review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
I watched the McCoys reunion and was glad to see Richard Crenna and Kathleen Nolan and Tony Martinez!!!To see them now was wonderful, because I always watched the show growing up so when the TV said that there was going to be a reunion I was so excited !!!! The only thing I could not figure out is why Lydia Reed (Hassie McCoy) and Michael Winkelman(little Luke) was not on there.I know that Walter Brennan had died. So I got on my computer and tried to find out about them and found this site so if there is anyone out there that can tell me what ever happened to Lydia Reed( Hassie McCoy) and Michael Winkelman (little Luke I would be thankful!!! I have searched everywere and no luck .The only thing I could find out about Michael Winkelman is he was supposed to be born in 1946. This show had value and morals each show gave a lesson to be learned.The shows today dont have that.The whole cast was incredable the only thing better than finding out obout them would be to meet them So since that is impossible if there is anyone that can help please do!!! Thank You Glenda | 0 |
This is one of the movies of Dev Anand who gave great yet distinct movies to Hindi movie industries such as Jewel thief and guide. The story is short (if you ask me what is the story), plot is simple- a brother seeks for his lost sister. Sister has joined the hippies who smoke from pot and chant Hare Rama hare Krishna. Yet the movie portrays few of the significant events that the world experienced in 70's.Hippie culture, their submission to drugs, freedom ,escaping duty, family, and adopting anything new such as eastern (which was new for whites) religion. They have been handled perfectly. Zeenat gave her best and Dev as usual was remarkable. Songs are the best used (unlike they are abused for the sake of having songs) in this movie. They have not been spoiled.One perfect example is 'Dekho o deewano...Ram ka naam badnam na karo'. Each word in the song is very philosophical and meaningful. The end is tragic but that is not the essence of the movie. Overall Devji who does believe in making different movies has been successful in showing what he wanted to show here. A must see to experience hippie culture and beautiful Nepal of 70's. | 0 |
...now please move on because that's getting on my nerves.<br /><br />Seriously, the man behind brilliant pieces like 'My Own Private Idaho' and 'To Die For' (and others not so brilliant movies, i.e. the unnecessary 'Psycho' remake) started an experimental phase with 'Gerry', which reached its peak with the thought-provoking 'Elephant'. 'Last Days' had some interesting aspects but was very uneven, while 'Paranoid Park', his new film, also has good-looking 15 year-olds walking around... and not much else. Some cool references to Fellini (the soundtrack reuses some beautiful pieces by Nino Rota) and the elegant cinematography by the legendary Christopher Doyle ('In the Mood for Love') are the highlights, but the movie is just too artsy-fartsy and meaningless for its own doom. We've had much better coming of age stories, and 'Paranoid Park' brings nothing new. I don't see anything artistic about seeing excessive shots of Gabe Nevins in his underwear or showering. Or when Nevins and 13 year-old Taylor Momsen (the little girl from 'How the Grinch Stole Christmas'), who plays his cheerleading girlfriend, have sex for the first time, just because she felt like they had to do it and after they're done, she calls her friend to say how amazing it was (and you can say from Nevins' face how traumatic it was). Everybody knows that they're starting earlier and earlier nowadays, movies like 'Thirteen' and even 'Elephant' itself (which shows how lost their minds are in general, not only when it comes to sexuality) have done a better portrayal of that. Gus tries to be minimalist and artistic, but the final result is just boring and uninteresting. His next project, 'Milk', a biopic about Harvey Milk starring Sean Penn, will, hopefully, bring the good old Gus back, because, frankly, this obsession over underage kids is almost... creepy. 4.5/10. | 1 |
this is a teen movie and while u watch it expect some nonsensical stuff added here and there but overall the movie is effective very effective it makes you question and leaves you thinking the story is kinda far fetched but is believable and makes you feel good in sequences, its not like its the usual done and tried path. the characters are pretty well defined and are convincing. Justin long stands out among all the others and watch out for his speech in the end he will convince anyone with that speech he is simply brilliant in that speech. he needs to take on some more serious roles, he is worth more than just teen movies. etch this movie and get liberated | 0 |
This movie was fun, if all over the board.<br /><br />It essentially follows the comedic romp of two grave-robbers in 19th century England, who move from conventional body snatching to trafficking in vampires, zombies and dead Roswell aliens. (I have no idea what the Roswell alien was doing in there, and neither did the producers, I think.) <br /><br />But was it funny? You bet. Even Ron Perlman, who is often the kiss of Direct to DVD Death was pretty good in this one as a priest who turns out to be the ringleader of a rival gang of body-snatchers.<br /><br />A real joy to watch this hilarious little film, and a good example of what you can do when you don't have larger than life egos on either side of the camera. | 0 |
I'm not a fan of Adam Sandler. In fact, I don't think I've ever liked him in anything I've seen him in. The opening scene of this movie confirmed my worst fears. There was Adam Sandler, playing a somewhat ridiculous looking character riding around New York City on a motor scooter, looking pitiful and lost. Typical Sandler-type loser character again, I thought. I almost gave up then and there. But then, as I stuck with this, I actually discovered something I never knew before: Adam Sandler can act! He is truly outstanding in this movie as Charlie, a lost and lonely figure, whose entire family (including the dog) was killed in one of the hijacked planes on 9/11 and who has apparently lost all touch with reality as a result. Don Cheadle plays his former college roommate who unexpectedly reconnects with Charlie and takes it on as his mission to help him get better. Of course, Cheadle's Alan Johnson has his own problems and sources of unhappiness, and somehow these two men manage to help each other through their difficulties. The two of them made a completely believable team, and Sandler in particular made Charlie real, working through his emotions and feelings. This is not a Sandler comedy. If your looking for that go to some of his other, sillier, stuff. This is a pretty heavy movie - sometimes sad, sometimes hopeful and always engrossing. There are some funny parts in it. I loved the scene in which Charlie convinces Alan to confront his partners by reminding him of how tough he was in college, and then the conversation the two of them have afterward.<br /><br />I personally didn't think that Saffron Burrows added much to the movie as Donna, an obviously needy patient of Johnson's. The only reason for the character seemed (based on one flashback) to be that she looked eerily like Charlie's late wife, but that was never really developed, and I just didn't care that much for the character. Do look for the part of the judge, however, played by Donald Sutherland, who I thought nailed the part bang-on. As far as I'm concerned, though, this is Sandler's movie, and kudos to him for a great performance. Definitely his best in my opinion. 8/10 | 0 |
This is the single worst movie I have ever seen. I cannot express how bad it is. I honestly wanted to kill myself several times through this atrocious experience just to have the pain end. I recommend instead of seeing this movie, you bathe in acid then you will at least know a fraction of the pain without all of the scars.<br /><br />I had such high expectations when I read the back of the DVD case, and when in the beginning it added that Jesus was following them I was so excited... then by the end I wanted to kill myself. I mean a twenty-three minute introduction to the most annoying characters in the history of cinema... JUST PAIN! Monkeys could have done a better job editing this trash. At least they would have thrown feces and blurred some of the garbage. It would have made it better to have not seen any of the horror.<br /><br />It wasn't that I didn't get the jokes, it's that they were not only not funny, they repeated themselves like twenty times. Apparently, something isn't funny unless you see it like a million times.<br /><br />Do not under any circumstances see this. People have rated 'Manos the Hands of Fate' as the worlds worst movie. I have seen that too and agree that it is bad... but ALAS it is only the second worst. 'Fatty Drives the Bus' is by far worse.<br /><br />This deserves all kind of harsh language, but I can't write that here so just imagine I swore a whole bunch. | 1 |
Soylent Green IS...a really good movie, actually.<br /><br />I never would've thought it. I don't really like Heston in his sci-fi efforts. He's one of those actors who, like Superman, manages to come across all sneery and invincible most of the time. I prefer more vulnerable heroes. And indeed, he sneers his way through much of Soylent Green, too, but as he's supposed to be playing an overconfident bully I don't really mind.<br /><br />I can understand why some people would turn their noses up at this movie. Soylent Green makes no effort whatsoever to create futuristic visuals (what do you know - it looks just like 1973), and it's lacking in action. But I admired the film's vision of a complex, corrupt, and highly stratified society, and I was so pleased to see that Edward G. Robinson had such a moving, funny final role. Nice little character moments - like when he shares some precious food with Heston - really make the movie.<br /><br />The message of Soylent Green is pretty relevant these days, when nobody seems to know what the hell the government or corporations are up to. Funny, isn't it, to see Heston in a prototype Michael Moore movie... | 0 |
I think that this is one of my top ten worst movies I have ever seen! There's like fade out every two minutes. If this was on TV, they would have a preview every 2-3 minutes. But there is a seen I personally enjoyed: which is when the blonde goes to take a bath in a pit of boiling water with a man watching and for about 10 seconds you see her whole body with no towel on! That was the best scene in the whole film because you see sasquatch starring at them but the last 10 minutes is when we see his whole body. Plus, most of the deaths are off screen and just the scream or roar. And I was expecting the Sasquatch to die. But he dosen't shoot him and only 4 or 5 people die in the whole film I was expecting 8-10 people to die. Don't watch this movie. I give it an F-. Don't waste your time. | 1 |
First of all, the release date is 2009, not 2007 for this feature length nature documentary film. It should be more properly referred to as: 'Earth, 2009'. Secondly, allow me to address the complaints of some reviewers who have seen the 'Planet Earth' TV series of 2006. <br /><br />I have not seen this TV series, but learned here, that this film is the full length version of this 2006 TV series. I judge any film, on it's own merits, not by it's source. I judge the results, on their own, and the results of 'Earth, 2009' are indeed excellent. I dismiss this trivial complaint of some reviewers: that it's simply an expanded version of the 2006 TV series 'Planet Earth'. So what? It doesn't really matter.<br /><br />As a film buff and one who has viewed dozens of nature documentaries in my lifetime, I was astonished and highly impressed by 'Earth, 2009'. This is the debut film from the new 'DisneyNature' division of Disney and follows in the footsteps of Walt Disney's pioneering and Academy Award winning nature documentary films of the 1950's and 1960's.<br /><br />Cinematography, film editing, music score, sound and narration are all excellent. There have been a few other nature documentaries that also excelled in these categories. What really sets 'Earth, 2009' apart is its' scope. It literally covers the entire planet, covering all seven continents.<br /><br />After my first viewing, it was obvious this documentary film required a massive effort and amount of time and talent to create. <br /><br />Three production companies were required to make this amazing documentary film.<br /><br />'Earth, 2009' convincingly tells the stories of four species on their great migrations as it spans one year through the seasons beginning in January and ending in December, from the North Pole to the South Pole.<br /><br />Two special new high-tech cameras were used for this film: one camera has a 360 degree computer controlled motorized rotating lens and the other is a HD camera set to an amazing 1,000 frames per second. This filming technique really added drama and beauty to some of the scenes of 'Earth, 2009' especially the cheetah chase and great white sharks leaping out of the water to catch sea lions and an aerial view going over the edge of the world's highest waterfall. There are many stunningly beautiful shots in this documentary.<br /><br />Via cinematography, music score and narration, there is drama, sadness, humor and great beauty in this documentary. With a great music score performed by the world renowned Berliner Philharmoniker, excellent creative and technical cinematography and James Earl Jones narration, I consider 'Earth, 2009' as the greatest nature feature length documentary film ever made.<br /><br />Five years of hard work, patience, talent and dedication really paid off very well here. This film should be required viewing in all schools throughout the world. I predict an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, among other awards. Truly, an amazing, astonishing, exhilarating and magnificent documentary film.<br /><br />Very Highly Recommended | 0 |
I really liked this movie I saw the original classic a few times but could hardly remember any details. I think this movie is much better than the cartoon its not so black and white as it. I specially liked how they made the grinch such a complete character and gave a cause of why he was the way he was, the villain in this movie was not the actual Grinch but the Major, much different than the original cartoon. Jim Carrey was perfect for the part all in all a great movie made for both kids and adults alike. | 0 |
From everything I'd read about the movie, I was excited to support a film with a Christian theme. Everything about the movie was very unprofessionally done. Especially the writing! Without good writing a movie doesn't have a chance. The writer/director said in an interview that he didn't want to give away how the title relates to the story. Believe me, it was NO big surprise. I kept waiting for the teenage/young adult back-story to unfold, but it never did. As someone who has gone through a divorce, I was very disappointed. This movie would have been NO comfort to me when I first went through the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring to your life as a Christian! | 1 |
I just saw this movie on HBO, and it was really good...a tragic love story indeed! I really appreciated the fact that the guy at the heart of the story had lost the use of his legs in an accident. It's rare to see a love story involving someone who is physically handicapped. The love that developed between that character and the woman who comes into his life nicely portrayed how I'd like to think love can heal someone's heart. Laura Leighton...all of 27 when she made this movie...was great as the woman so full of life she's able to revive this guy's heart. Unfortunately, since his family is wealthy and her's is not, 'problems' develop.<br /><br />It's playing on HBO some more times this month. Check out the schedule here - http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=598947 | 0 |
This was obviously the prototype for Mick Dundee but 'The Adventures of Barry McKenzie is funnier. I was amused throughout and laughed out loud plenty of times. Terrific central performance by Barry Crocker in the title role, an Australian who invades England to upset the poms with his free-flowing uncouth ways. Few Brits will be upset by Barry's frequently cruel observations on his hosts. The relationsip between the two countries is prickly but friendly and this is highlighted by the film's final line, delivered by a somewhat reluctant McKenzie as he boards the plane home. 'I was just starting to like the poms.' | 0 |
The cast is different and now they took a different approach we have the street smart team 'Networth' vs . the supposed professional team 'Magna' but boy if you think the street smart team would have trouble you'd be right. While the Magna team has struggled at times, the street team has simply disintegrated week after week.<br /><br />First some things to reiterate as far as the 'Apprentice 3' first of it continues the same absurd mentality (from Trump) and the game in this series: if your a good project manager, but you lose, the team will turn on you and you will be fired, despite the fact that your backstabbing teammates are often the ones who do half ass jobs. Simply absurd, that a game show that claims to hire the best candidate actually 'weeds' out the best while the dysfunctional candidates stab each other until one is left and that person is the best . lol<br /><br />Anyone this season, weve seen a total of cursing, backstabbing and even gay offensive stereotypes carried out as teams try to do campaigns.<br /><br />The list of victims so far Cast Tara Dowdell , Audrey Evans , Danny Kastner those three are the only that I feel were unfairly fired by Trump, the rest really had it coming as they only incited conflict, anger and suffering. It's just amazing as one candidate Audrey Evans said as how she who did a good job was fired and how some of her worthless teammates are still in the game.<br /><br />Yes its the game, it's 'The Apprentice' where manipulation, backstabbing, and always popular 'everyone gang up on the project manager' mentality rules.<br /><br />It has been an entertaining ride, though, the candidates are given a wide array of assignments from photo shoots to the construction of mini golf courses, to building of new apartments.<br /><br />Still though it's still the 'Apprentice' though so all you can do basically is laugh the whole time as the insanity and chaos insues until lucky person is the winner. | 0 |
As a massive fan of DM, it goes without saying that I have seen this film numerous times. However, I watch it purely for the concert footage...the rest of the film is, um, pretty dreadful, sad to say.<br /><br />Famed rock music film director DA Pennebaker followed Mode around on their late 80s Music For The Masses tour, which promoted the superb album of the same name. The title 101 derives mostly from the fact that the concert material included is from the 101st and final concert of the tour at the Pasadena Bowl, but is also a reference to the movie being a 'beginners course' on the band and how it ticks ie Depeche Mode 101. Amidst footage of the quartet playing live and exploring America is a second story thread covering a group of DM fans who've won a competition to meet the band, go on the tour in their own coach bus and attend the finale gig.<br /><br />Now, as I said above, the concert footage is great. Mode are here on top of their form as stadium rock gods, which was a somewhat unusual achievement for an electrorock band back in the late 80s. Though the film catches the band before they recorded their 1990 masterpiece 'Violator', there are still countless excellent tracks seen and heard here eg Behind The Wheel, the majestic Never Let Me Down Again, Everything Counts, Just Can't Get Enough from the Vince Clarke years, Shake The Disease and many more.<br /><br />When Mode are onstage, they are brilliant. When they are not, they're, well, very boring. Nothing even vaguely of interest happens to the lads as they check out the US in the dying days of the Reagan administration. As an example, the probable 'highlight' of the material is a visit to a country music store to buy cassettes. Not exactly thrilling stuff. I know all bands don't have to be wild and reckless idiots, but these guys make the Mormon Tabernacle Choir look like Rammstein.<br /><br />The only real excitement comes from various clips centring on the band's lead singer Dave Gahan. Gahan comes across in 101 as being mildly psychotic, talking about a violent power inside himself he can't control, recalling a bizarre rage attack involving a taxi driver and so on. There's one point in the film where he throws a prima donna tantrum at some poor guy backstage - truly embarrassing. The man clearly had issues back then, which thankfully have been resolved. Songwriter Martin Gore and keyboardist Andy Fletcher are presented as very articulate, clearly massively talented, but also utterly colourless men; while the somewhat enigmatic fourth member Alan Wilder is the only one of the quartet who pulls off the rock star persona with any sort of aplomb.<br /><br />And as for the 'fan tour' thread, well it's unwatchable dross. Let's not kid ourselves. Maybe it's just because it's all so *very* late 80s, but the gaggle of young devotees do little for me but raise a feeling of irritation. They are, to a person, singularly shallow and vapid people, whose antics are banal when they aren't hide-your-face cringeworthy. Let me reiterate....*nothing* happens in the footage that isn't onstage that is of any interest. Nothing. Endless scenes of kids spraying their hair, arguing pointlessly, changing their clothes, getting lost in cities on the way to gigs and finding their partners in bed with another competition winner makes me wonder just one thing - if Cure fans were this mind bendingly dull back in '88/89. The love the youngsters have for the band is something I can definitely relate to, and is at times infectiously joyous, but if what we see was the most interesting stuff out of what was filmed of them, then I'd hate to see the outtakes.<br /><br />But the music is all that matters, and in this regard 101 excels. The Pasadena concert, one of their all time best gigs, makes the film worth seeing. The recent DVD edition of the movie comes with a bonus disc containing what remains of the unedited concert footage (a good 80% of the performance), and thus makes the DVD an absolute must for fans. The audio commentary by the band (minus Wilder, who left Mode in the mid-90s) on the first disc is also, oddly, far more interesting than the film itself.<br /><br />As a document of the boys from Basildon during their amphitheatre idol period, Depeche Mode 101 is invaluable. But if you're looking for excitement, you're better off getting the accompanying double live album (now available in Super Audio CD format). | 1 |
This is a movie that gets better each time I see it. There are so many nuanced performances in this. William Tracey, as Pepi, is a delight, bringing sharp comic relief. Joseph Schildkraut as Vadas, is the only 'villian' in the movie, and his oily charms are well used here. Frank Morgan, is delightful as the owner of the title shop, Mr. Matuschek, and his familiar manner is well used here. I especially liked the performance of Felix Bressart, as Pirovitch. Very believable in every facet of his role.<br /><br />The two leads are equally accomplished, with Margaret Sullivan doing an outstanding job of portraying a slightly desperate, neurotic, yet charming and attractive woman.<br /><br />This movie belongs to Jimmy Stewart though. The movie is presented from his point of view, with the action rotating around him. Mr. Stewart is more then up to the task of carrying the movie, with an amazing performance that uses a wide range of emotions. Just watch Stewart, when he is fired from his job, because of a misunderstanding. He is able to convey the shock, anger, fear and embarrassment that so traumatic an event causes, so perfectly. In my estimation, James Stewart is, without question, the greatest film actor in the history of the medium. There is no one else that has ever been captured on film that is able to so completely convey what he is feeling to an audience. At the time he made this movie, he still had most of his career ahead of him, yet he is completely the master of his craft. This is one of Jimmy Stewarts best movies, and also one of the sweetest, most enjoyable romantic comedies you will find. I greatly recommend this movie, especially for those that appreciate the work of Stewart. | 0 |
It was just a terrible movie. No one should waste their time. Go see something else. This movie is, without a doubt, one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you want to see a good movie, don't see Made Men. | 1 |
I only watched this because it starred Josie Lawrence, who I knew<br /><br />from Whose Line is it Anyway?, the wacky British improvisational<br /><br />comedy show. I was very pleasantly surprised by this heartwarming and magical gem. It is uplifting, touching, and<br /><br />romantic without being sappy or sentimental. The characters are<br /><br />all real people, with real foibles, fears and needs. See it.! | 0 |
There's this whole theory of horror that some people adhere closely to that the monsters and the violence should be kept off-screen. Park Chan-Wook throws that concept completely out the window and shows directly what he wants--and what he wants to show is pretty much anything he can think of. Leaving it to the actors and dialog to create subtlety, from a stylistic perspective Park seems willing to do just about anything to get his point across. Whether it's long involved ensemble scenes with the camera whizzing around a mah-jong table or entire weeks confined to a single shot between two other scenes, dialog from the scenes before and after bleeding over them, Park doesn't keep to a specifically structured style but focuses more on telling the entire story of a couple's relationship from virginal remove through utter codependence to utter self-annihilation--and uses vampirism as the link and priestliness as the drama. It's that simple, and that complex, at the same time.<br /><br />You gotta give him credit. Too many people are ready to compare any modern vampire movie to Twilight, with Twilight almost always being the lesser of the works, but here the stories are actually comparable, but this one is more raw and honest. None of this sparkly coming in the window during the night to talk crap, but anything ranging from the dirtiest, most desperate and virginal sex scene to eventual spousal abuse as the two leads begin to vie for power over one another. It's the same deal--guy and girl meet, girl finds out guy is a vampire, decides to join him anyway, but with no happily ever after, just straight-up limited time as they become forced to keep each other closer and closer and run out of options. The girl's motivations are particularly interesting as one desperately craving power and attention, to a fault, foiled by the guy who just wants to live a good life as best he can under the circumstances, but is a hypocrite who cannot admit that he's merely using his vampirism as an excuse to act against his moral training.<br /><br />The movie isn't perfect and it does tend to stretch (there's no three act, five act, or any act structure here, just scene after scene of character building and dysfunctional romance), but what's great about it is that Park Chan-Wook is willing to show everything frankly and honestly while delighting the horror sensibilities of tension and gore. He also provides an expertly chosen soundtrack to hit the emotional high-notes in a pretty effective way, too.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | 0 |
OK, this is one strange film! Fans of Ed Wood Jr. will appreciate the 'inventive' techniques director George Barry utilizes, like stock footage and cheesy voice overs. He can make a crack in the wall into a plot device! There is more humor than horror here, but I found it an uneven blend. You will be laughing and crying, and probably wondering why you got your hands on this. Barry explains in the introduction that filming began on this movie in 1972, and was completed in 1977, at a cost of $10,000. That's 59 months and $9,900 too much! If you like your cheese on the campy side, with vintage '70s 'gore', you might find this an irresistible and freaky snack. | 1 |
I remember watching this late at night on black and white TV, long before a live-action version was so much as a twinkle in Peter Jackson's eye... and being very impressed. Finally getting my hands this week on a VHS copy that was being thrown away (and isn't that just par for the course..?) I had the chance to revisit this film, and found that it still stands up quite well, although it's not quite the success that memory had painted.<br /><br />I have to confess to a certain bias here. Some reviewers announce themselves as confirmed Jackson-lovers, others as Jackson-haters; I'm not exactly either. I was a devotee of the BBC Radio adaptation by Brian Sibley originally broadcast in 1981, and instantly recognised the voice of Gollum here -- Peter Woodthorpe would reprise this performance almost note-perfect for the radio three years later.<br /><br />I must say, however, that where I found Jackson's films an increasingly indulgent disappointment, the Bakshi version, for all that it has been cut to the bone, is actually more accurate. Yes, there are the usual, understandable changes (here it is Legolas rather than Arwen who is substituted for Glorfindel as the Elf sent from Rivendell to meet the party) and there is a great deal of telescoping of the action. (The only exception to the latter, as others have remarked, is the oddly extended sequence at the ford of Rivendell, where the Ringwraiths, having demonstrated a chilling ability to freeze and draw back Frodo in mid-flight -- which they deploy again when he defies them after crossing the river -- then for some unexplained reason simply chase after him in a prolonged straight gallop, which is initially nightmarish but pointless, plot-wise, and definitely goes on too long.) I would also agree that the Balrog is unsatisfactory, due partly to bad animation, and that Gandalf windmills his arms too much.<br /><br />But having watched both approaches to the film, I feel more than ever that the animated route is the one to take. In a tale that is half-myth (oddly enough, one thing that is included is a snippet of Aragorn's story of Beren and Luthien) the extreme literalism required by live-action filming, where everything from monsters to mail-shirts has to be created in detail to appear on camera, is counter-productive: latex-faced (or CGI) monsters are less monstrous than sketchily-drawn shapes, heroic costumes tend to look rather silly worn on real bodies, and hobbits or dwarfs with non-human body proportions are easy to animate but hard to film convincingly. Many reviewers have cited the sniffing Ringwraith in the woods, with its crippled, half-human movements, as one of the scariest moments in the film -- it certainly frightened me silly when I saw it for the first time alone in the dark!<br /><br />The extreme stylisation of the introduction (plus a voice-over done with great skill and economy to sum up the back-story in a few sentences) works very well to depict an almost mythical era, and the change to the comic-book rusticism of the Shire -- I particularly like the Proudfeet -- corresponds effectively to the similar change in tone of Tolkien's prose. I did feel that there were some missed opportunities where the potential of animation could have been used to great effect: Gandalf threatening Bilbo with his true power in the opening scenes, Bilbo seeming to become a Gollum-like creature under the influence of Ring-lust at Rivendell, and Galadriel's famous temptation speech all were drawn more or less straight, where it would have been trivial to distort the scene to reflect the hobbits' changed perceptions. But generally speaking the changes in detail and palette -- firelight hues at Bree, bright colours re-emerging at Rivendell and in the Fangorn clearing, dirty greys and browns for Moria and the desolate lands -- work well to reflect the mood of the various episodes, where a live-action approach simply doesn't allow you to blur the background or sketch in a stylised setting.<br /><br />As a fan I didn't care for either Jackson's or Bakshi's depiction of Lothlorien -- again, I feel that the radio soundscape was the best evocation I've come across of a beautiful, slightly uncanny woodland paradise caught out of time -- and I feel that Bakshi got the elven singing at this point pretty badly wrong, but I do like the little montage at this point showing the various members of the Company relaxing together after their travails in Moria. Aragorn giving a hobbit-fencing-lesson here is as charming (and equally uncanonical) a spectacle as Boromir engaging with the hobbits in Hollin in the Jackson version.<br /><br />The depiction of Aragorn as convincingly weatherworn Ranger is good throughout this film (Viggo Mortensen's scruffy Jesus look really didn't work for me), although it would have been interesting to see how they planned to 'clean up' the character in the second half for Gondor's benefit. John Hurt, unsurprisingly, gives a sterling vocal performance, as does a resonant William Squire in the part of Gandalf. The hobbits are, I suspect, intended to reflect contemporary youth as audience-identification figures: I find the animated style (their proportions are much more 'cartoonish' than those of the human characters) works well to differentiate them, and the whole 'hairy feet' thing as drawn here comes across as much more plausible than in more literal depictions, including much fan art.<br /><br />Personally I have less objection to Boromir as Viking -- he was always a fairly bludgeoning type -- than to beardy-Aragorn (illogical: they were both Numenorians, after all), although I am clearly in a minority here!<br /><br />The big flaw in this picture is always going to be the fact that it was an unfinished project, with a bizarre tacked-on voice-over ending attempting to resolve matters. A pity; it would have been interesting, not to mention less frustrating, to see what Bakshi planned to make of Shelob and Minas Tirith, never mind the Dead... | 0 |
I've read many negative reviews of this movie and finally got a chance to see it on DVD. To be honest I really don't know what the problem with it is.<br /><br />It's a decent murder mystery thriller, shown from various points of view, from an eccentric cast of often drugged out potential killers/suspects, including the late porn king, John Holmes. Please read the plot synopsis for the exact details of the movie's plot - I wish to contribute more to a review than a synopsis.<br /><br />Many reviewers went so far to give this movie their lowest rating due to violence but I really don't see it. MANY modern movies were worse - Saving Private Ryan was ultimately more violent than this movie, which often relies on implied blood stains than actual brutal slayings (the murders depicted in this film were done with lead pipes, afterall).<br /><br />I was enthralled with both halves of the movie - the first showing John Holmes as a hopeless cash hungry drug addict, and the second half showing his side as a minor conspirator in a senseless bloodbath. The movie has excellent acting, even though Dylan McDemorant looks more than a bit out of place in his biker-esque personia and goatee'ed bad boy personality.<br /><br />The soundtrack was also awesome - a fantastic mix of 70's B-side rock and obscure pop, spread out over a couple of hours in all the right places ala Boogie Nights. | 0 |
In the Tower of Babel installment of the mini-series, the narrator describes the builders of the tower as 'the descendants of Moses.'<br /><br />That's like saying George Washington lived many centuries before Alexander the Great.<br /><br />Or that the light bulb was invented before the wheel.<br /><br />Or that the guided missile was the forerunner of the bow-and-arrow.<br /><br />Need I say more?<br /><br />The writers of The Greatest Heroes of the Bible should have at least paid closer attention to the chronologies of Biblical people and events. | 1 |
This is an entertaining 'history' of the FBI, but it should be viewed as fiction, because that's exactly what it is. What else could it be when J. Edgar Hoover personally approved and had a cameo role in the production. James Stewart is excellent, as usual, and the supporting cast, except for the talentless Vera Miles, is good. Murray Hamilton is especially good in a supporting role as Stewart's partner and best friend. The FBI accomplishments that the film highlights are undoubtedly all true. What is significant is what it leaves out.<br /><br />One of the most shameful parts of the film is the depiction of the killing of John Dillinger. It is portrayed pretty much as it happened, but no mention at all is made of Melvin Purvis, the Chicago Bureau Chief who headed the operation. Instead, the operation is depicted as if the fictional Chip Hardesty were running it. It has been said that Hoover was jealous of the publicity that Purvis received after Dillinger was killed; Purvis was subsequently transferred to a remote outpost, and shortly afterward left the FBI. This is no doubt why Purvis was never mentioned in the film. But this viewer, at least, paused to think that if Purvis was treated this way, what about all the agents who conducted all the other operations depicted in the film. Were they also completely ignored and replaced by the fictional Hardesty.<br /><br />The film is probably accurate in its portrayal of FBI activity up through the end of WWII. However, after that point, the film would have us believe that the only threat facing the US came from international communism, which is no doubt what Hoover believed. Never mind the Mafia. Never mind the lynchings that were still going on in the South. Never mind that blacks were being intimidated to keep them from voting in much of the South. I don't know if the FBI had started wiretapping Martin Luther King by the time this film was made, but if not, it wasn't very long afterward that it started.<br /><br />As I said at the outset, this is pretty good entertainment, but it should be viewed as the sanitized fictionalization that it is. | 0 |
I saw this movie on the lowlands festival (23, 24, 25th of august) after a friend of mine said this is a very cool movie about the history of skating. I didn't now what to expect from this movie. Was it recorded by a couple of skaters who thought they could do a couple of cool tricks, or was it a documentary about skating.<br /><br />So i went in, after waiting for about an hour, whit out any expectations.<br /><br />This movie is really a nice piece of work about the beginning of skateboarding. It started with the zephyr team, who where a fine group of surfers. This is taking place in a not so nice area to live in. At a certain point the waves are not so good any more to surf on. So they try something else. skateboarding was a fact. <br /><br />If you were a part of the zephyr team in that time, you where one of the cool guys/girls. Because a lot of people saw an escape from the place they were living in with the zephyr team. So they were trying all there new tricks now on a skateboard. <br /><br />In no time skateboarding was popular again. There were a couple of competitions and one national competition. The zephyr team was taking part on several competition and also the national one. But what they were doing on there skateboards was unbelievable. But the jury didn't now how to judge them. So they put the whole skateboarding world on it's head.<br /><br />Anyway i can tell you the rest of the film/documentary, but you must see this one with you're own eyes. Because then you can feel the vibe of this movie. This movie got a lot of style for me, so i rewarded it with a 8.<br /><br />Greetings from gijs and the rest of Holland. See you. | 0 |
A group of teenagers discover a bootleg video game, but once they start playing it, they each start dying just like they do in the video game. As they become addicted to the game, they need to find a way to beat the game's central villain, The Blood Countess, before she kills them all.<br /><br />The premise does sound a little stupid and familiar but this film could have still been mildly entertaining. However, this 'horror' movie is not scary at all. It's actually more of a comedy than anything else. The film takes itself way too seriously and the movie is not a lot of fun to watch. Sure, there is the occasional laugh but for the most part, the film is very dull. PG-13 horror films can still be good like The Ring or Cry Wolf. The Ring and Stay Alive aren't really the same type of horror film though. Stay Alive is more of a slasher movie and since its rated PG-13, the death scenes are very tame. It should have been the movie's main sell and since it had an interesting concept the deaths could have been really good. Unfortunately, the studio wanted a bigger audience and the film had to be altered.<br /><br />The acting is a complete joke and most of the cast give awful performances. Jon Foster is not a very good leading man. He lacks charisma to really engage the audience or for the audience to care about him. His character isn't unlikable just very bland. Samaire Armstrong actually gives an okay performance though a little too bland to truly stick out. Frankie Muniz probably gives the best performance in Stay Alive. That's an honor on the level of being the best player on the Houston Texans. Sophia Bush is absolutely terrible as October. Her performance feels so rushed and so fake. The most annoying character in the movie is Phineas played by Jimmi Simpson. His character is so unlikable you will be rooting for him to die.<br /><br />In fact, most of the characters are pretty unlikable so that makes it even harder to become interested in the film. It's just hard to feel sorry for some of these annoying kids and it's a lot more fun to watch if you want the characters to actually survive. The only real good thing about the movie is the atmosphere. It's a little old but it still kind of works. The film is also really short so it's not too much of a pain to sit through. I wouldn't really blame the cast though because they were working with an inexperience director and writer. The direction is not very good and the screenplay isn't much better. Stay Alive is actually not the worst horror film of 2006. That honor would go to When a Stranger Calls. Stay Alive is still a missed opportunity though. In the end, this cheesy and lame horror film is better left on the shelf. Rating 4/10. | 1 |
there is only way to describe this movie.<br /><br />so bad its hilarious.<br /><br />the acting is so bad i laughed my ass off throughout. The male lead in this movie trying to use a gun is so ridiculous you would think he was trying to copy a toy action figure, i know this sounds ridiculous but when you see it for yourself you can't help but agree.<br /><br />the monster looks like a cgi guy trying to recreate the clay monsters you get in old Sinbad movies.<br /><br />in short this movie is good for only one thing a really large laugh at how bad movies can get.<br /><br />If you want to see bad acting bad script and special effects gone wrong<br /><br />THIS IS THE MOVIE FOR YOU | 1 |
This Movie had some great actors in it! Unfortunately they had forgotten how to act. I was hoping the movie would get better as it went along but the acting was so robotic it was doomed from the very start. It actually appeared that maybe the actors were reading from a script the whole time. Maybe it was the Musical score or the Director himself, but one thing is for sure the Make-up artist needs to get another job ! The Facial Powder was so thick you could see it caked on the actors faces ! Would not recommend this movie to anyone, no wonder it never hit the Theaters. Cuba Gooding Jr. / James Woods shame on you guys for not giving it your all. The Plot was great just needed a whole lot more. | 1 |
Creepy & lascivious wolf. The young 'Red' is wearing full make-up, and extremely short shorts & robe. Got about 20 minutes through and realized it could be a pedophile's dream come true. The 'up-beat' music sounds a lot like something I'd hear at a strip club. I actually think this movie is a sick joke - it's not a family movie. Gross, glad I was watching this with my daughter, I don't want her to think it's normal for families to view quasi kiddie porn together. Very bad, Very sad it's sold as a family film, Joey Fatone will probably be embarrassed he was in it. And what's with advertising it as a 'special effects spectacular'??? The effects do look low budget, gawd awful. | 1 |
In our household, we are enormous fans of A Christmas Carol and watch virtually every version each Christmas, including the old 1938 Reginald Owen and the modern 1999 Patrick Stewart. Our overall favorite is the 1951 black & white classic, because Alastair Sim IS Ebeneezer Scrooge and his conversion rings the truest. However, this 1984 rendition has its own unique merits and makes a lovely & entertaining story, quite faithful generally to Dickens' novel. (See my comments on the other film adaptations, if interested)<br /><br />First of all, George C. Scott can certainly seem pretty crotchety and doesn't make a bad Scrooge. I adore his sideburns, his long topcoat & hat. He cuts the finest fashion figure of the lot, and quite a handsome gentleman. However, sometimes it seems Scott is enjoying his role as Scrooge just a wee bit too much and not taking it quite as seriously as he ought!<br /><br />This rendition has the best overall Christmas atmosphere, hopeful and optimistic. Somehow you know this story is going to have a happy ending. Filmed in the town of Shrewsbury, England, it just seems somehow very British. The film has a lovely musical score, with wonderful, lively caroling music throughout all the appropriate portions of the tale. Sometimes I could almost smell the chestnuts roasting and the pudding singing in the copper! <br /><br />Marley's anguished ghost (with his wonderful jaw dropping scene) and the three Spirits are all quite convincing. Christmas Past is a lovely ethereal lady, Christmas Present wonderfully giant and jovial, Christmas Yet To Come shrouded and foreboding as always. However, I found Scrooge's nephew, Fred, a wee bit quiet & grim, not nearly as jolly & hearty as he should be. I like the nephew's wife, whom they've named Janet, with her lovely, sprightly period hairstyle. Instead of blind man's bluff, they've concocted a game called Similes for the nephew's Christmas dinner party, which is a cute little touch, Scrooge getting right into the spirit of the thing.<br /><br />The Cratchits and their somewhat meagre (though much appreciated) Christmas dinner are well depicted, with Bob (David Warner) suitably sympathetic and long-suffering in his miles of scarf. Mrs. Cratchit is charmingly portrayed by Susannah York, who also starred with George C. Scott in the wonderful 1970 adaptation of Jane Eyre. Above all, this version has unquestionably the best Tiny Tim, not only an adorable & endearing little waif but sickly. With those dark circles under his eyes, the frail wee thing looks unlikely to survive the hour!<br /><br />This is a delightful & heartwarming version of the holiday classic. With its festive atmosphere, it's sure to put you in the spirit of the season. | 0 |
Am i right in thinking i went to see the same film as everyone else .. this film was terrible. I'm a fan of all 3 series of the league of gentelmen and have always respected the originality of the writers, even when the format changed in series 3. This film however was a blatant half effort, the plot was extremely poor having the characters going into the real world made this film see more like the last action hero. There was about 5 moments in the film that got a mild chuckle but the rest of the time i was wishing it would end. This would have been better as a 10 minute short on the DVD .. it was more of an explanation of what they planned to do, and looked like some of the writers disagreed on the fate of the characters and they made a joke of this by killing him off in the first 30 minutes.<br /><br />If your a true fan of the league of gentlemens ability to stay fresh then you'll hate this film. If you only watch it cause there was nothing better on TV then u'll love it.<br /><br />someone back me up !! | 1 |
One used to say, concerning Nathaniel Hawthorne, that his failures were more interesting than his successes. I believe that the same remark could suit to McDonald-Eddy's pictures. And especially this one. <br /><br />It apparently possesses many characteristics of a failed movie: it's kitsch, the script, because of censorship, sounds inconsistent
Yet, this movie gets also some good points: good Rodgers-Hart's music ('I married an angel', 'Tira tira tira la'), good acting with E.E.Horton and Reginald Owen. <br /><br />Anyway, if you may dislike it, you can't forget it. This strange movie actually leaves a very strong, dreamlike, impression, and you are very likely to keep it in mind for days, maybe for weeks. Why? In the thirties and the beginning of the forties, movies didn't have the same mean than today: it aimed, like a dream, to divert the public in order to make it forget a difficult reality. Of all the the dream-movies that was made, in that time, this one stands as particularly powerful.<br /><br />In short, let's say that the better way to appreciate this movie, is to watch it without wondering whether it's good or bad. To watch it, like you would watch a dream. | 0 |
My friends and I rented this for 'Bad Movie Night' with high hopes, but The Brain was something of a letdown. The Brain itself is gloriously goofy-looking, but it mostly just sits on its little platform. Who thought that it would be cool that the Brain only gets to munch on three people throughout 94 drawn-out minutes? This movie has a number of things going for it at first, including an Estevez-knockoff lead playing a rebellious genius (we're told that his enormous intellect is misdirected into his elaborate pranks and school stunts, which include putting krazy glue on someone's chair). It also has some great lines, a hilariously out-of-shape and out-of-breath henchman who just barely manages to be everywhere, and, yeah, some chick gets naked. However, the director desperately needs some schooling in the art of pacing. During the last half things just start to drag on and on, with at least 3 or 4 pointless, boring chase scenes making up the middle third of the plot. The scenes inside the PRI complex are especially bad. At least 15 minutes of this movie are people running up and down the same stairwell. I could've fixed the screenplay to this thing in half an hour- more cheese, more gore, more nudity, more Brain action. If you're going to make a bad horror movie, at least give me something cool to look at while my superego shuts down. Maybe the director was trying to really bring the audience into his movie- I started feeling like one of the zombified townsfolk by the end of this crapfest. | 1 |
Finally was there released a good Modesty Blaise movie, which not only tells a story, but actually tells the 'real' story. I admit that it is a bad movie if you expect an action thriller, but if you stop in your track and remove all your expectations. Then you will notice that it is a story that comes very close to the original made by Peter O'Donnell. You have a cover story just to tell about how Modesty became the magnificent person which she is. It is not a movie to attract new fans, but a movie to tell the real tale. Some things could have been better, but when you cannot forget the awful movie from '66 then is this a magnificent movie. So are you a fan then sit down relax and just enjoy that the real story is there with a cover story just to make Modesty tell her story. | 0 |
Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor??? What an insult to Alan Arkin and Djimon Hounsou. <br /><br />Jamie Foxx (who can act) walks through this film like a zombie. <br /><br />Beyonce ??? That was acting??? <br /><br />This movie pales in comparison to CHICAGO or just about any other recent musical. <br /><br />If it were not for the great singing and performance of Jennifer Hudson I would have given this a ZERO.<br /><br />And no I never saw the stage play so I am not making the typical Broadway vs. Hollywood rap. | 1 |
I see people writing about how great this movie was. It was horrible! The acting was sub-par at best. It made a lot of money because teenage girls went to see the movie 7 times in the theaters because of Leonardo. Where the hell did they get the money? Anyway, I wanted to learn more about the Titanic; why it sank, what was running through a lot of people's minds; maybe even a little conspiracy stuff. Does anyone realize that certain people didn't even board the ship because there was a fire on board before it even took off? No, you don't because all you see is a rich girl falling for a poor boy and he paints her naked (did that corny junk at least tip you off that the movie was stupid?).<br /><br />I did cry in during one scene, though. The scene when they showed the water that was filling up in the ship. It looked like pool water! I'm thinking this movie made all this money and they couldn't even make the water from the ocean look real? unbelievable...<br /><br />Ohhh the band played on while the ship sank.. Just ridiculous. This was the worst movie until Pearl Harbor outdid it in the 'Nothing to Do With Reality' department. | 1 |
Worst show I've ever seen. The story is about a group of teenagers who, for some inexplicable reason, have super powers, and when they use some special device, they morph into strange, poorly designed suits. The acting when they're not in the retarded-looking suits is decent. Definitely not good, but not the worst acting I've ever seen. However, when wearing their suits, the actors' acting goes from bad to worse; much, much worse. The hyper-animated idiots have a myriad of unnecessary motions they do. Even when they talk they look like they're having seizures. The villains are stupider than the Rangers. Every episode, some weak, idiotic villain comes up with some plan to destroy the Rangers. He/she then sends a force of hyper-animated aliens to attack the Rangers. The Rangers then initialize their 10-hour transforming animation, then they annihilate the aliens. Then, the poorly designed villain, which can either be an armored villain that actually looks and acts evil, to a humanoid ladybug-like creature with trumpets attached to its back that shows obvious signs of mental retardation. The Power Rangers fight the villain off, then the villain turns into Godzilla, whether it be by a rain cloud or a nuclear missile (yes, they fire nukes at the creatures and the creatures turn into giants). The Power Rangers spend 5 minutes acting hyper-animated and summon their Zords which are obviously toys that the producers of the show used special effects on to make them look real. The Power Rangers win, the villain gets mad, they all teach a 'valuable' lesson, and the show ends. That's it. Twenty-five minutes of brain-washing, fake kung fu fighting. | 1 |
This is a beautiful movie filled with adventure. The Genii in the bottle is a classic scene. Romantic in it's finish, all things turn out as they should be. I saw this first as a child and have remembered it as a fantasy I wished was true. | 0 |
in a time of predictable movies, in which abound violence, cheap romance and melodrama, it is delightfully surprising to find such a strange movie. the plot itself is compelling, and the actors are excellent, especially Alan Rickman. If you want to watch a movie that does not provide all the answers before asking the questions, a movie that will surprise you (in good or bad), Dark Harbor's for you. And if you're not convinced, believe me that Alan Rickman's performance is well worth it... especially at the end, ladies.... | 0 |
This movie can't decide what it is -- a soft porno or a sf movie. Not enough plot for a real movie, but way too much for a porno.<br /><br />In a galaxy far far away, a good princess (we know she's good because she has long blonde hair, wears a white toga, is polite, and is mooning wistfully about her dying mother when we first see her) inherits the kingdom over her elder sister, who is evil (and we know this because she has dark hair and wears too much makeup, abuses her male sexual slaves, sneers and curls her lip all the time, and talks imperiously about the horrors she'll perpetrate when she's queen). The evil princess gets upset and tries to stage a coup, but the good sister gets away to Earth. Of course, she materializes buck naked in a bar during a wet T-shirt contest. It really goes downhill from there. The acting is ludicrous, the dialog sounds like it was written for a porno, and the general storyline is ridiculous. There's not even enough skin to make happy the sort of person who'd watch this for skin. I love 'good' bad movies, and this one's not even enjoyable on a 'bad movie' level. | 1 |
My teacher did this movie. It's a new beginning. Watch it, and you won't notice that it is a Romanian movie. The old boring style has gone. Now it's something else. A post-revolutionary movie. It is using the latest imaging technology and mostly unknown artists. They are unique. You won't even know that you're watching, you will be simply transferred beyond the screen and you'll feel every frame. Don't miss it, pay attention to the plot but don't ignore the details. They make the difference between this movie and the others Romanian movies. You will hear some music at some point. It's representative for a part of us, but it does not represent us. Please, just keep your head straight and leave your body free. | 0 |
I saw this movie for the first time in 1988 when it was on HBO and I loved it!! It was so hilarious I have seen it too many times to count. I love the Stork brothers and the pitiful, ugly dog, Bosco! My favorite quote form the movie is, 'It's so ugly, it should be put to sleep.' I also loved it when the little sister slaps the girls on the back and their faces stick that way. I love John Cusack and Demi Moore in this movie too. They were great. This movie brings back memories of my college days when I first saw it. I rented the movie countless times and watched it over and over. My college roommate and I just couldn't get enough of it.Who couldn't love this crazy movie?! I want to buy a copy on DVD, does anyone know where I can get it? | 0 |
National Velvet (1944) The movie that put Taylor on the map. Costarring the then number one box office champ, Mickey Rooney. Taylor plays a girl in love with her horse and when jockey Mickey Rooney is unable to ride in the Grand National race, spunky Liz cuts her hair, pretends to be a boy and races the horse to...well I won't spoil the end for you. It's quality melodrama that MGM was famous for putting out. And it's another early color picture to boot! | 0 |
The movie was actually not THAT bad, especially plot-wise, but the doughy (and hairy!) actor they chose for the leading role was a little chintzy in the acting department. I would have chosen someone else. The idea of 'going to America' was very ingenious, and the main character questioning everything that he'd ever known made him somewhat likable, but not very much so when there's a pasty blob for a leading actor.<br /><br />The storyline was interesting. It brings about the question of how the subject of cloning will be handled in the future. Certainly cloning wouldn't be allowed for the purposes in the movie, but it's still a valid argument even for today. Clones ARE still people... right?<br /><br />The movie wasn't particularly special, but it still is a lot better than some of the cheese released during the 70s. Let us not forget the 'Giant Spider Invasion.' I give it a 4, since it didn't TOTALLY stink, but the MST3K version makes this movie a 10. (I still like Dr. Super Mario!) You'll like this movie, but it won't be your favorite. | 1 |
SPOILERS. Strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film. Allow me to add balance by pointing out the following:<br /><br />Script: Dreadful. As Tom and Dan are 'getting to know each other,' bantering about films, the talk is clearly that of one person, and I suspect it was the director, who carefully worked his words to sound intelligent. At one point, Dan asks, 'Have you heard of the HIV virus?' and it sounds about as natural as asking, 'Have you communicated with the nine alien races?'<br /><br />Acting: White teeth do and a chiseled face do not a sensitive performer make. Speedman did well enough with what he was given, I suppose, but Marsden was terrible -- unsympathetic, unbelievable, and downright smug and smarmy throughout his captivity. There is an emptiness to his performances (also see Interstate 60).<br /><br />Plot: Spare me! The moments of half-escape were not thrilling but irritating and weak. Recall Marsden pretending to try keys in the door and then throwing them down: 'They don't work, man!' Tee-hee. And beware the semi black-and-white flashbacks, which are initiated with some schlocky sound taken from CSI and other crime dramas. <br /><br />Most important of all, most dangerous, evil, and offensive, is the homophobia (external or internal, you decide) in a film in which HIV is considered a weapon. Tom says that Dan may have taken off the condom or not used it at all -- excuse me, where was Tom while they were having sex? There is some villainizing of the inserting partner which comes off as a villainizing of the gay man in general.<br /><br />In sum: Beware! | 1 |
This eloquent, simple film makes a remarkably clear statement about a teenager and his father. Though a theatrical release, it has a 'made-for-TV' quality. We can attribute this to the director, John Frankenheimer, who learned his craft in the early days of live television in New York City. Indeed, he directed the teleplay on which the film is based, 'Deal a Blow,' on the CBS drama series 'Climax.' 'Young Stranger' represents his Hollywood debut. After a hiatus of four years, during which he would do more television, he returned to direct 'The Young Savages' with Burt Lancaster and, a year after that, 'All Fall Down' with Warren Beatty and Angela Lansbury.<br /><br />The casting is competent with James Daly and Kim Hunter (particularly good) playing the parents of the title character performed by James MacArthur (his first theatrical film) who played the same role in the television version which was his first appearance on the small screen. Look for James Gregory and Whit Bissell in supporting roles. | 0 |
It is a great movie. i sow that some people think that this might not be based on a true story. No matter this !!, the movie is great, and all u can think is not why a balloon with a mermaid on it ends up flying in the mermaid town and so on, instead thinking that 'a little girl's wish came true', and this means that all our peaceful dreams will come true if we trust in us, and do all in this world to make them true. The little girl (Desi - in the movie), and her mom, were the best actors i've been seen in a long time. Good for they, for all actors, all for the director. If someone can tell them this, please tell them, 'A 25 year guy from Romania says thank you for making this movie'. | 0 |
i had been looking for this film for so long before i found it, i had seen it when i was younger and loved it, after my second viewing i still loved it and i still do.<br /><br />this is a love/hate film, if you like bottom, young ones, the comic strip, then you will find this funny. If you don't like that kind of humour then don't bother. I love this film and have grown up with these comedy programmes, for me this film is simply placing their comic genius on the big screen.. It is not an award winner by any means but if you just want good wholesome slapstick then this is it!<br /><br />the film lacks the quality of the TV series and this is usually the case with films but it still has enough material to keep you laughing even if a lot of the jokes are pretty similar to their previous work.<br /><br />yes, the humour is a little childish and not to everyone's taste but sometimes you just need that in a film. | 0 |
The film released at the start of 2000 alongwith MELA both disasters So sad to start a millennium with such nonsense<br /><br />The film seems to suit 70's but looks like an unintentional comedy for 2000<br /><br />Anywayz some classic gems from the film: Paresh Rawal I don't understand to laugh at his role or cry Reason: He goes searching his mother in the village worst part is when he realises a secret of Anil he keeps the secret in his stomach which becomes big and makes him look pregnant I remember in my childhood my teacher told me the same joke Urrf!!!! as a child i laughed at it that time but here?<br /><br />The whole film is a joke can't explain We have Anil in a dual role(One older and younger) and Rekha playing the older's wife and Raveena the youngers We also have reject Harish while Shakti playing the son of Aruna Irani who both fight on who has the worst wig<br /><br />Direction is outdated Music is bad<br /><br />Anil tries hard looks too old in the younger role and too young in the older role yet good effort Rekha is adequate, Raveena too is okay Harish is bad Shakti Kapoor is terrible Aruna Irani is as usual Rajnikant is okay in a cameo | 1 |
This beautiful story of an elder son coming home, and learning to love and be a part of all those things that he left home to get away from, is poignant and moving. It shows a society that is perhaps strange to us in the Western world, with a sense of family that we have lost. The story is beautiful, sad, and at times funny and comic. It has a feeling of realism that we don't seem to see any longer in our western movies.<br /><br />The acting is unusual, in that as the movie progresses, it almost gives the impression that it is not acting, but a documentary of ordinary people. This is brilliant directing and movie making.<br /><br />Would love to see more movies by this director. | 0 |
You have to respect this movie. It may be 'just a dumb kid's movie' but it's the #1 most frequently requested film title in online movie forums, requested by people who remember the story but can't remember the title. Therefore what follows is a much-needed, detailed plot description, since I haven't been able to find such a description anywhere else on the Internet.<br /><br />A typical 2-story house is shown in suburbia. 7-year-old Bridget narrates about suspecting something is going on since she and her 11-year-old brother Andrew are getting presents from their parents for no apparent reason. Bridget's present is a stuffed penguin that she immediately names Sweet William. Bridget describes her relatives: Aunt Ruth, a bossy nurse taking care of grandmother, Grams the hugging grandmother who makes dolls out of socks, and her brother Andrew, who's into electronics and is grumpy. Grams accidentally hangs up on the lieutenant-governor, which indicates she's getting in the way while living with the family. The two children eat breakfast while the adults discuss moving Grams to a retirement home. Bridget makes an awful-looking pancake sandwich containing cereal, eggs, bacon, strawberries, and syrup, as Andrew looks on incredulously. The two kids then discuss Grams, and Andrew says bluntly that Grams is being 'put out to pasture.' Bridget talks with Grams in the attic, has a play tea party with Sweet William in her bedroom, then a living doll unexpectedly pops out of her bedroom closet mirror.<br /><br />Bridget and the living doll become acquainted. The curly-haired living female doll is named Huggins and lives in Huggaland. Bridget gives Huggins a baseball cap from Andrew's room. Huggins hides under some laundry when Bridget's mother comes by, then the mother throws the laundry into the washing machine with Huggins in it. Bridget rescues Huggins and dries her off with a hair drier. They discuss the problem with Grams getting old and having to move away, Huggins says Bridget could talk to the bookworm in Huggaland about it, since he knows everything. They step through the mirror to visit Huggaland, but one of Bridget's tennis shoes becomes lodged in the mirror.<br /><br />Rather than walk around with one shoe, Bridget goes without shoes in Huggaland. They immediately meet Hugsy, a curly-haired living boy doll in Huggaland. Huggins gives Hugsy the baseball cap. They also meet Tickles, Bubbles, Impkins, and Tweaker, and all the dolls sing a song while sitting on a bridge. Hugsy takes Bridget and Huggins in his hugwagon to see the bookworm, who lives atop a stack of giant books. The bookworm consults 'the old encyclopedia' and finds that old age can be cured by eating the fruit of the 'youngberry tree.' However, only one such tree exists, and it's in the country of Shrugs, ruled by the mad queen of quartz. The only way to travel to Shrugs is to jump down a deep hole that is located inside a nearby giant book.<br /><br />Bridget and the two dolls gulp three times, jump down the hole, and tumble out. Soon they walk down a sideways sidewalk, hear the sea of glass breaking, and fall off the sidewalk when the sideways gravity ends. They encounter 'the hairy behemoth,' which looks like a mastodon, has four tusks, and breathes fire out its trunk. But Hugsy boldly goes over and hugs the behemoth, who thereby turns into a baby elephant whose name is Hodgepodge. Hodgepodge had been under a spell by the queen, and owes Hugsy a favor, so they all ride on Hodgepodge's back to the castle. They enter the castle, are surrounded by troll-like beings, the queen (Queen Admira) comes, and Bridget asks for a few youngberries. The queen refuses, then eats one for herself, and brags about her own youthful good looks while looking in a hand mirror. Hodgepodge faints when the queen says he should be 'digested.' The queen is upset when Bridget mentions that wicked witches should have warts, so the queen freezes Bridget and orders the three others to be taken to the dungeon. But the queen carelessly leaves the key to the youngberry tree's dome by the lock to the dome-lifting apparatus.<br /><br />Hodgepodge wakes up in the dungeon and uses his 'noodle' (trunk) to pull the jail's door down, thereby freeing himself and the two dolls with him. They find Bridget standing petrified, the dolls hug her, which causes Bridget to be revived. Before they flee, Bridget finds the left-behind key to the youngberry tree dome, lifts the dome off, and they pick some glowing youngberries and put them in a jar. The queen catches them, but the queen's arm is trapped under the descending dome while reaching for the key that Bridget left on the ground. The queen suddenly turns very old since she is deprived of the youth-giving berries, and appears to die. Soon Bridget steps back through the mirror into her bedroom but trips on the bottom of the mirror, spilling the berries onto her floor, and the berries quickly vanish into smoke, one by one. Her mother calls for her and Andrew to say goodbye to Grams, who is leaving for a retirement home. Andrew drops his usual grumpy, standoffish facade and hugs Grams, telling her he loves her and that he doesn't want her to go away. Their father is moved, and decides to keep Grams there after all, and everybody hugs and cries, including Aunt Ruthie, who had been the main person pressuring Grams to move out.<br /><br />Andrew asks Bridget for his St. Louis Cardinals cap, Bridget starts to explain how she gave it to Huggins of Huggaland, but Andrew doesn't want to listen to what he believes are her fantasy stories, so he turns around to look for it in her bedroom. One of the dolls secretly hands the cap back through the mirror to Bridget, Bridget puts the cap on Andrew's head, Andrew is mystified, and leaves her bedroom without saying anything. Bridget cheerfully waves at the mirror. | 1 |
This love story between an American journalist and an Eurasian lady doctor does not contain much conflict, since she is largely Westernized (having studied in London), nor any fireworks, since she behaves rather restrained. What little interest the story manages to raise is knocked down further by their wooden dialogs. They are supposed to be two cosmopolitan intellectuals, but talk as if the words are put in their mouths by a Hollywood hack who is not much of one himself. The movie also suffers from an amazing lack of realism - a completely deserted beach in crowded little Hongkong, overrun by a million Chinese refugees? And a presumably accomplished American journalist in his 40s who doesn't know what a hysterectomy is? Hollywood ideas. Finally 'the song'. After hearing it an estimated twenty times throughout the movie, starting right with the credits, it tends to loose some of its emotional impact, sorry to say. | 1 |
What are Forest Whitaker and Clifton Collins Jr. doing in this? Light It Up is a ridiculously melodramatic piece on problems in low income area schools. While the topic is one that needs to be addressed, the film uses every cliche in the genre and comes off as a textbook popcorn flick. The characters are cutouts from the inner city version of The Breakfast Club or even The Faculty. Watch this with your children when they turn 13 or 14. With them, it could be an outlet for a lesson on current social problems. For anyone older, it will be nothing more than something to watch and spit on at 4 in the morning, as I did recently on Bravo. Matter of fact, what was this doing on Bravo? | 1 |
I had just watched one episode of this program and I couldn't even get to the end of the program. Every minute I had watched this program my I.Q must of dropped about 10 points. This is basically like a children's program but with swearing. Not even the swearing and the insults she tells other people made me laugh. Anyways the story must of been written by a monkey and the people who actually put this script for this program through for filming must of been held at gun point and had no choice but to film this retarded, disappointing, horribly acted program. Sarah Silvermann should use the little money she actually made from this program and get some god damn acting lessons. | 1 |
Killer Tomatoes movies have this special kind of humor - you either love it or hate it. I personally like it, but in this fourth movie the feeling is gone. The tomatoes aren't the same, jokes are lame, even the actors aren't as funny. Because that's the only thing this kind of movies are supposed to be - funny.<br /><br />So now following the plot made to laugh, is annoying. They really shouldn't have done the fourth part to the Killer Tomatoes trilogy. | 1 |
We so often talk of cinema landmarks - Kane, The Godfather, A Bout de Souffle. One film however is too often overlooked by 'serious' film critics. I am talking of course about the classic Doc Savage (M.o.B.)<br /><br />This film is not only exciting but also seriously explores the issue of exploitation of the developing nations by US imperialism. Not to mention kung-fu.<br /><br />It also possessed the greatest soundtrack in film history (until of course Queen's breathtaking work on Flash Gordon). Although a bit of a rarity, this film is well worth seeking out - it will repay the effort of your search ten-fold. | 0 |
There's nothing wrong with softcore but this one is pretty clinical - lots of nudity but it's all fake (of course, it's always fake - it's a movie but you know what I mean). There's no sexuality or erotica, it's all random nudity and poor acting of 'lust' and sex with each other.<br /><br />Part of it is of course, your personal preference. These women clearly have some body issues with their piercings, tattoos and silicon - not to mention that overly plastique & leathery look so if that's your thing - great, you get to see all that here.<br /><br />I don't think anyone's expectations are very high when looking at a movie title such as this but for many people, it would be pretty much like looking at cyborg fembots ... they almost seem real but it's really more creepy. | 1 |
This is a good movie. Something fun about watching money be blown at a super rate, especially from a kid's point of view. Take it for what it is, a fun little movie about a kid's dream coming true, and what a kid might do with $1 million dollars. Don't like it, don't watch it. They make movies for the watchers, not the people that have nothing better to do then complain in their lives. | 0 |
When I was little my parents took me along to the theater to see Interiors. It was one of many movies I watched with my parents, but this was the only one we walked out of. Since then I had never seen Interiors until just recently, and I could have lived out the rest of my life without it. What a pretentious, ponderous, and painfully boring piece of 70's wine and cheese tripe. Woody Allen is one of my favorite directors but Interiors is by far the worst piece of crap of his career. In the unmistakable style of Ingmar Berman, Allen gives us a dark, angular, muted, insight in to the lives of a family wrought by the psychological damage caused by divorce, estrangement, career, love, non-love, halitosis, whatever. The film, intentionally, has no comic relief, no music, and is drenched in shadowy pathos. This film style can be best defined as expressionist in nature, using an improvisational method of dialogue to illicit a 'more pronounced depth of meaning and truth'. But Woody Allen is no Ingmar Bergman. The film is painfully slow and dull. But beyond that, I simply had no connection with or sympathy for any of the characters. Instead I felt only contempt for this parade of shuffling, whining, nicotine stained, martyrs in a perpetual quest for identity. Amid a backdrop of cosmopolitan affluence and baked Brie intelligentsia the story looms like a fart in the room. Everyone speaks in affected platitudes and elevated language between cigarettes. Everyone is 'lost' and 'struggling', desperate to find direction or understanding or whatever and it just goes on and on to the point where you just want to slap all of them. It's never about resolution, it's only about interminable introspective babble. It is nothing more than a psychological drama taken to an extreme beyond the audience's ability to connect. Woody Allen chose to make characters so immersed in themselves we feel left out. And for that reason I found this movie painfully self indulgent and spiritually draining. I see what he was going for but his insistence on promoting his message through Prozac prose and distorted film techniques jettisons it past the point of relevance. I highly recommend this one if you're feeling a little too happy and need something to remind you of death. Otherwise, let's just pretend this film never happened. | 1 |
At times, this overtakes The Thing as my favourite horror film. While Carpenter's film is the more efficient and more entertaining flick, Kubrick's is more artistic, more thought-provoking, and probably scarier. It's one of the few films where I can look past its flaws and truly and wholly love it. I try not to compare it to the book which I've only read once, a number of years ago, and which scared me to death because the two don't have a lot in common, besides the story and characters obviously. It's almost as if Kubrick was banking on people's love of the novel in order to make his film more frightening. And it that way, it's certainly one of the most interesting book adaptations ever made, as well as one of the greatest horror films.<br /><br />What makes the film so terrifying is not the jump scares, not the blood and gore, not the various ghosts that pop up from time to time. It's the destruction of Jack Torrence. Some people have complained about the casting of Nicholson in this role, saying that it's too obvious that he's going to go crazy in the film, given his past roles and his appearance. I disagree. We know he's going to go crazy since most of us have read the book and Jack's appearance only furthers this notion. But it's the way he acts at the beginning that makes us truly scared. He's calm, quiet, patient. He engages in inane small talk with the hotel managers and even with his own family. And with a wife and son as irritating as his, it's a small wonder that he manages to do so. But once he gets to the Overlook, he changes. He becomes irritable, angry, on edge. The scene that always shocks me is when Wendy interrupts him typing, and he utterly loses it, telling her to 'leave him the f*** alone'. This is the first f-bomb dropped in the film, and it's a shock to the system. From then on, all bets are off.<br /><br />Another thing I love is the multiple interpretations present in the film. We're never really sure if what we're seeing is actually happening. Many critics have noted that whenever Jack talks to a ghost, there's a mirror present, showing that he may as well be talking to himself. But what of the other characters? Wendy never sees anything until the film's climax, until she is given a tour of the hotel's many ghostly inhabitants, but she is well aware that something is wrong, while Danny connects with the place almost immediately. His psychic powers are not in question how else would Hallorann know to come to the hotel? but does he ever see any of the ghosts that his parents witness? It's easy to claim that Jack merely loses it, being trapped in a hotel with his family, and Wendy later does as well seeing your husband attempt to kill you with an axe will do that but what of Danny? It appears that his body is taken over by Tony, but how do we know for sure? None of these characters are reliable witnesses. Hallorann probably would be, and he warns of the dangers in 237, but he's killed as soon as he arrives at the Overlook (a scare Kubrick achieves by playing on the assumptions of fans of the novel). And that final shot. Has there ever been a more enigmatic ending in cinema? Has Jack really been there before? Or was his body merely 'absorbed' into the hotel? When talking about the acting in this film, any discussion begins and ends with Jack Nicholson. Shelley Duvall gives one of the most annoying performances in cinematic history probably on purpose, to give Jack's character more of a reason to snap and Danny Lloyd is no better, but Jack is a powerhouse. Part method, part improvisation, he's simultaneously terrifying and appealing. For better or for worse, he's the character with whom we identify with, not the annoying kid or nagging wife. We all want to have a hotel to ourselves for a season, be able to do whatever we want. Who cares if it's haunted? Of course, the technical aspects are terrific. Kubrick's long takes, strange angles, and bizarre imagery all contribute to the horror. The use of colour, mirrors, long hallways, and every other motif only heightens this. And don't even get me started on that score. I don't know if the film would be half as scary without that haunting, electronic tune. Its strangeness perfectly reflects the hotel, the mood, and the entire film itself.<br /><br />I know King doesn't like this film, but King's input on cinema is nothing to brag about. As great of a novel writer he may be, his screenplays are terrible, and his attempt at directing is better left unnoticed. This is not a very faithful book adaptation, but it doesn't need to be, and it really shouldn't. Part of the horror of the film is that the viewer doesn't have the book to fall back on; there's no reassuring source material. Kubrick masterfully alters the narrative to terrify the audience even more. If only for that, this is one of the most innovative films in any genre. And it's got everything else on top of that. | 0 |
i've seen a movie thats sort of like this, were a transsexual drugs woman and he then picks there nose with a knife and rips there nose to peaces. he then slices there tongue and eats it.<br /><br />the most gruesome part of the movie is were he cuts there left eye out and starts dancing with it. he then starts to eat the woman naked.<br /><br />(i'm not sure what the movies called but i know it's a cult movie and that it was made in Germany).<br /><br />anyway THE NOSE PICKER is fairly crap.<br /><br />its a crap movie and the picture and volume quality is very rubbish.<br /><br />please don't waste you're time buying and watching this movie its totally crap.<br /><br />i prefer DAY OF THE WOMAN also known as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (its one of the best cult movies ever) check out this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077713/ | 1 |
This film suffers horrendously from its direction 'Julian Grant' , and its incompetent lead, Steve Guttenberg, who's putting a solid effort to win a Bruce Willis look-alike contest! The writing is reckless Hollywood action thriller; Sean Bean --whose one of my favorites-- David Fraser, and Kim Coates give a decent performance. The film is definitely below average. 3 out of 10! I wonder what Hollywood studios thought, actually giving the go ahead, to weak director such as Grant. And I'd say to Sean Bean 'what were you thinking even considering participating in a film like this, after such great films like GoldenEye, Ronin, and Patriot Games! | 1 |
Slash flicks come few and far between now a days, so when I heard about Cut I had high hopes and heard good things about it. Those good things I heard were all wrong..very wrong! This flick is bad and I mean BAD. It's just plain stupid. Everything about it. Especially the killer's origin and how he stays alive and how he is taken care of in the end. There is nothing original or outstanding about this flick. Just another slasher wannabe with those 'Hip,' 'Self aware.' 'Movie savvy' characters. I'm so sick of that crap. Someone do something different cause the slash genre needs new blood, literally. | 1 |
*Could contain spoilers, read only after seeing last episode season 2* Think about it. The guys on the north pole? Center of the earth? Looking for abnormal magnetic behavior? They also said something about: 'did we miss it again?' So there was another abnormality? Of course that was when the plain crashed! I think this whole Island is a setup. Set up by her daddy. She found out about it and is looking for her Desmond. How else can she know what to look for.<br /><br />So basically it's an Island in a magnetic shield. All of it is fake. All the signs are there. Fake beards, fake doors, fake medicine, fake observations stations, with fake air shafts that lead to nothing. It's a project indeed, and because of the final scene in the season 2 finale I know it has to do something with Desmond, his chick and her dad (and probably Libby, she's weird, maybe she actually has something to do with the plane crashing, OK now i'm drifting off).<br /><br />Also in this episode, Henry Gail tells Michael to go to some coordinates, and he'll find rescue their. This is probably some sort of door in the magnetic shield. 'once you're gone. there is no way back'.<br /><br />I think it's pretty obvious, despite of the numerous questions I still have and hope to get answers for in the next season. If you think back on what we've learned in season 1 and 2, I'm sure we'll get loads of answers in season 3.<br /><br />Can't wait.<br /><br />Can anyone agree on this theory? Hope to hear from you... | 0 |
George Saunders is a forger who steals a rare copy of Hamlet, killing a guard in the process. Months later an associate of his is selling forgeries of the book for great sums of money. One of the forgeries is sold to a man working for the Nazi's. Not happy at being taken the Nazi front man insists on getting his money back, at the same time an investigator working for one of the other swindled clients shows up. The middle woman in an effort to keep herself safe begins to play all sides against each other and sets up a meeting at the New York public library between various parties, however as people begin to die, the library is locked down and more murders (and perhaps some rare book larceny) seem to be close to happening. Complex murder mystery is a good little thriller with a great cast (Saunders is joined by Richard Denning and a cast of solid supporting players) If there is a flaw the film is almost too complicated with plots with in plots and everyone pretty much out for themselves. The layers of theft, forgery, murder and war time intrigue (this was 1942) are almost too many for the brief 70 minute running time. Still its an enjoyable little film with a darkness and sense of inescapable doom for some of the characters that clearly marks this as one of the first film noirs. Until Denning shows up we're down among some charming thieves, whom we like, perhaps even more than the hero, but its clear from word and deed this is not going to have a completely happy ending, and they know it, even if they fight it. A good little film that's worth searching out. | 0 |
That this poor excuse for an amateur hour showcase was heralded at Sundance is a great example of what is wrong with most indie filmmakers these days.<br /><br />First of all, there is such a thing as the art of cinematography. Just picking up a 16mm camera and pointing it at whomever has a line does not make for a real movie.<br /><br />I guess we have to consider ourselves lucky the director didn't pick up someone's camcorder...<br /><br />Second, indie films are supposed to be about real people. There's nothing real in this film. None of the characters come across as being even remotely human.<br /><br />What they come across as being is figments of the imagination of a writer trying to impress his buddies by showing them how 'cool and edgy' he is.<br /><br />Sorry, but this is not good writing, or good directing.<br /><br />What is left is a husk of a bad movie that somehow made its way to Sundance. Hard to believe this was one of the best films submitted...<br /><br />In any case, it made me loose what was left of my respect for the Sundance brand. | 1 |
Except for the better than average acting skills of the two leads, this movie is really, really bad. The cheap production values don't help. Of course, you wouldn't really notice that the production values are cheap if they didn't keep trying to convince you they HAD a production values to begin with. Even for a B-movie genre freak like myself, this movie really sucks. | 1 |
We've been served - a terrible film.<br /><br />Okay, I'll admit that since I'm white and have had no practical experience in the 'competitive world of step-dancing,' I might not exactly be an authority on this type of film. On the other hand, I do know a bad motion picture when I see it.<br /><br />And, boy, have I just seen it.<br /><br />Filmed in Low-Budget-Vision and directed by Ian Iqubal Rashid, ('A Touch of Pink'), 'How She Move' tells the tale of how important it is to follow one's dreams - even if those dreams include bopping around to loud, irritating hip-hop music and speaking dialogue the average person would not understand if he or she had an international translator.<br /><br />I'll try to give a small synopsis of the 'plot.' First of all there are two actors that look like LL Cool J who work in an auto shop in Toronto (the Mecca of racial diversity), but still have time to practice dancing for eight hours a day. <br /><br />There are a few other guys in this 'crew,' including a token white dude and a guy that looks like Denzel Washington in 'Malcolm X.' There are also two women in the movie - one resembles Serena Williams and the other looks like Geraldine from the old 'Flip Wilson Show.' One of these ladies was kicked out of a private college because her parents spent all of her tuition on a drug-addicted sibling. The other girl, a member of Salt N Pepa, no doubt, is just plain no good.<br /><br />There's another guy who looks like Eddie Murphy's Buckwheat, while still another actor who's a Huggy Bear knock-off. These guys are rival step dancers. Evidently, this activity is very hard-core in the 'hood, and they are all practicing for the big 'Step Monster' jam in Detroit.<br /><br />Since I was unable to understand 90 percent of the dialogue (perhaps some subtitles would have been useful, as in a Bergman film or that one music video by Snow), it's hard to explain what happens, other than there's a lot of arguing, the Serena Williams girl (who never smiles, by the way) becomes a freelance stepper (moving from group to group), there's some step-dancing and a lot of irritating hip-hop music.<br /><br />It's a typical rags-to-riches story; sort of like 'Rocky' with a really bad soundtrack, 'Rudy' with annoying rap music in the background, 'Cry Freedom' without the laughs. <br /><br />But why does a film - which could have made a big impact on black audiences - have to contain drug addiction, bad parents and a title that sounds like a first-grader saying the phrase, 'How she moves'?<br /><br />I was 'moved' by this movie, however. Moved to leave the theater as quickly as possible. | 1 |
I saw this movie yesterday and can't stop thinking about it. I moved to Norway four months ago, and have tried ever since to find the origin of the strange emptiness i felt. When I saw this film I was striken with the brilliant snapshot of this society. Yes, this is all true!!! I too found a great job with a great pay, and I live with my norwegian boyfriend in a nice apartment downtown. But, so far everyone I have met have left me with that tasteless, empty feeling I had never had before - this is what this movie is about. Dinner parties with nothing to say to each other but emotionless comments, long silences, no stress, a creepy calm, and frozen smiles of niceness. This Scandinavian nightmare is perfectly rendered in Den Brysomme mannen. See this movie!!! | 0 |
I remember seeing this when it was released, in a theater in Palo Alto, and not expecting much. I mean -- an Australian movie? But it finally got to me. Here's a scene. Richard Chamberlain is sitting cross legged on the floor of a shabby apartment in Sidney, facing an Australian aborigine elder named Charlie.<br /><br />Chamberlain: 'You were outside my house last night. You frightened my wife. Who are you?' And Charlie at a deliberate pace replies, 'Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?. . . . Are you a fish? Are you a snake? Are you a man? . . . . Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?' It's a stunning scene, shot all in close ups, with Chamberlain's blandly handsome face filling the screen in opposition to Charlie's black, broad-nosed, bearded visage.<br /><br />The two guys couldn't be more different and this film is the story of how Chamberlain accidentally stumbles from his humdrum lawyerly existence into the inexplicable, almost unspeakable, mysteries of Charlie's world.<br /><br />I don't think I'll go on much about the plot. It's kind of an apocalyptic tale. But I must say, whoever did the research on Australian aboriginal belief systems should get an A plus. They've got everything in here, from pointing the bone to the dream time, a kind of parallel universe in which dreams are real. It's an extremely spooky movie without any musical stings or splendiferous special effects. Charly's world simply begins to intrude into Chamberlain's dreams, for reasons never made entirely clear.<br /><br />If there's a problem with the script, that's it. Nothing is ever made entirely clear. Does Chamberlain, who seems to have some extraordinary rapport with the aborigines, die in the last wave? Do the aborigines? Does the entirety of Sidney? The basic premise is a little hard to accept too, though granted that this is a fantasy. The aborigines are invested with the kind of spiritual power that Americans bestow on American Indians, whereas the fact is that mythology is mythology and while one may be more complex or satisfying -- more elegant and beautiful, if you like -- mythology is still an attempt to transcend an ordinary, demanding, and sometimes disappointing physical existence. The mysticism of Charlie is more convincing that the miracles of Moses in Cecil B. DeMille's 'The Ten Commandments,' but they're brothers under the skin.<br /><br />But I don't care about that. Taken as a film, this one is pretty good, and it's especially important for marking the celebrity of the director, Peter Weir, and the Australian film industry. This was the first of a great wave of films from the antipodes, some of them raucous, like 'Mad Max,' and some subtle and dramatic, like 'Lantana.' I like Weir's stuff, which resembles Nicholas Roeg's in being pregnant with subliminal dread. Try 'Picnic at Hanging Rock' for an example of how to make a truly chilling movie with not a drop of blood. | 0 |
The Unseen is done in a style more like old Hollywood mysteries than a horror show. The film is somewhat slow but lots of bizarre imagery keeps it the film alive and watchable. The basic idea of young girls stalked by something in the basement is old, but good acting and production make the movie worth watching. The movie is notable for its emotional impact and certainly not for any explicit action or special effects. I rated it an 8 out of 10. | 0 |
This film is a benchmark in non-mainstream cinema history. The use of montage represents a quantum leap from the relatively simple juxtapositions of Strike (Eisenstein's 1st film). Take the scene on the steps and note the repeated shot of the soldiers descending, to reiterate the point of the horrors that actually did happen! A highly intelligent monumental film, a must see for all Film students! | 0 |
I have to offset all the terrible comments. I love this movie. I own the movie and the soundtrack. I watch it whenever I need a pick me up. Granted it's not like the Sound of Music but it's as much fun if picking at movies is not your thing. I adored the late (and great) Bobby Vann, and James Shigeta has always and will always be a favorite. I saw this when it first came out in the theaters. I'm a big musical fan and this one is 100 times better than Twiggy in 'The Boyfriend'. It's a modern musical and shouldn't be judged by all that went before. It's just the best for dreamers like me, who wish they could find this place - no illness, no wars, no drugs, all the bad things in life are gone. This is nothing more than a feel good movie. That is what all movies should be about. Shaun Phillips title song is superb and explains the entire feel of the movie. If the acting isn't the greatest-who cares. I love the idea of the movie. Peter Finch, a very stiff actor, Liv Ullmann, gorgeous as ever, Sally Kellerman, surprisingly good voice, Michael York, typical, and Olivia Hussey, stunning, all convinced me they were normal run of the mill people. Not one of them acted like actors in a movie. They acted like real people, the same way I would act if I found this place. Torn between going home and staying there, in awe of everything. Yes, there are flaws in this movie, but get over it, it's not Citizen Kane, it's a feel good musical! | 0 |
It's difficult to precisely put into words the sheer awfulness of this film. An entirely new vocabulary will have to be invented to describe the complete absence of anything even remotely recognizable as 'humor' or even 'entertainment' in 'Rabbit Test.' So, as a small contribution to this future effort, I'd like to suggest this word: <br /><br />'Hubiriffic' (adj.) A combination of 'hubristic' and 'terrific'; used to describe overly ambitious debacles like the film 'Rabbit Test.'<br /><br />Joan Rivers and 'Hollywood Squares' producer Jay Redack have severely over-reached their meager abilities to amuse in this 82-minute festival of wretchedness. Trying to put together an Airplane! style comedy with a moldy collection of gags, (Note to Joan: German doctors haven't been funny since Vaudeville) disinterred from their graves in the Catskills - that's is bad enough. But compounding this cinematic crime is River's directorial style, which can best be described as 'ugly', and a cast of once-and-future has-beens so eager to please they overplay even the weakest of throwaway gags.<br /><br />Adrift in this Sargasso Sea of sap is a hapless Billy Crystal in his film debut role as the film's hapless protagonist Lionel. Watching Crystal in this pic is much like watching a blind person take a stroll in a minefield; eventually the cringe reflex becomes a semi-permanent condition as cheap joke after cheap joke blows up in his face.<br /><br />I can only speculate about the sort of audience who might actually like Rabbit Test. Cabbages, mollusks and mildly retarded lizards are all likely candidates. But for self-aware, thinking humans - I'd enthusiastically recommend pouring bleach in your eyes before I'd recommend 'Rabbit Test.' | 1 |
Some of the filmmakers who are participating in this series have made some really great films but they sure as heck are not showing much skill with this series. Particularly the writing. OK, the first season was somewhat better but these new episodes they are creating just stink. I'm a huge fan of horror and in my opinion the vast majority of these episodes are total garbage. Nothing new or genuinely interesting. Few of them are visually creative. It's just typical fabricated Hollywood crap, uninteresting, childish, poorly conceived and in some cases, flat out laughable. Much like Tales from the Crypt the only good thing this series has been offering is great nudity! Other then that this series blows hard. I get the impression sometimes that they hired a bunch of eighth-graders to write the episodes. Maybe they did. | 1 |
I sat through this at GenCon only because it was quiet and I could nap. What a waste of time. Beverly D'Angelo and William Katt? WTF? Were the lady who played Flo and Abe Vigoda busy or something?<br /><br />Truly, a piece of unfunny garbage. The characters were stereotypical without meaning to (I think...) and wooden, most of them seemed like they were on autopilot. The so-called 'hilarious' situations described in some of the other so-called reviews were so hackneyed, I weeped for the writers.<br /><br />I'm confused as to how anyone can find this worth their time, seriously. I'm only giving it 3 out of 10 because in order to be a 2 or 1, it would need to be either five-hours long or feature more Kelly LeBrock. | 1 |
I had heard that this film was stylish and intriguing, but I just found it annoying. It's been a while since I've seen it (and hopefully I won't find out all my memories are wrong and I'm unjustly condemning this movie), but my memory is that the filmmakers tried to portray Leopold and Loeb as victimized by an anti-gay society, and that this somehow caused their horrible crime. I totally disagree with this point of view, and think it's unfair both to homosexuals and to Bobby Franks, the real victim of the story. I can't imagine why anyone would want to claim those two as martyrs. I also thought L&L were portrayed as a bit more sophisticated than they actually were--after all, they were teenagers who lived at home. The film places them in a kind of fantasy world that seems like it should be scored by Morrissey.<br /><br />I just read an interview with one of the filmmakers that implied the film's anachronisms, such as the push-button phones that characters used, were meant 'to add Brechtian distance'. They certainly do that, but I happened to find it highly irksome.<br /><br />Apparently a number of people found this movie interesting, but I would have preferred a less 'stylish' and more realistic examination of the part homosexuality may have played in the Leopold & Loeb case. | 1 |
Feeling Minnesota, directed by Steven Baigelmann, and starring Keanu Reeves, Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio: The strained relationship between two brothers, Sam (D'Onofrio) and Jjaks (Reeves), is pushed to breaking point when Jjaks arrives at Sam's wedding and makes off with the bride, Freddie (Diaz), a former stripper, marrying Sam to repay a gambling debt owed to night-club owner Red (Lindo). Baigelman's writing and directing debut is a frustrating mess, full of hateful characters and lacking coherence. Putting Keanu and Diaz in the same movie should at least provide some eye candy, but Baigelman even cops out on that score, grudging his actors up with little positive effect. Very poor. | 1 |
Another turgid action/adventure flick from the Quinn Martin Productions factory. Roy Thinnes plays undercover agent Diamond Head (Mr. Head, to you), working for his G-Man handler 'Aunt Mary', looking for 'Tree', who's on a mission to...well, just watch the movie. <br /><br />This one deserved and got the full MST3K sendup. As the boys and various reviewers have pointed out, the movie 'Fargo' had more Hawaiian locations than this film. Apparently shot on a puny budget, this movie highlights Hawaii's broken-down dive shops, gas stations, and cheapo hotels. Zulu -- later to star as Kono in Hawaii-Five-O -- appears as Thinnes' lumpy, inept sidekick, while France Nguyen models the Jenny Craig diet gone horribly wrong. Others sharing the flickering screen include a drunken Richard Harris knockoff, a George Takai imitator, a not-so-smart hit-man with sprayed-on Sansabelt slacks, and the villain 'Tree', sporting a veddy British accent. You can pretty much figure out the plot halfway through the opening credits, but relax--just enjoy the giddy mediocrity of this 70's movie-of-the-week.<br /><br />Whenever I think of this movie (and I think of this movie often), I catch myself humming the theme, written for flute and tuba...no one knows why. <br /><br />Trivia note--Diamond Head was directed by Jeannot Szwarc, one of three contract directors at Universal who would go on to make much bigger films, in his case Jaws 2. The others were John Badham (War Games), and a young fellow named Steven Spielberg... | 1 |
Growing up in NYC in the late 80's/early 90's club-scene, I can personally say this is one of the most important documentaries made in covering that place in this time period. No Madonna did not come up with the idea of Voguing but this is where she got it from! Instead of taking out violence on each other or in bitchy cat fights, voguing allowed people to 'fight' within the confines of everything short of touching each other (which would warrant an automatic disqualification). Seeing these kind of extraordinarily talented/well orchestrated 'throw-downs' in the clubs was nothing short of spectacular and all the big names from back in the day are here...Pepper La Beija, Paris Duprée,Xtragavaganza, etc...all commemorated in the likes of such period-pieces as Malcom McLaren's song 'Deep in Vogue'...it didn't matter who you were, or where you were from because when you walked through those doors into this 'magic kingdom' of sorts, you became part of something bigger than yourself/you were important/and most importantly the creation of your own moves and imagination...and anybody from anywhere could become King (or Queen) as the case may have been. The words and wit were just as sharp as the moves on the floor. All of the tension, excitement, and magic of that very urban NYC energy is captured in this film. BRILLIANT!!! PLEASE RELEASE ON DVD for the world to see!!! Thank You! | 0 |
When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse. <br /><br />Just your average movie. | 1 |
Unlike Bond and other detective movies, Alfred Hitchcock's hero used to be a common man who would get into trouble and then with his acumen and courage (and luck) would get out of it. Jewel Thief is based on the same principle and so in a way it is Vijay Anand's tribute to the master of suspense. The tribute as it may be but it stands its own grounds and establishes Vijay Anand as a great director himself.<br /><br />It is the story of a common man Vinay who one day realizes that he has a double called Amar who in fact is a Jewel Thief. Suddenly Vinay finds himself in the middle of a hatching scheme and to save himself goes on a wild goose chase to find this Amar who remains one step ahead of him. The suspense is almost killing throughout the movie and as the plot unravels you are hit by the brilliance of the scheme. Just like Hitchcock's movies, Jewel Thief can boast of a grand climax shot inside the grand palace of Sikkim.<br /><br />Everyone and I mean everyone; Dev Anand, Vijay Anand, Ashok Kumar, Vajyanti Mala, Tanuja, SD Burman, Kishore Kumar, Majrooh Sultanpuri etc. etc. are in their top forms. This is one of the best thrillers ever made in India. | 0 |
After Highlander 2 (which I am still in denial about), I thought is was impossible to make a sequel that could make me cry because it was so bad. I was wrong. I loved the original Wargames, however, this movie is inaccurate with computer details and details about the original movie. The original Wargames at least had some hacks that worked. Whoever wrote this movie knew NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS except how to use a word processor. I doubt he or she even watched the original movie. The acting isn't even convincing. Please save yourselves, under no circumstances watch this movie. I don't care if the channel is stuck on the TV and you can't turn the TV off. THIS MOVIE WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE. | 1 |
This is easily the most underrated film inn the Brooks cannon. Sure, its flawed. It does not give a realistic view of homelessness (unlike, say, how Citizen Kane gave a realistic view of lounge singers, or Titanic gave a realistic view of Italians YOU IDIOTS). Many of the jokes fall flat. But still, this film is very lovable in a way many comedies are not, and to pull that off in a story about some of the most traditionally reviled members of society is truly impressive. Its not The Fisher King, but its not crap, either. My only complaint is that Brooks should have cast someone else in the lead (I love Mel as a Director and Writer, not so much as a lead). | 0 |
I like this movie much, it's special type of humor by Ondricek and Machacek... I think it's better then Samotari (Loners).. Maybe it's difficult to understand when you are not Czech. If you are not watching that movie, just enjoy it, don't mind about anything else.. just relax !! | 0 |
Watching this on Comcast On-Demand.<br /><br />Every time I see this musical, I am amazed at the songs...one show-stopper after another.<br /><br />This interpretation is, for me, magical. The songs sparkle...the vocals, orchestrations, and choreography are amazing for a 'made-for-TV' movie...better than many stage versions I have seen.<br /><br />The debate over Bette just doesn't make sense. She is Mamma. Her voice is brilliant and yet full of the pathos of the stage mother living through her daughters. I still get tears at the end when she finally has her moment of glory, no matter how faded that glory is.<br /><br />The Tulsa/Louise duet/dance is on now. Fabulous.<br /><br />Stephen Sondheim is the King of musical theatre. His lyrics just roll off the tongue like silk...Styne's music is perhaps the best ever penned for the stage/screen.<br /><br />Thank God we have this masterpiece of the American Musical Theatre captured on DVD. | 0 |
MASTER PLAN: have the winning team in a deadly tournament. One of several martial arts action pictures that attempted to capture the flavor of the famous 'Enter the Dragon' from '73, this one is an effort from South Africa. The villain's stronghold is a bit different, appearing as a white castle-like fortress in the middle of the desert from a distance. The villain himself, a Baron or general, is a slightly more perverse version of the 'Dr.No' or Han mold of master villainy, having strange flashbacks to the glory days of Nazi Germany. He does wear the full regalia Nazi uniform at some points. His main ambition in life is to hold an illegal martial arts competition/tournament against his Japanese rival, an extension of their complicity in the 2nd World War (my army is better than your army). It sounds silly and it is, though the suggestion of madness and crazed machismo almost works. The central hero, Steve Chase (Ryan), resembles a white 'Bruce Lee' character, having a similarly lean, lithe physique, though obviously not on the same level of martial arts expertise. I thought he would be some secret government agent here but apparently not. He and his girlfriend have joined the Baron's team of fighters, but decide to quit (what did they think they were getting into?). Of course, it's not that easy. There's an odd sequence of them escaping through the desert using a wrecked car with a rigged sail - those desert winds can do wonders for travel, it seems.<br /><br />The plot kind of meanders in the 2nd half, as the hero joins the team of the villain's competitor and the girlfriend is held hostage by the villain in a cell, under threat of rape by the hero's rival. The most interesting character turns out to be Chico, a dwarf who is the villain's assistant; he's loyal to the Baron but is sympathetic to the plight of the hero. Much of the fighting utilizes the ballet-like capabilities of the hero, with a lot of leaping and slow motion. The sound FX are also amped up and exaggerated in an attempt to add more impact to the blows. There are a few good fights during the tournament towards the climax, but none really stand out. If one had to pick, I suppose the best involves the brutish muscle man-henchman of the Baron, introduced late in the story (he lifts the back of a car at one point). You wonder how the hero will take him out at the end, since the brute seems to shrug off most of the punches. The acting is very mediocre, descending into camp as far as the girlfriend, who tends to laugh for no reason, as if she's high on grass, though she is very cute. Some of the training scenes are also campy, especially all those guys running over or rolling down the desert sands. And, with such a title, there's surprisingly few actual killings. Ryan, as Steve Chase, returned as a traditional agent in the sequel 'Kill and Kill Again.' Hero:4 Villain:4 Femme Fatales:4 Henchmen:6 Fights:6 Stunts/Chases:4 Gadgets:2 Auto:3 Locations:5 Pace:5 overall:4+ | 1 |
I was absolutely mesmerised by this series from the moment Tom Long walked into shot - the whole 'bad boy' thing, it was just addictive.<br /><br />The story has you hooked, what will happen next - will Joey get the girl in the end, after doing 5 years in prison, and all that time thinking about his lost love, crossing paths with her again, finding he has a son... Although he is a violent bad guy, you still want him to find happiness.<br /><br />A truly captivating two parter - please bring it out on video! | 0 |
Where do I begin? Walt Disney's happiest motion picture 'Lady and the Tramp' is one of, if not possibly, my favourite in the theatrical canon of Disney animation. The sequel, however, is... to say the very least, enjoyable. I enjoyed myself throughout the whole movie. It was, (flame-shield up!) adorable! The Broadway style of the songs and the movie kind of worked, and I was humming the songs for the rest of the night. I can, if you asked me to, still sing all of the songs.<br /><br />But where the movie was (really) good for me, it was bad in a lot of other places. The animation was kind of scary at times. Every time there was a close up shot of someones face, I don't know... it just seemed scary to me. Also, where the hell was Lady? She gets like two lines of dialogue and only doggy hugs Scamp at the end. She gets 0% interaction with the plot and her only son!<br /><br />But all in all, I liked it. Compared to the original does it hold up? No. The songs aren't as good (still kind of catchy though), the plot was a lot less involved, Lady had almost nothing to do with it, and it's not as cute as the first one. But, if you go in with an open mind, you'll have fun, and maybe 'gasp!' Like it? | 0 |
I want to warn you that there is a very bittersweet quality to this comment. Also, this comment will be much more meaningful to you after you have seen the movie.<br /><br />Although it is tragically sad to say, that movie bears a resemblance to my life that is so striking that it is truly scary. The rest of you will never know how accurately that movie depicts how persons who have been in situations like that act and react in their later lives.<br /><br />This could not have been a work of fiction; it had to be based on personal experience.<br /><br />My testament to the how good the movie was is shown by the fact that, although it was one of the best movies I've ever seen, watching my life portrayed on the silver screen was such a searingly painful experience that I will never be able to see it again.<br /><br />But I endorse it heartily to all others as a chance to peer into the soul of another human being to the extent that you probably never experienced before or will ever again. I know that for a fact, because that's my soul you will be observing. | 0 |
I really enjoyed this film because I have a tremendous interest in American History... the Antebellum years and the Civil War in particular. I purchased it recently from a rack of previously-viewed videos on sale at the supermarket and I was very glad to add this one to my history video collection. Though not of the caliber of Civil War films such as 'Glory' or 'Gettysburg,' provides a lot of history on the pre-Civil War brotherhood among cadets at West Point.<br /><br />Maybe it's the gray uniforms, the youth, or the military discipline, but I am fascinated by the story of the Corps of Cadets from around 1830 to the brink of the War. I imagine what it must have been like to sit in a classroom with other young men, learning how to make war, then later putting the lessons to use against your own classmates!<br /><br />Actually, there were two classes graduated in 1861: one class in May, the other in June. the movie makes no real mention of this, except to mention Henry A. DuPont, first graduate of the May Class; and George Custer, last grad of the June Class. the reason for the two classes was not so much about the war, but it was the result of switching back to a four-year course of study, after a few years of experimenting with a five-year course (I think the first class had attended five years, the other for four). As the movie portrays, cadets were like brothers and often had nicknames for each other... George 'Fanny' or 'Autie' Custer; Alonzo 'Lon' Cushing; James 'Beauty' Stuart (for J.E.B. Stuart, class of 1854), etc.<br /><br />I say this film is 'Santa Fe Trail' as it should have been because that 1940 film, while enjoyable, really fudges history. Cadets from several different classes are all graduating together. JEB Stuart and George Custer are portrayed as the best of friends and are side-by-side in stopping John Brown's 1859 insurrection at Harper's Ferry. In fact, Stuart and Custer were never friends, but enemies during the War. They faced each other (for the first time, I think) at Gettysburg in 1863 (Stuart was at the Harper's ferry Raid, but Custer was still a cadet at the Point when it took place).<br /><br />'Fanny' Custer plays a role in 'Class of '61,' though his classmate chums, Dev O'Neill and Shelby Peyton are fictional. I believe they are respectively based on Partick Henry O'Rorke and John Pelham, two people you can look up.<br /><br />Anyway, I truly enjoy this film or any film which provides a window into mid-19th Century America. | 0 |
I was looking forward to this based on the reviews on this and the fairly good rating. This was a big disappointment. This doesn't hold a candle to contemporary zombie flicks like Shaun of the dead,day of the dead, land of the dead etc. Horror flicks sometimes take a while to get going, you have to build up the characters so when they snuff it,you feel some empathy etc but even so, there's a full 45 minutes to sit through here even before you sniff a corpse, up to that point,its like watching a bad soap opera, nothing of any interest or relevance happens and if you are going to watch this for the first time,you can honestly start watching after 45 minutes, you won't miss anything plot- wise. When things do get going, its all very sub-par stuff. Some of the kills and make up are done well, others are done very poorly, consistency is lacking here and there are some really shocking continuity errors and some of the most wooden acting i've ever seen.<br /><br />This could all be passable if you really believed this was all taking place on a plane but with guns being fired, firebombs being let off,no pilots in the cockpit in a violent storm yet the plane stays in the air, c'mon, we're not all simpletons.<br /><br />Oh, and does it really take a whole minute for a fighter jet's missile to hit a plane that is a few hundred yards away. I know its a zombie film and you have to stretch things but this film along with the other main defects listed above had zero credibility. One to miss. | 1 |
Bad actors, terrible script, totally unbelievable ending - this film had it all. After seeing films like this, you wonder why the makers bothered at all. This film has absolutely nothing to say, all the methods used to create a scare have been used over and over again in previous horror films. A total waste of time. | 1 |
Slow but beautifully-mounted story of the American revolution. Griffith's story-telling seems a lot less heavy-handed than in his earlier historical epics and his tableaux work is fully integrated into the action. Lionel Barrymore is an utter swine, Neil Hamilton is poor but dashing and Carol Dempster is.... well, Carol Dempster is most of what is wrong with Griffith in this period, but she doesn't show up often enough to slow the pace and drama.<br /><br />Note that the trivia for this movie says it came in originally at slightly more than 2 hours when first released, but that no cut exists that runs longer than 90 minutes. However, the dvd release has been presented at a slower fps rate that increases the tension and brings it back to a bit over two hours.<br /><br />Far better in terms of story-telling than sound versions, such as THE PATRIOT. While not quite in the league of Griffith's best, such as WAY DOWN EAST and BROKEN BLOSSOMS, an excellent way to spend a couple of hours. | 0 |
As John Grierson pointed out: 'The documentary genre can be defined like this: the creative interpretation of reality'<br /><br />This fabulous 180-minute documentary marks the first time a computer-generated project about dinosaurs respects the intelligence of the viewer.<br /><br />When I saw Jurassic Park, which I was expecting with great excitement, I was left extremely disappointed. Of course the dinosaurs were great, but the story-telling was unnecessary. I thought: 'What if they made a documentary on dinosaurs, with no crying children or bad puns, just dinosaurs made as realistic as possible, to let us marvel at what was once reality.'<br /><br />My dream came true. The BBC has produced an exhilarating documentary exploring the different eras of the dinosaurs.<br /><br />This part is to all the people that seem to disagree with the fact that they had to guess at many points concerning the behavior, skin patterns etc: Of course they have to. Nobody was there. I think it is fantastic that they could present something as realistic as that. The guessings are all based on the knowings of many paleontologists, and it allows the viewer to have a pretty good idea of what it was like. If you wanna stick to what we know for sure, then just go visit a dinosaur bones museum. That is why I incorporated the Grierson quote at the beginning of this comment.<br /><br />Anyway, hats off to the creators of it. | 0 |
THE DECOY is one of those independent productions, made by obvious newcomers, but it doesn't have all the usual flaws that sink most such films. It has a definite story, it has adequate acting, the photography is very good, the hero and the bad guy are both formidable men, and the background music isn't overdone. This is a DVD New Release, so people will be looking here to see if it's worthwhile. I don't know where all the 10's come from, as there's no way this film is that good --- even if you're the filmmaker's mother. <br /><br />The last film we saw at a theater was Warner's trashing of J K Rawlings much-loved and excellent book, Order of the Phoenix. In comparing THE DECOY with PHOENIX, consider that PHOENIX (as made by Warners) had no story, certainly no acting was allowed by the director, the photography was dreadful, and the wall-of-sound overbearing musical score was just a mess. I rated Phoenix a '1' because the scale doesn't go any lower. THE DECOY is 4 times better -- in all regards.<br /><br />If you have the opportunity, give THE DECOY a chance. Remember, this isn't 'Decoy 3 -- the Shootout' or any such nonsense. It's original. If your expectations aren't overblown by the foolish '10' scores here, you might just enjoy the film on its own terms. | 1 |
This movie was alright. Mary-Kate and Ashley play twin sisters (sorry for stating the obvious) who against their will are sent to Paris to spend the week with their rich uncle or something like that.<br /><br />Right away two French boys (who looked slightly inbred) start talking to them and taking interest. Blah blah blah. It's an Olsen twin movie - we already know what's going to happen between them. Anyway, along with that, the twins meet a FABULOUS French model because they're in Paris, the fashion capital of the world. They make bffs with the model and spend a fun montage of shopping in the city of lights. Yep.<br /><br />Plotwise, I frankly can't remember what happened. I guess that could say something, but hey, it's an Olsen movie. 'Olsen movie' seems to be synonymous with 'light entertainment'.<br /><br />Overall, this movie was annoying. I mean, can I really identify at all with two girls who are devastated upon hearing that they're going to Paris? Really? Also, the jokes really weren't that funny. However, I watched the whole movie. So it had to be somewhat entertaining. The fact that it was set in Paris was what probably kept me watching. | 1 |
'Before the devil knows you're dead' is one of the best movies I've seen in a<br /><br />long time. The acting from<br /><br />the excellent ensemble cast is incredible. Philip Seymour Hoffman putting in an outstanding performance and is electrifying every time he's on screen. Ethan Hawke matches him scene for scene and Albert Finney simply chews up the screen. Marisa Tomei is, however,<br /><br />criminally underused, but looks amazing for her 42 years. The script is excellent, the story-line non-linear but easy enough to follow. Sidney Lumet, although not known for his blockbusters, has turned out a gem with this one! | 0 |
Oh dear we don't like it when our super-hero love interest develops a brain do we?<br /><br />Something has happened to people, they have lost the ability to enjoy, a simple feel-good, love story/comedy? Kirsten Dunst is a revelation - funny, sexy and real. I laughed out loud ooh at least five times and I'm not ashamed to say had a tear in my eye a couple of times too. The cast, acting and script is great, I watch a lot of films right across the board and I haven't seen one in this genre that has been as successful. Those who disagree please tell me where I can find some! I'm sure the book is good too but I think you have to judge it on its own merits. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits