review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
This was a romantic, simple funny movie. I really enjoyed it and would definitely say to watch it and enjoy it, Will Smith was funny, fumbly, nervous, sweet and just a simple guy who got hit by Love. It was cute to see him fall for someone and be so nervous and lost as to what to do or say. It was great. He was great, funny as usual. Eva Mendes was better than i expected her to be as well, i thought there were moments in the movie where Will got the shaft, he was doing everything he could being a good guy and still getting treated bad. The ending was romantic and happy and it was great. I have seen it several times, and would watch it again. A funny, movie, something you don't see a lot of anymore. It had the old time feel with a fresh new look. | 0 |
I rented this film purely on the fact that the cover appealed to me. However as soon as the film began I had regrets. It seems they used a home video camera to shoot this film and let a young child do it. They also used inappropriate ghostly faces and shapes to try and scare people but i found myself laughing, i could have put that together myself and done a better job of it.<br /><br />As for the plot I felt that it had some really good ideas but because of dodgy lines and in some cases acting they were overshadowed. It had no direction.<br /><br />I didn't want to sit through it all because it caused me physical pain to watch it but i always finish what i start so i took a deep breath and let it carry on. Definitely 98minutes of my life wasted.<br /><br />I would save yourself the embarrassment of knowing that you have watched 'Haunted Boat' and find something that is more entertaining. I'm a fan of low budget horror films but this was a major disappointment i thought nothing could get worse after 'Terror Toons' but this made me reconsider. A let down to its genre.<br /><br />* out of ***** (The star is for the ideas of having their worst fears coming for them) | 1 |
There is no doubt that this film has an impressive cast but unfortunately this doesn't help with the major downsides to the movie. I never understand why directors ask actors/actresses to use accents not their own when it is obvious to everyone they can't convince. Fiennes just can't do Irish and Fitzgerald isn't much better at Russian. When the voice is wrong then no matter how good the acting the character will never be convincing. As the for the major problem....the plot....was there one? I guess there was some sort of storyline involved but it was so full of holes that I just couldn't wait for the film to end...it was ridiculous. Save 90 minutes of your life and don't watch this movie! | 1 |
This movie took my breath away at some points, I simply loved it! <br /><br />I admit that the character dialogs and storyline could have been done a bit better, but hey, this is just a simple (short) story of a couple of guys trying to slain a dragon, there's nothing more to it!<br /><br />The overall design, atmosphere, the beautiful landscapes... it's all just magical! <br /><br />They've put a lot of love in this movie. Character designs were great and funny. A bit Tim Burton-ish if you like. I can recommend this movie to anyone interested in great design, displayed in a simple small, but lovely story. | 0 |
Japanese Tomo Akiyama's Keko Mask (1993) is extremely enjoyable trash film and so fun to watch! There are also some sequels, but I haven't seen them since these films are hyper rare. Some kind of re-releases some day would be nice since I think many trash lovers would like these films. The tongue in cheek story is about one extremely strict school in which teachers think that it is okay to torture students in order to attain discipline, which is, according to the teachers, the most important thing in education. The school is lead by incredibly funny looking (just look at the costume!) human wizard/whatever, who is like principal in the school, and it only adds to the campiness that it is never explained why he wears such a costume since all other teachers are perfectly normally clothed. Well, the main thing about the film is its name, Keko Mask, who is some beautiful and masked fairy, who comes always to save the girls and students who are abused and tortured by the teachers! Yes, this superheroine is one effective female as she kicks and fights the evil teachers with totally cheesy soundtrack playing on the background. The most important thing is, of course, that she wears nothing but a cape and a mask with the rest of her body naked! Her identity is never revealed in these films, and also the credits say 'Keko Mask: Unknown' while the actor names are listed!<br /><br />The most hilarious thing in this film is how Keko Mask kills her enemies. She has a gorgeous, but lethal vagina! Yes, you read right. She kills her victims by flying in the air in front of them, spreading her legs and letting the enemies become numbly charmed of the view, after which she flies closer and snaps their necks with her legs! The most usual last line the characters say in this film are like: 'I've never seen such a beautiful vagina' and 'Now I can die in peace.' This film is totally fantastic!!<br /><br />There are also some great taunts towards Japanese society for example its attitude towards sex in films (Japanese censors optically fog/blur all the pubic hair in any film) and also about some restrictions among school students (like girls and boys are not allowed to talk in this film etc.) There's one great scene in which one nerd sees girl's bare you-know-what for the first time, and says 'Hey there's no fog in it!' I couldn't help but laugh during this scene as I thought what do the Japanese censors think about this. Also, one character says in the end that he will return, if Japan Films allows to make the sequel. I'm glad it allowed as I've heard the sequels are equally outrageous. One sequel should include Blues Brothers (yes, THOSE Blues Brothers!) in it etc.<br /><br />This is trash in its most enjoyable, funniest and also cleverest form and so it is a little shame these films are so hard to find. This would definitely be even greater experience, if it was little more fast moving at times as it becomes little boring at one point, but fortunately those segments are very few. This film has to be seen to be fully believed as there are so many trash elements I don't mention here and it wouldn't be even necessary to tell them all here. If you like trash cinema and films made with tongue in very cheek, I think you'll love this little gem as I do, and the director is definitely a genius in this field! 8/10 Perhaps the only film in which a shining vagina is this lethal? | 0 |
All good movies 'inspire' some direct to video copycat flick. I was afraid that 'Gladiator' wasn't really that good a film, because I hadn't seen any movie that had anything remotely resembling anything Roman on the new releases shelf for months. Then I spotted Full Moon's latest offering, Demonicus. I'm a fan of Full Moon's Puppetmaster series, and Blood Dolls, but had never seen one of their non-killer puppet films. Anyway...<br /><br />Demonicus chronicles what happens to a group of campers in the mountains of the Alps. One of the campers, James, finds a cave with old gladiator artifacts, and feels impelled to remove a helmet from a corpse and try it on. He becomes possessed, and, as the demonic gladiator Tyrannus, is impelled to kill his friends to revive the corpse, who is the real Tyrannus.<br /><br />Granted, like many Full Moon films, this has little or no budget. At times, the editing and direction was so amateurish I'd swear I was watching the Blair Witch Project. The attempts at chopping off of limbs and heads reminds me of a Monty Python skit. The weapons, although apparently real, look really plastic-y. It literally looks like this was filmed by a group of friends with a digital camcorder on a weekend. Granted, there's nothing wrong with such film-making, just don't rent this expecting a technical masterpiece. It looks like there were attempts at research for the script too, because, even though Tyrannus really doesn't act much like a gladiator until the end, at least he speaks Latin.<br /><br />All trashing aside, I actually enjoyed this film. Not as much as a killer puppet film, perhaps, but Full Moon still delivers! The only thing that disappointed me was there was no Full Moon Videozone at the end! | 0 |
First off, I just want to say that this show could've done well, way better than it's doing now. What brought it down was certainly the acting. Miranda Cosgrove, who acts as the main character Carly, looked almost worthy of her own show when she was on Drake and Josh. Unfortunately, iCarly was a big let down. Not only can Miranda not act convincingly enough, but she's incredibly stiff when she moves. She looks as if she's not sure how the character 'carly' would move or stand. In the very first episode at the end when she throws the hat up, her arm doesn't ever leave her side from her elbow up. even when she was dancing she looked like a stick in the breeze. And the singing? The theme song was great, only because Drake had been in it, the music was pretty good and Miranda's voice sounded fake. I have to admit, the plot and settings are good, unrealistic, but hey, that's Nick. They're practically known for stupid lines and characters. But wow, is iCarly the worst of them all. | 1 |
Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing. It isn't Inglorious, its disgusting.<br /><br />I absolutely hated Inglorious Basterds. The entire point of a film is to entertain - if u call bashing people's heads and removing their scalps entertaining!!!! - and if there is one unforgivable sin a movie can commit, it is extreme boredom or disgust.<br /><br />The movie is just a collection of endless and excruciatingly boring and disgusting scenes of people talking at tables in various languages. There is even one scene where 3 people talk for nearly 45 minutes at the same table, before, thankfully they are all shot. I wished they would have been killed off after 5 minutes. Even Woody Allen knows when to shut the F**K up.<br /><br />This table talk style is a Tarantino hallmark, but in other films, I actually cared about what they were saying and the people who were talking. Here, I couldn't care less. All of Quentin's films display an enormous confidence, particularly Jackie Brown. But here there is a pervasive feeling in every scene, Tarantino had no idea where he was going with the film.<br /><br />Is it violent? Sure there's torture and scalping galore, but you'd have to remind me. Thankfully, the film was so thin, I didn't even remember I had seen it earlier in the day when until I saw a review headline on MSNBC.<br /><br />He's out of gimmicks and apparently dying to write a novel. But do us a favor QT and spare us the movie.<br /><br />I walked out of this movie halfway through and I would never recommend anyone seeing it no matter what a die-hard quarantino fan he or she is.<br /><br />I give it 0 / 10. | 1 |
I love this movie and have seen it quite a few times over the years. It does get better with every viewing. I agree with all of the positive reviews here. Yes, it's gritty and brutally realistic as life on the prairie was in those days. I found myself doing commentary as I watched it. Someone on here said Rip Torn was miscast. I couldn't disagree more. He is brilliant as the dour, miserly Clyde Stewart who says little and works like a slave/workhorse. Conchatta Farrell is fantastic as the widowed Elinor, whom Clyde hires as a housekeeper/cook (along with her 7 old daughter). Lilia Skala is excellent as distant neighbor called grandma. Also a star is the stark Montana prairie. It is both beautiful and brutal country in which to settle. There are some scenes that are both repulsive and necessary. No special effects here, what you see is real! It even has a terrificly perfect music score and a great script. Once you see Heartland, you'll never forget it. It deserves all the 10s it gets here. | 0 |
Rachel, Jo, Hannah, Tina, Bradley and John are all on top form here. They deserve oscar nominations for their performances. I am a great fan of the tv show aswell. Their music rocks and they're all so talented! I am also a great exponent of SARCASM!!!!!!<br /><br />IF YOU'RE AN S CLUB FAN DO NOT READ THIS!!!!!<br /><br />The performances are terribly weak, the dialogue is terrible and the jokes are not even executed properly (i feel sorry for the director). The jokes are so unbelievably bad that 8 little, passionate S Club fans weren't laughing. They thought they could do it better. And they did. They conquered the world. They became S Club Juniors. Paul, 'the fat, ugly one who started a mosh band' must be thanking his lucky stars that he left when he did. One of the worst movies ever made. BEWARE OF THIS MOVIE! DO NOT GO AND SEE IT! YOU WON'T LAUGH! YOU WILL CRY! 0/10 RJT | 1 |
Definitely not worth the rental, but if you catch it on cable, you'll be pleasantly surprised by the cameos--Iman's appearance is especially self-deprecating. It's also an opportunity to watch all the male supporting cast members from The Sopranos typecast themselves. | 1 |
I went into this movie with low expectations, knowing Uwe Boll's legacy as a film director, and screenplay writer, and I was still disappointed. Uwe Boll finds a way to make each and every movie he is involved in worse and worse. The overall concept wasn't a bad one, a man bored with his life as a stock broker becomes a serial killer. But the problem with the movie is there is no in between, he goes straight from stock broker to serial killer. The film has no-name actors, and I can see why, after watching the movie, I can't see why any actor with a career would want to even be involved in this movie. Anyone who turned it down did their careers a favor. And if you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and don't.<br /><br />I give Sanctimony a 3 out of 10 | 1 |
Rarely have I seen a work of literature translated so badly to the screen. The hysterical cast of b-movie and sitcom extras simply make the characters seem like bad Jewish stereotypes. The worst of all is Melissa Gilbert, who you hate from scene one and never develop any sympathy for. Performances like this should be noted and used against actors who wish to work again. All in all, a seedy, low-budget made-for-TV film of the sort that gives made-for-TV films a bad name. | 1 |
Only after some contemplation did I decide I liked this movie. And after reading comments from all the other posters here, and thinking about it some more, I decided that I liked it tremendously. I love American films - probably because they are so narrative. They usually have a well-defined beginning, middle, and end. 'Presque rien,' on the other hand, makes no such attempt. I disagree with other posters that say it's 'too artsy.' In every way, this film is meant to evoke your sense memories. So often throughout the film you feel like you're there... you feel the summer sun, the breezes, the heat, the winter chill, the companionship, the loneliness, etc., etc.<br /><br />In every way, the director pulls you into the lives of the characters - which is why so many people feel so strongly that the movie disappointed them. After I finished watching it, I felt the same. But upon some reflection, I recognized that this is how the movie had to be: the 'story' isn't the narrative, it's the emotions you (the viewer) feel.<br /><br />The lighting, scenery, and camera angles immerse you in the scenes - they're rich, exquisite, and alive with detail and nuance. Although I normally cannot countenance films without a fully developed plot (after all, isn't a movie 'supposed' to tell a story), this film is definitely one of my new favorites. | 0 |
The horror. The film about the Nazis - the Germans. The murderers of babies, young girls rapists ... For that they regret? What are they interested in doing thousands of miles away from Germany? You do not come to mind is? Fascists are now good Samaritans? Think, killed, tortured, 27 million people. No, of course, they do not want. They were forced to Hitler, he gave each of them, and forced to kill: every fourth inhabitant of Belarus peace, all Jews, Gypsies ... Killing the Slavs. The facts: At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, when taken prisoner by fascist (German), they were defiant and brazen. We kill you all, and so on. Since 1943, when they were taken captive, they suddenly became anti-fascists and peaceful peasants who were forced to Hitler, and personally. For such films should be put to prison for life for the glorification of fascism. <br /><br />If you want to see what they did, yet went to Stalingrad, then watch the movie 'Come and see' (1985). | 1 |
The story centers around Barry McKenzie who must go to England if he wishes to claim his inheritance. Being about the grossest Aussie shearer ever to set foot outside this great Nation of ours there is something of a culture clash and much fun and games ensue. The songs of Barry McKenzie(Barry Crocker) are highlights. | 0 |
I don't understand this movies distinctly average rating!?<br /><br />I really really enjoyed it, i even stayed up till early morning to finish watching it on late night t.v<br /><br />There are three excellent characters here, excellent characters. Danny DeVito played a gem, quite a feat considering he was directing as well. His down trodden laughable at times character was brilliantly written and was surreal in a absolutely believable way. There ARE people like that, Owen was just on the line without crossing it.<br /><br />Billy Crystal's comic syle and sense of timing was PERFECT for his role. His frustration/comedy was interesting and captivating and what's more... you could understand his feelings. To really feel like you know a character is hard to achieve from the writers point of view, to find the right actor to pull it off is an art in itself and both were achieved here thrice over.<br /><br />Thirdly, who else could have played Momma? There is no one that can play this part so well. There is a style there unlike any other, something you love to watch, i found myself waiting for her to appear on screen... and not because the rest was bad, oh no, but because Momma's character was, again, so on the line without crossing it that it was excellent to watch.<br /><br />And what's more? A happy ending with new found friendships, no one getting hurt and everyone getting what they wanted in life... WITHOUT a big hunk of cheese tied on the end.<br /><br />Brilliant script, brilliant idea, perfect cast, great film. | 0 |
I am definitely a Burt Reynolds fan, but sorry, this one really stinks. Most of the dialogue is laughable and the only interesting plot twist is in the last five minutes of the movie. I can't believe he even made this one. Is he actually that hard up for money? | 1 |
From the golden period of British films, this has my vote for one of the funniest of all time. Screened yesterday at my Film Society to a rapturous audience, I was astonished at how well the comedy has lasted (made in 1950!). It is really down to the expert timing and inimitable playing from two of the finest actors Britain has produced: Margaret Rutherford and Alastair Sim. Adapted from a play by John Dighton, this farce is briskly handled by director Frank Launder. The plot is simple: A ministry mistake billets a girls' school on a boys' school. I will always laugh when I think of this film. | 0 |
My mother forced me to watch this movie with her. She apparently will watch anything with a vampire counsel in it. I was bored throughout.<br /><br />At different points, Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans is reminiscent of Spartacus, Battle For The Planet Of The Apes, The Passion Of The Christ, and Mandingo! What it reminds me most of are those Italian sword and sandal pictures of the nineteen-sixties (not the good ones) that spend an inordinate amount of time showing Greek or Roman despots in robes talking and plotting incessantly while you wait impatiently for the muscle man hero and his lover, usually the despots daughter, to do something.<br /><br />This film was in desperate need of some color and suspense. The characters were pretty two-dimensional.<br /><br />The sets looked as if they were constructed entirely of pewter! I wonder how many Civil War Chess Sets were melted down to make this movie.<br /><br />All those wearing fishnet stockings on your arms and black lipstick, feel free to click NO. | 1 |
This film is so bad I can't believe it was actually shot. People who voted 10 or 9, 8 and even 7, are you insane? Did we really watch the same movie? Or the same sh** should I say. Everything is bad in this film. The story (is there a story?) is going nowhere, completely incoherent, the acting (some dialogs are simply just ridiculous), the music score (what the **** is that?), the editing, and especially the artistic direction, a pure disaster. Reminds me the old Macist movies... To give you an example of the amateurism of the production, the mermaid's costume is a sleeping bag with spangles sticked on it. I'm not joking, that's exactly what it is.<br /><br />Another example of the enormous mistakes we find here: you see in a scene an extra, a fat woman of about 200 pounds, who's talking on her cell phone. The next shot, which is in a complete different location, you can see this same woman, still talking on her cell phone (!) Yes, it goes that far. <br /><br />A big, huge, waste of money. Useless. | 1 |
I watched SEA OF DUST at the Rhode Island Horror Film Festival in Providence. It was the Festival's featured film and won Best Picture out of I think a couple hundred entries. The director and a few of the stars answered questions after the showing. One star, Suzy Lorraine, was even hotter in person than in the film, and she was an eye catcher in the movie.<br /><br />This film is independent, yet it has a lot of cinematic touches that give it a quality feel. It even has an original classical style musical score.<br /><br />I am a Savini fan and he's the star villain here, in black cape, he's more of an evil force than a real person I think. He is sucking the souls out of people and using them as soldiers in a twisted attempt to establish his version of the Kingdom of God on Earth. In his view, Christ was all about suffering and Savini intends to make everyone suffer.<br /><br />The main story line that holds your interest is about a young doctor, Stefan, who is sent to investigate the strange events Savini is causing in an isolated town. He proposes to an aristocrat chick on the way but her SOB father tells him to get lost. Then he meets up with a strangely possessed but alluring country girl. I think she falls in love with him, but she also tries to kill him, as do a number of hot women in the film.<br /><br />I found the scenes shot in the woods to be the creepiest and most eye catching, with strange people along the road (the evil little twin girls scared the hell out of me).<br /><br />The film has a lot to it, too much to list. There is a lot of blood, torture and gore. Hot chicks licking blood off of guys' fingers. A terrified girl's head explodes. That was unexpected. Throats get slit. Some brutal stabbings.<br /><br />Then they play it for laughs sometimes, poking a bit of fun at the whole evil black forest genre.<br /><br />If you're a fan of Hammer films and Ingrid Pitt, it is fascinating to see her in this movie. She offs one of the leads by plunging a cross in his skull. Excellent. The guy who played 'Multiple Miggs' in Silence of the Lambs is great in an axe fight.<br /><br />The movie is surreal and with the ending, I'm not sure the events happened or if they were in Stefan's head because of his rejection by his would-be fiancée. He returns in vengeance and that scene is brutal.<br /><br />The director also talked about the theme of religion being misused to back wars and killings. I can see that for sure, Savini's view of religion was scary.<br /><br />This was a strangely exceptional movie with some stars like Savini and Pitt, a lot of good supporting cast including hot babes, great gore scenes, action, and all the time you're wondering what the hell is going on and what is going to happen next.<br /><br />This deserves ten stars because it's an excellent independent film effort, I don't think it was low budget but it had to be way less than a big studio budget, and yet they managed to make something really attractive, unique and thought provoking. | 0 |
Sometimes it is funny to watch films implode from your couch, but other times it is just horribly painful to both your eyes and your mind. House Party 4: Down to the Last Minute is one of those rare examples of when both your eyes and your mind are pleading with you to turn the film off. This final installment to the House Party series is by far the worst, not just sequel, but film released by Hollywood. It becomes very apparent early on in this 'feature' that director Chris Stokes loved Ferris Bueller's Day Off with a passion. I say this because it becomes very clear that Stokes had no trouble lifting the originality of Bueller off John Hughes' hands and choosing to create a film completely void of humor. You would think that by 'stealing' themes and images from a funnier film, your own film would at least be able to generate a giggle or two. With House Party 4, Stokes proved that he does not have what it takes to direct a sequel, much less a Hollywood film. From his confusing and choppy story, the inability to make sense of his characters, and recycled old/tired cliché moments, all Stokes is doing is hitting a bigger nail into the coffin that holds the House Party films. It reminds me of that student that forgets about his project due in an hour and quickly slops together super glue, macaroni, cat hair, chewing gum, and straws and presents it as 'Hannibal Crossing the Alps'. It just looks horrible and you feel embarrassed for the creator.<br /><br />So, where did this film first take the plunge into the realm of comic stupidity? Honestly, I do not think that most places will allow me to speak that long, so instead I would like to hit upon some of the larger topics that hit me the hardest. To begin, I still cannot shake the Ferris Beuller rip-off. It was as if director Stokes was ashamed of having to direct another sequel to House Party and decided to bring in a completely random formula (from a funnier film) and see if he could cut and paste elements from the original series into that formula. That was a huge mistake. When a director tries to do this, what eventually happens is confusion within the audience. We think that we are going in one direction, but instead we head in another one. That is exactly what you can witness in House Party 4. In one instance we have John-John trying to have the 'biggest party of the decade' while also trying to score a record deal (ok, kinda reminds me of the original House Party), but then we whisk away to this random island where Uncle Charles is afraid of flying, Grandma gets drunk, and some idiotic mind-dulling moments with a supposed killer. Again, we begin somewhat strong, and end chaotic. This is the confusion in which I speak. Director Stokes did not have the ability to keep his hand on either the pulse of humor or the ability to tell a sequential story. He would rather cut corners, keep the jokes cheap, and think that the audiences are idiots than attempt to revive a stone-dead series. One would think that when a director was handed that task of filming another House Party film he would walk into it thinking that he/she would be the one to revive it or bring it back to life, instead Stokes just wanted to get paid.<br /><br />I realize that I am slowly growing older as the days go quickly by, but I do believe I still keep my hand in the younger generation's culture. I listened to rap and R&B growing up, but the group 'Immature' never made it to either my cassette deck or my CD player. Why? I don't think they ever quite had a following, but apparently to director Chris Stokes, it would be beneficial to cast them as leads in his new House Party film. Didn't anyone at any studio realize that this was going to be in the red rather quickly? Or how about the option to have Stokes himself play the comedic car repairman, nothing like a director with no sense of comic timing casting himself as the only source of possible humor. It was one of those few instances when I actually missed Robin Harris, and I never thought I would find myself saying that to any film. Outside of a go-nowhere band playing the lead role, I also thought that the remainder of the cast only continued to suck the life out of this film. Uncle Charles was annoying when he attempted humor. Kim Whitely was completely wasted for her scenes (both literally and figuratively) while
well
everyone else pretty much falls into that category.<br /><br />Where did Chris Stokes spend most of the budget for this film? Not for special guest stars because while this film may have boasted some, there were definitely none present at the 'unforgettable' House Party, nor the possible dream that perhaps Kid or Play would make one final appearance. House Party 4 followed no preset design, which ultimately ruined this feature from the foundation down. Can anyone explain to me why there was any need to use the 'escaped murderer who happened to be a licensed taxicab driver' routine for humor? Stokes was reaching deep within the bottom of the barrel and only produced more muck instead of substance. For once I can admit to there being no redeeming value to this film. House Party 4 buried the series, and while I do hear that there may be more in the pipeline, I only hope Hollywood realizes that this series has died. Hollywood needs to let this series end, forget about the past and move forward in the future. I think a sequel to Who's the Man? would get them started in the right direction.<br /><br />Grade: * out of ***** | 1 |
Ever since `Midnight Cowboy' I have been on the lookout for films with Dustin Hoffman and have mostly not been disappointed. Ever since `Kramer vs Kramer' I have been on the lookout for films with Meryl Streep and have mostly not been disappointed. She gave a superb performance, really one of her best, in `Sophie's Decision' and I lapped her up in `Out of Africa'. That these two actors came together over 20 years ago for `Kramer vs Kramer' was definitely a very good idea: the result is an excellent character drama with a theme which is still very relevant in today's society.<br /><br />On divorcing everyone has a pretty bad time, though the kids seem to suffer most
..Beautifully handled by Robert Benton in some original directing presenting some memorable scenes: even the passageway takes on character and should be included in the cast! And as for the breakfast scene with Billy (Justin Henry), just simply magnificent. Just how do you get an eight-year-old to act? Benton managed it, and of course with Hoffman there seemed to be good electricity: the result is certainly engaging, endearing, and convincing. Justin Henry's performance must rank among the best 5 or 6 kids' performances of all time. The best thing, once again, was the naturalness, there was no going over the top, so frequent these days.<br /><br />This film came up again on the small screen the other night, though I have had it in my video collection for years: it is still worth watching and paying attention to everything. Around 7½ out of 10. | 0 |
Complete entertainment! Although there are many strange things in the movie that the fairy tale itself doesn't have them including the autumn characters (mother and daughter) the general concept rocks. | 0 |
Valliant effort to use a mining catastrophe as a vehicle to pronounce this director's distaste for war. The audience not only learns a great deal about early mining rescue procedures but, we learn that Europeans at the interval between WWI and WWII, had concerning pacifists(for lack of a better term). The speeches given by both representatives of each country at the end of the film, are inspiring given the time. Although the revised edition, through the transfer technology of early foreign films, 'cuts-off characters heads' at times, this film holds it's own in many different aspects. Character analysis, lighting techniques, historical content and a scenario that has tested and inspired many a writer and filmmaker.<br /><br />Pabst went on to Direct and put to screen Weil & Brecht's 'Three Penny Opera', starring the original star, Lotte Lenya. | 0 |
Hey Arnold! is a slow-paced and slightly boring movie. The plot is not very creative. The Paul Sorvino character (Shenk) is buying all of the decrepit, low-priced buildings in order to build a gigantic mall, shopping complex and office buildings. This plot goes back to many 1960s kids movies. It is boring. Paul Sorvino is not very exciting either, so the idea of him as the bad guy is not very scary. Gramps remembers something about a historical document, and the rest of the movie is about the last 36 hours when Arnold and Jamal must find the document with the undercover aid of Helga, whose father is hoping to become rich thanks to Shenk's Mall. The kids must move around town on buses, and so the exciting chase scene involving a bus is not only silly, but underscores how this movie is written for very young kids. Hey Arnold, the TV cartoon is usually very entertaining, and it has enough humor to appeal to adults. The TV cartoon is usually faster paced and more imaginative than this movie. Hey Arnold the movie, is about five times more sedated, and a good way to put anyone, including kiddies to sleep. Hey Arnold was a tough one to stay awake all the way until the predictable and totally boring ending. If you want to send your kids to a totally non-offensive movie, this is it. I get the feeling that instead of trying to make a 90 minute movie, the producers started out with a 30 minute TV cartoon script and tried to expand it into 90 minutes. This Mall Story definitely could have been covered in the TV cartoon. Hopefully Arnold will bet a better writer if there is ever a sequel. | 1 |
Xavier,a French student moves into an apartment in Barcelona with a cast of six other characters from all over Europe. An Italian, a Danish, a German, a British, a Spanish and a Belgium.<br /><br />He wants to get a job in EU with the help of his father's friend. He says there are jobs here a lot, but if you know Spanish and Spanish market. So, he advice him to go Spain. Xavier gets an Eramus grand and fly to Barcelona by living his girlfriend and mother.<br /><br />He first learns that the house he will stay is no longer available and the small rooms in Barcelona are even more expensive than he thinks. He stays in a French couples house while he was looking for a house. He has been interviewed with the 5 people from the house and has been accepted. He had an affair with this French guys lovely wife and totally messed up everything with his problematic girlfriend.<br /><br />Do you want to hear more? Did you travel abroad for education? Watch this movie, I promise that you will have a very nice time. | 0 |
this by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. I gave up to watch it after an hour and regretted that hour a lot. the acting is horrible and there is almost no plot. my guess is that someone came up with a strange shape of an animal and started to make a story around of it. borrowing some ideas from movies like Resident Evil and Aliens doesn't result in a movie like them. if this going to be a top Korean movie, I'd rather won't bother to see even a Korean movie trailer...<br /><br />By the way, this movies is a good reason to believe that not necessarily a high rating means the movie is promising. I think every Korean who has internet for online gaming rated this movie over the 8, even though has no clue what it is about. | 1 |
When I first saw this movie,I also expected 'our boys' to be cute,and more like an extended version of the TV show. I didn't 'get it' back then. But,years later,at a party YEARS later,at a 70s' type PAR-TAY,where certain substances had been smoked,inhaled,and with plenty of tequila,'HEAD' was on late at night.We watched it,and finally realized what 'HEAD' was all about. It spoofed their own show,as shown in one song that called themselves,'a manufactured image'. As Davy Jones wrote in his autobio,'They Made a Monkey out of me',he openly admits that everyone in the film,had been up all night smoking weed.They made fun of themselves,society,everything! Great film! Tho,as a 52 yr old granny,I no longer 'induldge', I STILL watch this film when I want a good LOL!!! | 0 |
Lina McLaidlaw is a bright, solitary young women who falls unexpectedly in love with Johnnie Aysgarth, a highly eligible bachelor with a penchant for losing money. They get married, but almost at once Lina is subjected to Johnnie's addiction to lying, gambling and getting into debt. Despite his flaws, she is unable to resist his charming manner, until she starts to suspect he may be harbouring murderous thoughts toward her ...<br /><br />This is a good movie, well-made, with an attractive cast, a good script and possibly the single lousiest ending in movie history. Okay, that's maybe going too far, but not by much. Lots of films change the ending of a book (Great Expectations, The Shining, etc) but the last two scenes of this one not only manage to be horribly lame, but also render the entire preceding plot completely meaningless. The story is about a woman whose husband is driven by his greed and moral lacking - and what she knows about him - to kill her. It should end (as it does in Francis Iles / Anthony Berkeley's book Before The Fact) with him attempting to murder her. The reason it doesn't is that the studio forced Hitch to reshoot the ending, one of the first examples of the godawful process of preview audience testing. Hitch was canny and did what he was told (this was only his third film in Hollywood) knowing that if he played the game, sooner or later he would gain creative control of his films, evinced by his masterpieces of the fifties. But that still leaves us with a turkey of an ending. This is a great shame because it really is a very good movie with an intriguing theme - does anyone really know their husband or wife that well ? The script is excellent, with many off-guard moments (such as when Lina's father dies and Johnnie assumes she's crying about it), a finely-judged performance by Grant (who never played a villain again) and fine photography throughout, culminating in the famous glass-of-milk shot. Fontaine won an Oscar for this performance, although personally I prefer her confusion and vulnerability in her earlier victimised wife role in Rebecca. I would like to rate this movie higher, but I really can't forgive that ending; this is what happens when movies are made for money, not love, which I guess is curiously the theme of the film itself. Look fast for Hitchcock's cameo as a man posting a letter. | 1 |
Granted, I'm not the connoisseur d'horror my partner is, but a well put together, clever flick is worth the time. My quibbles, in brief:<br /><br />- Dialog often weak and at times unbelievable coming from the given character.<br /><br />- Unconvincing acting.<br /><br />- Storyline never really caught fire.<br /><br />The writers plucked choice bits from half a dozen mainstream films, tossed into a kettle, simmered not nearly enough and tried feeding us poor saps the resulting mess, al'dente.<br /><br />Long and short, while not absolutely terrible, it was definitely not worthy of absorbing one of my NetFlix rentals. | 1 |
After seeing the previews awhile back, I looked forward to seeing Steve Martin in a comedy that I thought might be a keeper. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Problem was, the previews were the only funny parts to the movie. The rest of the movie was pretty much a bunch of junk, scenes that have been done to death and characters we've all seen a thousand times.<br /><br />This movie was proof positive that if you put enough cash on the table, you can talk anybody into anything. Steve Martin is a favorite of mine but this one was a big clunker. The only actor in the movie who was worth watching was Eugene Levy; he was the best of a mighty lame group. | 1 |
Wow !! I didn't even know about this movie until I was searching for the name of another Mark Hamill classic (Time Runner). Some things are better left unknown. Mark Hamill's role is quite ... limited. I would compare his appearance in this movie to all those appearances of Vincent Price and Christopher Lee in those bad horror b-movies of the 60's and 70's. In those movies, they appeared in the the first and last 5 minutes of the movie. Memorable acting by Mark with such great lines as 'Don't try to run. You're under arrest.' Did I mention he says that EXACT thing more than once. Bill Paxton fell into an Uzumaki type spiral of drugs and booze after Aliens, because he ended up in this movie after waking up on the set after a binge session. The HAIR .. the HAIR !!! .. Priceless Bill. Truly should have been 'GAME OVER' for Bill .. but somehow .. he got treatment .. and went on to better??? movies. This movie blows. It is more dull and boring than The Crazies. At least that movie was crazy... this is just boring. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE SOBER. | 1 |
This was yet another big screen outing for a US TV show from the sixties It is amusing enough but was very much to formula. Intelligent Martian lands on Earth and meets the not too bright humans, in his view.<br /><br />The usual wackiness ensues with the human, Bridges, eventually bonds with him and helps him to get home. Along the way he also gets the girl, Hannah.<br /><br />This is a nice outing for some pleasant Hollywood stars who I had not seen for a while.<br /><br />Pleasant enough to pass some spare time if you have not got anything better to view. | 1 |
Hayao Miyazaki name became prominent with Spitied Away, however what is often overlooked are director's first film efforts. Who remembers that Spielberg directed Duel or George Lucas directed THX 1138? I remember seeing fragments of this movie - almost certainly the last 45 minutes in late 80s and what stuck with me was the visual lushness of the design and animation. So when I found a copy in a well known store for £9 I couldn't resist but buy it. The odd thing is that the last 45 minutes of the movie do not tally with my memory of it (memory is funny that way).<br /><br />Viewing this movie now with all the gained knowledge of artists portfolios is how very like Jean 'Moebius' Giraud some of the artwork is. I can only assume some influence here.<br /><br />When Pazu catches a falling girl (Sheeta) his adventure really begins - the quest for Laputa - a reference to Jonathan Swift's overlooked portion of Gulliver's Travels. With healthy references to Jules Verne it's a basic good vs. bad chase movie with the final portion having the heroes end up on Laputa.<br /><br />This is the portion that is strongest in my memory - the 'pastoral' ecological aspect of Laputa returned to nature - the multitude of robots covered in moss beneath the giant tree. This is, in my opinion, the highlight of the movie - the views of the surface of Laputa, as opposed to the mechanised underground.<br /><br />Although this is the dichotomy of this movie - to show that even technology cannot overcome nature - the irony of the last robot tending the garden and animals. The ending of the movie Silent Running is almost exactly the same.<br /><br />It is incredibly stylish, I would not say 'slick' - very beautiful and organic and a tremendous amount of detail in the buildings, airships and the design and look of just about everything.<br /><br />Myazaki is a true master of this kind of Japnanese anime. Buy this movie and treasure it. | 0 |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Long time inmate Twitch (Kurupt) gets himself transfered to a tougher prison than the re-opened Alcatraz. He claims it's to be closer to his lady but his real motives are a bit more grandiose. There he crosses paths with Burke (Bill Goldberg) a bulky prisoner who can take care of himself. Twitch, despite being less muscular, is just as mouthy and is pretty much the same. But there is a gang war brewing between the black and hispanic inmates that explodes into a hostile takeover of the prison when the black's gang leader is shot dead and the finger points at Burke. But the sh!t really hits the fan when the real killer and leader of the hispanics, Cortez (Robert Madrid) takes Twitch's girlfriend and Burke's daughter hostage.<br /><br />Steven Seagal doesn't do sequels (reportedly very opposed to the idea of Under Siege 2 and only agreeing to do it on the condition the film company he was with at the time let direct his own movie) so despite this being a DVD sequel, the lead role this time round goes to Bill Golberg (Steve doesn't even appear in some of the stock footage from the first film that appears towards the end.) But there's a reason he hasn't done much work since Universal Soldier 2 and that's because he's not much of an actor, and not much of an action star either, managing a character that begins as very dark and brooding but unsubtly turns into a standard action hero awkwardly quipping off dull one-liners. Support wise, veterans from the first film, Kurupt and Tony Plana, have merely jumped at the chance of extra work.<br /><br />This is a film that's tried to copy the style of the original quite well, with the dim lighting, dark shadows and rap music playing over a lot of it. It does this quite well, unfortunately it can't contend with an unengaging hero, an equally cardboard villain and an apathetic story that the makers do very much seem to have made up as they went along. ** | 1 |
Well, this film came on on a workday at 230am. The cute little actress who played Billy caught my attention initially and after the 1st 15 minutes I was held captive to my television till the very end. It has you on the edge of your seat, then throws in clever bits of comedy during the most tense sequences.<br /><br />The only draw back is that the story was not substantial enough to fill hour an a half film, causing certain sequences to drag just a little. Nonetheless, it was still very entertaining, and I recommended it to all my co-workers the next day. | 0 |
Well how can I categorise Farscape without resorting to gushing superlatives? Ok, here goes! The scripts are fantastic, with each episode offering so much entertainment, drama, humour and sheer watchability. The casting is perfect especially that of Zhaan (the blue lady) played by Virginia Hey, each character has a depth that just isn't there on the Star Trek series.<br /><br />I think having an Australian spin on the show makes this for me, Australia has been knocking out quality films for years and Farscape is no exception.<br /><br />I have only seen the first four episodes in UK order and they have a quality that makes each 45 minute show (in the UK) stand out more like a film than a weekly TV series.<br /><br />The episode that really does it for me is 'I, ET' which turns the alien concept around where Moya (a living ship, even the spacecraft has a great character) is forced to land on a planet that has yet to make 'First contact' and is surprisingly earth like and Crichton meets a radio telescope operator and *he* is the 'little green man' to them. Gripping stuff.<br /><br />In short the effects are great, the scripts are top quality and the main characters (not one of them really given any more importance than any other) are interesting, not always 'good' and well just excellent.<br /><br />Roll on the second season! | 0 |
TV movie about an ancient Egyptian curse brought to the US in the 20's during the filming of DeMille's first version of the 10 Commandments and which is reawakened when DeMille's sets are unearthed in the desert.<br /><br />One of the worst films I've seen in a long time.<br /><br />The question is were the filmmakers serious or kidding when they made this film? If this is serious its a laughably bad movie and a great film to pick on for its badness. If its a comedy its less good but funny for all of the wrong reasons.You will laugh long and hard AT this film, probably more than many other Hollywood 'comedies'. | 1 |
I don't want to spend to long here rambling about the plot- you've seen the trailer, and if you haven't its online. I don't recommend seeing it though- it was poorly crafted and didn't pack any of the laughs or magic from the film. So those avoiding this film due to its lousy trailer should give this one a chance. It's really funny. I was blown away by the cleverness and originality in this film. The first 40 minutes had me on the floor in hysterics- my only problem was that it unnecessarily evolved into a bad Austin Powers film in the final 20. This however, is one of the few films where the campy ending didn't make me dislike the rest of the film (which is normally the case). Everyone gives a great performance (especially Joan Cusack) and there are some really great moments throughout. I personally plan on seeing it again when it comes out- only to catch all the details which I was laughing over during the first viewing! | 0 |
Brian Keith as Cole Wlikerson and Richard Jaeckel as Wade Matlock make excellent villains. They just love intimidating the locals in the most brutal way possible, and sneer sexily at any suggestion that there might be a more humane way to achieve their ends. It's a pity that goody-goody Glenn Ford gets in their way. | 0 |
Personally, I think Sayonara was the greatest movie he ever made. It touched every emotion from anger to romance to complete tragedy. And Brando should have won for best actor. Anyway, the movie is awesome, the man is attractive to BOTH MEN AND WOMEN and now you have no reason not to see it! Do so, and fall in love. | 0 |
Although I am generally a proponent of the well-made film, I do not limit myself to films which escape those boundaries, and more often than not I do enjoy and admire films that successfully 'break the rules.' And it is quite true that director Pasolini breaks the rules of established cinema. But it is also my opinion that he does not break them successfully or to any actual point.<br /><br />Pasolini's work is visually jarring, but this is less a matter of what is actually on the screen than how it is filmed, and the jumpiness of his films seem less a matter of artistic choice than the result of amateur cinematography. This is true of DECAMERON. Pasolini often preferred to use non-actors, and while many directors have done so with remarkable result, under Pasolini's direction his non-actors tend to remain non-actors. This is also true of DECAMERON. Pasolini quite often includes images designed to shock, offend, or otherwise disconcert the audience. Such elements can often be used with startling effect, but in Pasolini's hands such elements seldom seem to actually contribute anything to the film. This is also true of DECAMERON.<br /><br />I have been given to understand there are many people who like, even admire Pasolini's films. Even so, I have never actually met any of them, and I have never been able to read anything about Pasolini or his works that made the reason for such liking or admiration comprehensible to me. Judging him from his works alone, I am of the opinion that he was essentially an amateurish director who did not 'break the rules' so much by choice as by lack of skill--and who was initially applauded by the intelligentsia of his day for ' existential boldness,' thereby simply confirming him in bad habits as a film maker. I find his work tedious, unimpressive, and pretentious. And this, too, is true of DECAMERON. It is also, sadly, true of virtually every Pasolini film it has been my misfortune to endure. | 1 |
'Ninja III' is not quite as bad as 'Enter The Ninja', the first part of this 'trilogy', but it's still a very bad movie. It will hardly please the fans of martial-arts movies, because there isn't enough action, but even the action scenes themselves are often spoiled by laughable excesses and needless violence. As if the film wasn't already weak enough, the filmmakers turn parts of it into an idiotic 'The Exorcist' rip-off. The only redeeming value is the winning presence of the actress who plays the 'dominated' heroine; she is a beautiful and athletic woman, which the director doesn't forget to exploit in various sleazy ways - she just happens to be an aerobics teacher. I don't mind a little soft-core exploitation, but it must not pretend to be something else. | 1 |
'A Damsel in Distress' is definitely not one of Fred Astaire's better musicals. But even Astaire's bad films always had some good moments.<br /><br />In 'Damsel,' Astaire is Jerry Halliday, an American musical star who is in London on a personal appearance tour. He meets Lady Alice Marshmorton (19-year-old Joan Fontaine), a beautiful English heiress, who hops into the back of a cab he is taking to escape a mob of admirers.<br /><br />Jerry believes that Alice is being forced into a marriage by her rich aunt. He tries to rescue her from her family's country manor house, but soon discovers that the house staff is laying bets on which suitor Lady Alice will marry. Keggs (Reginald Gardiner) the conniving butler, and Albert (Harry Watson), the bratty house boy, each take turns alternately helping and sabotaging Lady Alice's romance with Jerry to make sure they win the bet.<br /><br />This musical has numerous problems. First, there is the plot, based on a novel by P.G. Wodehouse (who co-wrote the screenplay). The story is slow, painful, and nerve-grating. When Fred is not dancing, we have to endure endless annoying scenes of (a) Fred romancing Joan Fontaine or (b) Keggs and Albert conniving against them and each other.<br /><br />The butler and the house boy are especially irritating. They are one-dimensional stock villain characters, the kind of guys you just want to punch in the mouth. You wish they would get off the screen and let Fred dance.<br /><br />Astaire suffers in the absence of his usual partner, Ginger Rogers. Joan Fontaine is a lackluster leading lady in this film, and is miscast in a musical. She has little going for her, character-wise, other than her lovely face and beautiful smile.<br /><br />George Burns and Gracie Allen are along for the ride, as Jerry's publicist and his ditzy secretary. The duo adds some sorely needed chemistry to the plot, and Gracie has some funny lines, but she is also very annoying at times.<br /><br />The direction of the movie by George Stevens is not well done. At times, the cinematography is horrible and off-focus. There are a number of outdoor scenes set on extremely foggy streets, to try to convince the audience that we are in London, not Hollywood. (They must have used tons of dry ice in this movie.) On the plus side, the songs by George and Ira Gershwin are terrific, and have become classic song standards. And of course, the dancing in the movie is exceptional, thanks to Astaire and his choreographer, Hermes Pan.<br /><br />But the musical and dance numbers are ill-used and ill-staged. At times, the cast seems to start singing and dancing because, well, it's time for them to start singing and dancing. The musical numbers seem randomly inserted into the meandering plot. (At one point, the butler steps outside the manor house and breaks into an operetta solo for no clear reason.) The numbers include: 'I'm Dancing and I Can't Be Bothered Now' -- Fred dances well on a foggy traffic-filled London street. He does some great 'cane-twirling' with a rolled umbrella -- but the number ends too soon when Fred jumps on a passing double-decker bus. (In the Broadway musical, 'Crazy For You,' Harry Groener did a much better version of this number with a group of chorus girls.)<br /><br /> 'Put Me To The Test' -- Fred, George, and Gracie do a trio tap dance in an English cottage. George and Gracie match Fred step for step, but the number ends poorly with everyone kicking each other for no reason.<br /><br /> 'Stiff Upper Lip' (The Fun House Number) -- At an amusement park fun house, Fred, George, and Gracie have fun dancing on the revolving floor, rotating barrel, and with the fun house mirrors. It's the best number of the movie, but it gets a little repetitious at times.<br /><br /> 'Things Are Looking Up' -- Fred and Joan Fontaine do their one dance number together in the film, prancing around the back woods of the country manor estate. Fortunately, it's a very simple dance number because Joan is not a great dancer.<br /><br /> 'A Foggy Day in London Town' -- Fred wanders around the foggy manor estate at night, crooning about the foggy day when he first met Joan in London. At times, he looks as if he's not sure which way he's going in the fog -- much like the musical number itself.<br /><br /> 'Nice Work If You Can Get It' -- A great song that is misused in the movie. During a social event at the manor house, Fred gets drawn into a chorus of dour-faced singers who are haphazardly singing this song. Each time Fred joins in, the other singers look at him as if they wish he would leave. (Again, Harry Groener did a better dance number with this song in 'Crazy For You.') 'Drum Dance Number' -- As Fred and Joan are eloping, Fred has to stop and do one final tap dance number while banging a group of drums. As usual, it's a great dance number. But there's absolutely no need for it, except to prolong the movie.<br /><br />The most contrived moment in the film comes when Fred decides to leap off a high stone balcony at the country estate in order to prove his love for Joan Fontaine. As he leaps from the balcony, he finds a conveniently-placed trapeze -- that's right, a *trapeze* -- hanging from a nearby tree. Fred (or rather, a stuntman in Fred's clothes) grabs the trapeze and swings to the ground from it.<br /><br />The movie is worth owning on DVD for the dance numbers alone, but you feel indebted to the guy who invented the Fast Forward button on your remote. The >>FF button allows you to skip through the other, boring scenes in the film to get to the dance numbers. | 1 |
Warning: Does contain spoilers.<br /><br />Open Your Eyes<br /><br />If you have not seen this film and plan on doing so, just stop reading here and take my word for it. You have to see this film. I have seen it four times so far and I still haven't made up my mind as to what exactly happened in the film. That is all I am going to say because if you have not seen this film, then stop reading right now.<br /><br />If you are still reading then I am going to pose some questions to you and maybe if anyone has any answers you can email me and let me know what you think.<br /><br />I remember my Grade 11 English teacher quite well. His name was Mr. Krisak. To me, he was wise beyond his years and he always had this circuitous way of teaching you things that perhaps you weren't all too keen on. If we didn't like Shakespeare, then he turned the story into a modern day romance with modern day language so we could understand it. Our class room was never a room, it was a cottage and we were on the lake reading a book at our own leisure time. This was his own indelible way of branding something into our sponge-like minds. <br /><br />I begin this review of Vanilla Sky with a description of this brilliant man because he once gave us an assignment that has been firmly etched in my mind, like the phone number of a long lost best friend, and it finally made some sense to me after watching The Matrix. Now if I didn't know better, I would have thought that the Wachowski brothers were really just an alias for my teacher Mr. Krisak. But giving them the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume it wasn't him. But that was the first time this assignment was anything more than impalpable. <br /><br />He had asked us to prove to him and to ourselves that were real. Show me how you can tell that you are real. This got the class spouting off all of the usual ideas that I'm sure you can imagine. Everything from pain, to sense of touch to sense of loss to sense of hunger were spouted off to our teacher to prove to him that we were real. After every scenario that we gave him, he would come back with the one answer that would leave us speechless.<br /><br />'What if you are nothing but someone else's dream?'<br /><br />What if you were someone else's dream? What a messed up question that is. This was a question/scenario posed to us about 15 years ago, before the astronomical use of the Internet and rapid advancement of computers. How possible could it seem back then? But if you look at today's technology, now ask yourself, what it you were a part of someone else's dream.<br /><br />Another brilliant but surreal film this year, David Lynch's Mulholland Drive explored similar areas. But Vanilla Sky goes deeper than any other film could hope to. In short this is one film that will literally (if you let it) blow your mind from all of the possibilities that surround you.<br /><br />Open your Eyes.<br /><br />Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a young, hot shot, righteous, full of himself publisher and owner of several magazines. He inherited this from his father and although he has talent and business savvy, his board of governers, the Seven Dwarfs, think he is a rich dink born with a silver spoon in his mouth. They feel he has done nothing to deserve the pinnacle of success that each and every one of them believes should go to them. <br /><br />Early in the film we meet one of David's gorgeous toys named Julie Gianni, played with pernicious but bombastic perfection by Cameron Diaz. David and Julie play a good game, both claiming they are just there to use each other and are not the slightest bit interested in a monogamous, committed relationship. This is the type of relationship commensurate with David's other flings he's had in the sexual prime of his life. And although both talk a good game, we can tell that only one is really telling the truth. <br /><br />Next we meet Brian Shelby, played with a stroke of genius by Kevin Smith's good buddy Jason Lee. Brian is writing a book that David is going to publish but they are also very good friends. This is something that David has very little of in his life and you can sense a real caring for one another early on in the film. Brian has one famous line that he keeps telling David over and over again. And that is ' the sweet ain't so sweet without the bitter.' He goes on to tell him that one day he will find true love and not just this part time lover status that he seems to perpetrate with all of the floozies who inhabit his bed for a night or two.<br /><br />At David's huge birthday bash, (so huge that the likes of Steven Spielberg wish him a happy birthday) Brian enters with his date, Sofia Sorrano, played of course by Penelope Cruz with what has to be the best performance of this year by an actress. This is a bash by invite only and at first David and Sofia seem intrigued with one another. And in typical David fashion, despite his best friend being there, he begins to flirt with Sofia. To complicate things, Julie shows up uninvited and begins spying on David. David then spends the night with Sofia, but they only talk and draw caricatures of one another. There is no hanky panky. The next day, as David is leaving Sofia's apartment, he is greeted by Julie, who offers him a ride and from there.......well, I think we have all seen the commercials.<br /><br />That is all I will really say about the plot, because from here the film teases us with what is reality and what is blurred perception. We are introduced to a character played by Kurt Russel and a few other shady characters that all play a part in this labyrinth like haze. There is a subtext of death and possible panacea-like cure-alls that may or not be able to create the possibility of eternal life. This is just one of the intriguing possibilities the movie offers us, but it doesn't end there.<br /><br />Like many movies seem to thrive on today, this film has a secret. Sixth Sense may have began this craze, but look even further back and you can maybe thank Angel Heart for starting the craze. Regardless of how it originated, Vanilla Sky has one of it's own surreptitious gut busters. And what makes this one so much fun is that the film gives you many obvious clues along the way but not enough to give you an apodictic solution to the gauntlet of truth and lies you have just put yourself through. I have seen this film four times and every time it has been because I want to see if there is something more I can pick up, something more I can understand. To be able to work your mind in the theater, to enable it to open up to new possibilities is something rare in a film. All of the ersatz so called 'Best Pictures of the year' have been good but nothing spectacular. They lack substance. A Beautiful Mind was intriguing but flat, The Royal Tenenbaums was interesting but uneven. Vanilla Sky is a rarity because it is a film that leaves you yearning for more yet guarantees your satisfaction because the film and those that made it care about it. I know this film has received mixed reviews but I just think that those who don't like it don't quite understand it. <br /><br />This is what film making is supposed to be like. This is what a film is supposed to do to you. It is supposed to make you feel something. Most of the other films this year have been just empty spaces. This one isn't.<br /><br />10 out of 10 The best film of the year. I would love to see this get nominated for best picture and I would love to see Cruz up for best Actress, Diaz for best supporting, Cruise for best actor and Jason Mewes should be a shoe in for best supporting actor. Cameron Crowe should there as well. None of this may come to pass, and that is a shame. This is one film that should not be missed. <br /><br />And on a final note, I am quite sure Mr. Krisak would like this film and maybe this is the one film that may answer his question. Can you prove you are real? Or are we just a figment of someone's imagination? Are we artificially transplanted for someone else's bemusement? This is a film that spawns more questions than it does answers. And I'm sure that is just fine with him.<br /><br />Open Your Eyes | 0 |
Although I had some hopes for this film, particularly since I enjoy the acting of Jason Segel (Freaks & Geeks, Undeclared) so much, I must say it was one of the worst films I've seen in recent memory (Loser and Dr T and the Women are also on that list).<br /><br />Yes, there were a couple of laugh out loud moments, although the movie could have been so much better. The premise was not bad- scam artists cheating their way through college meet their match when they're discovered by someone with a proposition for them. The problem is that the characters were all so unlikable, that I didn't care about any of them. The blackmailer (played by talented Jason Schwartzman) was such a psychopath that it wasn't that funny to watch him- he wasn't deranged in a particularly funny or charming way, he was just a crazy loser, who was actually rather dangerous and not fun to watch. The editing of the movie was hard to follow-- it kept cutting between fantasy and reality and it was often unclear which was which. Only two or three of the gang's scams were really shown, you just had to take it on faith that they were indeed scam artists-- showing their schemes would have made for a better movie. The so-called love story was absurd and unbelievable, in fact it was silly and poorly written and directed throughout. I could go on about the movie's shortcomings, but you get the idea. Not worth the $4 rental or the gas it takes to drive to and from the movie store to rent! | 1 |
I liked this movie, not because Tom Selleck was in it, but because it was a good story about baseball and it also had a semi-over dramatized view of some of the issues that a BASEBALL player coming to the end of their time in Major League sports must face. I also greatly enjoyed the cultural differences in American and Japanese baseball and the small facts on how the games are played differently.<br /><br />Overall, it is a good movie to watch on Cable TV or rent on a cold winter's night and watch about the 'Dog Day's' of summer and know that spring training is only a few months away. A good movie for a baseball fan as well as a good 'DATE' movie
Trust me on that one! *Wink* | 0 |
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Yes, I know I'm not the target audience. Target audience is females, either college age or middle aged or any aged I guess. I'm none of these so the makers don't mind if I don't like it. But that won't excuse the fact that the dialogue and the plot are horrible. The main character, Phoebe, goes on a journey to Europe to find out what happened to her sister, Faith, who committed suicide. Phoebe is an inane character that i hope no one identifies with. Faith is also a character with very little believability. Wolf is the only person who seems to be somewhat reasonable. As I said the dialogue is boring and uninteresting. The plot does completely stupid things at times. The absolute worst is that Phoebe and Faith's father is an artist but his paintings are completely dreadful. There is nothing new, interesting or refreshing in this movie. If your a guy, you will pray for the ending. If your a chick you might be able to sit through it but you will be unimpressed. | 1 |
This is at least the third remake of this movie so if while watching it, there is a sense of deja vu, don't be surprised. All they did was change the setting of the story and tell it differently but the differences are not significant. And it doesn't get any better because the plot is flawed to begin with. It never works. And like its predecessors, the acting is mediocre.<br /><br />The plot has a unique ending which will surprise any one who has never seen the movie before but the ending doesn't fit the story. Had this movie ended ten minutes earlier, it would have worked and have been very satisfying and I would have thought it more worthwhile. But here is the spoiler and that in the end crime does pay because the criminal is not caught. I never like this message resulting from a movie. | 1 |
Being a fan of silent films, I looked forward to seeing this picture for the first time. I was pretty disappointed. <br /><br />As has been mentioned, the film seems to be one long, long, commercial for the Maxwell automobile. <br /><br />Perhaps if the chase scene was about half the length that it is, I may have enjoyed the film more. But it got old very fast. And while I recognize that reality is stretched many times in films, without lessening a viewer's enjoyment, what was with the Mexican bandits? I mean, they are chasing a car through the mountains, a car that most of the time is moving at about one mile per hour, yet they can't catch up to it? | 1 |
I just saw this movie today with my children (son, 10 and daughter, 4.5) at the 3rd Annual Roger Ebert Overlooked Film Festival. After the film the children in the audience were allowed to ask questions to the Director, Tian-Ming Wu. He (through a translator) told several stories about his life and the making of the film.<br /><br />All tangents aside, both of my children really enjoyed this movie. Of course, I had to paraphrase many of the subtitles for my daughter, but much of the film is visually self-explanatory.<br /><br />I won't give anything away, but the bottom line is that this film is SO MUCH better than 95% of the Hollywood crap (especially children's films) out there.<br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br />p.s. There is a 'real'/original King of Masks who can/could do 12 masks at once. The actor in the movie trained and learned to do up to 4 masks at a time (then they would cut and change to 4 new masks). | 0 |
I must tell you the truth. The only reason I wanted to see this movie was because of Rose McGowan. I think that part definitely worked out...pretty well actually. However, the film was very good too. Some parts of this movie are really good.<br /><br />The film has great action also. The mystery is pretty hard to figure out and Rose [McGowan] does some 'Oscar-worthy' acting towards the end of the film, but I don't want to give anything away. Adam Beach and Jurgen Prochnow are also great in the movie, along with some of the other stars.<br /><br />If you like mysteries, or action movies, or just like Rose...I totally think you would like this movie. | 0 |
I never thought I'd say this about a biopic, but there is a near over-abundance of characterization (especially concerning Kenji Miyazawa's emotions) and too little on the literal occurrences in his life--by the end, I'm not sure if he dies (he's supposed to), or if his sister finally dies (she's supposed to), or if the director spent a little too much time on the Galactic Railroad (that's an inside joke, in case you missed it--Miyazawa wrote a children's book called Night on the Galactic Railroad). However, this glimpse inside the mind of a writer who 'sketched poetry and fairy tales from his imagination' is very intelligent, creative, entertaining, and emotionally powerful.<br /><br />All this despite the fact that everyone is animated as animals (like in many of Miyazawa's stories).<br /><br />Some of the visuals are truly astounding, especially considering that it was a made for TV movie. Seriously, some of them (like the sequence with birds trailing blue light) rival parts of Fantasia. However, I still can't stand computer animation when it is mixed with cel animation. The CGI trains are horribly obvious--even more so than the Anastasia train.<br /><br />8/10 | 0 |
SERIES THREE- BLACKADDER THE THIRD ' If you want something done properly, kill Baldrick before you start' Hot on the heels of the second series the show returned with the current owner of the famous name down on his luck and in service as butler to the Prince Regent, a vain and stupid foil for Blackadders venom, played by Hugh Laurie. Baldrick is still in tow as the other piece of the comedic jigsaw. The format is similar to the previous show, after all now they had found the winning formula why change things. We see Blackadder trying to get rich off of the back of the gullible regent in many more ingenious ways, trying to make Bladrick an M.P.or trying to woe a suitable bride for the prince. In many ways this is one of the most accurate of the series historically, the prince regent did take control of the throne during his fathers bout of madness and some of the characters lampooned tell a lot about the times. Samuel Johnson, William Pit and Wellington all pass through the events and all manage to steal their scenes, not an easy thing with such a stellar cast | 0 |
This is one of the most underrated masterpieces of all time in my opinion, its thought provoking, funny and sad with amazing performances all around!. All the characters are wonderful, and the story is just brilliant!, plus Jodie Foster and Cherie Currie are simply amazing in this!. The Ending is very powerful, however I won't spoil it for you, and I thought the character development was top notch!, plus you can really relate to all of the characters, especially Jeanie and Annie, as you will be rooting for them!, plus I loved how it moved slowly, and giving you a chance to get to know all the characters and what there about. I can't believe this only has a 5.9 rating on here as it should be much higher in my opinion, and it was funny seeing Randy Quaid in this type of role, plus this is extremely well written and made as well!. One scene that really got to me was when Madge(Marilyn Kagan), is totally embarrassed by her mother for having the party, and the film has many surprising moments as well!, plus the dialog is especially excellent. This is one of the most underrated masterpieces of all time (In my opinion), its thought provoking, funny and sad with amazing performances all around, and i say Go see it immediately!, your bound to love it!. The Direction is fantastic!. Adrian Lyne does a fantastic job here, with awesome camera work, and keeping the film at an extremely engrossing pace!. The Acting is amazing!. Jodie Foster is really cute, and is amazing as always!, she was extremely likable, caring, had a lovable character, was intense in some scenes, was focused, and she and Cherie Currie were the heart of the film as Jeanie and Annie!(Foster Rules!!!!!!!). Cherie Currie is way hot, and is amazing here, i really felt sorry for her character, as she had a very likable character that just needed help, she gives a powerful performance, and created a very memorable character she was amazing!. Scott Baio is great as Brad he was really likable, and did his job well i liked him. Randy Quaid is great in his serious role surprisingly i liked him. Sally Kellerman is great as the mother i liked her a lot. Marilyn Kagan and Kandice Stroh are both very good as Madge and Deirdre, and did what they had to do well as the other two friends. Laura Dern has a very early role here, as it was cool to see her, not much of a part though. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall go see it immediately, it's an underrated masterpiece!. ***** out of 5 | 0 |
I'd really, really wanted to see this movie, and waited for months to get it through our Blockbuster Total Access account. When it showed up in our mailbox, I threw it straight into the DVD player.<br /><br />I was very sadly disappointed, which in turn made me mad. I'll give any movie a chance, even if I want to walk out of the theater/press 'stop'. I watched it all the way through, but didn't get anything from it but frustration.<br /><br />The acting was very, very good, but that was about it. Nothing is explained; while we understand that Mathieu becomes depressed and lands in a psych ward of some kind, we're never given insight to his 'downfall'. While we understand that he and Cedric break up, again, we don't see it happen or WHY it happened. During an interview with Mathieu's doctor, Cedric reveals that he'd cheated on him once, but it was no big deal. I expected to see this in flashbacks, but no--nothing. We also gets the hints that Cedric was the one to bring Mat to the hospital--but AGAIN, we don't see it.<br /><br />I know some movies are a 'take it as it is' basis, but this movie honestly ticked me off. When Pierre, Cedric's ex shows up in the club and starts trouble, we don't see hide nor hair of him until near the end, and it took me a good chunk of time to figure out that Pierre WAS the ex. His personality at the club and when Mat finds him are entirely different. I might even be wrong saying this, it was that confusing.<br /><br />The film expects you to know everything and move along with its disjointed, out-of-place and confusing pace. I can keep up with films like 'Pi', 'Citizen Kane' and other films that have flashbacks/flash-forwards left and right, but CU didn't capture and hold onto the style. At the end of 'Citizen Kane', you know what's going on and discover the answer to the main mysteries. CU just leaves you hanging. It has an air of pretension in its 'we're not gonna tell you a damned thing, figure it out for yourself' presentation. It's like reading a book with the chapters switched around and pages missing.<br /><br />Good acting, like I said. I liked the characters, but the whole story was just too disappointing. | 1 |
One of the most interesting things is that this 1988 film is highly touted as an `in-name only' sequel. There's nothing wrong with that except this: The return of Chevy Chase as Ty Webb. This connects the viewer to this character (from the original Caddyshack in 1980,) and makes fans thinking or wanting Caddyshack II to be similar to the first one.<br /><br />There are rumors that Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to return. He carried a big part of the first film, so his return would have put Caddyshack 2 over the top. Jackie Mason is the `new' Rodney for this movie and does a decent job, even though their comic deliveries are way different. Dan Aykroyd was great but not in the film enough. He should have been involved to the tune of how much screen time Bill Murray got in the first one. Robert Stack (Airplane!) was good in the `new' Ted Knight/Villian role. (We miss you, Ted!) Danny Noonan should have been back. So many others could have returned to show us what happened to their characters eight years later. Bushwood should not have undergone the total makeover it did. Instead, the characters involved, rather than the club itself, should have been the main focus like they were in the first one. When you watch this film, keep in mind that it isn't a major sequel and you may think it's another good or bad eighties comedy. Fans of the first should see it but don't be shocked when the comparisons between the original and Part II are so far apart. | 0 |
The other day I showed my boyfriend a great movie, Stand By Me, a movie I have shown to many people and they absolutely adored it, but for some odd reason he didn't like it. He lends me a movie called Backdraft and he tells me that he's shown it to many people and they loved it, instead I hated this movie. I don't think I've hated a movie so much in a while, how this movie has even a 6.6 rating is beyond me. I couldn't keep up with the five million stories here: Billy Baldwin becoming a fire man, the random sibling rivalry, the random love story(s), the who's being an arson story, the investigator, the fire who has a personality of it's own. I just have a problem that this movie can't keep up with all these stories, they didn't balance out well enough make the film interesting. I would have just preferred if this movie was about being a firefighter or the investigator and how he came to be one or what it is exactly he does and why.<br /><br />The movie tells the story of a group of Chicago firefighters, two brothers. Stephen 'Bull' McCaffrey, the elder brother, is obsessed with the beating of the fires that he fights. Brian, the younger brother quit the fire fighting academy school several years before, then embarking on a number of other unsuccessful careers before returning to become a firefighter. He is looked down on by his elder brother who expects him to fail in his newly chosen career as a fire fighter. Donald 'Shadow' Rimgale is an arson investigator who is dedicated to his profession. He is called in because a number of fires that have occurred have somewhat similar connections. .Martin Swayzak is an alderman on the City Council. He has obvious hopes of being elected to mayor, but has had to make a number of budget cuts to the fire department. Many of the rank and file firemen believe that the cuts that he has made are endangering the lives of the firefighters. However, Swayzak is initially successful in portraying the fire department as bloated and ineffectual after firemen are repeatedly being killed in blazes.<br /><br />I just couldn't get into this movie, I don't know how anyone else could, it was incredibly unrealistic and portrayed firefighters all wrong. I loved how they had every action cliché in the book to match this action flick. I just felt also like there was great talent wasted on such mediocre roles, Donald Sutherland, great actor, but such a strange role that could have been taken by a lesser known man who had the upcoming talent at the time. I know Ron was going for great quality, but I think him casting such huge actors in small roles was a mistake for this film. I even had to joke my way through while watching this movie commenting how the doctor in the background was probably Kevin Spacey. The fire was so unrealistic and the movie was just so out there, I didn't enjoy it and honestly wouldn't recommend it to people, I'll stick to the recommendations in my relationship from this point on.<br /><br />2/10 | 1 |
This movie needs to be put on DVD. It was so funny and I loved it. Really, really cute and funny. Not realistic, but not suppose to be. The only thing I did not like about it was the girl relying on the guy too much. It represents the time period way of thinking though. I have been trying to get this movie for so long and it has been unavailable for US format only in the UK and will not play on US DVD players. It is sadly an over looked Classic film! Believe it or not, but this film could easily become a cult favorite, for all ages. Too bad, we do not legalize certain things that could really save small countries or our own. Lindy is unsinkable, a positive character that makes lemonade out of lemons. She is funny and charming. She stole the show! | 0 |
An ear-splitting movie, a quasi-old-fashioned screwball romp designed to showcase singing star Madonna's comedic attributes. She does indeed go far out on the proverbial limb here playing a beyond-vivacious parolee attempting to prove she was framed for murder (a body was found in the trunk of her car after she ran a red light...big laughs). After an energetic animated credits sequence--which is much more fun than the rest of the picture--we have nothing to look at but Madonna's black mascara and red lips set off by her platinum hair and pale complexion. What else is there? Griffin Dunne seems defeated playing Maddy's keeper, while the poor-choice supporting cast struggles to get laughs with lousy dialogue. It's an unfortunate set-back to the talents of director James Foley, who unwisely allows his star to run rampant in the spirit of the nutty slapstick films from the 1930s (but even Katharine Hepburn in 'Bringing Up Baby' had a human side). Wretched. * from **** | 1 |
Prussic gas, a murderer donning a red clansman suit and hood wielding a white whip, and the murders of college school girls at the hands of paid convicts enlisted by a mysterious mastermind who keeps his face hidden within an office containing aquariums of turtles and fish. The inspectors at Scotland Yard, Higgins(IJoachim Fuchsberger)and his superior Sir John(Siegfried Schürenberg)certainly have their hands full with this case. It all seems to center around student Ann Portland(Uschi Glas), who, when she turns 21, is to inherit a great deal of wealth. The girls who are targeted share a room with Ann, but the reason for their murders remains a mystery SY's finest must figure out. The staff of the girls' dormitory all seem to be hiding something and certain members of the faculty are falling prey to the killer in the red monk robe disguise, talented enough to precisely strangle the necks of those attacked with the whip. Two prisoners are commissioned by a mystery man to use the newly created toxic gas created by a scientist murdered at the beginning of the film during what was supposed to be a monetary exchange for his creation. It's a clever scheme where a driver, Greaves(Günter Meisner)meets the convicts(..who hide in a barrel)who are assisted by a corrupt prison guard. Taken blindfolded to the secret room of the mastermind, he gives them orders on who to kill and how. Uncovering this operation is a top priority for Higgins and Sir John for it will lead them to the truth they seek in regards to the murders and why they are happening. Under suspicion are girls' dormitory headmistress, her author brother, a sweaty, incredibly nervous chemistry teacher, a snooping gardener, and the Bannister. Some are red herrings until they are disposed of, throwing the viewer for a loop each time until the real mastermind is discovered. The ending features multiple twists. <br /><br />Out of the Krimi films I've seen, THE COLLEGE GIRL MURDERS is the closest to a giallo with it's colorful killer, a convoluted plot yielding lots of surprises and potential suspects, & sordid shenanigans between adults and the college girls at the dormitory. I think you can also see the influence of James Bond on this particular Krimi film with the villain mastermind's secret hideout with an alligator pit(..which isn't used), the fake bible/water pistol, when opened, fires the gas into the face of startled victims, the Greaves' Royles Royce which has latches that cause flaps to darken the windows without revealing the passenger in the back seat, and the peep holes used to spy on the girls in their rooms and while swimming. Many might consider Sir John a liability due to his bumbling, buffoonish behavior and how he often undermines Higgins' abilities to get at the truth(..perhaps poking fun at know-it-all British inspectors who harm a case more than solve it)..I felt he was used as comedy relief, particularly with his attempts at psychoanalyzing suspects and potential victims, often misunderstanding what are told to him. Higgins, using the skills adopted over his years as an investigator, instead follows the clues/facts, often avoiding Sir John as much as possible. Capable direction by the reliable Alfred Vohrer who keeps the pace humming at a nice speed, and the screenplay is full of interesting characters and lurid content..the fact that so many of the adults surrounding the dormitory are suspect, any of them might be the one wielding the whip or calling the shots behind those murdered girls' executions. I'd say this may be one of the best(..if not the best)examples of the Krimi genre, for it keeps you guessing, always one more ace up it's sleeve..the revelations unearthed at the very end are quite eye-opening(..and, you even get a literal unmasking of the real mastermind pulling the strings to top it all off). | 0 |
I can't say I enjoyed this as much as 'The Big Lebowski' or 'Raising Arizona,' and felt a little slighted, but 'O Brother' is an enjoyable film worthy of some good laughs and a taste of the Coens' brisk, twisted sense of creativity. The DVD edition contains the featurette, and I was interested to find out that the Coens are pretty simple in their directorial techniques. That surprised me! Of course, this movie is not the best example (and I'm only saying this in comparison) and it wasn't worthy of any Oscars (many feel it was robbed), but maybe it depends on the appeal. <br /><br />Though I enjoyed the Coens' previous work, I've never been a fan of old westerns or 'The Dukes of Hazzard' or any of that stuff they show daily on TNN. I guess that's why I didn't feel as enthusiastic about checking out this movie, seeing that it revolves around Southern folk. For all those from the South who are reading this, I don't mean to offend ANY of your people! I'm sure you guys feel the same way when you watch movies about urban areas like 'A Bronx Tale.' When you live in the city all your life, it's hard to get accustomed to films of this nature. But all apologies aside, I found the characters fun and quirky. I think John Turturro nailed the accent perfectly, and seeing the way he talks in real life I find that amazing. Tim Blake Nelson was also good. Of course, George Clooney--who I assume is not the best at feigning accents, judging by his decision to chuck the idea of working with a dialogue coach and developing a New England accent for 'The Perfect Storm'--naturally seems a little miscast and continually struggles with the accent. His performance was good, though. You can also spot Coen regulars like Holly Hunter (in a short but sweet role) and John Goodman (also on screen for a short time, but steals every minute of it).<br /><br />Though I don't normally dig country music, I liked the title song 'A Man of Constant Sorrow.' The DVD also contains the music video for that song. <br /><br />Overall, I found the film entertaining and original, but it doesn't have that in-your-face quality that the Coens have shown to us in the past. It's a slighter effort, but a good one. I still suggest you check it out. <br /><br />My score: 7 (out of 10) | 0 |
this animated Inspector Gadget movie is pretty lame.the story is very weak,and there is little action.most of the characters are given little to nothing to do.the movie is mildly entertaining at best,but really doesn't go any where and is pointless.it's watchable but only just and is nowhere near the calibre of the animated TV show from the 80's.it's not a movie that bears repeat viewing,at least in my mind.it's only about 74 minutes long including credits,so i guess that's a good thing.unlike in the TV show,the characters are not worth rooting for here.in the show,you wanted Inspector Gadget to save the day,but there,who really cares?anyway,that's just my opinion.for me Inspector Gadget's Last Case is a disappointing 3/10 | 1 |
Set in 1945, Skenbart follows a failed Swedish book editor who decides to take a non-stop train to Berlin. Unfortunately for everyone around him, he's a walking disaster, causing mayhem everywhere he goes. The train also holds a man and his mistress scheming to murder the man's wife (who's also on the train), a soldier on his way home, two gay elderly gentlemen, an angry train conductor, two nuns, a bunch of refugees, and even more people.<br /><br />Meant as a mix of noir-ish thriller (which it does quite well - at least to begin with), and comedy, the film fails with both. It doesn't sit right as the film changes tone with every new scene. And as the train races towards its final destination, the film turns more and more bizarre, ending on a truly surreal note.<br /><br />The good bits are wasted in a myriad of pointless plots and characters. Skenbart is packed with famous Swedish actors, no matter how small the part is. It feels like the filmmakers rang everyone they've ever worked with and offered them a part in the film. Too bad that the performances are just as bad as the script (act your lines - don't read them!).<br /><br />The comedy is more or less slapstick, with the same jokes repeated over and over. The pace is incredibly slow at times (quite often, actually) with on scene in particular dragging on for about ten minutes for no good reason. The screenwriter also seems to think that swearing is a good way to replace decent dialogue. The film looks great though, in moody B&W, but it's wasted on such inept film-making in every other department. [1/10] | 1 |
I don't see the sense in going through so much trouble to make a movie like this, and then throw the history book out the window. There wasn't a single accurate detail in that movie other than the fact than Richtofen died, which I was grateful for at the end so I didn't have to watch any more. Movies like this are an insult to anyone who knows anything about WWI aerial history.<br /><br />I'll skip the obvious, that they were flying Fokker DVII's in 1916, because the Blue Max did that too, or that 209 squadron was flying SE-5's, and will attack other parts. For one thing, they call the Pfalz D-III an 'old Albatross' at the beginning. For another, they have Voss, Goring, and Wolff all in Jasta Boelcke. The only one who was in that Jasta was Voss, and he joined after Boelcke died. Richtofen wasn't held to blame for Boelcke's death...Erwin Boehme, who collided with Boelcke, had swerved to avoid a British plane that Richtofen was chasing. When Richtofen received his head wound, it was while attacking a FE-2d two-seater, and he did not crash into the trenches and have soldiers fight over him, and NO..Werner Voss did not die that day. He died September 28th in one of the most epic battles in WWI.<br /><br />Manfred was short, not like the actor who towered over everyone else. His brother Lothar was never in Jasta Boelcke either, he joined the squadron when Manfred was in charge of Jasta 11.<br /><br />There's so many other glaring errors in historical fact that I'll let them go except perhaps the worst one, the death scene. In the movie Manfred is out-maneuvered by Brown and then shot down, making a perfect landing. Brown got off one burst at Richtofen while Richtofen was chasing May, and the facts amassed over the years overwhelmingly show that Richtofen was killed by ground fire, not by Brown.<br /><br />The only value in this movie was the chance to see the flying scenes themselves, which were as good as 'The Blue Max', other than that I won't watch it again and I paid $30 for the tape! | 1 |
even though this movie is quite old, no matter how many times i watch it, it still makes me laugh. <br /><br />one particular quote in the movie stands out. <br /><br />when Danny( Joe Piscopo) pulls up to the d.a's office & parks in a disabled spot, Danny's partner says <br /><br />' can't park here, it's for the handicapped'. <br /><br />Danny replies ' i am handicapped,i'm psychotic'.<br /><br />that is one of the many lines in the movie that no matter how many times you watch, it'll make you chuckle.<br /><br />Johnny Dangerously stands in my top 5 comedy/spoof movies of all time.<br /><br />As an added bonus it also includes the legendary actor Peter Boyle in the cast. So watch this movie & like myself & many others who have watched it, you'll be hooked. | 0 |
I would give this movie 5 rather than 3 if it would be at least in time... When i've seen it in first time it was just what you could wait from the work that is based not on the artistic abilities of the directors but on the idealistic or i would rather say idiotic habits of our (Kazakhstan) government... It's a shame, because 'Qazaqfil'm' was been shooting nice movies when it was not honoured by the name of Shaken Aimanov, but it was actually ran by him. The movies like 'Konec Atamana', 'Kyz Zhibek' or even 'Aldar Kose'. But after Mr Aimanov's death the production of quality movies went down almost dramatically in 10 years time there were very few films produced. However, in late 1980s, 'Assa' was shot, it was a film about first organised crime groups in the big country, one year later Mr. Rashid Nugmanov shot another film with the co-staring of the same actor/singer V.Tsoy, at that time he was already a soviet/Russian rock legend, - the movie called 'Igla' (The Needle or something) it was completely new, somebody called that period as resurrection or a new Kazakh movie wave. Unfortunately nowadays we do not have a quality movies, our directors shooting movies on the french and Japanese financial support, and thus movies are not for the public but for the authors professional critics, some of them take a price on international author movie festivals but there a very few of them become a business asset products... And again back to our 'nomads'. Such movies usually unpopular because of vast aspects. The same effects was with Nikita Mikhalkov's 'Sibirski Cyrilnik' about Russian tsars, that was also shot on parities with foreign partners, i think they were french or maybe British. Nobdy liked it, even in Russian public it become as a main topic of a comedians and comedy shows like 'KVN'. IMHO | 1 |
The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).<br /><br />This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.<br /><br />But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of 'Use the Force Luke' mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'. About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go 'TinTin, I am your Uncle' with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.<br /><br />The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH???? <br /><br />And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards. | 1 |
Wow it's ironic since this movie has been out for awhile I think that someone else JUST reviewed it a couple days ago.<br /><br />Anyways, I watched this movie simply because it has Nick Stahl, for the record.<br /><br />The movie was ridiculous. The characters drove me INSANE, they were SO Cliché and STEREOTYPED. This movie had some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. It had way too many plot twists too.<br /><br />There is ONE scene in the movie worth seeing however, the scene: 'Warm heart, cold gun' where Nick Stahl kills the obnoxious girl in the shower. (Well, actually they were all obnoxious.) But his acting in that scene was excellent. The look on his face, it reminded my of American Psycho (a good movie). The scene is worth seeing but not worth seeing the rest of the movie for, do yourself a favor and don't watch it. | 1 |
Steve Martin should quit trying to do remakes of classic comedy. He absolutely does not fit this part. Like the woeful remake of the Out Of Towners, this movie falls flat on it's face. How anybody ever thought Steve Martin could even come close to Jack Lemmon's wonderful performance is beyond me and the same is true for this movie. Dan Ackroyd could have played the Bilko part better. Martin is great when doing his own original characters but fails miserably trying to recreate other people's classic work. It's a sad statement when the funniest part of a movie is contained in the first line of the credits when the movie is over. The line 'The producers gratefully acknowledge the total lack of cooperation by the United States Army' was just about the only line that actually made me laugh. If you want to see the real Bilko, get hold of the original episodes of the Phil Silvers Show. Those are guaranteed to make you laugh, unlike this mistake that should never have happened. I put this movie in the same category as the aforementioned Lemmon classic and the remake of Psycho. None of them should ever have happened. | 1 |
I loved this movie. It is rare to get a glimpse of post-partum Vietnam, and this movie-sans combat scenes and exciting bombs and gunfire- did it. I had no idea I'd be so affected by it. What an amazing look at how alien Vets feel. It was tough to watch, quite frankly. We all understand the fighting and the Apocalypse Now type of drama, but this is so so different. What happens when they come back and try to live a life? They can't. It made me very aware of a large group of men that are rattling around lost in America. Not able to relate, can't sleep, can't have love affairs, can't deal with 'normal society'. They feel totally apart. This is a huge tragedy, and one that isn't addressed enough. Yeah, we've changed our attitude about Vietnam Vets, we like them now, but so what? It doesn't seem to have made any difference to them. It's too late? So it was a great film, but I cried a lot. I have no other criticisms. | 0 |
This is my favorite movie that portrays African Americans in whole different light. because it shows a different side of African Americans that it is not shown in the movies. its not the gang bang, urban ghetto setting or having to deal with deep racial issues, it captivates the whole essence of being young and trying to be successful and having problems with letting your guard down and letting someone into your life, and the whole bohemian atmosphere gives that great touch that makes all that great, its a great script great dialoge that captivates you and you just get involved with the character. perfect casting with a lot of chemistry and very good acting and i still haven't seen any other movie with black characters that are portrayed in this format the only one that get close is 'Sprung' but since its a comedy it looses it very quickly I give this movie 9 out of 10 and i wish they would keep making movies with this type of attitude about African Americans | 0 |
George Cukor directs this high quality story of suspense in the theatrical world with his usual sensitive but firm touch. Ronald Colman's performance, which earned him an Oscar, still stands up despite a few overwrought moments it's hard to forget his haunted countenance as he struts aimlessly around social functions and tries to find meaning in his life. There are a number of interesting subtexts and Cukor does an excellent job of making them clear without forcing anything too much. The script by Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon is brilliant, mixing the rarified theater world with the seedy world of the streets and comprehensively utilizing elements from Shakespeare's 'King Lear' as a reference to both the film's main theme of jealousy and Colman's character's obsession with identity.<br /><br />Several interesting things about this movie superficially it could be dismissed as too flippant a treatment of the everyday problems of actors. In other words if the art of acting required such complete sublimation of individuality we would soon have a rash of psycho method actors stalking the streets. But I don't really think this story's primary concern is acting or the job/art of acting per se. I think Anthony's struggles represents a broader existential question, a deeply buried uncertainty about identity. There's a key, I feel, in his relationship with his ex-wife Britta (Signe Hasso). He says that he never would have or could have become a good actor without her inspiration. And at another point he explicitly states that his extreme identification with his roles began when he married her. I'm not sure what to make of this but it seems important to me, especially because it's his obsession with her and jealousy of her that ultimately pushes him over the top. Perhaps the implication is that Anthony put himself in danger in the first place by entering into a serious relationship. Marriage implies a 'union of the soul' in the traditional conception. It's unusual that the male and female protagonists are divorced at the beginning of the film. It's not completely unprecedented (Hawks' comedy 'His Girl Friday' springs to mind, among others), but it is unusual and probably significant, especially in light of the fact that they do not end up resolving their romantic separation. In a way, the film could be implying that jealousy is another form of self-love. | 0 |
Riotously cheesy lunacy about lava spewing from the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles. Even if you attempt to suspend disbelief by ignoring this ludicrous premise, you'll still be howling with laughter at the inane dialog, nonsensical plot contrivances, and wildly reckless scientific plot holes that parade across the screen.<br /><br />I have a theory: every successful actor is doomed to appear in at least one bad movie at some point in his/her career. This was Tommy Lee Jones's turn. Although he makes a decent effort, the script is just so pathetic even he goes down in flames (oops, sorry about that). Most of the supporting cast is also choked by the hackneyed writing; a few of the actors simply phone in their roles. Anne Heche deserves special Hall of Shame recognition for her awkward portrayal of a scientist. She is about as convincing in this role as Pee Wee Herman, and even he would have at least done a better acting job.<br /><br />Since the scientific plot holes are too numerous to list here, I would instead suggest that you screen the film with friends, and have a game of 'Find the scientific absurdities.' The loser could be forced to listen to tapes of corny lines from the movie like 'Everybody looks the same' over and over. Here's a sample of the kind of nonsense you can expect: a scheme to blow up a building is devised, engineered, and the dynamite set and detonated all within a space of about 20 minutes. <br /><br />Let us not forget the obligatory disaster movie clichés: divorced dads, scientists who get ignored by everybody, obnoxious cops, tough street kids, bratty teenagers, greedy investors etc.; all are present and in abundance. The film also bashes you over the head with a relentless barrage of political correctness.<br /><br />For fans of cheese and silliness only. All other viewers: beware. | 1 |
Near the beginning of 'The Godfather: Part III,' Michael Corleone's son wants to drop out of law school and become a musician. Michael Corleone does not want this. But his estranged ex-wife, Kay, manages to convince him to let Anthony Corleone pursue music as he wishes. So he does.<br /><br />That seems like an odd way to start a review, as it is a minor plot point and has nothing really to do with the major action. Just bear with me here; you'll see where I'm going with this eventually. Now let me tell you about the major plot. It is about Michael Corleone wanting to quit crime for good (he has largely abandoned all criminal elements in his family business). But then along comes Vincent Mancini, an illegitimate nephew, who is involved in a feud. So of course Michael must endure yet another brush with criminality and gun violence and all that good gangster stuff. Meanwhile, Vincent has a semi-incestuous affair with Michael's daughter Mary. Oh, and Michael and Kay are trying to patch up all the horrid things that happened at the end of Part II.<br /><br />It is like a soap opera. One horrid, awful, 169-minute soap opera. Gone is any sort of the sophistication, romance, and emotional relevance that made the first two movies hit home so hard. After a 16-year break in the franchise, Francis Ford Coppola delivered a mess of sop and pretentiousness entirely incongruous with the first two films, once again proving his last great work was 'Apocalypse Now' back in the 1970's.<br /><br />What's worse, 'The Godfather: Part III' isn't even a logical follow-up of 'The Godfather: Part II.' Michael is a completely different person. He hasn't just gone to seed (which might be legitimate, even if it'd be no fun to watch). He's become a goody-goody that's trying to fix all the tragedy that made Part II such a devastating masterpiece. His confession to the priest was bad enough, but that little diabetes attack in the middle pushed it over to nauseating. He also gets back together with Kay! For heaven's sakes, there is absolutely no way that should happen, as the 2nd movie made abundantly clear! She aborted his baby, and his Sicilian upbringing made him despise her for it. Didn't Francis Ford Coppola even think of these things?<br /><br />And don't even get me started on Mary and Vincent's affair! For a romance so forbidden, it was shockingly unengaging. Sofia Coppola's acting did nothing to help. She made the smartest move of her life when she switched from in front of the camera to behind it, because she was possibly THE worst actress I have ever seen in a Best Picture nominee. Every line she delivered was painfully memorized, and every time the drama rested on her acting abilities, all she elicited was inappropriate giggles. In the climactic scene--I won't go into detail, but you'll know which scene I'm talking about when/if you watch it--she looks at Michael and says, '......Daddy?' I think I was meant to cry, but the line was delivered so poorly I burst out into long, loud laughter!<br /><br />Now we get to the climax, and now you will also realize why I took time to start the review with a description of Anthony Corleone's musical ambitions. After 140 minutes of petty drama and irrelevant happenstances, Anthony Corleone returns... with an opera! So Michael, Kay, Mary, and Vincent go to see it, and for about 10-15 minutes a couple killers walk around trying to assassinate Michael. About this climactic sequence, I must say one thing: It was really good! But not because of the killers--they were pretty boring. I just really liked the opera. It had some great music and real great set pieces. And, from what little it showed us, it seemed that the story had echoes of the Corleone family's origin. I'll bet it was one swell opera, and I'll bet Michael Corleone was glad he let his son switch from law school to music.<br /><br />My biggest wish is this: that Francis Ford Coppola had merely filmed Anthony Corleone's opera for 169 minutes and ditched the rest of the soggy melodrama. Better yet, I wish he hadn't made 'The Godfather: Part III' at all. Part II gave us the perfect ending. This spin off was self-indulgent and unnecessary.<br /><br />P.S. This is not a gut reaction to the film. I watched all 3 Godfather films over a month ago (though I was rewatching the first one). Not only does this mean that my expectations for Part III weren't screwed (in fact, I had set the bar rather low for it after what I heard), but it also means I've had a good time to think about all three films. While I was a bit disappointed with Part II at first, the more I thought about it, the better it seemed. But with Part III, it was bad to begin with, then got worse the more I thought about it. The sad thing is that many people will stop with Part I, but if they watch Part II as well, they will most likely go on to Part III. If you have the will, watch Parts I & II and pretend like Part III never existed. | 1 |
Cheesy 80's horror co-starring genre favs Ken Foree and Rosalind Cash along with Brenda Bakke are some of the featured players in this tale about a haunted health club. Goofy dialogue and some nasty gore effects make this movie watchable. Not bad but no great shakes either.<br /><br />Recommended for the bad dialogue and acting. B-movie fans only.<br /><br />B | 1 |
As I have said before, I am NOT a fan of Tweety. He's just so aggravating I wish Sylvester would just eat him and get it over with.<br /><br />In this cartoon Sly is homeless once again and is back to feeding out of garbage cans. He spots a cruise ship leaving port nearby and decides to hop aboard when he spys Tweety is one of the passengers. <br /><br />The ship provides an adequate stage for the following hijinks and Sly desperately tries to catch the annoying bird and avoid seasickness. If only for once he's succeed by chewing and swallowing, thus finishing of the irritating Canary forever. But, as cartoons starring Tweety go, this one is quite good, but it's ALL thanks to that brilliant cat. | 0 |
Chuck Norris stars as Danny, a cop who took down a hulking serial killer however when said killer escapes, Danny knows he is the only one able to stop the terror. However Danny harbors a secret, he knows that it was sheer luck that got the terror arrested and even more luck that Danny survived, now a final battle is waged but is Danny ready? Right there in my description tells what the problem of this movie is. Norris is playing a wimpy hero who still suffers from psychological trauma. In the hands of a better actor, this concept would be interesting and could make for a great thriller. In the hands of a Norris thriller it just makes it ridiculous and hopelessly unheroic. Also on board is American Ninja's Steve James and Superfly's Ron O'Neal but any attempt at character development is defeated by the atrocious script. Also there is hardly any action and I always preferred a Norris movie with more fighting and less talking. Given the rating on this website, I must not be alone.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad) | 1 |
Every now and then a movie advertises itself as scary or frightening, though they usually aren't. Most modern horror movies fit into this category.<br /><br />Then there are those movies that don't simply cause the tension and adrenaline to pump through your veins harder than usual. They actually frighten you to a level that you've never experienced.<br /><br />'Halloween' is such a film. It takes so many risks that would make most movie producers cringe. But nearly all of them work. 'Halloween' is awe-inspiring in its simplicity, and terrifying as a whole.<br /><br />The story is simple. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is babysitting some kids on Halloween night, while a madman is on the loose after escaping from a mental institution after brutally murdering his older sister 15 years ago. Of course, the madman, later known as Michael Myers, begins killing the local teenage population, and eventually he comes after Laurie.<br /><br />Sounds familiar, right? Just another brainless slasher filled with dumb teenagers and gobs of gore. Not a chance.<br /><br />I think James Berardinelli puts it perfectly in his review of 'Halloween:' 'Because of its title, Halloween has frequently been grouped together with all the other splatter films that populated theaters throughout the late-1970s and early-1980s. However, while Halloween is rightfully considered the father of the modern slasher genre, it is not a member...' <br /><br />He has a point, and for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it's downright terrifying, whereas most entries into the teen slasher genre are dumb gore-fests (one could argue that many recent ones are tongue-in-cheek, but most of those fail as well). Second, there is almost no violence (very little of which is bloody). John Carpenter knows that violence does not equal scary, and he relies very little on it (actually, the body count is pretty low). In fact, one can argue that this isn't really a horror movie, at least not by todays standards of having the most deaths that can be crammed into a single movie, each gorier and more sadistic than the last. He relies on ideas for scares, and also skill. Third, while some of the characters may do stupid things (that sometimes seal their fate), they don't do them because they're dumb. The characters are real people, so instead of thinking that the characters die because they're idiots, we're frightened because they're making a mistake.<br /><br />One of the main reasons why 'Halloween' is so scary is because it is so easy to believe that it's real. Nothing is hard to swallow in this film. There's no supernatural, there's no ridiculously creative plot elements, or 'inventive' murders, or whatnot. Instead, all the set pieces and camera work (save the opening sequence) are simple. Carpenter just sets the camera in place and says action. What we get is the feeling that we're actually seeing a murder take place right in front of us.<br /><br />Horror movies are probably the most difficult films to make because in order for something to be scary, everything has to be perfect, and ideas never work twice. It's a hit or miss game, which is why if I were to tell you all the good ideas that Carpenter has (which I'm not), they'd seem primitive (particularly since they have been repeated with lesser effect over and over again through the years).<br /><br />Acting here is not a plus point because it doesn't need to be. This is a movie about scary ideas, not a movie about dramatic, conflicted characters. The actors act like real people, not characters from a story. Nothing more. The exception to this is whoever plays The Shape, or later known as Michael Myers. It can be scary to have a person say nothing and simply kill, but it's hard to pull off (and even harder to keep people from asking why). But the guy pulls it off, and the result is terrifying.<br /><br />This is Carpenter's movie through and through. He directed it, co-wrote it, co-produced it, and wrote the chilling score of it. This is a man of brilliance, and his later movie 'The Thing' supports this statement, though The Thing is not as scary as 'Halloween.' Unfortunately his success has dramatically diminished, as it happens when the lure of big money for less freedom is taken advantage of once big time producers 'recognize your potential.' As good as this film is, it's not without flaws. The famous opening scene is disturbing, but not very scary. And not many of the scares work for the first part of the movie. It's not that it's bad, it's just that there's no good reason to fear 'The Shape.' Luckily, Carpenter mostly uses this time to set up a relationship between the characters and the audience. While there's no intimacy in this relationship, it fits the purpose. We grow to know the characters, but not so much that it's disheartening when they die. But once the film gets to Halloween night, that's when Carpenter kicks things into high gear and it NEVER stops until you get to the end.<br /><br />While 'Halloween' may be flawed, it is only slightly so. It is an immensely terrifying film, and a must see for anyone who loves scary movies. Be warned though, this movie will scare the living hell out of you! | 0 |
Impenetrable rubbish. This has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The dialogue is ghastly, the horror effects are laughable. The only thing that kept me watching was the ever-splendid and totally underrated Michael Cule. | 1 |
Why is it that every time I mention this movie to somebody, I have to hear 10 minutes of praise about it. I have come to the conclusion that any movie that has a twist upon a twist is deemed 'genius' by anyone who watches it. Is that really what film has become? Or is it that any time someone says 'Wow, that is so cool' everybody has to agree with them and has no opinion of their own? How this movie has a 7.5 rating is a disgrace to the film industry in general. It has also become yet another movie that 'needs' two sequels for it, so I am going to have to hear about this horrible franchise for quite a while longer.<br /><br />Now to the film and why it is so bad. The original concept of it is actually not that bad, as there has not been a good serial killer movie in a while. The writing for this film is horrible as well as the execution. OK, so its a low budget movie, but that should not change the story or writing. The actors could not be worse in their attempt to make us scared of this killer or just scared of this movie. So they go out and get a big name in Danny Glover, but his talents (whatever those are) are wasted because HIS CHARACTER IS WORTHLESS. Why was he even in this movie? What was his whole fight at the end turned out to be useless and misleading for what the audience believes is happening. This is of course the filmmakers intent, but couldn't there have been a better way to do this without making us watch all that garbage. And then the 'big' twist comes (was this the third or fourth?) and the whole audience is shocked and walks out of the theater like this is some kind of masterpiece. Sure the movie gets people talking about the storyline and what not, but that was not the only flaw in this film. The direction was trying to be way too creative with what it was working with, and the flashback sequences were used merely as a shock effect.<br /><br />After watching this movie, even if you enjoyed it, go back and review the film and you will soon understand why it is not worthy of the praise it is receiving. For an amazing serial killer film check out Se7en if you have not done so. That is what this film wanted to be. I have gotten into more arguments about this film than probably any others and will continue to argue against it. Please do not support this franchise for not only your sake, but mine and everybody else's sake as well. Hollywood needs to find a good horror movie to make, rather than 1,000 remakes, sequels, and 'shock' factor films (such as this). Oh yeah the saw 2 tag line sounds real promising: 'Oh yes, there will be blood.' Yaaayyyy!!!! Sweet!! blood, that must mean its good right? Give me a break. Sorry everybody who love this movie, but poor writing, flashy direction, and bad acting does not make a good movie. | 1 |
This film has some nice special effects, tearing apart the Japanese archipelago to a degree that would humble Godzilla. The two leads also put in above-par performances. Apart from that, it is all a bit ropey in this understated disaster flick. The incongruities in the pacing are bizarre. At one point we have Hokkaido sinking into the sea and pyroclastic snow falling on the rest of Japan, while Osaka is buried under an immense tsunami. Yet elsewhere in the country, people are still strolling around sightseeing and licking ice-cream when another tsunami rolls in... Kusanagi also manages to travel great distances without any hindrance, or even a crease in his cream shirt. Other people turn up with burns, ripped clothes and mud-streaks on their faces. <br /><br />The Japaneseness of the film is both touching and repugnant. Kusanagi's sacrifice in his final evening with Shibasaki is a touch of chivalry seldom seen in this genre these days. However, the ill-fated PMs musings on the Japanese psyche and the seduction of death, and the fact that Japan is abandoned by everyone and has no friends in the last instance, hint at a darker paranoia that infects Japanese concerns regarding their status in the world.<br /><br />Sadly, the final sequence is a rip-off of Armaggedon, edited with a cookie-cutter.<br /><br />Finally, my own particular bug-bear - the heavy handed product placement for cigarettes. This time around, it is mad(-or-is-he?) scientist Toyokawa who gets to be the poster boy for Japan Tobacco. At one point, he manages to light up 5000 meters below the ocean surface, in a miniature sub the size of a phone box. Gimme a break. | 1 |
The picture is developed in 1873 and talks as Lin McAdam(James Stewart) and High Spade(Millard Michell)arrive to Dodge City looking for an enemy called Dutch Henry(Stephen McNally).The sheriff Wyatt Hearp(Will Ger)obligates to leave their guns.Both participate in an shot contest and Stewart earns a Winchester 73,the rifle greatest of the west but is robbed and starting the possession hand to hand(John McIntire,Charles Drake ,Dan Duryea).Meanwhile the starring is going on the vengeance.<br /><br />First western interpreted by James Stewart directed by Anthony Mann that achieved revive the genre during 50 decade. The film has an extraordinary casting including brief apparition of Rock Hudson and Tony Curtis,both newcomers. The picture is well narrated and directed by the magnificent director Anthony Mann who has made abundant classics western:Bend the river,Far country,man of Laramie,naked spur,tin star. Of course, all the essential elements western are in this film,thus,Red Indians attack,raid by outlaws,final showdown.The breathtaking cinematography by Greta Garbo's favourite photographer Willian Daniels. James Stewart inaugurated a new type of wage,the percentage on the box office that will imitate posteriorly others great Hollywood stars. Although the argument is an adaptation of ¨Big gun¨ novel of Stuart L.Lake and screenwriter is Borden Chase,is also based about real events because 4 July 1876 in Dodge City had a shot competition and the winner was rewarded with a Winchester 73 model 1873 with ability shoot 17 cartridges caliber 44/40 in few seconds. | 0 |
I'll be honest, this is one of the worst movies ever. If not, then it's VERY close. Ever seen a bad teen soap opera. Well this is like one of those. Except worse. For example: (POSSIBLY SPOILER) girl: I wanna go somewhere else.<br /><br />guy: all we need is here.<br /><br />girl: but I wanna take myself somewhere different.<br /><br />guy: I'll take YOU somewhere else.<br /><br />... Proceeding this line they have sex. The music is bad pop and bad punk rock. If you've EVER read the book, avoid this movie like the plague. They completely change the personalities of the characters and the events. Additionally, they just get rid of things. Also, the movie ends about before the book finishes. It is an AWFUL movie. So, if you haven't read the book, don't watch it. If you HAVE read the book, burn it (the movie). If you like stupid teen soap operas that are lower quality than your average low quality teen soap opera, go for it. Then again, should we expect anything different from MTV? | 1 |
I think I found the most misogynistic film of all time: Darklight.<br /><br />The gist of the film- Lilith was Adam's first wife and she was considered imperfect and banished from the garden of Eden because she considered herself Adam's equal and refused to submit to him. See, I took those words straight from the script. Then the film keeps going on and though she is the heroine of the film, the only time that she becomes acceptable is when she does what the men tell her to do! She ends the film under the control of The Faith- an all male group!<br /><br />Other than that the script was predictable and the FX were awful. Apart from the obvious hatred of females that is usually a lot more subtle in modern film, there was nothing original about Darklight. | 1 |
I am, as many are, a fan of Tony Scott films. When this movie came out I had high hopes that it would be like 'Man On Fire'. To find out that the movie it's the furthest thing from it! The story was treading water from the get go, and the choice of Mickey Rourke was not such such a good idea. And the whole 'arm'scene was too gratuitous! <br /><br />The movie is centered around Kiera Kinghtly, and this movie reveals that she'll never become a movie star! The movie brought some of the worst acting ever.<br /><br />I like Tony Scott's direction 'n all, but this takes the whole friggin cake! Sorry Ton, 1 out of 10! | 1 |
I haven't seen it in over twenty years. OJ was the bus driver, Arte Johnson was the tour guide, Lorenzo was the kidnapper.<br /><br />Yea, Lorenzo looked very much at home as the villain, a natural. I think I watched it back then most for OJ, who I had seen Towering Inferno and Cassandra Crossing, but also to see Arte Johnson.<br /><br />I was a little bored that Johnson was so serious.<br /><br />And yes, it shifted plots. In reading other posts, I remember that was some plot that they were going to kidnap some rich girl, but then that priceless stamp business turned up out of the blue.<br /><br />I was going, a stamp? If it came on as a late movie, I would probably record it to check it out again, but I wouldn't be nostalgic over it. Not yet anyway.<br /><br />There are better movies from the seventies like this to check out. | 1 |
...I can't believe there are actually people here who recommend this movie... This is such a slow POS going absolutely nowhere. Oh yeah OK it goes somewhere, but you see that coming from miles away. Acting: Really really bad, maybe the bartender was kind of OK. Editing: BAD! I suppose the editor was told 'we need at least 90 minutes', cause half of all the scenes could have gone in the bin. Music: don't get me started on that, the lousiest score I've ever heard. Who is that singing in the last scene for crying out loud?? Directing: oh my, IMNSHO David Lynch sucks, but someone trying to copy him sucks even harder. Skip this one. | 1 |
The tourist season has just ended on a remote island off the coast of Scotland, winter is beginning to set in and the inhabitants, both humans and sheep alike are settling down to much quieter times ahead. Michael Gaffikin (James Warwick) a former paratrooper in the British Army, is the local dentist, he's not an islander by birth and as such his relationship with local artist and cartographer Fiona Patterson (Celia Imrie) is always being viewed with a little suspicion, not maliciously, but just out of the protective instincts the tight knit community have for their kin. The islands serenity is broken when Gaffikin out for a solitary round of golf finds the headless remains of a brutally slain woman. He immediately reports his gruesome find to Insp Inskip(Maurice Roëves) at the islands police station, Inskip arranges for delivery of the remains to local GP, Dr Goudry, for closer inspection. A quick search for the killer proves fruitless, as does a search for a missing local woman. Over dinner that night with Michael Gaffikin, Fiona realises that the dead woman might be Sheila Anderson, a woman from the mainland, who lives on the island through the winter months. A quick search at her home Dove Cottage reveals the missing remains of her body, her home proving to be the murder scene, but why did the killer drag her torso over a mile into the woods? Suspicion immediately falls on the one stranger left on the island, one Colonel Howard (Jonathan Newth)who also happened be the last person to see her alive as they came across on the last ferry together.<br /><br />Goudry asks Gaffikin for some dental expertise on the victims body, it reveals that she had been torn apart my somebody or something with great strength, one set of teeth marks on the body seem to point at a human killer, another points to that of an unknown animal of some kind. A sheep is found mutilated and then a Canadian ornithologist is found slain. With a heavy fog rolling in, the island is cut off from the mainland and any possibility of help, the radio also doesn't work, seemingly being blocked and the phone lines have been cut. Reports of UFO's and the sighting of a camouflaged soldier are compounded by the finding of an odd looking craft hidden behind rocks on the beach. Inskip is confused and refuses to listen to anything but the facts and laughs off Gaffikin's idea that aliens might be involved, but a rise in radioactive levels on the island, has him doubting himself.<br /><br />The Nightmare Man is based on the novel, Child of the Vodyanoi by David Wiltshire, it is here adapted by Dr Who and Blake's 7 scriptwriter Robert Holmes and directed by Douglas Camfield who also had directing experience on both Sci/Fi classics and the film benefits from having such experienced genre experts on board. The Nightmare Man though is on the whole, a succinctly better crafted piece, that builds its plot alongside solid character development, even down to the minor characters, time is given to giving them all a firm background. The island setting is perhaps a genre cliché that has been used over and over, but its one that I enjoy very much, the remoteness, the sense of being under siege with no way out always add to the atmosphere and here it is given an extra oomph by having an impenetrable fog close in to hamper all efforts. In many genre efforts of this kind it is very easy for proceedings to get silly and for the plot to resort to melodrama, but credit to Camfield, he holds it all together with the emphasis being on believability at all times. There is an authenticity about proceedings, the characters even speaking Gaelic at times to further this point. If there is one negative about the killer its that, we are given his/her/its POV for the killings, an acceptable cliché on its own, but when seen through a red filter and a fish eye lens, it just screams of overkill and dates the film just a little. Still though you will be hard pressed to guess the outcome or the identity or for that matter the species of the killer, given the clues presented, but it's a fun and very well acted piece. The local Scottish cast are exceptional, the local bobbies Roeves and Cosmo in particular spar well off each other and are a delight to behold. Imrie, never one i've taken to in other works, is also pretty good and displays hew womanly physique as if she were in a Hammer production. The outlandish, maybe even preposterous ending may irk some viewers, it disappointed me in some ways, but taking into account when it was made, its an understandable and acceptable addendum that if you think about it, is even more terrifying. | 0 |
I first saw this movie on IFC. Which is a great network by the way to see underground films. I watched this movie and was thinking it was going to be pure drama and a story line that doesn't hold water. But it really was a worth while watch. The main character is in such rough shape, and you hate to see him deny help, but no matter what you just can't hate him. His devotion to The Beatles and John Lennon is a great metaphor for his life and the helplessness he feels. <br /><br />The atmosphere of the film is also great. At times, you feel like you can see what he sees, feel what he feels in some situations. This movie does not leave you wanting to know more, or disliking a loophole in the plot. There are NO loopholes (in my opinion). I have always been a fan of foreign films, especially now with movies being made so poorly in America. I really enjoy the foreign settings because I feel it can take you on a trip, and sometimes understand a different culture. This movie did all those things to me and more. Please watch this movie and if you're new to foreign films, this is a great start. | 0 |
Having enjoyed Neil Gaiman's writing (especially his collaboration with Yoshitaka Amano in 'The Dream Hunters') in the past, I figured Mirrormask to be a sure thing and was very disappointed. The beginning, live-action section of the movie was intriguing enough. The relationships between the characters was believable and easy to empathize with, and I loved the sets, the costuming, and Helena's artwork. The subsequent computer-generated scenes, however, were excruciating. The dialogue was awkward and pretentious, the interaction between the live actors and the CGI horrifying. Events occurred for the flimsiest reasons, and most events seemed superfluous to whatever plot may have existed. I only watched the first twenty or thirty minutes of the movie, so I'm not exactly an authority, but I strongly recommend that you don't watch any of it at all and stick with Gaiman's strong written work. | 1 |
I'm racking my brain, but I can't seem to think of another movie quite like The Valley of the Gwangi. A Western with dinosaurs? What could be more natural? You gotta wonder why John Ford and/or John Wayne never tried it! <br /><br />The plot While searching for a mythical miniature horse for her circus, TJ Breckenridge (Gila Golan), Tuck Kirby (James Franciscus), and the rest of the cast/characters enter a strange, lost valley. There they find not only the miniature horse, but some other, more fearsome creatures as well. Dinosaurs rule this place. Now wouldn't that be an attraction at TJ's circus a caged T-Rex? <br /><br />It's not that I find The Valley of the Gwangi a bad movie, I just don't seem to have enjoyed it as much as many others who have posted comments on the movie. There are some parts that I actually find almost unwatchable. For the first half of the movie, there just doesn't seem to be much going on. I wasn't necessarily bored, but I did want something to happen. Plodding would be an adjective I would use. To top it off, the movie features a very contrived love story. It feels forced as if the writers decided that the male and female leads just had to get together. But The Valley of the Gwangi isn't a total waste. There are moments I really enjoyed. Who doesn't get a kick out of the scenes of the cowboys on horseback trying to lasso a T-Rex. You just don't see stuff like that every day. Ray Harryhausen's creatures are impressive. There are some really cool shots of Harryhausen's miniatures interacting with people and horses. It might not represent the best of his work, but the effects are very nice. Still, at least in my mind these good moments aren't enough to overcome the negatives. As much as I hate to do it, I've got to rate The Valley of the Gwangi a 4/10. | 1 |
This failed exercise in satire or commentary on the human condition easily earned a place as one of the 10 worst movies I've ever seen. I'm seriously considering buying a copy, if I can find one dirt cheap, to chase away unwanted company. It's honestly that bad. I view it as some kind of anti-personnel weapon. If you're the kind of person who just has to see a train wreck to witness the carnage, then this movie is a gem. Just to be fair, Kelsey Grammar's character has 1 line that almost works, but doesn't quite. Other than that everything in this movie strives to be insightful, but misses the mark by approximately the distance between earth and the nearest pair of colliding galaxies. I usually can appreciate a book or movie where the protagonist suffers from some sort of existential angst, but the angst presented here is so unbelievable and over the top, and the movie doesn't even address the nonsense it presents in any valuable way. If you are familiar with the term 'word vomit' then you may get some picture of the cinematrocity. Oh, and the narrative structure is ill conceived, pretentious and amateurish. It has failed on both style and substance. If you really hate someone, invite them over for a double feature of this movie and 'The Terror of Tiny Town,' an all midget western from the 1930's and put them in restraints with their eyes forced open 'A Clockwork Orange' style. But that probably violates some provision in the Geneva Conventions. | 1 |
*****Spoiler or two, not that is matters******<br /><br />Two things stand out about this movie. First is it's been titled both 'Bruno' and 'The Dress Code,' and if you've seen this movie you'll catch the irony in that.<br /><br />Second is it's addressing issues completely off the wall. The adventures of a grade school cross dresser isn't something that there was a crying need for a movie about, nor a topic that I think most people would be interested in. Shirley MacLaine manages to walk around the issues of gender by tying Bruno's desire to wear a dress to religion, which probably opens up an even thornier can of worms--what was she thinking? <br /><br />Yes, there's some humor and it's not directly offensive, but the kind of unsettling feeling in the beginning just keeps on growing. It doesn't do much except repeat the liberal mantra that 'different' people should be accepted (or maybe excepted?) no matter what. <br /><br />Which is fine----but in order for people to live in a society everyone has to give a little to get along. Bruno doesn't just want to wear a dress, he wants to show up looking like a miniature Gladys Knight on awards night, and his final costume makes him resemble a Cabbage Patch Cowgirl Doll. Yet all the other kids dress and behave, well, like regular kids. So what gives? If it came down to it we all could declare ourselves special or different and behave any way we felt like, and the result would be total chaos. <br /><br />This accepting of people who are 'different' is also pretty narrowly defined, I doubt we will ever see a movie about a kid finding his true self and wanting to wear overalls, hunt geese, and go to tractor pulls, and demanding everyone else just accept him as he is. 'Bruno' is one stupid movie, and a complete waste of time. | 1 |
I accidentally happened upon this movie when I was looking for something to watch while eating lunch. I actually turned to the WE Network because it said it had the last 20 minutes of some movie about the importance of 'sticking it' for some gymnastics team -- I figured cheesy goodness. Well, I got cheesy alright. <br /><br />First, I missed a good 20-40 minutes at the start of the movie. Luckily, most of it was recapped fairly quickly, especially in the bedroom scene where Crystal admits that she felt responsible for the death of her rapist.<br /><br />I love Jenny Garth and will watch her in just about anything. She's just so pretty, and I want my lipstick to look as perfect as hers always does. She looks great throughout this movie, and doesn't really age over what seems to be more than a decade. <br /><br />Overall, I felt bad for the actors as I watched this movie. All of them tried to sell their parts, but all were so poorly written that it was a constant struggle. Frankly, I was surprised to see Terry Farrell and Mitch Ryan (Greg's dad from Dharma & Greg) in this. <br /><br />But the writing was not the worst part of this movie. About a half-hour before the end, her mother dies, and when they show the headstone the death date is 1979. Having missed the beginning, I had gotten the impression from the wardrobe that this was taking place in the 80s. Not one leisure suit or bell bottom in sight. Shame on the person who did wardrobe for this film! Don't get me wrong -- all the outfits in this movie were beautiful, but they were completely wrong for the time period. It almost makes me wonder if they told the wardrobe person that it was a period piece.<br /><br />Bottom line -- good for a laugh or to feed a Jennie Garth fix. :) | 1 |
Now days, most people don't watch classic movies, such as this. Most of friends only watch movies from the '90s to present. Thats kinda stingy. <br /><br />Most old movies like this are masterpieces, unique in their own way. Only because, back when these movies were being thought of and made, thats when ideas were fresh. Now people strain just to think of new ideas. <br /><br />Anyway, to the movie. For true fans of classic horror. This is for you. The movie is based with a investigator from Scotland Yard investigating the disappearance of an movie actor, and stumbles on to three other strange occurrences with past residents of the same house. <br /><br />I won't say anymore, for I will ruin the movie more than I already have. But it is a terrific movie for as old as it is. And would never mind watching it again! | 0 |
The scene where Sally Field and Whoopi Goldberg go to the mall to revive Sally's flagging spirits is enough reason alone to enjoy this movie, but wait! There's more! This is a crackling good sendup of daytime TV, movie stars on the way down, (and up) and the horrors of love. Robert Downey Jr shows the lighter side of his genius, and Cathy Moriarty is splendid. The dialogue is witty, and the physical humor done with consummate skill. This is a movie that will appeal to those who really enjoy the arts of acting, directing, and writing. | 0 |
This movie is a disgrace to the Major League Franchise. I live in Minnesota and even I can't believe they dumped Cleveland. (Yes I realize at the time the real Indians were pretty good, and the Twins had taken over their spot at the bottom of the American League, but still be consistent.) Anyway I loved the first Major League, liked the second, and always looked forward to the third, when the Indians would finally go all the way to the series. You can't tell me this wasn't the plan after the second film was completed. What Happened? Anyways if your a true fan of the original Major League do yourself a favor and don't watch this junk. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits