review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
I have to confess that I slept in the cinema while watching the first Asterix movie... but this one is simply FANTASTIC! It is really funny and it leaves the first one miles away. It has enumerous gags and funny situations that made me laugh since the first minutes of the movie and I only stopped laughing when I reached the car to return home. I repeat: this movie is spectacular... Obelix is really funny and Cleopatra is a real babe!! | 0 |
I absolutely loved this show. I watched it from the time it first aired in the late 90's to the very last episode. In my honest opinion it was a wonderful family drama that is so rare these days. Definitely a show you could watch with a friend or your children. Yes things have changed a bit with Jo since we last saw her in the books, but it's still compelling with great stories and good lessons. The actress that portrays Jo Bhaer (Michelle Burke) does a wonderful job as does as the actor who plays Nick Riley (Spencer Rochfort) Throughout the series we get to see the developing romance between Jo and Nick as well as the daily stories and lessons the kids and students learn. I recommend this show to anyone. | 0 |
Have you ever seen a movie made up entirely of long wide shots? No? Me, neither. Well, I've finally seen one in 'Spring in my Hometown,' and I must confess, now I KNOW why people don't do this. The technique is 'arty,' to be sure, but it's definitely NOT ripe for public consumption. The technique is heavily flawed simply because the viewer has no emotional attachment to the characters, and perhaps that might be the director's whole intentions. I don't know, I can't read minds, and I certainly don't know enough about the director to make a judgement.<br /><br />But one thing about this movie that IS painfully obvious is its ridiculous anti-American sentiments. As an American, I'm well aware of my country's participation in the Korean War, and I'm very well aware that we weren't always angels, but I'll be damn if I'll take this guy's version of how things happened. According to this blind fool, Americans were not only at the root of the war, we were the CAUSE of the war, and we almost singlehandedly destroyed the country. Whatever, Mister Director. And I suppose you'd still be making this film in COMMUNIST KOREA if we hadn't interfered, right? Talk about forgetting your history. This is almost akin to making the Nazis the 'good guys' while turning the Allied forces into the 'bad guys.' This movie is so historically naive and so factually inaccurate that it's almost embarrassing to watch. For a man who comes from a country that owes its very EXISTENCE to American interference, he sure comes off as high and mighty and judgemental. | 1 |
The kind of B-movies from the 1950's that were schlocky yet so much fun are to what Predator Island pays homage. Filmed in Connecticut, Predator Island is set on an island called with a lighthouse Hell's Beacon which is inhabited by only the couple who tends the lighthouse. In typical 1950's sci-fi fashion after a half dozen young adults crash their boat into the island's rocky shore hideous creatures from outer space invade the island after a meteor hits nearby. The creatures start both inhabiting the bodies of their victims as well as devouring them. Lots of cursing and lame comebacks are the primary form of dialogue in this movie. It is so hokey that you just have to laugh at times. If you are looking for a movie that is stupid, but in a fun way, then this one fits the bill. <br /><br />Interesting note: I appear in the film as a dead body in the far background of the final scene. During filming they needed about 50 extras, yet around 300 people showed up for the opportunity. They eventually used nearly 200 of them. | 1 |
This movie was bad beyond belief. I saw it during the 2004 San Francisco Film Festival. Before it started the owner of the theatre got up and told us how half the audience had left the theatre the night before, which happened to be its 'world premiere.' I don't think anyone in the theatre understood just how bad the movie was going to be at that point. We all understood by the end. <br /><br />Its not a documentary though it was sort of sold as one. Dark Angel was a bad biography and misguided homage to Bettie Paige, in which half the movie is actually just remakes of old Bettie Paige movies. The movie is only 90 minutes long and the content of those 90 minutes is sub par to say the least. A scene would start going then someone would say 'wow you're so great Bettie, why don't we make another movie.' this would be followed by a 5 minutes of a Bettie Paige remake which was almost as ridiculous as (and even more boring than) the normal part of the movie. by the end of the movie people were laughing every time another Bettie Paige movie remake came up. it was that ludicrous. I heard a lot of laughter in that theatre, but people were not laughing with the movie maker, they were laughing at the movie and its poor content and structure. This was easy to tell as the parts that would get the most laughs were the ones which were supposed to be serious or revelatory. <br /><br />I know movies are expensive. I have seen many cheaply made independent films but somehow the cinematography and quality of this movie set it apart from anything else I have ever seen. The movie looks like it was made for $12. The cuts, the graininess, and the lack of a sensual plot made this a memorable experience. This movie makes 'Dude, Where's My Car?' look like Citizen Kane. <br /><br />My friends and I left the theatre feeling like we had just paid 8 dollars to be tortured. The only redeeming part of the experience was that we got to laugh about the fact that someone had actually made this movie and thought it was good. Apparently, the previous night, the night of the 'world premiere' the director/writer/producer had been in the audience and had gotten to witness people laugh at and walk out on his movie. Bettie Paige's movies were destroyed. They should destroy this movie too. | 1 |
Combine good casting, bad writing, good orchestral scoring, bad dialogue, and good story idea with lots of potential but is never realized then you have Slipstream. <br /><br />Just bought the movie for a buck, it is worth it, but not much more. <br /><br />Good to see Mark Hamill act again. <br /><br />There should be a decent sequel made to remedy the damage from the original. Or at least give it the proper attention it should have received in the first place. <br /><br />Berstein's score gave demanded your attention from the opening credits, however, the long shots of slipstream planes and the even longer revealing of interesting plot points mutes his attention getting score. <br /><br />It is really easy to dog a movie like this, after all it is by the producer of STARWARS and the director of TRON and a tremendous cast but it is what it is. And that ain't much.<br /><br />Favorite Line- 'We're going to make it, ha-ha!...(BOOM!)' | 1 |
After reading tons of good reviews about this movie I decided to take it for a spin (I bought it on DVD, hence the 'spin' pun...I'm a dork). The beginning was everything I hoped for, a perfect set-up (along with some quotes that I've heard on Various Wu-Tang albums) to what should have been a good movie. But the plot I heard was so great, was so predictable. Every time I saw a character (except for the Lizard) I guessed which Venom he was. Plus, the only cool character gets killed off in the middle of the movie. Ok, so the plot wasn't very good but at least there was some good kung-fu right? Wrong. The fights were very short and few and far between. Granted the different styles were all pretty cool but I wish the fights were longer. I kept hoping to see the Lizard run and do some crazy ish on the walls but it never happened. I was hoping to see the Centipede do some tight speedy ish but it never happened. I was hoping to see the Scorpion in the movie for more than 7 total minutes but it never happened. In short, not much happens. The fighting is all pretty routine. Don't be fooled just becuase this movie has a plot, it does not mean it's a good one. | 0 |
It is an almost ideal romantic anime! MUST SEE FOR ALL AGES! But the English dubbed version is not too good. Perhaps the 1999 version will be better. | 0 |
I've been working my way through a collection of Lugosi films recently, and having just been blown away a couple of days ago by the combination of Lugosi and Boris Karloff in 'The Black Cat' I was really looking forward to seeing their collaboration in 'The Raven.' Alas, it just didn't work for me, and by the end of the film I was quite disappointed.<br /><br />For the first three quarters of this movie or so I thought the story lacked any real suspense. Lugosi was doing a pretty good job of holding things together as the somewhat mad Dr. Vollins, some sort of surgical genius who falls in love with a young woman (Irene Ware) he treats after a car accident but who can't have her - partly because she's already engaged, and partly because her father (Samuel S. Hinds) disapproves. To deal with that situation, he enlists the aid of Edmond Bateman (Boris Karloff) - a horribly ugly man who wants Vollins to make him look more acceptable. Aside from Lugosi's performance, though, I found little to hold my interest. Then, suddenly, in the last fifteen or twenty minutes, the movie shifts around completely. Suddenly it becomes quite suspenseful, but I thought Lugosi's performance fell apart, largely because the movie tried to shift him from mad to insane - and there's a difference. He plays the 'mad' role very well - controlled and in control but evil. 'Insane' is a more out of control evil, and I didn't think Lugosi pulled that off well. At one point, he offers some maniacal laughter which just comes across as fake. In the meantime, Karloff was a huge disappointment. He never grabbed me at all. As an aside, it must have grated on Lugosi that - in movies in which they co-star - Karloff gets the top billing, even though in 'The Raven' it's clearly Lugosi who is the lead actor. This surely gives a hint as to how Universal ranked their two great horror stars - inexplicably, I would add, because I've always thought of Lugosi as the better actor of the two.<br /><br />In any event, there's no real connection here to Edgar Allen Poe's story 'The Raven' - except that Vollins is a Poe fanatic, who tries to recreate some of the torture techniques from Poe's stories. Overall, a disappointment. 4/10. | 1 |
The Hell's Angels did come out the losers in this movie. Sonny stated to the director that NOBODY does this to the Angles and gets away with it. His version was the two dudes were to be shotgunned to death, but his suggestion was ignored. They were stoops to even appear, much less be 'technical advisers' in a stink-bomb of a movie like this. Hell's Angles on JAP bikes? C'mon! (although in Sonny's autobiography he says, 'F$#K Harley Davidson!' and that if they was smart, they would be riding Hondas. (ST1100) Read his auto...he HATES Harleys. Can you imagine the Angels whispering into town on their sewing-machine sounding Jap bikes? Not too intimidating. They would get laughed out of town. | 1 |
Wow, a movie about NYC politics seemingly written by someone who has never set foot in NYC. You know there's a problem when at one moment you expect the credits to roll and the movie continues on for another half hour. The characters are boring, John Cusack's accent is laughable, and the plotline teeters between boring and laughable. A horrible movie. | 1 |
Assuming this won't end up a straight-to-video release, I would have to say void this title at all costs. Unless you're bored of good, well-executed movies, that is. I saw this last night at AFI Dallas, and I left with 20 minutes remaining, simply because I didn't care anymore (about the plot, not about insulting the director...that is awkward). When you can spot a goof only 5 minutes into the movie (a shot out, shattered window before any shots are fired...and then the window breaks with the first shot), things are going to bad. Let's just say this is only an indicator of things to come...unfortunately.<br /><br />I'll spare you all the details, but this is sub-par in every manner, even the half-assed acting by Michael Madsen is disappointing when you're expecting half-assed acting from him. And the rape scene...Christ! 'Shut up and take it' should never be used in a rape scene. EVER.<br /><br />3/10 | 1 |
I thought this movie'd be totally different than just another teen-slasher. Well I was totally wrong. There's a liquid nun coming out of the toilet seat and something really odd. I know that Spanish culture is a bit different and their movies too, but I didn't expect to see a fake Hollywood film. They certainly faked it pretty well though. Why'd they make a movie without any new aspects? This is just plain boring and it'd been done totally without any imagination.<br /><br />I thought that having a nun as the bad guy in the movie'd be something really original. It turned out to be a teen slasher. If this'd been done ten years ago then it'd have been something new.<br /><br />I can't recommend this movie for anyone but it certainly has some comedy value! It's like a horror parody in some points. | 1 |
I don't know if I'd consider it a masterpiece of not, but it's damn near close; it's extremely well made, artistic, suspenseful, intricately plotted, thematically challenging and full of bleak foreshadowing and sexual-religious imagery. There's also some great camera-work from Jan de Bont, an atmospheric score from Loek Dikker and outstanding acting from Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk, the latter giving one of the most sneaky, subtle 'femme fatale' performance I've ever seen. Like many other European movies, this movie has an unashamed, non-judgmental attitude toward sex, nudity and the complexities of sexuality and has zero reservations about mixing it all up with religious and/or surrealistic (some would say blasphemous) images. In other words, if you can't bear the thought of seeing a lust-driven homosexual envisioning the object of his carnal desire as Jesus crucified on the cross before the two of them go at it inside a cemetery crypt then this might not be the movie for you. What surprised me more is how this bizarre movie managed to completely dodge being a pretentious mess. It mixes the abstract/surreal/parallel fantasy-reality scenes and somehow makes it all work. Like any good mystery, you can see the pieces slowly falling into place as the movie progresses. There is NOT an out-of-left-field resolution here. The movie has direction, there's no needless filler and once it concludes, you begin to understand the purpose of what may have confused you earlier. If you like the work of Ken Russell and David Lynch, I can almost guarantee you will love this movie. Hell, if you have no idea who they even are, you still might like it.<br /><br />I'm not going to spoil the plot by getting too detailed, but the film's opening shot - through a web as a spider catches its prey - sets the stage as Krabbé, as unshaven, smug, bisexual writer Gerard Reve (interestingly, also the name of the writer whose novel this is based on) crosses paths with a wealthy, mysterious, sexy woman named Christine (Soutendijk, melding androgynous stylings with Simone Simon-like innocence/cuteness that's pretty unnerving), who may be a literal 'black widow' responsible for the deaths of her three previous husbands. The two become lovers and move in with one another, but we're led to believe (through Christine's bizarre behavior and the frequent appearances of another woman - played by Geert de Jong - who may or may not actually exist) something terrible is boiling under the surface. When another of Christine's lovers, the young and 'beautiful' Herman (Thom Hoffman), shows up at the house, things take an unexpected turn. And that's all you need to know.<br /><br />THE 4TH MAN was a huge art-house success in much of the world, but didn't make it over to the US until 1984, where it was awarded the Best Foreign Film of the year from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. The most common video is the Media release, which has been horribly dubbed. Try to avoid that one and head straight for the newer subtitled Anchor Bay DVD release. Since coming to America, Verhoeven's career has had its ups and downs. He has made a few decent films (Flesh & Blood, RoboCop) and some lousy ones (Showgirls). In fact, Verhoeven's big hit Basic Instinct is almost like a less interesting, junior league version of The Fourth Man. Soutendjik also tried her hand at acting in America and since GRAVE SECRETS (1989) and EVE OF DESTRUCTION (1991) were the best offers she was getting, she headed right back home to the Netherlands. | 0 |
Protocol is an implausible movie whose only saving grace is that it stars Goldie Hawn along with a good cast of supporting actors. The story revolves around a ditzy cocktail waitress who becomes famous after inadvertently saving the life of an Arab dignitary. The story goes downhill halfway through the movie and Goldie's charm just doesn't save this movie. Unless you are a Goldie Hawn fan don't go out of your way to see this film. | 1 |
This crock of doodoo won a award? They must have been desperate for giving out an award for something. This movie reeks of teeny bopper stuff and it made me sick. Thankfully I watched it alongside MST3K's Mike and the bots so it made it bearable. Horrid acting, unsettling mother/daughter moment, silly premise, if you want a bad movie here it is. Be warned though watch it with Mike and the bots or you will suffer.<br /><br />1 out of 10. I still can't believe it won an award, and the director is defending this *&&^$$#$^&& piece of ^%^%$^$#%@$#@ movie! | 1 |
I appreciate a think positive feel good about yourself film, but this is too much. In the end they look like a bunch of loonies. This film is one of those finding yourself 70's plots, I know the film is made in 1980. A lot more of Clint and girl friend movie. This movie is a 3/10. | 1 |
Ahhh...the '80's. 1982 makes me think back to the really crazy time we were facing in America. Fresh off the 'Do What Feels Good' '70's, 'The Last American Virgin' comes as a wolf in sheep's clothing as yet another 'teenage sex comedy' from the glory days. Oh sure, there's sex, but, I can't think of another movie--OK, this and 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High'--that really wasn't killing time between topless teenage scenes--there was some pretty good stuff here amongst the cleavage.<br /><br />The movie follows three hormonal friends. Gary (wanting to lose his virginity), Rick (stud incarnate), and David (overweight, but, not inexperienced) as they try desperately hard to make sure Gary joins the world of manhood. But, a funny thing happens on the way to the kegger--Gary falls for Karen (pretty brunette who loves the bad boys), and can't seem to follow through with any sexual conquest that David and Rick can facilitate. Only trouble is, Rick and Karen get hot and heavy and Karen skips a period. It's Gary who is by her side as she goes to get her abortion, and it's Gary who truly cares. But, who is Karen dancing with by film end...Rick. Subtract the 'R' and add a 'D' where necessary.<br /><br />What separates this film from others from the '80's we think about is that, by god, they attempt some real drama here, and not of the 'my parents just pulled in the driveway variety.' And, you know what? I bought it.<br /><br />It wasn't sloppy. It wasn't far-fetched. And, when Gary sees Rick dancing with Karen at the house party at the end of the film, I actually felt sorry for the guy. Our teenage Romeo actually believed in unrequited love--and when his heart was broken at the end, it all sort of touched me.<br /><br />So, all the T&A aside, there's an actually pretty believable and engaging story here. Oscar worthy? Not by a mile, but, I don't know that I'd lump it into the 'let's get laid' category, either. Like 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High,' they actually were trying to do a true film here, letting the hi-jinx in between fall where it may. | 0 |
What about Scream Baby Scream is supposed to make me not feel like a fool for buying it? I bought it because, God help me, I'm a sucker for old B-cinema even as worthless as this. Nonetheless, Something about this movie irritates me, it's probably Janet, Janet comes off cold & snooty, seemingly, with the intention of coming off as deep and noble, with a look on her face that screams constipation, she can't seem to agree to anything her uptight boyfriend wants. I'm glad that this is her only role. What really irritates me is that this is a 1960's gore film gone terribly awry, and as we all know, awry is Floridian for 'zero gore'. It's like the director started with a Herschell Lewis style but backed out of the gore scenes when his wife found out, so instead we end up with one dull conversation after the other, and basically, a whole lot of irritating nothing. In other words, we end up with Florida Bore. Joseph Adler should be embarrassed. Janets boyfriend, Jason is almost as ridiculous as she is, this guy has something negative to say about absolutely everything, come to think of it, he's probably the least likable good guy in horror history. The only thing this movie really has going for it is that it carries that 60's/early 70's B-gore vibe that you can find in stuff like Undertaker & his pals, Blood Freak, or most anything from Herschell Lewis. Even Rodney from the Gruesome Twosome is in this, I Ithought his caveman comedy routine was irritating, most everything from reel to reel is stupid, even the trip scene was stupid. The only positive thing at all is the small amount of beach scenery, but that mostly includes Janet whining about life not being perfect. In the only real ironic twist, Scream Baby Scream gets even less interesting once the story finally gets started, around the 45 minute mark. If you happen to be indifferent to whether or not your entertainment is watchable, but are offended by the color red, you might not hate this. Why does Troma distribute this? Wouldn't this be Something Weird Video's area? Scream Baby Scream very well may be the worst in Florida horror/gore of its era, but, I suppose, underneath the unlikeable characters, and the incoherent plot, lies potential. Scream, Baby, Scream really just seems like it should follow the Blood Feast pattern, so, to steal a quote from Janet, 'If it doesn't fit, I throw it out'. 2/10 | 1 |
Life Begins is a wonderful pre-code film starring some of the best of the era. It is set in the maternity ward of a hospital, particularly in the room for the women expected to have trouble. In it is an older woman, a tough unwed mother (Glenda Farrell), a frail young woman, an Italian woman, and the main character (Loretta Young) who is spending 20 years in prison for murder. Her husband (Eric Linden) is at the hospital at every second aching to know that everything will be okay. Aline MacMahone plays the nurse who is great at her job.<br /><br />This film is highly interesting and entertaining. It isn't terribly shocking in any way, but it is interesting to see such a neglected subject on the silver screen. The acting is brilliant all around. Loretta Young is gorgeous here in her prime. Eric Linden comes out of nowhere and is sincere as can be. His innocence is reminiscent of Michael J. Fox. Glenda Farrell is great as always, a staple of pre-codes and for good reason. | 0 |
Dick Tracy wasn't the best for many comic book fans, because they wanted something with blood like Batman. Dick Tracy plays the innocence of just being a comic book with villains that have severe appearance disorder and being fun. Warren Beatty directs and stars as the main character that fights crime without even using super powers. I have liked Dick Tracy since I was a child because of the comic atmosphere of the main colors: red, blue, orange, yellow, green and black. This is the perfect film for anybody to watch with their children. Al Pacino is like the Jack Nicholson in Batman and plays Big Boy Caprice with zest. Madonna as the babe who is the second villain in this film doesn't play the same boy toy she represents. Like I said, no blood, obscenities, sexually innuendo or anything to offend anybody. | 0 |
This was on SciFi this past weekend, and I had to check it out. After all... it was science fiction, with vampires and Erika Eleniak. What could go wrong with this B-movie?<br /><br />A lot.<br /><br />To start with: It can't even be classified as a 'B-movie,' because that would put it in the same league as Roger Corman... and this movie doesn't even meet his expectations. The most money they spent was on the contact lenses for the vampires.<br /><br />Secondly: The casting was horrible. Yes, casting Udo Kier as the captain of the Demeter was a smart move... but the director clearly couldn't even get Kier to memorize his lines. Casting Eleniak, in a vampire movie, is also a smart move because it means a bunch of horny guys are going to buy/rent/record this flick to watch her get seduced by a vampire. But, the director, writer and producer screwed that one, too. Granted, they got some money out of the poor, unfortuate souls who enjoy watching vampire movies with hot women in them... but no one is going to remember this movie in another two or three years.<br /><br />Thirdly: Little things that just emphasize the laziness in this movie. For example, Van Helsing calls a cross a 'crucifix,' and, when Mina is staked in the coffin, the viewer can clearly see the fact that her 'chest' is nothing more than pillows.<br /><br />Oh, and one other thing: Why did they go for the George Hamiltion-type Dracula instead of something that would look decently scary? Does George Hamilton have an overwhelming hold on our future? Why didn't everyone who saw Dracula just laugh at him for his get-up?<br /><br />A waste of time. Even with a TiVo remote in your hand. | 1 |
Conclusion: very, but very, very boring, yet I watched till the end, hoping for some upside-down effect, but the end was worse, because it was nothing. The old black&white game didn't helped at all, it usually helps psychological movies, but this was not the case. The script, the plot, etc were linear, had no substance, nothing in-going. When you deal with psychological, you deal with analysis, therefore with details, that unity-diversity formula....there was no essence, no detail. Just a story, there are many stories to tell, but something makes them unique and hard to forgive with the tools and creativity of movie-makers...well, this is not the one. | 1 |
Growing up in the late 60s and 70s I could not help but become a fan of science fiction. With America's space program in top gear, sci-fi books, movies, TV shows, and comic books fueled my imagination and opened my mind to the possibilities that exist in the universe. Farscape is so unlike any other sci-fi show yet it has all the ingredients that made shows like Star Trek, Battlestar Gallatica, X-Files, and Deep Space Nine personal favorites. One of the criticisms of Farscape is that the casual viewer can't just jump in and watch one episode and understand what is going on. There have been other very successful shows that used multiple episode story arcs and complicated characters. This for me is one of the charms of the show. I don't need or want to have the story all tied up neatly at the end of every episode like the various incarnations of Star Trek have done. All in all, Farscape has wonderful and funny characters and a running storyline that says that although humans may be the least evolved or advanced intelligent species in the universe, they still have unique qualities and abilities.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the shortsighted people at the Sci-Fi channel have canceled Farscape's 5th season. They have stated that the cancellation was based on sagging ratings. Yet just a few years ago it was their top rated original series and a critical favorite. It's a shame that all of the artists who help create this show will be unable to continue their labor of love because of the fiscal problems of the very channel/company that made it all possible in the first place.<br /><br />Hey, don't take my word for it, watch the show, watch the re-runs and make up your own mind. Help save Farscape! | 0 |
I watched 'Speak Easily' one night and thought it was o.k., but missing something. Maybe Buster Keaton strangely speaking threw me off, or the labored line delivery of a leading lady. The next day I kept thinking about the movie, though. I couldn't get Durante's song out of my head, I kept trying to better remember Thelma Todd's first scene, I considered that maybe Keaton did do some funny falls and physical comedy. The next night I watched a scene with Thelma Todd as a conniving chorus girl trying to impress Buster and Jimmy with her sex appeal. A very funny scene, the actors excellent, their faces, their eyes, their silly expressions. So I watched another scene, their show is opening on Broadway. Buster in his blissful innocence botches every act. Again, I was laughing out loud, appreciating Keaton's clowning and tumbling. So the next night I watched the whole movie again, and this time I see it for the first time: It's Stupendous! It's Sensational! It's Sublime! Three great comedians! Todd dances! Durante sings! Keaton speaks! Sure it ain't poifect...but there's a lot of laughs in this picture. | 0 |
Once the slow beginning gets underway, the film kicks off and really becomes quite a lot of fun in many unexpected ways. The ensemble cast is really good, with Heather Graham perhaps being the weakest of them. Casey Affleck as her brother is really good and extremely likeable , if you catch my drift.<br /><br />I highly recommend the film if you just want to have to good hours. Teenagers should really enjoy this film - it says a lot about relationships. | 0 |
The film began with Wheeler sneaking into the apartment of his girlfriend. Her aunt (Edna May Oliver--a person too talented for this film) didn't like Wheeler--a sentiment I can easily relate to. The aunt decided to take this bland young lady abroad to get her away from Wheeler. They left and Wheeler invested in a revolution in a small mythical kingdom because they promised to make him their king. At about the same time, Woolsey was in the same small mythical kingdom and he was made king. So when Wheeler arrived, it was up to the boys to fight it out, but they refused because they are already friends--which greatly disappointed the people, as killing and replacing kings is a national pastime.<br /><br />I am a huge fan of comedy from the Golden Age of Hollywood--the silent era through the 1940s. I have seen and reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of these films and yet despite my love and appreciation for these films I have never been able to understand the appeal of Wheeler and Woolsey--the only comedy team that might be as bad as the Ritz Brothers! Despite being very successful in their short careers in Hollywood (cut short due to the early death of Robert Woolsey), I can't help but notice that practically every other successful team did the same basic ideas but much better. For example, there were many elements of this film reminiscent of the Marx Brother's film, DUCK SOUP, yet CRACKED NUTS never made me laugh and DUCK SOUP was a silly and highly enjoyable romp. At times, Woolsey talked a bit like Groucho, but his jokes never have punchlines that even remotely are funny! In fact, he just seemed to prattle pointlessly. His only funny quality was that he looked goofy--surely not enough reason to put him on film. Additionally, Wheeler had the comedic appeal of a piece of cheese--a piece of cheese that sang very poorly! A missed opportunity was the old Vaudeville routine later popularized by Abbott and Costello as 'who's on first' which was done in this film but it lacked any spark of wit or timing. In fact, soon after they started their spiel, they just ended the routine--so prematurely that you are left frustrated. I knew that 'who's on first' had been around for many years and used by many teams, but I really wanted to see Wheeler and Woolsey give it a fair shot and give it their own twist.<br /><br />Once again, I have found yet another sub-par film by this duo. While I must admit that I liked a few of their films mildly (such as SILLY BILLIES and THE RAINMAKERS--which I actually gave 6's to on IMDb), this one was a major endurance test to complete--something that I find happens all too often when I view the films of Wheeler and Woolsey. Where was all the humor?! | 1 |
I like the good things in life as much as anybody, I suppose, but until about five years ago, opera didn't figure into my entertainment choices. Oh, I made a few attempts to learn what all the fuss was about; I'd watched several television productions -- notably parts of Wagner's Ring Cycle on public television -- hoping to understand other people's fascination with the art form. And I knew I could like parts of various operas (I remember being surprised as a kid that I actually LIKED the snippets of 'Madame Butterfly' in 'My Geisha, and I enjoyed the opera scenes in 'Moonstruck' and 'Pretty Woman'), but unlike the characters in those films, I just didn't 'get it.'<br /><br />Then in 1995 I saw a live performance of 'Rigoletto' presented by the New York City Opera Company, and that night I 'got it.' What a wonderful, glorious pageant of color and music and raw Emotion! And I do mean Emotion with a capital E! The key, I think, is that the operatic music allows the performers to over-act freely and believably in a way that would seem silly if their words were just spoken. Everything hinges on the music, of course, and when the music is magical, as it is in 'Rigoletto,' an opera can be a magnificent entertainment.<br /><br />A sympathetic family member gave me a laserdisc copy of the 1982 TV production of the opera, and I've found that since I can't see live performances of 'Rigoletto' live on a regular basis, this video version is a fine substitute. Luciano Pavarotti is perfect in the part of the Duke; Ingvar Wixell is excellent as his mean-spirited court jester Rigoletto; and Rigoletto's beloved daughter Gilda is played by the somewhat plain-featured Edita Gruberova. The sets and costumes are lavish, and the location shots on the river late in the film bring a heightened sense of drama to the story that could never be matched on a stage.<br /><br />If you've never seen 'Rigoletto,' or if you think you don't like or understand opera, I urge you to find this one on videotape and buy it or rent it. If you don't like this, if this production of 'Rigoletto' doesn't make you appreciate the power of the art form of opera, well, just give it up and move on to something else. But I suspect, if you're new to opera as I was, that you'll be pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />Bill Anderson | 0 |
I agree with the posters before that the characters were exceptionally strong and believable and all the actors at their top form. I especially loved David Boreanaz stretching in a part so unlike anything else he played proving once again his amazing gift for comedy. The first part of the movie was light and funny, the blackmail part was a bit surrealistic but interesting - and it was all downhill from there.<br /><br />I found it frustrating that at least two out of the 3 girls (Keira and Lisa) get out of the blackmail&betrayal scot free, nary a trace left on their psyche. I know the movie amended the darker ending of the play - and I am not saying I missed the murder part. But I surely needed to see those two getting their comeuppance somehow and I was left groaning in frustration with the ending. (It's why I gave it only a 9)<br /><br />But definitely an interesting film. | 0 |
This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen; I gave it one star simply because it is the lowest score possible. Whoever thought Flood would ever be a good film? The director and cast should be ashamed and then it dawned on me this could all be part of a shambolic scare tactic. Only propaganda could be this bad.<br /><br />The redeeming feature of Flood is that it's ghastliness and shameless formulaic storyline make it funny. If only the characters had the same depth as created by the flood itself, yet they galumph from sound bite to sound bite without any emotional response whatsoever.<br /><br />The sad thing about this film is that it could have been so much better, informative, imaginative and tense. Flood has the amateur streak to found in many recent British films where a more focused use of funds would have made for a better entertainment.<br /><br />Where was Smithee? | 1 |
1891: Stalwart, morally upright military doctor Lieutenant Claude de Ross (solid Claudio Cassinelli) and several other shipwreck survivors wash ashore on a remote tropical island that's governed with an iron fist by the ruthless and sadistic Edmund Rackham (superbly played to the deliciously slimy hilt by Richard Johnson), who lives on the island with the feisty Amanda Martin (a winningly spunky performance by the ravishing Barbara Bach) and her unhinged rogue biologist father Professor Ernest Martin (a marvelously dotty portrayal by Joseph Cotten). Moreover, de Ross discovers that Professor Martin has control over a dangerous race of fishman beasts who are being exploited as slave labor by Rackham. Director/co-writer Sergio Martino relates the lively and absorbing story at a constant snappy pace, offers a flavorsome evocation of the lush and remote tropical setting, does an expert job of creating and maintaining a creepy and mysterious atmosphere in the spooky opening third, further spices things up with a nice line in dry humor, and stages the exhilarating action-loaded climax with considerable rip-roaring aplomb. While the central premise is obviously inspired by 'The Island of Dr. Moreau,' the story nonetheless is given a great deal of freshness and intrigue because of Martino's artful melding of such diverse elements as voodoo, the lost underwater city of Atlantis, a rousing mondo destructo climactic volcanic eruption, buried treasure, unscrupulous genetic experiments, and even some exciting rough'tumble fisticuffs between de Ross and Rackham during the thrilling conclusion into an altogether dynamic, imaginative, and often immensely entertaining whole. The sound acting by the sturdy cast qualifies as another substantial plus: Cassinelli makes for a likable hero, Johnson essays his juicy villain part with supremely lip-smacking aplomb, Bach rates as a quite fetching damsel in distress, plus there are neat supporting contributions by Beryl Cunningham as sinister voodoo priestess Shakira, Franco Iavarone as the superstitious Jose, and Roberto Posse as surly troublemaker Peter. Giancarlo Fernando's sumptuous widescreen cinematography delivers a wealth of striking visuals while Luciano Michelini's throbbing tribal score hits the funky spot. The amphibious humanoid fishman creatures are pretty gnarly-looking, too. An extremely fun flick. | 0 |
totally genius film from the CKY crew......(not the jackass boys.....johnny knoxville, chris pontius, steve-o etc are not in this<br /><br />film). OK so maybe they'r not the best actors but its not what you call a serious film......but hey there havin fun and its totally funny to watch. who doesn't want to see don vito dressed as a roman emperor!<br /><br />a total must if you like viva la bam or CKY............ an amazing soundtrack provided by the almighty HIM, CKY and others...... check out the extra features on the DVD especially Bran's freestyle<br /><br />Chinese rap number two......seriously hilarious........... check this film out........you wont regret it......... 10/10 | 0 |
well, this is an Ivan Reitman film. with the rare exception, Ivan likes to entertain. His films generally aren't 'deep', but they are often entertaining enough. My Super Ex-Girlfriend surprised me in that i laughed more than i thought i would. Uma Thurman is just so grand, and i love her portrayals. I like Luke Wilson too, and Rainn Wilson was a straight hoot. Never taking itself seriously, the film is over the top and yet isn't very unique, nor does it go where no one has gone before.... it's a nice rent though and probably an OK date movie, especially if you have a headache and don't want to strain your brain. It's escapist fun and there's nothing wrong with that. When you strip away the 'super-girl' stuff, you're left with a story about relationships, and relationships gone bad. It's a boy meets girl, boy leaves girl thing. And in the end, the characters are looking for love. Not all of them take being 'dumped' as well as they could....a slice of life with a twist. | 0 |
All through his career Hitchcock did great films; this was not one of them.<br /><br />A man knows too much, his daughter is kidnapped to secure his silence, and in the denouement all is resolved to the accompaniment of gunfire and rooftop drama.<br /><br />Anyone who has seen 1930s Fritz Lang films- 'M' comes to mind- will know how far this urban narrative of crime and conscience falls short of what had already been done in that genre at that time. There is an altogether amateurish air about much of the staging and acting which subverts any sense of menace, darkness, and depravity that Hitchcock might have been seeking to instil.<br /><br />What it is worth watching out for, however, is the sequence associated with the shooting at the Albert Hall. Once that kicks off it is as if the film has been given a blood transfusion. The camerawork is lively, the cuts are interesting, and the way that everything combines to a climax is masterly. Here you can see the future master: Hitchcock effortlessly orchestrate all the resources to impressive and memorable effect: when the scream comes you really feel as well as hear it. | 1 |
The Duke is a very silly film--a dog becoming a duke! But it's a very fun movie. It has some of those corny pranks that many kids movies have, but (thankfully!) no bodily function jokes, as so many animal movies feel compelled to have! Mostly, it's just dogs being dogs and people being. . . well, people. The 'good guys' are likeable and appealing. The 'bad guys' are ridiculous, and of course, the pun of many jokes. But there is something dignified about this movie, for even though it is silly, it's not out for every cheap laugh like 'Home Alone' and others.<br /><br />Crocket, Simon and Copper do an excellent job playing Black and Tan Coonhound 'Hubert' who becomes the Duke after his beloved owner, a real Duke, dies. For the most part, they just act like dogs, no 'talking,' or human-like emotions and attitudes. However, they do stereotype poodles, and Hubert does fall for her, just because she's a poodle. Come on! These are dogs--they have a different view of beauty!!!<br /><br />Overall, charming, fun and enjoyable. | 0 |
<br /><br />This movie sucked! The first one was way better. No one from the first has returned in this dumb sequel and in some way that is a good thing because of the bad acting but the characters in this film are not even better. Killjoy in the woods? Come on! Give me a break! I'm suprised killjoy's friend the Blair Witch didn't show up to make a cameo. Bad acting, bad story and just plain out silly and boring. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME! | 1 |
Young beautiful Eva (Hedy Lamarr) marries an older man (Zvonimir Rogoz). Unfortunately he can't satisfy her sexually and ignores her. Frustrated she goes home and plans to get a divorce. Then, one day, she's skinny dipping in a lake in the middle of the woods. Her horse gallops off with her clothes...and she runs after it! She meets young and very handsome Adam (Aribert Mog). They make love and she realizes this is the man she wants.<br /><br />ENDING SPOILER!!!! Naturally, since this was made in 1933, she has to be punished for her sin so it leads to a tragic finale. END OF ENDING SPOILER!!!!<br /><br />This horrified people in 1933 but it's pretty tame by today's standards. Lamarr's nude swim shows nothing and when she runs after the horse totally nude, it's either shown in extreme long shot or is covered by branches and such. There's only a few minor shots of her breasts. Also when she has sex with Mog, nothing is shown but her face but you see her achieving an orgasm. These scene were considered pretty extreme in their day and were cut out completely of the American release. Now today they're back in. This film would get by with a PG-13 easily now.<br /><br />Shock episodes aside this is just OK. It is beautifully filmed and there's next to no dialogue. Except for the music score this could be a silent picture. Luckily all the actors are good--Lamarr and Mog especially and they're so attractive that they just take your breath away watching them. Also the sequence where they make love is easily one of the most beautifully shot and acted sequences I've ever seen in a movie. The scenes with the sexual symbolism (there's quite a few of them) are unfortunately pretty obvious today. I actually started to giggle during one!<br /><br />So, great direction, beautiful imagery, attractive actors, good acting all around--but I wasn't exactly bowled over by it. I found the movie slow-moving (beautiful imagery does not make a picture for me), somewhat dull, obvious, static and had a negative ending. I can live with the ending but it doesn't excuse the other problems I had with it. Also the final sequence is REALLY strange--and out of place. So I admire this film more than anything else. It was well-done and I'd recommend it but with caution. Many people seem to love this movie so I'm in the minority. Use your own judgment. | 0 |
This movie is great! Brad Pitt will never be able to out act the performance he gave in this movie. Duchovny was top notch, as was Forbes and Lewis. The 4 main characters embark on a scenic road tour of historic murder sites, in one of the coolest cars ever made, 1960's model Lincoln Continental. Early Grace is a simpleton with a taste for dry toothbrushes and carnage. He likes his women to not curse or smoke, and wear PWT dresses. Duchovny and Forbes are a pair of artists from the city, while Early and Lewis are Trailer parkers from the rural outskirts. Even though the majority tone in the film is dark, there are plenty of funny scenes to be had. The writing, directing, and acting are brilliant. If you like road movies, murder, humor, and narration, watch this film. Everyone delivers, and you will want more when the credits roll. One of my all time favorites. 'hey...shave that dog n teach it to hunt!' | 0 |
I saw this movie when I was about 8-years-old and I liked it but it wasn't until I watched it again at the age of 13 that I really understood it for what it is; a cartoon about a criminal dog with a real heart of gold 'adopts' a little girl in order to exploit her for her talents to talk to animals. The dog star,Charlie B. Barkin, is murdered by his formal business partner, Carface, (who is absolutely diabolical by the way). His soul then goes to where else but Heaven only to find a golden watch that is really his life's time, which Charlie, being the sneaky but lovable cad that he is steals and rewinds, sending him back to Earth. Once back on Earth, Charlie goes about seeking revenge on the evil Carface. This is how he comes upon young Anne-Marie, the lonely little orphan that can talk to animals whom Charlie plans to scam for her talents in order to get back at his enemy Carface. But scoundrel Charlie actually comes to care for young Anne-Marie and his plans unfoil as he must make up his mind to do what is right after Anne-Marie discovers what her 'best friend' Charlie has really been using her to make money for a new and better dog casino. Now he must rescue her from the dreaded Carface. I still love this movie even at the age of 22. The idea and plot really are quite different and original from that of many other animated films. I especially like the idea that a dog plays the role of the villain for once. Carface was even better than he was in the All Dogs go to Heaven sequel. In that picture he appeared quite dubious to his role of villain. | 0 |
I was not expecting much from this movie. I was given a ticket for an advanced screening. I had just gotten off of work. It was hot and I was tired. I had to wait in the movie line for 40 minutes and there seemed not to be any cool air flowing through the hallways of the theater complex.<br /><br />Once seated in the theater, tired and frustrated, the movie started, I did not recognize any of the actors in the beginning, but the flow of the movie was perfect. Right from the beginning I became consumed with the movie, getting more and more excited with each minute passing. I think this movie is destined to be a fantasy/fairytale classic. The actors were fabulous, the pace was perfect, and the ending was magical. | 0 |
There's something going on in this film directed by X-Files scribe John Shiban that has eluded me. You get that feeling as the film moves that everything is not what it seems, yet I feel the movie fails at giving you enough to go on to truly care afterward. It's about perception. There are characters the heroine Nicole(Jaimie Alexander)meets in the film that she talks to that up and vanish. This might seem like a spoiler, but it's something that really only inherits a wee bit of focus on the filmmakers' part. They seem to be poking fun at us as we watch curious at whether we should trust what Nicole is seeing or not. It never gets a proper answer and I for one was a bit clueless at the point. There comes a time in a film when ambiguity can just be frustrating because the viewer is led on a wild goose chase that ends at a dead end with little explanation at what we just saw..it ultimately feels like an exhausting exercise instead of a thrilling psycho-drama. Now there's nothing wrong with ambiguity itself, but give us something to latch onto or you will evade us. That's how I felt as I watched 'Rest Stop.' This film is supposedly about a young woman named Nicole who decides to run off to California with lover Jesse(Joey Mendicino)to make it big in Hollywood. They make what is supposed to be a slight detour at a rest stop so that Nicole can pee, but it descends into terror for her when she finds that her Jesse is completely missing. Someone in a crusty, dusty yellow truck is a nut job who seems to be causing a lot of trouble to Nicole and we soon realize that he is behind Jesse's disappearance when things start to occur, signs provided to her if you will, she will have to find a way out of a very difficult situation. Nicole is far from any existing town and with limited resources to defend herself against a maniac who provides her with some strong evidence of how evil he can be.<br /><br />That's the easy part. When a female character comes into play, the film makes a really bizarre leap from logic as we are not sure where she ever came from, how she got there, and more importantly where she goes once Nicole tries to break her free from her supposed prison in the restroom's utilities' cabinet. She meets another, a Police officer in the area(Joey Lawrence), who might seem like her savior, but when he too is a victim of the truck driver startling things occur again that questions if he was ever actually even there to begin with. The truck driver commits torturous acts to Nicole(like holing her up in the restroom and as she tries to untie a wire that the killer has wrapped around the door lock, she receives a nasty bite from him). He then sets fire to the restroom leaving her without a lasting place of refuge from the beast.<br /><br />It's the timing of the truck driver's attacks that has me listless. Perhaps he just likes tormenting her, but he appropriately appears in certain situations where Nicole has time to flee or prepare. It doesn't make much sense, his motives, which propel the film into an illogical idea. Why does he make himself so obvious? Why does he allow her to prepare? It seems, I'm going out on a limb here, that he likes having his quarry believe they can find a way of escape only to stomp that hope out when he comes up with his next grisly attack. Yet, why does Shiban decide to play with the viewer by having Nicole experience odd meetings with people that don't exist? What is Shiban and the writing team trying to say? And, to cap off the film's unhinged weirdness is a family in a RV. They play a small part in the scheme of things as religious bigots themselves, but the film doesn't do enough for the viewer to explain why they should be in this film at all. | 1 |
I went to see 'Passion of Mind' because I usually get a kick out of the genre of alternate reality romances, i.e. 'Sliding Doors,' 'Me, Myself, I,' etc. <br /><br />But this was the worst one I've ever seen! I had to force myself to sit through it. I didn't even stay through the credits which is unheard of for me.<br /><br />The magical realism was completely missing because Demi Moore was grim and the lovers she was two-timing were guys who usually play villains, though each was kind of sexy and appealing.<br /><br />There was actually a psychological explanation provided for the dual lives, with a distasteful frisson of The Elektra Complex; maybe the magic shouldn't be explained for this genre to work.<br /><br />(originally written 5/28/2000) | 1 |
Yes, indeed we have a winner- a winner in best dumb-action-movie!<br /><br />The only reason I chose to vote a 10 for this movie is because it's so incredibly bad-made that it actually becomes funny.<br /><br />'Night Hunter' is basically about Jack Cutter, a Vampire hunter (Vampire hunters have been in his generation for centuries, apparently), and his mission, being that he has to kill the last remaining Vampires.<br /><br />This movie contains one of the cheesiest scenes I have ever seen in my life. Not to mention the really bad gun-shooting scenes. When people are shot in this movie, blood splatters- thick as ketchup all over the place, this makes the movie seem so cheap and lame that you just lose interest. A constant shaking of the camera is what annoys me the most during the fight-scenes. This is, I suppose, done to create an 'action-effect', though in my opinion it gives no effect whatsoever. Its completely ridiculous! <br /><br />All stunt-scenes are done extremely badly. E.g a scene where the dead Vampire-leader gets thrown off a roof. When the corpse hits the ground, it bounces like a wobbly rubber-doll. A scene where Jack sniffs the ground, getting a vision was so lame it got me laughing hysterically.<br /><br />Lame music, cheesy scenes, bad acting and plain dumb filming techniques are obviously the functions that make this movie such a malfunction. To state that this is a good movie would be the same as stating that nuclear bombs are good for humans. Clearly those of you who say that this is one of the best action-movies, haven't seen many in your life.<br /><br />This is basically a B-class vampire-action-movie that deserves 0/10 but which I'll give 10/10, just for its ability (being the lousiest action-movie I have ever seen)of making me laugh and because I just can't live without it. | 0 |
Some nice scenery, but the story itself--in which a self-proclaimed Egyptologist (Lesley-Anne Down) visits Egypt and, in the course of doing Egyptologist things in the most un-Egyptologistic of ways (e.g., flash photography in the tombs, the handling of old parchment, etc.), uncovers a black market turf war and somehow (in the span of two days, no less!) becomes that war's jumpsuit-wearing epicenter--is more puzzling than any riddle the Sphinx ever posed. Down is simply awful as the visiting British scholar (that she seems to know absolutely nothing about the culture of Egypt and even less about antiquities is the fault of the writers, certainly; but that she's annoying as all get out is her own fault entirely), and the rest of the cast, including Sir John Gielgud and Frank Langella, seem as downright confused by the proceedings as I was. In short, not what you'd expect from Schaffner (Planet of the Apes, Patton) and co.<br /><br />Worth watching for a laughably dated scene in which Down rails against all male scholars, blaming them for her failure as an academic, while bathed under the softest light Hollywood could muster. To top it off, she spends the next hour of the film shrieking and harried and running into the arms of any dude she can find. Wow, talk about your performative irony!<br /><br />*Note to would-be Egyptologists: take a year or two of Arabic in grad school. It'll really help out in the long run... | 1 |
Wave after wave of directionless nausea - this film wants and at first promises to be quirky and original but is in fact obvious, solipsistic and mired in cliché-driven dialogue which builds to a crecendo of awfulness and cheese by the end. Throughout the film we meet supposedly off the wall characters, who are actually very dull, and just don't quite work and who clunk through the horrific screenplay like men in armour suits, driving jeeps through mansion houses and spouting preppy existential obviousness accompanied by the whinings of Coldplay. The film has occasional funny episodes, often no funnier than a dog playing with its genitals, which happened twice (an index of the slapstick, rudimentary humour of the film in general) but by the end, the film falls into an 'infinite abyss' of complete detritus and the director's egocentric ramblings which made me want to gouge my eyes out. Watch this film at your peril. | 1 |
I am writing this review simply because I am a huge fan of the book, Prozac Nation, and was appalled by the film.<br /><br />I think that if you hadn't read the book, you would have been lost watching the film, as it provided no real back story to Wurtzel's depression. There was no real mention of her childhood (her relationship with her father, her experiences at summer camp, her first therapists (in fact, the film gives the impression that she has never been in therapy until Dr. Sterling)...). That said, if you had read the book, you would have been confused by the amount of editing that had taken place.<br /><br />I found the book to be a vivid portrayal of depression, highlighting Wurtzel's low points, and the experiences she had along the way. The film however, began at Harvard, and literally threw the audience straight in with no real explanation of what was going on.<br /><br />Events that, in the book, were important (such as Wurtzel's miscarriage, her summer working in Dallas, her suicide attempt whilst on Prozac) were omitted from the film.<br /><br />Also, this is pedantic, but Wurtzel did not lose her virginity to Noah. The suicide attempt that was shown in Sterling's office was completely different to the book. For a start, she actually overdosed on Mellaril, as opposed to the para-suicidal gesture shown in the film.<br /><br />All in all, I would say that if you have read the book and enjoyed it/identified with it, then don't watch the film. Read 'More, Now, Again' (by the same author) instead. Or watch Girl, Interrupted.<br /><br />The only redeeming feature was the performance by Anne Heche, who I believe portrayed Dr. Sterling very well. Christina Ricci was also good, though her performance seemed a little... stilted. Jessica Lange made for enjoyable viewing, but looked the opposite of how Wurtzel's mother is described in the book.<br /><br />Conclusion? Don't bother. | 1 |
No, I've never seen any of the 'Santa Slasher' series, i.e. 'Silent Night, Deadly Night,' the original 'Black Christmas' or this one, 'Christmas Evil.' I've heard all about their reputation, or, MADS (Mothers Against Deranged Santas.) I thought I would rent this one as I've heard it pop up as a reference on a 'Fat Guys At the Movies' segment.<br /><br />Mothers should be against this, but not for the ooooohhhh 'killer' Santa, but for the fact this movie was just plain crap. Boring, long even at only 92 minutes, crap.<br /><br />Little boy sees Santa arrive down a chimney in 1947, deliver presents, eat some goodies and miraculously, float up the chimney. Boy goes to bed, but returns to living room to witness Mommy and Santa (sort of) getting it on. Apparently this messed up that kid for the rest of his life, though the scene was about as steamy as when Ralphie's dad got the 'Leg Lamp' in 'A Christmas Story.' He was sooo disturbed, he went to the attic and, well cut his own hand.<br /><br />Fast forward to the future! Now, it's 1980 and messed up boy works in a toy factory. We get a whiff of him being a little off-kilter, and he stalks both kids and parents alike. Who's naughty, who's nice, blah blah. It takes a good two-thirds of the film to get him to finally snap as if that's not foreshadowed from frame one. NO MOVIE should take that long.<br /><br />I will admit, this movie had its tension building, but only because I kept expecting him to do something, anything to anyone. When he finally does, well, punish 'who's naughty,' it's as graphic as a 'Garbage Pail Kid' card. And I haven't mentioned the WTF ending. I'm thinking it was a metaphor, but in reality, it's just as weird as the rest of the movie. (Take the brother who's upset his sibling is killing, and his solution is
uh, killing.) Don't open this mess, even on Christmas Eve, or Evil. Again, I didn't watch the other 'Santa-Slashers' but this one sucked bad. It built up suspense due to the nature of the movie and never once delivered a decent present. | 1 |
When King Kong stripped her of her top in the 1976 remake, I was breathless. I don't know how many times I went back to see that movies hoping to see more. Jessica Lange was not a great actress then (She became one), but she was so hot! I went to see 'Sweet Dreams' when it came out because, by that time, Ms. Lange had become a great actress. It looked like a wonderful story. And she's always exciting to see.<br /><br />I never walked out of a movie faster. My wife concurred.<br /><br />When we got into the car, I turned to her, and said, 'If you had told me I would get bored watching Jessica Lange take her clothes off, I would have said your crazy. I just got bored watching Jessice Lange take her clothes off!' How bad is that? | 1 |
I am decidedly not in the target audience for this film. I am a man nearly 50 who has only recently stumbled across the world of independent film. This happened quite by accident, with the discovery of a movie called Clerks late one night on television. The first two things I noticed about that film were that it was 1) technically amateurish and 2) brilliantly written. When I read an interview with the director in the local paper and he said that one of his influences was Clerks, I started to get interesting. When he said his main influence was The Station Agent, a movie I'd seen on DVD a week prior, I decided I had to go and check it out. The result could be described along the same lines as Clerks, although the two films are nothing alike content wise. Both films suffer from technical gaffes that are overcome through amazing writing. Whereas Clerks is a day in the life of a man who has nothing in his life at all and is afraid to ask tough questions about himself and his situation, Less Like Me is about a man who seemingly forces himself to be constantly busy, he's always running one way or another, filling his life with little things so that he will never have to deal with the big ones. The themes and ideas of this film are strong and poignant. I can tell from watching it that not much has changed since I was growing up, young men still have the same problems they always have. The writer dresses up these problems and themes in the modern vernacular, crafts wonderfully honest characters, and has them do completely believable things. As far as indie cinema goes, this may not be perfect from a technical standpoint, but from an artistic one, it is very close. | 0 |
I consider myself a fan of Jess Franco and his trash movies, but nearly every time I see one of them, I just see missed opportunities and plots that don't play out well. This film is, unfortunately, no different. The film certainly had a lot of potential, as Franco has fused the intriguing theme of the classic film 'The Most Dangerous Game' with his usual brand of trashy sleaze, but the plot here gets lost too often, and it takes an eternity for Franco to get round to the main point of the movie. With this being a later Franco film, you might be forgiven for thinking that the director would have got better, but actually I've found that the opposite is true; as this and the terrible 'Killer Barbys' are two of his very worst films. The plot focuses on a stripper and her sleazy boyfriend. The pair is invited to a private island by a rich woman and her lover. However, they soon find that they haven't been invited there for social reasons as they are 'released' on the island so that the wealthy woman and her friends can hunt them down for sport! <br /><br />What attracted me to this film was the front cover and the fact that it was directed by the king of sleaze flicks. You'd think, then, that I'd be pleased that the movie features a plethora of sex scenes and general sleaze; but I'm not. The reason for this is mostly that the sex and sleaze in the film is really boring and most of the time served only in giving me the condition known as 'itchy fast forward finger'. However, my inclination to see everything through to the end ensured that I had to lump it. There was a time when I didn't think girl-on-girl could possibly be boring, but I have since been proved wrong. The only positive I can pluck out the movie really is that the soundtrack is quite catchy, and despite it being silly foreign pop music; actually blends quite well with the sex scenes. I did enjoy the last ten minutes; as that's when the plot finally got going, but it was a case of too little too late and unfortunately, this is a severely lacklustre film. On the whole, I only recommend this film to those who feel they must see all 180+ Franco movies...everyone else should watch Vampyros Lesbos, Faceless or She Killed in Ecstasy instead. | 1 |
A Christmas Together actually came before my time, but I've been raised on John Denver and the songs from this special were always my family's Christmas music. For years we had a crackling cassette made from a record that meant it was Christmas. A few years ago, I was finally able to track down a video of it on Ebay, so after listening to all the music for some 21 years, I got to see John and the Muppets in action for myself. If you ever get the chance, it's a lot of fun--great music, heart-warming and cheesy. It's also interesting to see the 70's versions of the Muppets and compare them to their newer versions today. I believe Denver actually took some heat for doing a show like this--I guess normally performers don't compromise their images by doing sing-a-longs with the Muppets, but I'm glad he did. Even if you can't track down the video, the soundtrack is worth it too. It has some Muppified traditional favorites, but also some original Denver tunes as well. | 0 |
It starts out looking like it may be going somewhere, then quickly leads the main characters into a three-ring circus of remarkable stupidity which permanently destroys any likability of the characters. I'm a huge collector of stoner movies, but this is something I would not consider a valid addition. Bong Water is trash from the very deepest regions of the dumpster, and I wouldn't be caught dead with this on my shelf. I'm actually convinced this movie was created by a Partnership for A Drug Free America. If you're a Jack Black fan then I would say that you may think 5 minutes of the movies is OK because Jack Black continues his legacy of singing songs for retards. I really can't say enough bad things about this movie. | 1 |
This movie is an abomination, and its making should have been considered a capital crime.<br /><br />One of the great mysteries of film-making is why nobody ever has made a faithful movie adaptation of this wonderful mystery. It is a tale of a really gripping mystery, nice old-fashioned romance, and dry English humor. Why did the makers have to change Richard Gordon from a Scotland Yard policeman to an amateur detective, introduce the idiotic role and caricature of his English servant, change the part of the main storyline about the murder charge and circumstances of Gordon's struggle to save the accused, etc., etc.? These producers and directors who always think they can make a better story than the one in the book should write the original script themselves and not to rape another person's product. | 1 |
this cartoon is not right,lol I totally disagree with a lot of things it portrayed however it ended on a positive note , but as for me and mine we will not be viewing this in our household mainly because we fight against stereotypes every day and this cartoon just confirms what most white people feel black people act like<br /><br />the comment one of the little black girls made on the cartoon was that her boyfriend was so conscious (he was white ) that really offended me that's not something we as black people take lightly conscious is a state of being that black people achieve when they realize their true ability | 1 |
This movie is brilliant in every way. It touches on the complexities of loving relationships in a meaningful way, but never lectures. The script never condescends toward any character, not even the hapless Johnny. It also and benefits from spot-on direction, production design, casting, and performances. The fact that Cher is so perfect in the film and is more unlike 'Cher' than she has ever been is a wonder to me. I watch Moonstruck at least once a year and I just viewed it again this Christmas eve with my 16 year old twin daughters and they loved it as well. It has something for everyone with a heart and leaves you filled with joy in the end. | 0 |
Telling the story wouldn't be the point at all, would it? Barnens ö, spelled almost like 'booné aww' is the title for that brilliant novel of the late seventies that shocked a lot of people, including myself.<br /><br />Children's Island is the title, and what an island. In the book, Raine, the main character has The Guiness World Record Book as his own Bible. And he's keen on breaking new records himself. In particular the youngest person under water for three minutes.<br /><br />The story is, as most Swedish films and books of the time, deep, consciously provocative and awe inspiring. Bergman was beginning his final film and Cries and Whispers was barely out. expectations for any Swedish film were pretty high. They taught us then that great theatre, great actors, superb writers and gifted directors made a veritable team of perfection in cinema.<br /><br />All this said, Barnens Ö is a story of discovery. It is, too, a story of alienation: cities are alienating and living in one of them make us aliens to most of its residents. It is a story of revelations and sudden encounters with our own destiny. It is a film of overwhelming hope and desperation. Of feelings buried under layers and layers of isolation and insulation from a world that couldn't care less...<br /><br />This approach, in itself, is a pretty difficult way to weave a convincing narrative. Here, the masterful guidance of Kay Pollak on Ola Olsson's script of P C Jersilds novel, turns it not only in a possibility, but in one of those master pieces of cinema.<br /><br />I may disagree a bit with someone who said that this work was all but forgotten. It is not. Even as I write this in 2009, discussions on P C Jersild's story are conducted all over the world, and the film shown at many film schools and small theatres.<br /><br />Why? Waxing philosophical on all of it would be difficult and many have already done it scholarly through writing and lectures. The reason why Barnens Ö was and IS a special story is the cosy feeling you get from the start when you discover that everything is told through the eyes of a small child. And that's where it ends, too. Maybe it's a clinical view, as someone else pointed out. But deeply disturbing, moving and satisfying. The concept is deep: as long as we have no pubic hair, we still can live one more day as an angel. Afterwards, we'll become what Raine reflects as the colophon of his experiences: 'Men are Pigs'. He finds his fears when he's fearless. He finds love when the world is crumbling around him. He discovers a reason not to behave like the grown-ups because he refrains from committing crimes. He let go his inner purity and confidence in others without reservation, just to learn how rotten the soul of a man can be.<br /><br />Where love is expected, he finds hatred. Where compassion is needed, he finds suspicion and cold hearts. It's a film of metaphors. A film to think and to raise questions that are hard to ask but harder to answer.<br /><br />In the end, the satisfaction of witnessing such a superb work (that really upped the ante for any other Swedish film after) is a ride of joy and hope. Be aware that it is a film full with the dark side of our nature. But, alas!, a film of hope and deep joy. Reine will still be an Island in Stockholm, but there is the big hope of living today in full, even when we found our first signs of sexual maturity show. | 0 |
I go to the cinema to be entertained. There is absolutely nothing entertaining about this film. From beginning to end, there is no respite from the gray, grinding reality of this woman's life. It is one-paced, with no change of mood. I remained until the end only because I was convinced that things must get better. They don't, and I don't think I was the only one, as evidenced by the many groans ringing around the cinema as the film drew mercifully to a close. Honestly depicting social depravation is no crime, but boring your audience to groans is not the way to win the sympathy of the public. A dreadful film. | 1 |
i saw this movie at the toronto film festival with fairly solid expectations. the movie has a great cast and was closing at the festival so it must be good, right? how wrong i was. <br /><br />i knew we were in trouble when before the film the director was talking about how when he was directing an episode of wiseguy he met an unknown actor named kevin spacey (a director/writer of wiseguy making his feature debut = blah)... well the director/writer of Edison must have some incriminating pictures of kevin spacey killing a homeless man, because i cannot see how he (along with the other actors in the film) would ever agree to be in this disaster. <br /><br />this movie is absolutely appalling! it's a mixture of every cop hard boiled cliché ever. there is nothing new with Edison. the acting was bad and the direction was even worse. it looked like that aforementioned episode of wiseguy. this was the best casted direct to video movie i've ever seen. <br /><br />some examples of just bad silly moments in Edison... morgan freeman dancing around his apartment for no reason to rock and roll music... justin timberlake getting creative criticism from his belle while his apartment is surrounded by candles... llcoolj driving a vintage firebird... 3 guys being shot in the head...<br /><br />this movie is the opposite of good.<br /><br />STAY AWAY FROM EDISON! | 1 |
I have the good common logical sense to know that oil cannot last forever and I am acutely aware of how much of my life in the suburbs revolves around petrochemical products. I've been an avid consumer of new technology and I keep running out of space on powerboards - so I know that even the energy crunch associated with Peak Oil will change my life appreciably.<br /><br />The End Of Suburbia shows, in a rational and entertaining manner, just how much my whole family's lifestyle will have to change in my lifetime. I am particularly concerned for the future generations who will have to pick up the tab for our excesses, however the film-makers do offer a glimmer of hope in that they acknowledge human resourcefulness and determination - and the sense of community that tends to be engendered by shared hardship.<br /><br />There is no point in trying to pretend that Peak Oil is baseless propaganda - or in treating it like the approaching radioactive cloud in 'On The Beach' (i.e. with suicide pills at the ready). Even with our best efforts, times will get harder all over, and I'm hoping there's enough compassion and humanity to go around. | 0 |
I mean the word 'pedestrian'. Seems the producers of the film forgot to have anything interesting happen. Faith Domergue can do better than this. She is supposed to be the mysterious, vengeful Cobra goddess torn by love for Marshall Thompson (there's an idea, eh?). Instead she's a common would-be housewife of the fifties, and the single, flat expression she wears throughout the film makes me think they shot it all in the early morning before Faith had her coffee. As for the rest of the cast, they are all so earnestly 'all-American' that the result is laughable. This is ground more productively covered in Val Lewton in 'The Cat People'. I think 'Cult of the Cobra' should really be titled 'Cult of the Contractual Obligation'. Why else would so many otherwise talented people sleepwalk their way though a slow-moving, predictable, derivative failure like this? | 1 |
This amusing Bugs Bunny cartoon sees the return of the still unnamed Marvin the Martian and his sidekick K-9 the green dog.<br /><br />This time instead of trying to destroy the Earth Marvin is on a mission to land, capture an Earth creature and take it back to Mars. Of course the creature he picks is Bugs Bunny. At first Bugs thinks Marvin and K-9 are trick or treating but realises this can't be right when Marvin drastically enlarges Bug's rabbit hole with a ray-gun. Bugs tries to trick his way out of the situation in a couple of ways, including persuading Marvin that K-9 is planning a mutiny. Eventually he is captured using an Acme strait-jacket ejecting bazooka. Amazingly, for an Acme product, it works as advertised and Bug's is forced to use his wits to get K-9 to release him, the tables are soon turned and the two disgruntled Martians are trussed up and Bugs is trying to fly their saucer back to Earth.<br /><br />I really enjoyed this although the ending is a little weak compared to the rest of the story. Marvin's voice has changed slightly here and he gets visible emotional when he is angry but this didn't make me like him or the cartoon any less. | 0 |
'you can't take it realistically.' -sheets<br /><br />Zombie Bloodbath 2 (ZB2) is a world all of its own. I've really never seen anything like it. The only thing I can think to compare it to is psychedelic drugs. Forgive the clichéI don't simply mean that it's incoherent and absurd, though occasionally it is. I mean that it takes you through such a broad range of intense experiences and unexpected emotions so quickly as to overwhelm you, and when it's over, you find that it's all happened while you were sitting on the couch.<br /><br />It is worth noting that it's extremely low-budget, as a disclaimer to those who, after seeing 'Shaun of the Dead,' consider themselves fans of underground zombie films. Also of note is that it is much more 'brutal' than you'd expect. Children get disemboweled, and someone taunts a teenage girl before shooting her in the groin. Her corpse is subsequently 'raped.' These are certainly not flaws, and indeed I feel it is to the film's credit. But if it doesn't sound like your kind of movie, don't waste your time.<br /><br />(I don't mean to over-hype it, regarding brutality. Don't go in expecting 'Inside' or something.) I hesitate to give away any of the plot, because it's really full of surprises. Even the opening scene, which has nothing to do with zombies, is at once a classic horror scene and something quite original.<br /><br />Man, I'm three paragraphs in and I've hardly said anything at all. Here's why I thought the movie was awesome: 1. It's big, and it keeps moving. At one point, you expect it to turn into another NotLD clone, a board-up-the-windows movie where everyone stays in a farmhouse and argues with one another. By the end of the film, however, the farmhouse scenes will seem like a distant dream. There are also a number of outdoor, urban scenes. These are rare in low-budget zombie films.<br /><br />2. The makeup/gore is much better than ZB1. More convincing and more creative. Something kind of funny: the early zombies look really lame. Then, halfway through, they suddenly look really good, with prosthetics and everything. Some of them look like Fulci zombies, some are reminiscent of Mr. Tongue from 'Day of the Dead.' And it's got big scenes of dozens of zombies shuffling around. Never gets old.<br /><br />3. There's something oddly emotional about it. One character asserts that heaven exists, and that our dead/undead protagonists are now in heaven. In the context of the film, we believe it to be true. Though the characters behave with typical horror film stupidity, they genuinely seem to care about each other, and accordingly, I found myself caring about them.<br /><br />4. The pacing is great. There's hardly a dull moment.<br /><br />My only observation that borders on criticism is that Todd Sheets comes up with the most bizarre dialog I've ever heard. I personally feel it adds to the experience, but I don't think he does it on purpose, so I can't fairly give the film a perfect rating. (Example: when a car breaks down, the owner yells at the passengers. Then he says something to the effect of, 'Sorry I yelled at you guys. You don't know what it's like to have your dad standing over you with a straight razor when you're five years old.' wtf?) At the very end, it gets to be more than I can handle. Involves a montage with Bill Clinton, and then some preachy end credits explaining the zombie metaphor. Really, by this point, I was firmly re-living my drug experiences.<br /><br />Highly recommended. 7/10. | 0 |
I saw bits and pieces of this on TV once, and when a friend recommended it, I began looking for it even though it seemed no place nearby had it. I finally got a hold of it in an antique store, and couldn't wait to watch it...Oh, that I had seen it a couple years earlier and could've really enjoyed it. I was surprised that this movie was only 80 or so minutes long, and I think this is what made the plot and story so lacking. The plot really does sound like a good one, both on the trailer and the movie comments: a teenager, Angus (Jesse Bradford) and his newfound stray lab Yellow are marooned on an island during a storm on a boat trip with his father (Bruce Davison). Together, they manage to survive the wilderness and wait to be found and rescued. Still, what is never mentioned is that everything is shortened and the events of the plot are very rushed. There is a possible love interest between Angus and Sara, but they're never shown together for more than a moment. Yellow is a mischievous dog the parents are reluctant to keep, but in a few days he seems to be appreciated enough to join a boat trip. The scene of the mother (Mimi Rogers) mentioning vaguely what death is like to the younger boy (Joel Palmer) doesn't go anywhere. In no time, we learn that 9 days have been spent on the island, then suddenly it's 14, then 19. Of all the animals a castaway could be exposed to in the wild, only 1 kind - a wolf - attacks them. Why couldn't something else have been a problem instead of having the same type of animal - maybe even the same one - strike twice? There are few views of how Angus prepares food, except when he discovers fruit and roots, and when he roasts a trapped rat. If he knows so much about survival skills, why weren't more scenes with it shown? The one thing that made me blank was why the dog didn't have much part alone. When he is rescued, and the dog is left behind on the island, there is no scene showing how he survives without a human's help. I wished I was more open to this when watching it, but I did enjoy some of this. The acting was good, and the score was enjoyable. Though, I found myself wondering why the father looked so much older than his family, and why he and the main search and rescue conductor share names. This is a good movie for kids, but though the protagonist is 14, nobody over 10 would be interested with this. | 1 |
This movie probably seemed like a great idea in pre-production. 'Let's make a movie about one of the greatest and most controversial athletic coaches of the modern era! And let's cast Brian Dennehey as Coach Bobby Knight!' That's where this movie went terribly wrong. Why cast an actor who bears no semblance of the man he's portraying? And then, why let this actor turn his character into not Coach Knight, but Brian Dennehey in a red sweater? As I sat watching this movie on ESPN, I didn't find myself believing this man was actually Coach Knight. He didn't look like him, talk like him, act like him, or even walk like him. I could not get past this fact, and thusly, I could not enjoy the movie. When Paul Newman and Robert Redford were cast as the outlaws Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, we didn't care if they were accurate historical models of their true characters because most of us had never even heard of these men until we saw the movie. But, with someone as visible in today's media as Coach Knight, you have to do better. When Anthony Hopkins was cast as Nixon, it was the same situation. But, Anthony Hopkins made us believe he in fact was Nixon. Dennehey didn't even try. What might have been a great movie was turned sour by this. Besides the fact that this movie tried to do for the four-letter word what 'Saving Private Ryan' did for dismemberment, it stunk. Too little of the real Coach Knight and too much profanity for the sake of shock value turned this movie into a 'season to turn off half-way through the broadcast.' The only good thing about this is that it was television movie. I didn't have to waste my hard-earned money on this piece of trash. | 1 |
This is an excellent, suspenseful, murder-mystery movie. Not only was the plot full of suspense and intrigue but you get to see gorgeous Ryan Gosling for a couple hours, what's not to love! Also, Sandra Bullock is good in this movie - I've always been a fan of hers, (I just wish she hadn't decided to be in 'The Lake House' which was horrible, but that's another story altogether). Obviously since there are thousands of other murder/horror movies out there, there are bound to be similarities between them, no need to bash this movie for having some similarities to at least a few that have already been made. Anyway, this is a great movie for those of you that actually enjoy 'scary' movies, it's a little dark and twisted but overall a great movie!!! | 0 |
Perhaps if only to laugh at the way my favorite of Jane Austen's works has been portrayed. Perhaps I am too severe on this adaptation, but I'm afraid I am biased to the A&E version. I have a hard time imagining Mr. Darcy portrayed by anyone other than Colin Firth.<br /><br />The characters seemed shallow, and often dialogue forced. Lizzy seemed to lack the real feeling that is so evident in the book. Her fancy for Wickham was overplayed, and then her sudden like for Darcy was not believable.<br /><br />Darcy was portrayed tolerably well, I will grant him. He managed to maintain the aloofness that is required, but I felt he did not project the feeling and inner struggle that makes his character so delightful, especially in the proposal scene.<br /><br />Mr. and Mrs. Bennet were also played well, but seemed lacking in many ways. The mean temper of Mrs. Bennet was not completely captured in her performance.<br /><br />Mr. Collins' was a good portrayal. Very much in line with the book.<br /><br />I will refrain from commenting on Lady Catherine except to say that she is possibly the worst portrayal in the entire film.<br /><br />Other problems I saw were the few liberties they took with the order of events such as Darcy being present at the first meeting with Lady C., and also that Miss Lucas and Sir William did not join Lizzy on her visit to the Collins'.<br /><br />The choreography was dreadful during the dancing scenes. The scene where Lizzy and Darcy dance loses much of its intensity because one cannot get past the feeling that they look akward on the ballroom floor. At least this BBC version left out the dialogue between Lizzy, Darcy and Sir William when he commends the two on their dancing, as they performed very ill indeed.<br /><br />There were occasional moments that it kept me interested, but overall I find this version to be a disappointment. I would not advise this film unless you're like me, and you are excessively diverted by such follies.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Great, great, great! That is all I can say about that movie, but imdb want at least four lines of text so I'll elaborate. The cast was great (Jerry O'connel is soooo cute!), the music was great (The sixties had the best music ever, imho), the historical material was interesting, and so was the way they made the actors of the '90s seem like they were actually there in the '60s. And most of all - the stories of the main characters brought tears to my eyes, and that is the greatness of any drama. BUT IN ONE WORD: GREAT! | 0 |
Having recently seen Grindhouse, I was browsing in Video USA looking for some movies that might have played in real grindhouse theatres in downtown areas during the '70s. The Hong Kong action flick Five Fingers of Death seemed just such a picture. The cartoon-like sound effects and the quick jump cuts seemed a little distracting at first but after a while I was so involved in the story and the characters I didn't care. Parts of the music score sounded like the 'Ironside' TV theme song that was subsequently used in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill movies. Some scenes involving the hero's fiancé seemed to border on parody but they were so brief that they didn't ruin the film. The most exciting parts involve the tournament and some revenge segments after that. Well worth seeing for kung fu fans! | 0 |
If you want to see a Horror Film which is Horrible and in very bad taste, this is definitely the film to view. This films starts out with two young teenagers getting wild ideas about going into a chat room and going out on blind dates, and quite possibly they will wind up like a little lamb to the slaughter house. Plenty of blood, gore, nudity, handcuffs and all kinds of blood draining hooks and things you will never dream a person is capable of performing on men and women. If you like piercing, well this kind of piercing deals with heavy heavy hooks and plenty of tattoo's; besides, lots of needles and thread to seal up things on the human body. I really hope that this film does not give some sick person in this world, the idea to act out these horrors in real LIFE. | 1 |
Hey now, I have never laid eyes on a Manga comic, but apparently this movie is based on one. Ah well, such is life. Anyway, this is a pretty bizarre, to say the least, movie, as things literally spiral out of control in a small Japanese town. People are becoming obsessed with the uzumaki (spiral) and this young girl watches her friend's father videotape a snail, and later in the movie, people start becoming snails? It also seems this boy's dad becomes so obsessed he somehow commits suicide in a household appliance. There is some bizarre humor here that might be at home in a Tim Burton movie, but there is some nastiness & gore like only the Japanese can do with justice. As with a lot of Japanese films though, the ending is the ending, and did anything get resolved? Well, not to my mind, it didn't. There are some hints as to why this is all happening but they aren't explored and there's a lot left to either the imagination or else it wasn't deemed important. Still though, there are lots of things for the eye to feast on and if you aren't obsessed with everything making perfect sense, this is well worth seeing, because it's just so original and bizarre. My favorite was the father with the spinning eyeballs, personally. 8 out of 10 stars. | 0 |
Despite the potentially fascinating premise, Series 7 is weak attempt at attacking reality television. Aside from its bargain basement production values, which present an eyesore 10 minutes in, the overall tone of the film is misguided. Several reviewers have attacked the acting in the film, but I think the real problem is this lame attempt to make the film into a farce. Aside from the fact that the jokes are not funny (a pregnant woman swears a lot, a young girl gets a bunch of guns), it doesn't gel with the overall tone of the film. Had the makers actually made Series 7 to bear a striking resemblance to actual reality TV-colorful yet hollow edits, lame sound effects, sweeping camera motions-maybe their point would have been more solid or at least more palatable. Instead Series 7 meanders through the already harried world of death and game show. You can just imagine the director slapping himself on the back for stating the obvious | 1 |
I just viewed this great good-natured parody of Night of the Living Dead, and I have to say it was so awful and so corny it was excellent. This movie incorporated all the antics and scenery shots that the original had including the cemetery, the supposable abandoned house, the basement and the front lawn. What I especially love about this movie is the comical use of bread and all the common household enemies bread has a grudge against. C'mon, we know that toasters, toaster ovens and zip-locks have done bread in a dozen times and now we must call for their help in order to defeat the reanimated bread. Aside from the cheap acting and voice-overs, this short horror film is my personal favorite parody of Night of the Living Dead, even better than Night of the Living Dead of 1990.<br /><br />I think what makes this movie worth watching is how the writers and directors utilized all the dialogue from the original movie and revolved it around bread, including how the bread became reanimated and to avoid leftovers because they are especially dangerous. Another great reason why I love this movie is that, there is no exception as to what bread is evil, bagels are evil and even communions are evil, which is demonstrated by a hilarious scene involving a newscaster and a rather monotone priest. I think that the actors are especially humorous performing the deed of being viscously attacked by slices of bread (i.e. the car scene). I think the end is very worth sticking around.<br /><br />Even though this is a short and that 'Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D' is debatably another great parody, it's still recommend as a great horror parody done by, what seems to be college filmmakers. I highly recommend this movie to anybody who is able to make fun of Night of the Living Dead and still have respect for the filmmakers. I would also like to recommend this movie to anybody who loves D-movies and horror parody's, it's just a wonderful little short horror film that's fun to watch and learn. | 0 |
Some good set design. Good songs, though like the other guy said they aren't performed with much energy. Bea Arthur, trying her damndest to do something with the material, had an occasional good one-liner as Mame's friend Vera and helped move the song 'Bosom Buddies' along. Other than that, there's nothing here that's worth your time. Slow pacing, incredibly bad cinemetography, not very good singing (except from Robert Preston), an awful script, bad acting (except from Bea), and a horrible lead actress. Who thought Lucille Ball would be good as the classy, life-loving Mame? The heads over at Warner Bros. were no doubt on crack when they decided to not use Angela Lansbury, who had done it so well on Broadway, and instead use Ball, who wasn't nearly as funny by then as she was 20 years earlier, couldn't act the part 'the right way' at all, and used a painful croak as an excuse for singing. Even if (perhaps because) making the movie was painful for her to make and even if she financed it, she just isn't Mame. Auntie Mame is such a better film and the soundtrack of the Broadway musical with Lansbury sounds great. For the most part, there's nothing here that's great, engaging, or interesting at all. Forget it, unless you're a huge Lucy fan who thinks she could do no wrong. Hopefully after seeing this you'll realize she was only human. | 1 |
I remember watching this on prime time when I was about 7 years old. I was a huge comic book reader at the time, and anything relating to superheroes was anticipated heavily. The end result, however, was underwhelming.<br /><br />I was aware of the 'Emma Peel' Diana Prince stories, as they had only recently come to an end and Diana was returned to her Amazonian form. However, there was so little action that I was bored throughout most of the movie. The final costume was an interesting idea, but looked more like a cheerleader than a superhero.<br /><br />I saw the movie again in my late teen years. It hadn't improved much. Cathy Lee Crosby was more familiar, thanks to That's Incredible, but her acting was no better. The script had a few good ideas, like the rogue Amazon, and a decent villain in Ricardo Montalban, but it just didn't come together and was still boring.<br /><br />I think they should have built the back story better, and built the show into a more epic climax. It was too much like a bland spy film, crossed with a superhero story written by someone who had never seen a comic book. The Amazon elements were intriguing, but needed to be expanded.<br /><br />The film did succeed in forcing producers to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more faithful, if a bit too camp and low budget. The budget was also pretty low here, and superheroes don't come cheap.<br /><br />It would be nice to have the movie available on DVD, if only as a comparison and historical document. Even Superman 4 is available, and it has nothing over this film (except Chris Reeve and Gene Hackman). It's worth seeing for curiosity sake and for a bit of inspiration and caution for future versions. | 1 |
It was 1974 and it starred Martin Sheen.<br /><br />That alone says what to expect of this movie.<br /><br />And it was a movie. According to the movie, Slovik had reformed, got a good woman, and didn't want to fight.<br /><br />In real life, Slovik may have been a naive innocent, or he may have just wanted to manipulate the system.<br /><br />Whoever Slovik was or wasn't is for history to decide, but this was a movie that dealt with dessertion at a time when a country was questioning why it was fighting, and the movie took sides.<br /><br />With no regard to servicemen who were in Viet Nam either in 1974 (as Willie Nelson would say, let's tell the truth, it was about the Viet Nam war, not WWII), EoES was as propagandistic as Gung Ho was in the forties.<br /><br />According to this movie, Slovik stated his position, plain and simple. He had a nervous problem. Heck, I have a clinical nervous condition, and trust me, if I had done military duty, it would have been no problem for me to either just let my nerves go and fail at my tasks and get a demotion or put on KP duty or latrine duty with no problem.<br /><br />If we believe the teleflick, Slovik didn't have that option, no doubt because of his criminal history.<br /><br />Whatever the viewer wants to believe is up to the viewer. I've learned that movies from this decade or that decade, in dealing with service or military duty, will pretty much take the same stance over and over.<br /><br />1940s and 1950s, serve your country.<br /><br />1960s and 1970s, mock your country.<br /><br />This is the history.<br /><br />The whole movie seemed predictably Hollywood to me. He refused to serve and only when he was being strapped up to be executed does he show emotion.<br /><br />Such an emotional outburst could have easily worked to his advantage in his declaration of his nervous condition, but obviously the movie wanted to show him as a human being and only when he is about to die does he become sorrowful.<br /><br />I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the recital of the hail Mary by Ned Beatty and Sheen at the end, with the Lord's prayer, was funny as it sounded like they were trying to see who could say it faster.<br /><br />I don't see how this movie could be watched without realizing it was aimed at Tricky Dick Nixon and the Viet Nam war.<br /><br />I hope it was all worth it for Slovik and anyone who chose to follow his example. | 1 |
Nacho Vigalondo is very famous in Spain. He is a kind of bad showman who can make you feel sick... Very embarrassing. Nacho had made some commercials in TV, I remember one in which Nacho was looking for Paul Mc Carney around Madrid (the commercial was about a Mc Carney CD collection). <br /><br />This little movie is like a Nacho's commercial: bad storyline, bad directing, and awful performances. I can't believe that a disgusting movie like this was in The Kodak Theater. Poor Oscar...<br /><br />Nacho could made this movie because of his wife, the producer of this 7:35, a woman very well connected with Spanish TV business men. | 1 |
This is a film that everyone who lives in Sweden should watch. The film shows the political riots who took place in Gothenburg in 2001 from a new perspective. It features interviews with those who were convicted where those people gets the first chance after the riots, to tell their side of the story and why they think the world can be a so much better place to live in and be a part of. I react emotionally when I see this, since I just feel so mad about how those people were treated both during the riots but also after the riots.<br /><br />I hope as many as possible gets to see this movie, as it really gets your mind thinking: Is this possible? In Sweden, a democracy, in 2001? | 0 |
Ira Levin's Broadway smash comes to the screen with hardly any meat on its bones, a mystery plot with just a few tricks and twists but nobody worth caring about. Frustrated writer Michael Caine plots to steal the work of a brilliant young man and pass it off as his own; his devious plan may include murdering the talented kid, which has Caine's flighty spouse up in arms. The first act in which everyone is introduced is excruciatingly dead, with Caine doing everything an actor can to keep the pacing up. Dyan Cannon is miscast as his wife (she's too smart and clever herself to be passed off as a ditz) and Christopher Reeve (in the middle portion of the film) seems extremely uncomfortable in the role of the better writer. These three characters, and Irene Worth's bothersome neighbor, are so undefined that what happens after the set-up barely even registers until well after the second act has begun. Sidney Lumet's direction is stagy and fuzzy, the set design unconvincing and poorly-lit, and the finale is a total disaster. The actors struggle to give the script some substance, but with such thin material all we see are their laborious efforts. *1/2 from **** | 1 |
Of all the British imperialist movies like Four Feathers, Charge of the Light Brigade for example, this movie stands out as the cream of the crop. It reflects a time when 'the sun never set on the British Empire.' Get over it. I won't go into why because so many others have expressed the many reasons that makes this film great. I have visited the Alabama Hills and have photographed the pass through which the British marched and it remains as it was, unchanged by time and encroachment by man and vandals. And even though I know it's coming, seeing Din lying dead on a stretcher and when these lines are read <br /><br />'Yes, Din! Din! Din!<br /><br />You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!<br /><br />Though I've belted you and flayed you,<br /><br />By the livin' Gawd that made you,<br /><br />You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din' <br /><br />I still, at 54 years of age, get misty eyed and anyone who says they don't is a liar. The range of emotions within it is the mark of a great movie. Like the ending of another great film, Of Mice and Men. | 0 |
While the 3-D animation (the highlight of the show) did it's job well, most other elements fell flat. It was as though the filmmakers thought 'well, it's gonna be 3-D so we don't have to work that hard on the plot or character development.' And the fact that it's a children's movie is absolutely no excuse. The public is drawn to three dimensional characters (Shrek, Nemo's Dad) just as much as they are drawn to three dimensional graphics. The only dimension any of the main characters showed was two dimensional Scooter who twists the plot from time to time with his compulsion to eat everything in sight.<br /><br />And the absolute kicker? Buzz Aldrin's appearance at the very end (after watching a very robotic cartoon version of the same historical figure for an hour and half) comes on the screen and ruins everyone's good time by calling the film's main characters 'contaminants' and announcing that the situation put forth on screen was actually an impossibility.<br /><br />???!!!??? Did you just wanna tell the kids the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus don't exist while you're at it? | 1 |
The worst movie I've ever seen in my life. From the amateur directing to the porn-quality acting, it looks like a home movie somebody decided to shoot becuase they had nothing else to do with their time.<br /><br />Unless you have no hope left in life, absolutely avoid this crap.<br /><br /> | 1 |
This movie is a great film. The movie shows so many themes all in one amazing film. Driving Lessons centers around Ben (Rupert Grint) a shy 17 year old who is coming of age. The movie goes on about how Ben is sick of his dominating mother and how he just wants to be himself. Ben then meets Evie, who he makes a very special bond with. The two take a journey and in the process Ben finds himself and what a relationship that he and Evie share. This is the movie that you watch by yourself, or with someone else. No matter what, you will all feel what Ben goes through in the movie. It is a very heart warming film that just makes you think whether your driving lessons were ever as emotional or as much of a journey as Ben's Lessons. | 0 |
Below average blaxpoitation action / melodrama in which the lovely Ms. Grier plays a private eye who comes to the aid of her father (Rudy Challenger) and his partner (Austin Stoker of the original 'Assault on Precinct 13') whose loan business is being threatened.<br /><br />I'll be frank - I agree with the few other user comments for this movie. 'Sheba, Baby' has a less than satisfying script, direction that isn't particularly distinguished, action scenes that are moderately entertaining at best, and one of Ms. Grier's more nondescript supporting casts (although there's an important supporting role for D'Urville Martin, also a familiar name in blaxpoitation). I get the feeling that this routine movie may have been put together quickly merely to cash in on her then enormous popularity.<br /><br />It sure was cool seeing Stoker again, although Ms. Grier doesn't have as good a role - or dialog - as she has had in other films, although she is doing what she does best, and that's playing a sassy, sexy sister on a mission of vengeance.<br /><br />Non-stop soul / funk soundtrack is enjoyable, at the very least.<br /><br />Mostly recommended to those who wish to see everything in the Pam Grier film repertoire.<br /><br />4/10 | 1 |
This movie was so frustrating. Everything seemed energetic and I was totally prepared to have a good time. I at least thought I'd be able to stand it. But, I was wrong. First, the weird looping? It was like watching 'America's Funniest Home Videos'. The damn parents. I hated them so much. The stereo-typical Latino family? I need to speak with the person responsible for this. We need to have a talk. That little girl who was always hanging on someone? I just hated her and had to mention it. Now, the final scene transcends, I must say. It's so gloriously bad and full of badness that it is a movie of its own. What crappy dancing. Horrible and beautiful at once. | 1 |
The animation was good, the imagery was good, although not totally original, however, the story was too long, way too confusing, and over the top dramatic. After about an hour I couldn't wait to get it over with. With so many characters that have nothing to contribute and plot elements that either come from nowhere or go nowhere this movie really wasn't one movie at all and would have been better of as a short series or possibly two movies. If you like this kind of typical story maybe you will like it, but frankly, I've been spoiled by much more creative stories that actually have some sort message to tell. Go rent a Miyazaki film and watch it twice, you'll get way more out of it. | 1 |
<br /><br />First of all, I reviewed this documentary because I had an interest in the subject it portrayed, the LA punks.<br /><br />I listened that music and I loved that music and I read a lot of the small zines that were made in the early 80's and that were not so easily achieved in Finland.<br /><br />So if you don't like this kind of music why you write here about it? I like this kind of music, it speaks my soul, thus I know punks from all over Europe & Americas, so why do you, who find this music 'repugnant' care to comment at all?<br /><br /> | 0 |
A friend of mine gave me this movie. A friend of mine is now in a hospital were a team of doctors are trying to surgically remove a DVD casing from his ***. <br /><br />I got quit excited by the prospects of an other Michael Chabon movie. After all his novels have brought me much entertainment and previous screenplay adaptations were great, but boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />First off the people that did the casting must have been asleep whilst doing so. I imagine the castings went something like this. 'Tell me, do you like fish?' 'Yes I enjoy fish very much.' 'Wonder full, you're hired. Have some money.' <br /><br />Than there is the script. I have read Chabon, who I hope went blind before he could see this piece of dong, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his novel. I'm not quit sure why it annoyed me like it did, but it might have something to do with the fact that listening to a speech impaired 90 year old drunk duck hunter with a right cranial lobe dysfunction would have been a treat in comparison to the one-liners these 2nd degree model massacre kids spat out.<br /><br />This is an actual line from the movie; 'If you tell me something that you've never said out loud to anyone before, than this moment becomes unique!' Unique? Does it? Does it really? Off course not you plank. Please pass me the Imodium. I'll have a whole ****ing strip. <br /><br />The directing is... well. I've got nothing. Maybe Rawson Marshall Thurber just got word his grandmother exploded or something. Stick to directing comedies. No stick to directing commercials. <br /><br />This movie is so horrible it left me banging my head against a wall so hard it brought me back to the stone age. I give it 2 stars because I don't wanna be the guy that watched a 1 star movie. | 1 |
Alexander Lou, star of classics such as 'The Super Ninja' and 'Mafia vs Ninja' headlines here in this entertaining martial arts fest.<br /><br />The plot involves the evil Abbott White (who boasts some humongous and frankly somewhat scary looking white eyebrows) enlisting the aid of a ninja clan in order to overthrow the Shaolin Temple.<br /><br />This goal he achieves and furthermore wipes out most of it's members, although needless to say, one or two do manage to survive and rather predictably go on to exact eventual revenge upon the miscreant Abbott.<br /><br />....Ok so the plot isn't exactly pushing the envelope in terms of creativity but does anyone watching a film with a title like 'Wu Tang vs Ninja' aka 'The Ninja Hunter' really care much for such an inconsequential factor as a plot? Of course not! - It's the fights that matter in these films and by gum - you get your moneys worth here! There's some superbly choreographed martial arts on display from everyone involved in this and rarely a minute seems to goes by without a fight breaking out for some reason.<br /><br />If your at all into martial arts movies then this is a must see! | 0 |
I like the cast pretty much however the story sort of unfolds rather slowly. Danny Glover does a good job making you wonder if he's the bad guy. Meanwhile, the other characters are just part of the story. Dennis Quaid didn't have as much room in the story as he could have had. I thought the first scene was a bit over the top grim compared to how the story unfolded. I'd watch it again though. I rated it a 5 (wish I could rate it a 5.5) | 1 |
This is really one of the worst movies i have seen in a while. It's not funny at all. It simply portrays a lower class Northern British setting. I find it a very sad film at parts, at others cuts are where they shouldn't be. One thing that really annoyed me was the close ups of pointless objects it really slowed down the pace of the movie. I only made it through the movie because i fast forwarded certain sequences towards the end.<br /><br />This movie completely loses the attention of the audience. It's main problem is that it makes multiple reasons for one action, which in turn tends to weaken that action. However if there is one reason for one action it makes it more passionate. All in all this movie is all over the place. I didn't learn enough about the characters to care about them because of the shifting plot lines and stories where as i would have maybe enjoyed exploring the life of one character.<br /><br />For example at the beginning when the guy meets God in the bar, God seems like a cool guy. The movie could've elaborated on that moment and I think it would've been a lot funnier.<br /><br />Anyway, enough if's. Watch it if you want, but I'm warning you this film is crap. I respect the makers for trying to pull it off with such a low budget but they could've done a much better job. I guess it all lies in the camera movement and editing, the acting was decent. But then again, that's just my opinion. | 1 |
a really awful movie about a 30 meters long shark. bad story bad discussions bad characters bad plot even a confusing ending a complete. a waist of time in my point of view I thought it was a TV movie, but then I saw it was not I cant imagine having paid to see this load of crap please avoid this movie at any cost. even if u liked jaws, which I averagely did, don't see it even if you have interests in paleontology, don't see it even if you like corny movies with corny actors, corny plots during corny TV time, do humanity a favor and do not, I repeat, DO NOT pollute your mind with this ridiculous excuse for a sci-fi animal thriller still, some people gave it a ten ranting... don't know if they were serious or not (but sincerely expect they weren't) | 1 |
Hercules' son gets severely wounded during a lion hunt that goes awry. Hercules (a solid and engaging performance by the beefy Reg Park) has to venture into an eerie and dangerous alternate dimension ruled by the evil and vengeful Gia the Earth Goddess (a deliciously wicked portrayal by Gia Sandri) and battle various monsters in order to save his son's soul. Meanwhile, Gia's equally nasty son Antaius (a perfectly hateful turn by Giovanni Cianfriglia) poses as Hercules and takes over an entire city as a cruel and ruthless tyrant. Director Maurizo Lucidi relates the engrossing story at a steady pace and maintains a serious tone throughout. This film begins a little slow, but really starts cooking once Hercules enters the misty and perilous subterranean spirit world: Rousing highlights include Hercules grappling with a humanoid lizard beast, Hercules climbing a giant gnarled tree, and Hercules being attacked by a bunch of creepy rotting zombies. Better still, the bizarre spirit world just reeks of spooky atmosphere (gotta love that persistent thick swirling fog!). The strenuous rough'n'tumble mano-a-mano major physical confrontation between Hercules and Antaius likewise totally rocks. Of course, we also get a big mondo destructo climactic volcanic eruption as well. Allvaro Mancori's crisp widescreen cinematography gives the movie an impressively expansive sense of scope. Ugo Filippini's robust, rousing score has a nifty majestic sweep to it. Okay, so this flick is an obvious cheapo cute'n'paste job that uses copious footage from both 'Hercules in the Haunted World' and 'Hercules and the Captive Women,' but it's still an extremely lively and entertaining romp all the same. | 0 |
This is my favorite Jackie Chan movie and in an interview, Jackie said it was his favorite as well. It contains some unbelievable stunts and jaw dropping fight sequences as well as some very funny scenes as well. This movie was a favorite of Brandon Lee, who used parts in Rapid Fire, and was also lifted in Tango and Cash, which used some of the opening scenes.<br /><br />Jackie plays a policeman in Hong Kong. The story immediately jumps into a fantastic chase through a shanty town and continues as Jackie slides down a hill and jumps onto a moving bus to catch the evil Ku (who is one of the greatest villains in any Jackie Chan movie.) You can expect some very funny scenes as Jackie tries to balance his duty as a policeman with his girl friend, played by Maggie Chung. His job is to protect Ku's secretary who has enough information to take him down, but even that poses many problems. Jackie is at his absolute best here. The last fight scene at the mall is my favorite fight scene by anyone - period. It was the most intense fight I have ever seen Jackie do and climaxes in a slide down a pole amidst exploding lights. All in all, one of his greatest stunts he ever did and left him with skin pealed off his hands. He was fortunate he was not electrocuted as the person in charge of the stunt used high voltage instead of a lower voltage.<br /><br />All in all, another Chan classic and definitely one of his greatest movies. By the end of this movie, you can tell he held absolutely nothing back and neither did his stuntmen. So many of his stuntmen were injured during this movie that nobody would insure them anymore - Jackie had to take responsibility himself. There are no gimmicks, wires or stand-ins - it is all true-life action that is a treat to watch. It is this type of action that made him the phenomenon that he is and it is a movie that will amaze people 100 years from now. If you have not seen this movie and are a fan of Jackie Chan or action in general, give yourself a treat and watch this movie. It is truly sensational. | 0 |
I think that Mario Van Peebles movie Posse is a very important film. It is an excellent entry point film to a side of history many are not aware of. This is a story of early black settlers, cow boys and infantrymen returning from the Spanish-American War with a cache of gold. The main character Peebles is haunted by memories of his murdered father. The racism applied to the new black settlers and infantryman is explored in this film with excellent casting including Melvin Van Peebles (Marios father), Billy Zane, Stephen Baldwin and a wonderful performance by Big Daddy Kane. <br /><br />One senses that Peeples strived to use as many notable black (and some not so notable - smile) actors as possible : ) Perhaps too many, some notable persons (Issac Hayes, Pamela Grier) are only scene in cameo, others briefly such as Tone Loc. The sentiment and efforts of Peebles efforts to expose these actors will be understood by some. The large cast (a feat for any director) work well and do a good job of telling the story in the classic 'revenge and fight vs justice' western.<br /><br />Most noteworthy was the wonderful narrative role of veteran actor Woody Strode (from Once Upon A Time In The West), who's own life was a barrier-breaker, within the context of a previous era not yet completed faded from memory. No other actor could have done this role better. Read the mini-bio on Woody Strode here as a primer: http://imdb.com/name/nm0834754/bio <br /><br />The film does a good job of balancing action with a bit of sardonic humour. The dialog was excellent if a bit contemporary! And as others have mentioned the profanity was not accurate to that period. The sex scene was a bit much -- not really needed. There are some historical inaccuracies such as the seeming electronic branding of the cattle etc. But Posse is a good effort to hopefully open the door for more historical and creative works reflective of other untold stories and events. The actual photos of real cowboys at the end credits was very nice touch. | 0 |
Cimarron was painful to sit through. Although Irene Dunn does a good job with the heavy-handed script, Richard Dix' pompous and overacted role is brutal. The passage of time has not treated the character of Isaiah, as well as other racial and religious notions, well, although the movie is somewhat progressive on the roles of women and the mistreatment of Native Americans. The editing is especially weak. This is, without a doubt, the worst of all the 'best' pictures. | 1 |
This has to be one of the worst films of the 1990s. When my friends & I were watching this film (being the target audience it was aimed at) we just sat & watched the first half an hour with our jaws touching the floor at how bad it really was. The rest of the time, everyone else in the theatre just started talking to each other, leaving or generally crying into their popcorn that they actually paid money they had earnt working to watch this feeble excuse for a film. It must have looked like a great idea on paper, but on film it looks like no-one in the film has a clue what is going on. Crap acting, crap costumes. I can't get across how embarrasing this is to watch. Save yourself an hour & a bit of your life......... | 1 |
They probably could have skipped some of the beginning - I'm not sure why this starts out in the Asian part of Turkey. If it was because starting in the Mediterranean, they could have gotten closer starting in modern day Lebanon.<br /><br />One the cameras and crews get to the Bakhtyari tribe, it's the beginning of an amazing 48 day journey. 50,000 people with about 250,000 goats, camels, cattle, and horses make this amazing trek across what seems to be a very fast moving Karun River. They use rafts that are kept afloat by inflating goat skins - you can see where the head and legs were removed. The other 'bank' of the river was very steep - I'm guessing about a 60 degree rise.<br /><br />Just watching that was incredible, but there was much more to come. To get to the pastures, they also had to cross a major mountain that had about 4 feet of snow, if not more. Being able to climb this mountain was pretty amazing in and of itself, but they (and all of the animals) climbed this mountain barefoot! Yes, barefoot.<br /><br />The one drawback to this documentary were some of the inter-titles with poor attempts at humor.<br /><br />If you want to see a documentary from the silent era, or the incredible challenges that this tribe not only face, but conquer. This is just an incredible document of a little known group of people facing all kinds of challenges. | 0 |
The Motion Picture Association of America has seen fit to advise potential viewers and this is particularly useful to parents and guardians that this film which is hereby titled 'Frostbite' is given a 'R' rating.The 'R' rating has specific information which allows any person who not knowing anything about a film to know something about what this film provides.The 'R' was instituted for Sexual Content including Nudity and Perverse dialog,language, crude sense of humor and drug use.There is no reward in viewing such a film though it would be useful to know if this could be removed as a possibility at all I would as this reviewer remove such a possibility.This is a film whereby merely a 1 was not the equal to a number as it did not qualify as a film to be counted,in fact such as this purpose is with this film so should such a purpose be with this films place at all.This is a unwholesome and undesirable offerring that should of been given a much stricter interpretation because at no point is conduct or language suitable for viewing and this kind of film may wish for a Blacklist rather than a stricter definition as to its content.It is suggested hereby that the stricter definition would allow,it is hereby put forth a criminal charge.It may any way irregardless of its rating.This is a unsavory world which would damage any persons viewing this film as its purpose is to commit an offense.It is an offense and it is offensive in its purpose.There is no sense of humor in the film but a depraved and indifferent purpose as to its undesirable underpinning.Without reservation this is a do not see list and perhaps not entirely necessary to say to any adults considering but to any whose interests concern the environment to which there children grow up in,do not allow nor provide any young person the viewing of this film it is unfriendly.Society often sends the wrong message when these kinds of problems are in the public domain let this not be one of those times. | 1 |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Danny (Mel Raido) is a lonely factory worker who tries to get by with his job and to be a good dad to his two daughters after a messy divorce from their mother (Maxine Peake.) But after an altercation with said daughters present at a Working Men's Club, he uses a trip to their dance class to take a glance at Louis (Colin Salmon) and his gang of hard men who train in the boxing gym/free weights section there and to train himself into a tougher, more assertive person. Before long he's taken the philosophies of Louis to heart and has joined him as a nightclub doorman as the 80s disco faze kicks in...but when associate Sparky (Scott Williams) tries to do a sideline in drug dealing, everything turns pear shaped.<br /><br />As Robert De Niro once stated in the film A Bronx Tale 'there's no bigger tragedy than wasted talent.' The writer of Clubbed had a good idea and a talent to make it into some sort of film...but without the ability, it seems, to put it all together into some sort of coherent film.<br /><br />As a brummie, some of the filming locations (especially a scene at the end outside the Ring O' Bells pub in Moseley!) were quite easy and fun to spot...but the dour look of the cinematography is really a downer on things. Some really poor acting, for instance lead actor Raido with an indecipherable accent that's all over the place, and a hammy script with some misfiring dialogue are bigger problems for the film though. More established actors like Peake and even telly favourite Neil Morressey are sidelined to very small supporting parts, while the disastrous Raido and Ronnie Fox's lame villain take centre stage. Williams does a poor man's Sick Boy from Trainspotting impression, leaving Salmon and Shaun Parkes seemingly the only performers left with any integrity from the whole thing, as the excessive, blood splattered violence (becoming a common trend for Brit flicks!) takes over. Truly a missed opportunity. ** | 1 |
Obsession comes in many flavors, and exists for a variety of reasons; for some it may be nothing more than a compulsive disorder, but for others it may be an avenue of survival. Lack of nurturing, combined with an inability to negotiate even the simplest necessities of daily life or the basic social requirements, may compel even a genius to enthusiastically embrace that which provides a personal comfort zone. And in extreme cases, the object of that satisfaction may become a manifested obsession, driving that individual on until what began as a means of survival becomes the very impetus of his undoing, and as we discover in `The Luzhin Defence,' directed by Marleen Gorris, a high level of intelligence will not insure a satisfactory resolution to the problem, and in fact, may actually exacerbate the situation. Obsession, it seems, has no prejudice or preference; moreover, it gives no quarter.<br /><br /> At an Italian resort in the 1920's, Alexander Luzhin (John Turturro) is one of many who have gathered there for a chess tournament, the winner of which will be the World Champion. Luzhin is a Master of the game, but he is vulnerable in that chess has long since ceased to be a game to him; rather, it is his obsession, that one thing discovered in childhood that saw him though his total ineptness in seemingly all areas of life, and enabled him to cope with the subtle disenfranchisements of his immediate family. So Luzhin is a genius with an Achilles heel, a flaw which perhaps only one other person knows about and understands, and furthermore realizes can be exploited for his own personal gain at this very tournament. That man is Valentinov (Stuart Wilson), Luzhin's former mentor, who after an absence of some years has suddenly reappeared and made himself known to Luzhin.<br /><br /> Valentinov is an unwelcomed, disconcerting presence to Luzhin, and once again life threatens to overwhelm him. Not only is he about to face a formidable opponent in the tournament, Turati (Fabio Sartor), against whom in a previous match he emerged with a draw after fourteen hours, but he is also attempting to resolve a new element in his life-- his feelings for a young woman he's just met at the resort, Natalia (Emily Watson). And, genius though he may be, dark clouds are gathering above him that just may push Luzhin even deeper into the obsession that has been the saving grace, as well the curse, of his entire life.<br /><br /> To tell Luzhin's story, Gorris effectively uses flashbacks to gradually reveal the elements of his childhood that very quickly led to his obsession with chess. And as his background is established, it affords the insights that allow the audience to more fully understand who Luzhin is and how he got to this point in his life. For the scenes of his childhood, Gorris textures them with an appropriately dark atmosphere and a subtle sense of foreboding that carries on into, and underlies, the present, more pastoral setting of the resort. The transitions through which she weaves the past together with the present are nicely handled, and with the pace Gorris sets it makes for a riveting, yet unrushed presentation that works extremely well. She also underplays the menace produced by the presence of Valentinov, concentrating on the drama rather than the suspense, which ultimately serves to heighten the overall impact of the film, making Luzhin's tragedy all the more believable and unsettling.<br /><br /> The single element that makes this film so memorable, however, is the affecting performance of John Turturro. For this film to work, Luzhin must be absolutely believable; one false or feigned moment would be disastrous, as it would take the viewer out of the story immediately. It doesn't happen, however, and the film does work, because the Luzhin Turturro creates is impeccably honest and true-to-life. He captures Luzhin's genius, as well as his inadequacies, and presents his character in terms that are exceptionally telling and very real. It's a performance equal to, if not surpassing, Geoffrey Rush's portrayal of David Helfgott in `Shine.' And when you compare his work here with other characters he's created, from Sid Lidz in `Unstrung Heroes' to Pete in `O Brother Where Art Thou?' to Al Fountain in `Box of Moonlight,' you realize what an incredible range Turturro has as an actor, and what a remarkable artist he truly is.<br /><br /> As Natalia, Emily Watson is excellent, as well, turning in a fairly reserved performance through which she develops and presents her character quite nicely. Though she has to be somewhat outgoing to relate to Luzhin, Watson manages to do it in an introspective way that is entirely effective. Most importantly, because of the detail she brings to her performance, it makes her accelerated relationship with Luzhin believable and lends total credibility to the story. You have but to look into Watson's eyes to know that the feelings she's conveying are real. It's a terrific bit of work from a talented and gifted actor.<br /><br /> The supporting cast includes Geraldine James (Vera), Christopher Thompson (Stassard), Peter Blythe (Ilya), Orla Brady (Anna), Mark Tandy (Luzhin's Father), Kelly Hunter (Luzhin's Mother), Alexander Hunting (Young Luzhin) and Luigi Petrucci (Santucci). Well crafted and delivered, `The Luzhin Defence' is an emotionally involving film, presented with a restrained compassion that evokes a sense of sorrow and perhaps a reflection upon man's inhumanity to man. We don't need a movie, of course, to tell us that there is cruelty in the world; but we are well served by the medium of the cinema when it reminds us of something we should never forget, inasmuch as we all have the ability to effect positive change, and to make a difference in the lives of those around us. I rate this one 9/10. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.