thing that still haunts me is that dreadful song 'I wish we all were ready' where the chorus ends with '...you were left behind'. I wouldn't suggest seeing this one. I probably will, just for nostalgic reason. Besides, I'm sure the remake is much better. The best part of this movie though, has to be when everyone 'dissapears'; vacant cars crashing, lawnmowers running on their own...pretty hilarious. | 1 |
I should live this film, but I don't. It won international awards, it is foreign (I usually like such films) it is slow moving (again something I like) and it has no gratuitous sex or violence. the problem is that it is boring. We have two friends from the same village in Turkey one 'successful' the other not. the unsuccessful one comes to Istanbul to stay with the successful in an attempt to get a good job at sea. Both live lives that are unfulfilling, pointless and petty.<br /><br />Well, it isn't the first time this kind of film has been made. I didn't see anything new being added to this tired theme. There are long takes that are just someone standing and looking at the sea or sitting in a coffee shop or watching TV. I do understand that this kind of thing is there to show the emptiness of their loves, While it does do that I got the idea in the first 15 min. I don't need to be beaten over the head with it for the rest of the two hours.<br /><br />The symbolism is also a bit heavy handed. the plate of live minnow type fish with one off the plate and flopping around in its death throws. Symbols are best when they are not obvious but are there, in the background, creating a mood just slightly below the viewer's awareness.<br /><br />The film is so apathetic, that it doesn't even rate a score of 1, so I gave it a 2. To rate a 1 takes a talent at being bad. This film didn't have that much energy. | 1 |
Sunday would not be Sunday without an action movie, and when you want intense combat, you turn to Tom Berenger (Platoon).<br /><br />Here he plays a sniper in the jungle going after rebels and drug lords. Life's a bitch, so he gets a green office type (Billy Zane) to help on the mission.<br /><br />The film is in the hands of Luis Llosa, who stunk up Anaconda. he doesn't do much better here, but Berenger makes the movie worthwhile.<br /><br />Sure, it may be a little long - who wants to see a lot of walking through the jungle, but is is good, tense action when the time is right. | 0 |
Oddball black-comedy romance featuring a great cast and a less than stellar script. Brenda Blethyn ('Lovely & Amazing') is the title character 'Betty', a woman trapped in a loveless marriage with a man who is obviously having an affair with his beautiful, blonde secretary. Guess who's playing this minor role, yup! Naomi Watts ('Mulholland Drive') must of sandwiched this project in before her superstar status was insured with the blockbuster thriller 'The Ring.'<br /><br />On the male side of the cast list there's the woefully miscast Alfred Molina ('Frida') an old-fashioned undertaker who suddenly decides to reveal his desires for 'Betty' which have lain dormant for decades. Perhaps Miramax is hoping Molina's turn in the upcoming 'Spider-Man 2' might generate some interest in this little trinket which belongs on the DVD rental shelf.<br /><br />But the award for wildest thankless performance goes to Christopher Walken ('Catch Me if You Can') who goes completely over the top as 'modern' undertaker with his Vegas-style funerals in a small provincial town. His character must have parachuted into the village because there's little reason for him to exist in this script.<br /><br />That said, if you'd like to see some top-notch actors engage in some low-brow humor then this one's for you, and if this isn't your cup-of-tea then try renting 'Harold and Maude,' the ultimate funeral movie that's still funny to this day. | 1 |
Like 'Singin' in the Rain', 'Cover Girl' has a trio of two guys and a girl. In 'Cover Girl', Phil Silvers (Genius) is the comic relief. He corresponds to Donald O'Connor's funny man part in 'Singin in the Rain'. In Cover Girl, Gene Kelly's love interest is Rita Hayworth and in 'Rain', it's Debbie Reynolds. That's where the comparison ends.<br /><br />Whereas 'Singin' in the Rain' is a classic American movie musical, 'Cover Girl' is mediocrity incarnate. The story isn't very complicated. Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth) is a dancer in Danny MacGuire's low-rent nightclub in Brooklyn. Rusty decides to enter a Cover Girl contest sponsored by a wealthy publisher, John Coudair, who made an unsuccessful play for Rusty's grandmother years ago. Coudair introduces Rusty to Broadway producer Noel Wheaton who makes her into a star. Danny feels slighted when Rusty starts showing up late for rehearsals at the nightclub and decides to close the club down and go on the road entertaining the troops along with his sidekick, Genius. At the last minute, with Rusty at the altar with Noel, she realizes the error of her ways and runs back to Danny. They live happily ever after.<br /><br />Gene Kelly has the least developed part in the movie. All we find out about him is that he owns a nightclub and is madly in love with Rusty. Coudair and Wheaton act like besotted teenagers toward Rusty and Phil Silvers delivers some thoroughly goofy but unfunny shtick. The most interesting aspect of Rita Hayworth's performance is the scene in which she gets drunk. This foreshadows what happened to her in real life. Anyone who has read her biography will learn that she disliked Hollywood, pined away for a normal home life which she could never attain but eventually began drinking and ended up with full-blown Alzheimer's during the last years of her life.<br /><br />Almost all of the songs in Cover Girl are old-fashioned and not very tuneful. Gene Kelly has only one really excellent dance number and that's the scene where he dances with his 'alter ego'. Earlier, the trio has another number which is a pale precursor of 'Make em Laugh' from 'Singin' in the Rain'.<br /><br />The most annoying thing about 'Cover Girl' is the way in which Rita Hayworth is put up on a pedestal. A couple of decades later, Raquel Welch had the same problem. Both actresses later in their careers would always try and find scripts that showcased their acting abilities. They wanted to be known as 'actresses' and not 'pinup girls'. Unfortunately, 'Cover Girl' is an example of how Hollywood used to exploit women for financial gain. | 1 |
When I first heard that this movie was going to be made, I was very excited to see it. The ideas to make a movie of this caliber, as good as it was, must have been very difficult. I wasn't really sure if anyone could encompass all of the Pope's many amazing qualities in a movie, but the movie did his memory justice. In my opinion the most important task was to reveal to the people who the Pope started out as. To his days in Poland, all the way to his last days in the Vatican, this movie followed every aspect of his life. Thomas Kretschmann, the man who played the Pope in his adult life and on, did a very good job at getting the emotion across. Overall this movie was educational, but also very entertaining. | 0 |
I use 'Princess Raccoon' (to give the film its not-quite accurate English title) as a litmus test for my friends' sense of humour. It either leaves them cold and baffled - as it clearly did several other commentators on this site - or results in doubled-up laughter, unassailably huge grins and occasional gasps of admiration.<br /><br />The laughter comes from the film's consummate mixture of parodies in contemporary style. Targets include a bouquet of Japanese and Western classical stage drama forms, from Kabuki to Late Shakespearian and Spanish renaissance Christian fantasy; the naff vacuity of the modern American and European musical, as witness a host of random tap- and rap- dance songs and some very funny banal lyrics, all choreographed with loving 'amateur' cliché; Japanese anime and samurai live-action clichés; portentous Buddhist ritual; and the overweening sweetness of Viennese operetta. I've not laughed out loud so much at this type of film since Ken Russell's outrageous musical deconstruction in 'The Boyfriend'.<br /><br />The grins come from the clever textual subversion of the Japanese legend, told in a traditional 5-act structure reminiscent of the plays of the 17th century master Chikamatsu. As in his work the narrative is advanced in a mixture of song, recitative, high-flown poetry and low comedy relief - here the pot-broiling of the incompetent ninja, Ostrich, by peasants under the illusion that he is a tanuki-raccoon in human guise. All of this somehow does hang together, and even more remarkably does manage to engage the watcher's emotions through the welter of cultural references.<br /><br />In truth 'Princess Raccoon' wears its pan-cultural garb with alluring lightness, and that's where the gasps of astonishment come in. Visually - again, as with Russell's masterpiece - the film is a treat, a riot of colour with its digitised backdrops of classical Japanese images from screens and prints, over-the-top costumes and stage sets, mixed with some breathtaking live action sequences in summer fields and seashores. You'll love it or loathe it, but there's no point castigating chalk for being cheese; and 'Princess Raccoon' stands, first and foremost, as a wickedly funny as well as affectionate put-down of our contemporary cultural vacuity, in both East and West. Bravo! | 0 |
Initially, I would have thought that Secret Sunshine had something critical to say of religion (and here being Christianity), and wondered if it would be something of a rant against the ills of blind faith, or the manipulative power of those who are supposedly holier than thou. Surprisingly, it was none of the sort and was largely non-judgemental, putting in place events as a matter of fact, and allowing the audience to draw their own judgement and conclusion.<br /><br />And I can't help but to chuckle at the role of Song Kang-ho, a man who's taken a liking for widower Shin-ae (Jeong Do-yeon), and starts going to church when she does. The reasons for church going are many I suppose, either to find inner peace, to seek help, being afraid of eternal damnation in the fires of Hell, to reaffirm faith, or even things like wanting to get married in a church, or to skirt chase (I kid you not). But to each his own reasons for turning up in church every Sunday and participating in prayer groups for fellowship, what is indeed dangerous, is when the underlying ulterior motives, do not get satisfied, and that's when frustration sets in. Or when you discover how hypocritical man can be, portraying one face inside the house of God, and displaying yet another outside.<br /><br />Shin-ae and her son Jun moves to the town of Miryang, which is the birthplace of her deceased husband. Wanting to start life anew, she opens up a piano shop to give lessons, though in discovering her new found freedom and in a moment's lack of good judgement, has another tragedy befall her. And that takes one hour to get to. Secret Sunshine really took its time to get to this point, where things then begin to get slightly more interesting with Shin-ae now taking to embracing religion to deal with and accept her current state, reveling in the comfort that religion, and fellow believers, can offer.<br /><br />What began as crying out for sympathy turns into acceptance and belief that religion offers that silver bullet to solve the ills of all mankind, and sometimes you wonder if it's because of your personal myopic view of what the almighty is doing for you, that you begin to adopt a somewhat selfish opinion that everything's good going your way, and in Shin-ae's case, her magnanimous attitude in wanting to forgive others who had trespassed against her, forgetting something very fundamental that it the feeling can cut both ways too.<br /><br />The last act is probably the most fun of the lot as it says plenty, where most of us can identify with - why me, and why not someone else, as we rage against our faith and start questioning, unfortunately, with no hard and fast answers available. It is then either we fall by the wayside, or continue with destructive deeds so rebelliously. But somehow the plug gets carefully pulled in Secret Sunshine so as not to offend, and what could have been an ugly character mouthpiece, got muted.<br /><br />If you bite into the hype this movie is generating, then perhaps you'll realize only Jeong Do- yeon's excellent portrayal is worth mentioning, as she totally owns her role as the widow Shin-ae who is probably the most unluckiest person on Earth in having to deal with that many tragedies over a short period of time, and if you look at it carefully, most of which are of her own doing. Watching her transformation, is worth the ticket price, and despite having my personal favourite Korean actor Song Kang-ho in the movie, this is something he just breezed right through. | 0 |
When its DVD was released i came to market and bought it. And i think my money was on right way as i expected before buying it. Awesome movie what else i can say for Will Smith, He's been an awesome actor like always whether in actions movies or serious. Always he gives a record braking performance. I think this is the movie after August Rush which makes a person cry while watching it. The way the director described the story was really awesome. His previous life and his new life in movie was correctly elaborated to the audience. Even i could not find any fault in the story or the way they shoot it. I think its DVD should be a household because this will be really a nice thing for your collection. It is not the movie which needs pop-corns for enjoyment, this is the movie which let the audience learn a lesson. now what is the lesson you can see that while watching. And i advise those people who are movie critics please watch this if you could find any criticism about this movie then please talk to me. | 0 |
I actually saw this movie in the theater back in it's original release. It was painful to watch Peter Sellers embarrass himself so badly. The story was incredibly lame and difficult to follow, and the ending was ridiculous. It was just sad to see how the mighty had fallen. I won't say that I'm a huge Peter Sellers fan, but I did thoroughly enjoy the Pink Panther series and I felt that he gave a strong performance in Being There. But this film should never have been made. From what I've read, he pursued producing this film against the advice of the people around him. Fine, but that still doesn't excuse the studio actually releasing the film. | 1 |
Oddly, I have very little to say about 'The Box' so this will be pretty brief. I have never read the Richard Matheson novella 'Button, Button' from which the film is based, but considering what I saw in this 'adaptation', there couldn't have been much semblance to such a legendary author's work. 'The Box' is about a family who discover a strange contraption on their doorstep that has a button on it. Frank Langella shows up and explains how they will be given one million dollars if they push the button - the only 'catch' is that it will automatically kill someone, somewhere... ??SPOILER?? They push it ??END OF SPOILERS?? That whole concept was interesting on its own, but somehow they managed to extend the movie into some convoluted Stargate knock-off that pads it out until a pretty decent ending with a pretty profound message. While I'm trying to be as 'fair' as possible, I still must say that this was not my cup of tea and it bored me severely. I guess its from the same director as 'Donnie Darko' which I remember liking when I saw it years ago. 'The Box' would've worked well as a short film, but since it was so lifelessly adapted this way, I can't come close to recommending it... | 1 |
Well, to each his own, but I thought Gibson's Hamlet was the most god-awful rendition I had ever witnessed... as subtly nuanced as a paper bag, and as inspired as a telemarketing call. The only reason I watched the movie through to the end was that I held out hope that either it would get better or become unintentionally funny. No luck.<br /><br />No disrespect for the supporting cast or for Zefferelli's staging, but nothing can make up for the bungling of the main character. I have seen Hamlet well-portrayed as an African prince, as an animated lion, as a rough-and-tumble warrior, as a romantic poet, etc. etc. etc. . But IMHO this portrayal was just a plentiful lack of wit together with most weak hams. | 1 |
Man, what a scam this turned out to be! Not because it wasn't any good (as I wasn't really expecting anything from it) but because I was misled by the DVD sleeve which ignorantly paraded its 'stars' as being Stuart Whitman, Stella Stevens and Tony Bill. Sure enough, their names did not appear in the film's opening credits, much less themselves in the rest of it!! As it turned out, the only movie which connects those three actors together is the equally obscure LAS VEGAS LADY (1975) but what that one has to do with THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER is anybody's guess
<br /><br />Even so, since I paid $1.50 for its rental and I was in a monster-movie mood anyhow, I elected to watch the movie regardless and, yup, it stunk! Apart from the fact that it had a no-name cast and an anonymous crew, an unmistakably amateurish air was visible from miles away and the most I could do with it is laugh at the JAWS-like pretensions and, intentionally so, at the resistible antics of two moronic layabouts-cum-boat owners who frequently squabble among themselves with the bemused local sheriff looking on. The creature itself a plesiosaur i.e. half-dinosaur/half-fish is imperfectly realized (naturally) but, as had been the case with THE GIANT CLAW (1957) which I've also just seen, this didn't seem to bother the film-makers none as they flaunt it as much as they can, especially during the movie's second half! | 1 |
I think 'category 6: day of destruction' was very unrealistic. The digital effects where like a children's cartoon. <br /><br />The actors didn't act realistically, for example, when the girl was shot she acted like she got tomato sauce splatted on her. <br /><br />The movie was boring but I watched it because it was on. <br /><br />The only interesting character was Tornado Tommy, he was funny!<br /><br />Please keep the special effects real.<br /><br />I liked the comment: 'What did we do to p.i.s.s-off Mother Nature?'<br /><br />I don't know what else to write to fill up the 10 lines. What else can I say the movie is so boring, I think my comment will be equally boring. | 1 |
I've just watched this again on the BBC Channel 4. It's not Jane Austen's best novel by any means but the film is a reasonable interpretation. I suspect the Assembly Rooms at Bath would have been rather more crowded than shown; perhaps they couldn't afford the extras. Also why does everyone shut up so that the dancing couple can have an audible conversation? I've never heard anything anyone has ever said to me when I've been dancing and I suspect it would have been the same in the 18/19th century in Bath.<br /><br />I cannot believe the US/Canada reviews; they completely miss the ironic element that is in the film throughout. The 'gothic' scenes are quite cleverly presented but you need to read them properly. I'm sure Jane A would be mildly amused by those reviews. A propos of nothing, does anyone else think that Peter Firth gets to look more like Colin Baker (a former Doctor Who) or vice-versa the older they both get? | 0 |
All in all, this is a movie for kids. We saw it tonight and my child loved it. At one point my kid's excitement was so great that sitting was impossible. However, I am a great fan of A.A. Milne's books which are very subtle and hide a wry intelligence behind the childlike quality of its leading characters. This film was not subtle. It seems a shame that Disney cannot see the benefit of making movies from more of the stories contained in those pages, although perhaps, it doesn't have the permission to use them. I found myself wishing the theater was replaying 'Winnie-the-Pooh and Tigger too', instead. The characters voices were very good. I was only really bothered by Kanga. The music, however, was twice as loud in parts than the dialog, and incongruous to the film.<br /><br />As for the story, it was a bit preachy and militant in tone. Overall, I was disappointed, but I would go again just to see the same excitement on my child's face.<br /><br />I liked Lumpy's laugh.... | 1 |
I saw The Big Bad Swim at the 2006 Temecula film festival, and was totally caught off guard by how much I was drawn into it.<br /><br />The film centers around the lives of a group of people taking an adult swim class for various reasons. A humorous idea in its own right, the class serves as a catalyst for greater changes in the students' lives.<br /><br />What surprised me about the film was how real it felt. Rarely in ensemble pieces are characters treated so well. I enjoyed the scenes in the class immensely, and the drama that took place outside was very poignant. Nothing seemed out of place or out of character, and ultimately it left a very strong feeling, much like attending school or summer camp - where you find fast friends, form strong bonds, and make discoveries about yourself, yet have to depart all too soon.<br /><br />My only complaint was that the character of Paula had a very strong and unusual introduction, which made you want to know a little more about her than was ultimately revealed. I suppose you don't get to meet everyone in class, though...<br /><br />Aside from this, I found the film very well-rounded and quite enjoyable. See it if you get the opportunity. | 0 |
After two brief scenes that at first seem unrelated to the rest of the film, we see a dark-haired, obviously rich beauty in the back of a limousine. Her driver stops at an odd location on Mulholland Drive, which is a twisting, thickly wooded two-lane road full of mansions overlooking Los Angeles. Just as her driver and another man in the passenger seat turn around to kill her, two drag racing cars from the opposite direction come crashing into the limo. Only the dark-haired woman survives. She works her way down the ridge to Sunset Boulevard and hides in a vacationing woman's apartment. Shortly after, Betty (Naomi Watts), the vacationing woman's niece, shows up at the apartment and runs into the dark haired woman, who now has amnesia. The bulk of the first part of the film is Betty and the dark haired woman trying to figure out who she is, why people were trying to kill her and why she had thousands of dollars and a strange key in her purse. This is interspersed with oddly surreal threads about Hollywood producers and directors, with occasional forays into a land of hoodlums and prostitutes.<br /><br />The above may sound a bit complicated and disjointed, but that's not the half of it. The film is constructed so that the meaning will always be open to interpretation. It's basically guaranteed that you will not understand this film and you will not have very much confidence arriving at your own interpretation the first time around. Even if you have a lot of experience with like-minded films--such as Memento (2000), Donnie Darko (2001), The I Inside (2003) and The Butterfly Effect (2004)--you may not understand it on a second viewing, either. The studio was aware of this to the extent that they had director David Lynch write '10 clues to unlocking this thriller' and they put it on the back of the chapter listing insert in the DVD. Lynch being of a particular disposition, these clues are almost as cryptic as the film itself. It doesn't help when trying to figure it out in the early stages that the structure is extremely complex. It takes a very long time to figure out what parts are supposed to be 'real' and there is a complex nesting of flashbacks in some sections, with only contextual clues that they're flashbacks.<br /><br />But is the film worth watching, or worth trying to figure out? That depends on your tastes, obviously. On a surface level, the film is certainly attractive if you are a fan of surrealism, although it will tend to seem a bit slow and overly disjointed to some viewers. But those qualities, and many other surrealist aspects of the film, are typical of Lynch. A prime Lynchian moment is the old couple in the beginning bizarrely smiling almost as if they're alien pod people trying to put on a front. If you're familiar with that style and like it, you'll find much to love here, although in many ways, Mulholland Drive is fairly understated for Lynch. It's also worth noting, for viewers who'll primarily be interested in it or who enjoy it just as much as other aspects, that Mulholland Drive has a quite steamy lesbian scene. It's not gratuitous, although I have no problems with gratuitousness, but is instead an important hinge in the film.<br /><br />Like all of Lynch's films, it's easy to become enraptured in his unique approach to every aspect of filmic art and his attention to detail. Any serious student of film (including 'armchair students'/'cinephiles') should study Mulholland Drive; many will love it. Lynch doesn't let anything pass unmanipulated. He includes brilliant color schemes (such as the plethora of reds and pinks) with important symbolism. He makes unusual use of sound, such as the ringing telephone carrying over into the section of score that follows it (when Betty first arrives at the airport). He directs his actors to deliver their lines in a plethora of bizarre ways, such as his characteristic odd pauses. He lets his odd and surprising sense of humor poke through, such as the name 'Winkie's', and the 'Hot Dogs--made for Pinks' sign that provides a clue to some of the color symbolism.<br /><br />Lynch's attention to detail in production design provides important, subtle clues throughout the film to help one unlock the meaning. It's interesting to note that Lynch even apparently demands that the DVD programming be unusual--there are no chapters on the disc; you must either watch the film in real time or fast forward or rewind to get back to particular points.<br /><br />If the surrealism and veiled meaning of the film are attractive to you, or if you're just fond of 'puzzles', then Mulholland Drive is well worth watching for that aspect. There is a fairly accepted interpretation of the film, at least on a broad, generalized level. I won't recount the standard interpretation here--it is worth researching, but only after you've seen the film a couple times and have reached your own conclusions. Many articles and monographs have been written on the film and interpretations; there are even websites dedicated to it.<br /><br />For my money, however, although I generally love Lynch and find many things about Mulholland Drive attractive, it is not quite a 10 for me, at least not yet (I have a feeling that my score could still rise on subsequent viewings). To me, though, the 'twist' aspect of the film is done much better in other works such as The I Inside and The Butterfly Effect. Mulholland Drive is more attractive to me for its surface surrealistic touches, but the plot doesn't carry them as well as some of Lynch's other films.<br /><br />Still, Mulholland Drive is certainly recommended for the right crowd. If you're serious about film and do not mind having to think about what you watch (as if those two would not necessarily coincide), you shouldn't miss this one. | 0 |
Madhur Bhandarkar goes all out to touch upon taboo issues and gives the most realistic picture of the modern society. One gets the impression of the director even from his earlier movies like Satta and Chandni bar. The issues just hinted on in the latter movie are explored and exposed in totality here. The casting is amazing and one can see the judgements on each scene from many angles. Mostly, the movie leaves you wondering on lots of facts around. As you start guessing the things, you end up at most being close, but missing the mark in many a scenes. It leaves a lasting impression in the end.<br /><br />Actors to watch are Konkana Sen Sharma, Boman Irani & Atul Kulkarni among others. The dialogues are well written and you feel you've lived around some of these people. There are still some scenes that make you think of more depths. The songs are in the background saving time and Lata's voice in a very meaningful song 'Kitne Ajeeb' leaves you feeling you're left all alone in the midst of the modern society! | 0 |
I don't know why people always want deeper meaning in movies or else consider them worthless.<br /><br />What about just being entertained? Something at which Morgan Freeman excels. He gets a chance to show off a bit. Paz Vega, his co-star, gets a career boost and Brad Silberling gets a name to draw people into watching his movie.<br /><br />I thought it was a good movie. Some humor, some pathos, some bittersweetness but nothing over the top. I got an especial kick out of Jim Parsons as the receptionist at a construction company. When he looks at Freeman adoringly and says, 'You make me want to be a woman.' He's just hilarious. The fight scene between Ms. Vega her ex-husband and his girlfriend is wonderful too.<br /><br />In short, it's a cute, charming film that will make you smile. You could do much, much worse. | 0 |
WWF Survivor Series 2001<br /><br />This was among the worst events of 2001. Perhaps its biggest flaw was the fact that it didn't follow suit to most of the previous Survivor Series'. There was only ONE survivor series match. And that Survivor Series match went on for 45 minutes. What's more, anyone with a working brain would know that it would end with The Rock versus Austin and The Rock prevailing for his team. And don't get me started on the preview before the event. No matter who won it was obvious that no one was going to f***ing die. There was no need for all of that pointless hype. Whatever the storyline, it was just a wrestling event.<br /><br />And as for the rest of the matches: the first match was Christian defending his European title against Al Snow. It was a good fast paced match and its good to see a heel winning a match fairly. William Regal versus Tajiri was boring and we've seen it 2 or 3 times before. Edge versus Test was good but nothing great. The tag titles steel cage match was the best match of the evening. The battle Royal went on for 10 minutes and no one really cared who'd win in the first place. The Women's title match wasn't great. No, not in the slightest. The main event must have been the most hypocritical match in history. The Alliance lost but guess what, after 5 months every single Alliance superstar returned. The match itself was poor. The Rock eliminated 3 of them and Jericho eliminated 2. The Rock was too caught up with his acting to be there when the invasion began. Jericho was the one that jeopardised the whole match. If I wanted any 2 to be eliminated in the early going it would be them. Everyone knew that Kane, Big Show and Undertaker were just fall guys. 7 matches isn't enough for a Survivor Series. If there's ever a Survivor Series as bad as this again I'll | 1 |
Well what I can say about this movie is that it's great to see so many Asian faces. What I didn't like about the film was that it was full of stereotypes of what typical racial characters would do in their role. The Asian girl without confidence who has to play someone else to get ahead, the white guy infatuated with Asian culture and chooses to leave his white world behind for the land of yellow and the 'keeping it real' black cab driver. Plus all the coke, shanghai tang and dunkin donuts product placement was a bit too obvious. The story plot itself was fun but pretty much how I thought the story would unravel. Then again when watching romantic comedies you can't expect much but then again I would have been wanted to just be surprised at least once. The parents are the best part of the flick. | 1 |
Loki, Norse god of mischief, creates a mask that endows the wearer with cartoon-like powers. At the command of his father, Odin, he spends the rest of the movie looking for the mask so that it can cause no further grief to mankind. In the meantime, the possessor of the mask conceives a child who inherits the powers of the mask. Etc. etc. If this sounds like a pretty thin plot line, it is. Add to this the fact that the movie is handled ineptly from start to finish, and the result is very, very bad. You can find worse movies, but you'll have to actively search for them.<br /><br />For the most part, Son of the Mask is presented at the intellectual level of a pre-schooler, but in light of scenes such as the mask-baby urinating copiously in six different directions, including on his father, this premise seems unlikely. I asked my son who he thought might have been the target audience for the movie, and he responded 'Convicted felons,' apparently forgetting for the moment that the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.<br /><br />But just making a bad movie is not a sin, or Hell would be overflowing. What makes it a sin is that $72 million was spent on this piece of garbage. To put things in perspective, the day after we watched Son of the Mask, my son and I watched 'Good Night, and Good Luck,' a movie that garnered six academy award nominations (including best picture), and was brought in for $7 million. That's right. Just one-tenth of the amount of money spent on Son of the Mask. This, then is the sin -- to flush good money down the sewer, when it could have been better used in making watchable movies, or feeding starving children, or for that matter, almost any other purpose. The producers should truly be ashamed of themselves. | 1 |
A tender movie that represents how our daily life is a catalyst that causes us to change our thoughts, behaviors and emotions into people we're not. This story is a love story where true emotions arise. I credit Malcolm Jamal Warner (Win) and Challen Cates for outstanding performances . A movie definitely worth seeing, a holiday roadtrip that turns into an emotional turn-a-round. I suggest seeing it. | 0 |
This is by far my favorite action movie. But what makes it work is not the elaborate Renny Harlin explosions and shoot-em-ups. It's the Shane Black script and its deft delivery by Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson.<br /><br />The chemistry between the two principals merited a sequel. Thank God it was never made. Too much danger of marring the original.<br /><br />'The Long Kiss' checkerboards from quotable scene to action scene to quotable scene and back again. Never a dull moment. <br /><br />This has to be Jackson's funniest role ever, and the amazing thing is that he is playing one of the most normal characters of his career. No quirky Tarantino hit-man, super-cool Shaft, or borderline psycho soldier. In TLKG, Jackson is the everyman we identify with. The poor schmuck gets dragged along on this crazy woman's odyssey to uncover the dangerous secret of her past.<br /><br />Though the story claims that Davis's character, Samantha Caine is suffering from amnesia, the writer and director treat her condition as if it were a multiple personality disorder.<br /><br />Samantha Caine is not just a new identity taken by the amnesiac Charly Baltimore -- she is a separate, fully-developed personality. The traumas suffered by Samantha in the first half-hour of the movie help the submerged dissociate personality of Charly to emerge again.<br /><br />The materials of her past life excavated by Jackson's detective Mitch Henessey facilitate Charly's resurfacing. Good timing, too, considering the target Samantha makes of herself.<br /><br />But Charly has to fight herself to remain the dominant personality. One gathers from bits of dialogue that the warrior personality (Charly) developed after her father died and she was recruited by the 'Chapter'.<br /><br />In the eight years Charly was buried in the psyche, though, her Samantha identity developed into the dominant personality. (She's even funnier that Charly.) This was probably due to becoming a mother, because it's the reunion with her daughter that breaks Charly's struggle to suppress Samantha, leading to their apparent integration by movie's end.<br /><br />It's impossible to choose a 'best quote' from this film:<br /><br />'Now you're a sharpshooter?'<br /><br />'I saved your ass. It was great!'<br /><br />'Continue dying. Out.'<br /><br />'I sock 'em in the jaw and yell 'Pop goes the weasel''.<br /><br />And a couple of dozen more, many too raunchy to quote here.<br /><br />Geena Davis looks great, and comes off as an action hero without glossing over the fact she's turning forty. (Listen to Charley's history, do the math).<br /><br />Fantastic soundtrack, too. Santana, Muddy Waters, Elvis, LaBelle, Marvin Gaye. <br /><br />I give 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' a 9, only because I don't believe in a perfect 10. Seen it a dozen times, and it still stays fresh. Nice twisted holiday flick to place on your shelf next to 'It's A Wonderful Life.' | 0 |
I have never commented on a film before. I watched this movie with my girlfriend last night. I've read comments saying this movie stays with you. It does. It's been almost 24 hours and I am still completely affected. This movie left me questioning my own self. How can I possibly compare myself to a character such as Ben who is totally selfless. I loved this movie. I love movies that keep me guessing and wondering until the end. I feel two emotions predominantly, happiness and sadness. An amazing feel good movie and a very sad one too. I so wanted Ben and Emily to be together, but in the end, they were, forever. If you haven't seen this movie, get it and watch it. Just make sure you have no distractions. You'll want to see every nuance in this picture. One for my library. | 0 |
I put in the DVD expecting camp perversion from the creators of Society and Re-Animator, and was quite surprised to become involved in an authentically suspenseful tale. Acting was top-notch (nice to see Vosloo in a protagonist role after a long string of villains), the storyline involving, and the few twists fairly surprising. I figured I would fast forward through much of it to get to the abduction scenes, but instead watched it through, only being let down at the very end.<br /><br />Maybe I'm being too lenient, but as I stated before, I wasn't expecting much more than alien sex. Of course, if you ARE looking for some hot alien sex, you will be let down. It was mostly quick-cut exam table nonsense with a blink-and-you'll-miss-it glimpse of an interesting 'impregnator' alien. | 0 |
Private Practice is supposed to be a medical drama. So I guess my biggest complaint is the lack of originality in the medical story lines. Just by watching House, I 'solved' two (out of nine) medical mysteries before the doctors did. Boooring. Seriously, if you are a lazy writer, why not copy some cases out of older ER episodes or some obscure Brazilian medical soap? House is recent and popular - recycling their ideas is hard to get away with...<br /><br />Second biggest complaint: these people are supposed to be forty-somethings, right? Then why do they have to behave with the emotional maturity of 15-year-olds? Is three weeks (ie. three whole damn episodes) of intense thinking really necessary to understand that if your best friend doesn't want to be your 'friend with benefits', it's maybe not because he wants to hurt you, but because he doesn't want to risk your friendship? The character doing all the thinking is a psychiatrist by the way - the whole storyline is just so unrealistic that you can't really buy into the supposed 'drama'.<br /><br />And I won't even start complaining about what the show did to everyone's favorite Addison as we got to know her in Grey's Anatomy... On a sidenote, don't you think it's funny the way Addison ends up lusting after loser Pete (sorry, but everyone who tries to cure insomnia with Mozart's Requiem is a loser, PhD or not) and Derek ends up entangled in a relationship with whiny, irritating Meredith miles away in rainy Seattle? Apart from that little fling with Mark, they seemed to be perfect for each other. Sometimes I think Shonda Rhimes' subconscious is trying to tell us that in relationships, our first choice is often the right one... | 1 |
Here in Germany 'King of Queens' has a big big cult status! Nearly every teenager (and adults) watch this sitcom. It's really awesome!! Better than the other horrible American sitcoms like 'Full House' or 'Set by Step' (the only series, who is still OK, is 'Al Bundy'). There haven't been an Amercian sitcom in Europe who was as effective as this really funny show!! Kevin James and Leah Remini as Doug & Carrie Haffernan are the craziest couple I know, Jerry Stiller as Arthur is the funniest 'grandpa' I know, and Victor Williams and (especially) Patton Oswalt as Deacon & Spence are the most different, but funny guys I know. I watch it as often as I could, and I still haven't enough, good humor! | 0 |
This is possibly the best short crime drama I've ever seen. The acting is superb especially Amanda Burton who's character goes from scary to sweet to disturbing to sad and then some...She does an amazing job balancing Rachels/Carlas feelings and acting out the pain of someone who's lost a child, its so believable that it feels more like a real life story then a drama. The other actors are of course great too which they usually are in British TV/Film. The ending,which I'm not going to give away,is fantastic mainly because you don't really get one... (you'll get what I mean after you've seen it) This is well worth buying and seeing over and over again and if you're not touched by this you're one cold hearted person. | 0 |
In a little town in Montana two brothers grow up. One of them is Norman (Craig Sheffer), the other is Paul (Brad Pitt). Their father is Reverend Maclean and they grow up with his lessons that has to do with religion, and the lessons of fly-fishing. In this movie fly-fishing represents life, a little.<br /><br />The story is good and keeps your attention although there are some moments you need a little action. Probably the movie has this moments because it is not really about the events that happen, but about the message. Some things do happen though. Norman goes to Dartmouth to study. After six years he returns and gets involved with a nice girl named Jessie (Emily Lloyd) and he is invited to teach in Chicago. Paul has become a reporter and is known as the 'fishing reporter'. He is famous and it seems he has a nice life, but he drinks a little too much and gambles too much.<br /><br />The movie is very well directed, it has a nice score and all of the actors are good. The most beautiful thing in this movie is the cinematography. The mountains, the woods and the river all look very beautiful. If the movie was only made for these things it was good enough to watch. Fortunately there is more. | 0 |
***SPOIERS*** Atlanta crime auctioneer with Burt Reynolds,Sgt. Sharky, and his tough and well oiled 'Sharky's Machine' Let. Frisco, Charles Durning, and officers Papa & Arch, Brian Keith & Berney Casey, breaking up the Atlanta crime Syndicate who's on the verge of putting 'Their Man' in the Geroria Governor's State House. <br /><br />Busted after messing up a major drug police sting operation, with the drug dealer and a number of innocent pedestrians shot and killed, Sgt. Sharky was transfered into vice. Busting hookers johns and perverts Sgt. Sharky finds a list of call girls in the wallet of a top Atlanta pimp and after bugging one of the call girls apartment it turns out that she's having Don Hotchkins, Earl Holliman, a candidate for governor as a regular costumer. <br /><br />As Sharky starts to investigate this strange arraignment he finds out that the good family man, married with five children, Hotchkins is also on the payroll of Vittorio 'Victor' Gassman the mob 'Godfather' of Atlanta.The high-price call-girl Dominoe, Rachel Ward,who's involved with Hotchkins is tired of being a hooker and want's to leave Victor's stable of call-girls and live with Hotchkins as his live-in mistress after he gets elected governor of Georgia, which is already a forgone conclusion, but their's only one slight hitch; will Victor let go of her. <br /><br />Tangling with the Gassman Syndicate the corrupt Atlanta police and city officials, as well as the local Chinese mob, Sgt. Sharky ends up losing most of his men, including two of his fingers, as he brings down the Gassman Mafia in a final shoot-out with the his Mobsters at the famous Atlanta Peachtree Plaza Hotel's. <br /><br />Statueques and beautiful Rachel Ward as Dominoe is thought to have been murdered by Gassman's drugged-out hit-man Billy Score,Henry Silva,who blew her face off with a shot gun but in reality it turned out that he really killed Dominoe's call-girl room-mate Tiffany, Aarika Wells, with Dominoe away in the country. <br /><br />Sharky, who was in love with Dominoe from afar, found out the truth about her being alive and to the surprise and shock of mob kingpin Victor Gassman is going to use her, by getting Dominoe to testify against him, to put Gassman and his mob away for good but the cunning and vicious Victor wasn't going to go willingly and let Sharky know it sooner then he thought. <br /><br />Blood spattering shootout at the Peachtree Plaza Hotel in the films final sequence with Shark'y Machine having it out with the almost indestructible junkie hit-man Billy Score. Shooting it out on the hotel stairway both Billy Score and Sharky's machine member Arch come face to face with Billy's drug induced invincibility clashing with Arch's Zen reality alerting philosophy in what can best be said to be a battle of two cultures: West and East. | 0 |
Rudy Rae Moore is getting out of prison and getting revenge! Often referred to as the Godfather of Rap, he should also be the Godfather of great movies. The non-stop action will keep you on the edge of your seat and will leave you begging for more. Luckily, Rudy comes back as Dolemite in Human Tornado, so sit back relax, and have the rewind button ready because you won't believe your eyes!! | 0 |
everyone is a genius in something. Albert Einstien was a genius in science, William Shakespeare was a genius in literature and the boys from the Chasers war on everything are truly comedy geniuses. Their satire TV show is a constant hit on the Australian broadcast commission ( ABC ). After a small start as a satire newspaper, the chasers popularity skyrocketed when given their own television show. Never short on controversy with the cast members will do everything some of it even being arrested for. Chris Taylor going on Sunrise, a very popular live morning television show and telling his partner to f***k off, creating a fake motorcade and driving into APEC high security area and doing a very funny satire of a Australian ad about nicotine by following smokers around yelling out 'NO GARY NO NO GARY NO'. While controversial the show is increably funny and worthy of running for years to come. | 0 |
Or vice-versa.<br /><br />This is a French film noir directed by an American film maker (Jules Dassin) who had to leave the country because of being blacklisted by Hollywood thanks to HUAC. The premise of the story is rather familiar--one last jewel heist for Tony le Stephanois and his buds--and so is the ending with everybody getting... Well, no spoilers here, for sure, since this is the sort of film in which tension toward the ending is important.<br /><br />Dassin filmed in realistic lighting in black and white on the streets of Paris using actors and actresses who are not glamorous. The engaging--sometimes intruding--score by Georges Auric nicely enhances the movie and will remind viewers of many a similar score from American film noirs from the forties and early fifties. Jean Servais plays the hardcore, consumptive lead in a fedora much as Humphrey Bogart might have played him. Tony's recently out of prison, past his prime, but still tough and decisive when he has to be, his mind still sharp when focused, the kind of anti-hero whose eyes water even though the tears will never fall.<br /><br />Dassin plays the Italian safecracker and would-be ladies man who knows the rules but gets careless.<br /><br />In film noir we are forced by the logic and focus of the film to identify with the bad guys. Often there are levels of bad guys, the 'good' bad guys we are identifying with and the 'bad' bad guys who are out to do in our good bad guys, and then maybe there's a really bad, bad bad guy or two. (Here we have Remi Grutter, played by Robert Hossein, a slightly sadistic druggie.) Then there are the cops who are irrelevant or nearly so. In more modern film noir the bad guys are not even 'good' bad guys, and they get away with it or something close to that. In the old film noir, which evolved from the gangster films of the thirties, the usual motto, following the old Hollywood 'code,' was 'Crime Doesn't Pay,' with every criminal having to pay for his or her crime before the end of the movie.<br /><br />Probably the most impressive feature of Rififi is how nicely the film moves along. The plot unfolds quickly and seamlessly much the way the great film directors always did it, directors like Stanley Kubrick, Louis Malle, and the best of Hitchcock. Some have actually compared this to Kubrick's The Killing (1956) and suggest that Kubrick stole a little. Well, directors always steal if need be, and there are some perhaps telling similarities, such as it being 'one last heist' for the protagonist, and having the girl gum up the works. The similarities may go deeper because as this film was nearing its end I suddenly thought, oh, no! the suitcase in the back seat is going to fly out of the convertible, hit the ground, burst open, and all the money is going to fly into the air! Those of you who have seen The Killing may recall what happened to the money near the end of the film! Which reminds me of another film with something bad happening to the money: Oliver Stone's U Turn (1997) starring Sean Penn. There the money in his backpack gets blown to smithereens by a shotgun blast. Ha, ha, ha! Getting the dubbed version of this film would be an act of sacrilege since the dialogue (when there is some: the heist itself is done entirely without dialogue, about 30 minutes worth) is terse and easy to follow requiring only an occasional glance at the subtitles, which, by the way, are quite utilitarian and guiding as opposed to having every word spelled out.<br /><br />One other thing: all the brutality is done as sex used to be done in film, that is off camera. A guy gets his throat slit. We don't see it. I kind of like this approach. We don't have to see the gore. You could almost let your kids see Rififi--almost.<br /><br />Catch this one now and be on the lookout for a Hollywood reprise starring Al Pacino and directed by Harold Becker coming out next year in which you can be sure that the violent scenes will be played out in full. | 0 |
Never have I seen a movie like this; didn't plan on seeing it but it was worth the turn of the TV channel. I am mostly a scifi movie watcher,but I would be more than happy to add this one to my collection. It starts out as a one sided film with a simple love triangle, then became something a little different(can't tell more then that. but it does involve two guys and one girl. juts not the way you would expect). Also, this movie starred Hugo Weaving from the 'MATRIX' and 'THE LORD OF THE RINGS' in a role I would not have expected...very funny guy. This movie is playing on HERE TV, but if you do not have satellite, it is worth a rent. So give it a try; you won't be disappointed. | 0 |
There are two distinct ways to enjoy this snappily written, seminal TV show (the 'godfather' to X-Files and Buffy, etc.); as a monster show (it scared the hell out of me when I was a kid!), or as a well-written/acted gumshoe/film-noir. It works on both levels. The scariness may have been diluted over the years (it WAS made in the mid-70s), but I was pleasantly surprised upon rediscovering the show (via DVD) that I actually enjoy it MORE now for the latter reasons. The late Darren McGavin IS Karl Kolchak, an eccentric, tenacious, rumpled newsman/monster-hunter who, in pursuit of a story, always finds a supernatural angle; much to the pain of Kolchak's over-stressed, put-upon boss Tony Vincenzo(played with tremendous world-weariness by the also late, great Simon Oakland; you can practically feel the pain of his budding ulcers!). The interplay between these characters is crackling and witty (much like STAR TREK's Spock and McCoy, only more acidic!). Over the course of two pilot TV movies and a one-season series, Kolchack fought vampires, robots, werewolves, witches, zombies, government conspiracies, aliens, and ancient legends (sounds like the entire 9 yr. run of the X-Files! In ONE season!). And Kolchak did it first! And as for composer Gil Melle's cool, partly-whistled main title music... well, X-Files creator Chris Carter calls Mike Snow's (very similar) X-Files main title theme an 'homage.' Both themes work well; leave it at that. And unlike many modern horror/sci-fi shows, most of KOLCHAK's monsters are shown in shadow, and in quick cuts(effectively, and sometimes thankfully; as some of them do not hold up to modern scrutiny; but some still DO). Modern horror shows take note: Less IS more! One of the few flaws of the show (and it's a small one) is the over-use of sunny, California locales passing for windy city Chicago. NIGHT GALLERY had the same issue; unavoidable for a modest-budget, L.A. based show. And some of the supporting characters seem to fall into what are (now) viewed as clichés (the effeminate reporter, Ron Updike, always used for comic relief; sweet, old lady/advice columnist Emily). But, they all DO have their moments to shine (UNLIKE many supporting TV characters since, cliché or not!). KOLCHAK is a timeless show, that serves as a template for many that followed. And Carl Kolchak is one of the richest characters ever written for a horror genre TV show (agent Mulder's REAL dad). And as a footnote, I tried watching a few episodes of the new, 're-imagining' of the show. It's an X-Files clone (a copy of a copy?). And a bad one, at that. Carl Kolchak is now a model-pretty, angsty 30-something (played dismally by a boring Stuart Townsend). And giving him a Scully-type partner is also a lame idea; it undermines Kolchak as a lone, Don Quixote crusader! And Kolchak and Vincenzo GETTING ALONG? Where's the tension? The interplay? That they chose to hang the KOLCHAK name on this regurgitated bit o' crap is a prime example of how NOT to do a remake: Take a beloved cult series, scrape off everything unique about it, drain it of all character and color (but keep the name! Need that cult cred!), and voilà! Instant re-hash! It gets an 'F' in 'Re-Imaginings 101'! This new version DESERVED the axe! Stick with the short-lived, but classic original. It truly gets better with age. | 0 |
Low budget mystery. A shot rattles out of the dark and a woman is seen running from that direction. A young architect Jimmy McMillan(Chick Chandler)discovers a dead body that goes missing. The woman in a hurry, Mary(June Clyde), is linked to the death scene; but it is McMillan that has to try and solve the case to avoid serious suspicion. Suspects are six shop owners in the vicinity of the crime scene. All the atmosphere of Film-Noir; but not quite the real thing. This flick musters just enough to be a decent low budget mystery/drama and is a nice little escape. Other players include: George Meeker, Michael Raffetto, Milton Wallace and Rebel Randall. | 1 |
The violent and rebel twenty-five years old sailor Antwone Fisher (Derek Luke) is sent to three sessions for evaluation with the navy psychiatrist Dr. Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington), after another outburst and aggression against a superior ranked navy man. Reluctant in the beginning of the treatment, he gets confidence in Dr. Davenport and discloses his childhood, revealing painful traumas generated in his foster house. Meanwhile, he meets Cheryl Smolley (Joy Briant), and they fall in love for each other. Resolving his personal problems, Antwone becomes a new man. This true familial drama is a touching and positive story of a man who finds a friend and is sent back to a regular life. The direction of Denzel Washington is excellent, making sensitive, attractive and with good taste, a story about child abuse. In the hands of another director, it might be a very heavy story. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Voltando a Viver' ('Returning to Live') | 0 |
To be frank, this is probably the best version in my book as a sound movie version of the Jazz Singer. The 1927 version is really a silent movie despite its build-up as the first talkie.<br /><br />Danny Thomas is a great comedian, and he sings very well. He does the Jewish stuff with feeling. Peggy Lee is great and any film that has her is always entertaining. Allan Joslyn is not too entertaining and we could have done without him. One question: since when do Cantors live in such luxurious houses??? | 0 |
'A Bug's Life' is like a favorite candy bar -- it's chock-full of great little bits that add up to something really tasty.<br /><br />The story couldn't have been better; it's clever, has 'heart' (emotion), and every character has a nice 'arc' (a growth or change). By comparison, the only characters in 'Toy Story' to have an 'arc' are Buzz, who learns to love being a toy, and Woody, who overcomes his resentment of Buzz. There are tons of laughs and cute moments in 'A Bug's Life'. All of the actors turn in great voice work, and the animation, both the motion and detail, is superb.<br /><br />This serious movie buff doesn't throw around '10's lightly, but this movie certainly deserves the '10' I gave it. | 0 |
This movie is a bad to alright rip off of Friday the 13th. The movie is about a killer named Bernie who kills people around a camp councilor training camp. He kills people because the camp councilor training camp is on land that was owned by his father, and when the police came to forcefully take his fathers land they accidentally killed his mother (Another F13th take off). The intro is seeing Bernie killing his first victims. Then we are introduced to a family going camping in the same woods, soon after they arrive they are joined by a strange old man who likes talking about his son. Later we learn that his son is Bernie and that he has him locked up in the back of his caravan after having broken him out of a mental institute. He sets Bernie after the family so they can take their stuff and then the chase is on.<br /><br />This Movie is only recommended to those who enjoy B grade 80's Slashers. | 1 |
If you are looking for a cinematic masterpiece, this ain't it. If you are looking for one of those awful movies that are so horrible that they are actually good, then this may be for you. There are so many unintentional laughs in this film, that it could almost be considered a comedy. Let's start with the opening titles, that say 'Jack-O', and then add the word 'Lantern', as if the viewer wasn't able to figure out the movie was about a pumpkin by the giant pumpkin shown on both the cover and in the opening scene of the movie. After that, the movie goes in about 20 different directions, none of which make much sense. Jack-o is everywhere, he's in people's houses, in the woods, and yet he doesn't ever seem to do much of anything. He does make a few kills, but the long buildup to those killings is so poorly acted and constructed you almost wish Jack-o would take out his rage on you the viewer. Other than that, the plot consists of poor acting, gratuitous nudity, and a ridiculous plot line. The acting in this film is among the worst I've ever seen in my 35 plus years of movie-watching. The boy who is the lead in the film (the director's son) has about as much emotion as a corpse, and just about all of the other actors/actresses are just as bad for numerous reasons (especially the bug-eyed lady with eyes bigger than saucers). But, having said all this, if you take this for what it is, (that is a steaming pile of dung) then you will get a few laughs from this movie. What I also found amusing is that the makers of the DVD saw fit to release a '10th Anniversary Version' of this movie (as if the original wasn't good enough). And someone actually had the idea of making a 'behind the scenes' mini film which is also included in the 10th anniversary edition (I'm not sure why).......I'll give this 3 smashed pumpkins out of 10... | 1 |
I've seen a fair few films from the Far East recently.....some were excellent (Battle Royale, Infernal Affairs, the Eye), and some were not so great (Versus, The Triple Cross). Then there are ones like Uzumaki and Returner, which while flawed I still enjoyed.<br /><br />The basic premise involves the mysterious and horrific effects that a growing obsession with spirals has upon a community. Sound silly? Yeah, thats what I was thought. Firstly, the good stuff. Direction was top notch, sure a bit over the top in places but never the less interesting and stylish. Secondly the story, was original and like other writers commented very lovelace-esq...it was interesting. What it reminded me most of however was early Cronenberg; films like Shivers and Videodrome.<br /><br />The acting wasn't great, but not too horrible either. To be honest I was actually bored on a few occations....I felt the pacing especially initially was a little slow. My main problem was that it was too silly and funny to be true horror, and yet not so enough to be considered a comedy. *SPOILERS* below.<br /><br />*SPOILERS* Some good scenes (washing machine =)) and I liked the final shot/voiceover. At first I thought it ended far too abruptly but about 20 seconds later I realised the meaning and liked the end. However, because of the lack of seriousness in the story, combined with over the top scenes such as the news report at the school ment that I did not care for the characters much in the end. The final scene which was perhaps supposed to be a little poignent, while in reality I couldn't really care for the girl or her boyfriend. *SPOILERS END*<br /><br />So overall I kinda did like this film, but it frustrated me and I think there was real potential in addition to some good scenes. Couple of other points, the main girl is quite pretty and cute, and the song that plays at the end is good too. I rated it 7/10.<br /><br /> | 0 |
An Insomniac's Nightmare was an incredibly interesting, well-made film. I loved the way it just throws you into the main character's subconscious without coddling the viewer...the acting was top notch - honestly, I would watch Dominic Monaghan read the phone book! - but everyone else, especially the young girl, was great as well. I was very impressed by the look of the film, too. Usually, 'independent films' have a grainy, I-shot-this-on-my-camcorder look to them, but this director knows what she's doing. The lighting, the cinematography...quality work. I'm looking forward to a feature-length work from Tess Nanavati! | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.