review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
'Sir' John Gielgud must have become senile to star in a mess of a movie like this one.;<br /><br />This is one of those films, I suppose, that is considered 'art,' but don't be fooled.....it's garbage. Stick to the 'art' you can admire in a frame because the films that are labeled as such are usually unintelligible forgeries like this.<br /><br />In this masterpiece, Giegud recites Shakespeare's 'The Tempest' while the camera pans away to nude people. one of them a little kid urinating in a swimming pool. Wow, this is heady stuff and real 'art,' ain't it?? That's just one example. Most of the story makes no sense, is impossible to follow and, hence, is one that Liberal critics are afraid to say they didn't 'understand' so they give it high marks to save their phony egos. You want Shakespeare? Read his books. | 1 |
This is a very unusual film which starts out with a rich dude getting a brand new sports car for graduation and decides to take it for a spin in the local town. Rich boy meets poor girl in 'Mabels Diner'who is a waitress and local boy friend gets very upset and a fight starts out. There is a car chase and all kinds of problems seem to take place and the Rich boy and Poor boy wind up having to do Community Service as ordered by the town judge. Rich boy and Poor boy just do not get along and the Rich boy winds up winning the heart and soul of the poor boy's girl friend. There are plenty of walks in the woods and poetry is quoted and some very deep thoughts about life. Poor Girl says, 'Some people go through life and never find Love, I can say that I found love and am holding on to It'. You will need some tissue's if you are sensitive, there are plenty of romantic scenes and I doubt very much if you will guess how this picture will end. The producer and director came up with a good idea and finally put an end to a film. If you like true to life stories with poetry and very sensitive subjects, this is your film. | 0 |
Bart The Genius Whilst not the first Simpsons episode, Bart he Genius more or less is the first typical episode. There's no gimmickry or theme it's just your typical Simpsons episode in set-up. It always seems to me that it's an episode that grows on you. There are certain elements I don't care for, largely the blotchy animation which can be forgiven. But over time I take a liking to this story of it's uniqueness.<br /><br />For example, it'd be very hard for a live-action sit-com on a standard budget to do this episode due to the various different sets that show in this episode, the computer bays in Ms. Melon's class, the opera and so on. My point is with that, The Simpsons realises one of the biggest strengths in animation. The sheer lack of visual limitations when compared to live-action.<br /><br />On a writing stand-point it's also highly intelligent and fresh. The concept is pretty unique, and particularly the problems faced. Instead of the ol' fail-safe that work was too hard, it was simply Bart's social isolation from his classmates that failed him (although the exploding science experiment may prove otherwise...which I also think is one of the best visual gags of the series.) The ending seems a little unoriginal, largely because the Bart running naked into his room to avoid Homer was already done in the shorts, but still funny for Marge and Lisa's short back-and-forth if for nothing else.<br /><br />Ultimately it's a very good episode, with lots of interesting new point in the series, though not exactly perfect.<br /><br />Oh, and the now iconic name Kwijybo was of course unleashed onto the world. | 0 |
THE STAR PACKER is one of about 152,000,000 westerns that John Wayne acted in during the 1930s. Well, the number is a bit exaggerated, but it seemed almost like this many. This is because these B-movies were quickly made with very low budgets in order to be the second, or lesser, feature in a theater. Most Bs were pretty cheap and tended to cut corners to keep down costs and THE STAR PACKER is no exception. To save on costs, incidental music is not used, running times were kept to under an hour, the writing was often rather derivative and the actors are mostly lesser talents--and Wayne himself was definitely far from being a household name at this time. Some of these Wayne features are pretty good, while others, like this one, are watchable but also rather silly and inconsequential. I enjoyed this film and most of the others, but it's probably because I cut Bs a lot of slack.<br /><br />Wayne stars as John Travers--a US Marshall investigating the actions of a local gang out to chase locals out and steal from the stage. This is odd, as the film was apparently set in the modern time or close to it, as they used telephones and modern machine guns--things you just wouldn't expect to find in the Old West. Such anachronisms are actually pretty common in B Westerns--as Gene Autry films (for example) abound with them. Wayne's sidekick is Yak--played by stuntman and real life friend of Wayne, Yakima Canutt.<br /><br />The bad guy is an unknown figure referred to as 'The Shadow' and he dispenses his instructions through a black screen that hides his face! This sounds exactly like a character from a movie serial--the sort of baddie that kids loved but grownups groaned at because they were so silly and at bit like Blofeld or Dr. Evil! The problem is, if you listen to his voice AND pay any attention at all, it becomes obvious early in the film that this 'Shadow' is George Hayes. Now speaking of Hayes, this is the same guy who later in films was known as Gabby Hayes, but here and in several other of Wayne's early films, he looks and acts NOTHING like Gabby. In THE STAR PACKER, he was well dressed, articulate and clean-shaven--imagine that! In real life, apparently this was more the real George Hayes--though I doubt that he was evil! Now as you can tell from the last paragraph that there really is no mystery in this film. You are left with acting (passable and nothing more) and stunts--which were actually pretty amazing. Again and again, one amazing stunt after another occurred--such as men jumping from horse to horse and some great fight scenes--all done, by the way, by Canutt and his friends. Canutt was often John Wayne's double in films--and this went on for decades. The problem with some of the stunts, however, is that it appears that the film makers actually killed a few horses to get those great 'stumbling horses' bits seen later in the film. Up until about 1940, film makers often strung thin metal wire and ran horses across it at full gallop! In the process, the horses' legs were usually broken and the horses were subsequently euthanized! One of the worst examples of this was the film JESSE JAMES--where several horses were brutally killed--leading to the American Humane Association insisting that a representative of the organization be on film shoots to certify that animals are NOT hurt in the production. So, since about 1940, films bear this little disclaimer. THE STAR PACKER was made well before the disclaimer and I can't see how the horses did these 'tricks' without being killed.<br /><br />Overall, this is at best a time-passer due to a poor plot, occasionally poor acting and an unbelievable cruel attitude towards the horses. I am no bleeding heart, but just can't understand this disregard for a poor old animal. | 1 |
This is one of the most anti-traditional war movies about was I have seen. Instead of the typical films that stress glory and perhaps super-human characters (like John Wayne), this film is the exact opposite--stressing the de-humanization that ALSO happens in war. The story concerns the Japanese who are stranded in the Phillipines after the US returned in late 1944-early 1945. By the time the movie begins, the Japanese have clearly been beaten but because of the insane logic of Bushido, they cannot allow themselves to consider surrender. At one of many poignant moments, the lead character is told at the beginning of the film to report to the hospital since he isn't capable of fighting due to his TB. The problem is that the hospital won't accept him, so his commander tells him to once again go to the hospital--and if they won't accept him he should blow himself up with a grenade! Well, this happens just in the first five minutes of the movie--a lot worse things befall this soldier and the few stragglers because they won't surrender. Plus, there is a case in the movie where a soldier DOES try to surrender but is gunned down. This happened a lot later in the war because so often the surrendering Japanese soldiers booby-trapped themselves to blow up when they came near. In addition, the film shows the most vivid depiction of starvation and the accompanying madness of any film I have seen. In addition, cannibalism, cowardice and betrayal all accompany this very gritty, realistic and depressingly realistic film. You simply couldn't have made a better film of this type. Horrible but great. | 0 |
Not a film of entertainment, but of real lives & limited ambition for the working class in 60's. Enjoyable because of my upbringing, not sure it'd work for most people. Typical Loach. Full of TV actors/actresses of 70's/80's/90's. | 0 |
This is not a movie that I would typically watch at 2:30 in the morning, but I got into it and couldn't stop until it was over.<br /><br />Shia LaBeouf demonstrated that he is not just a young actor here, but could handle more demanding roles. The fact that he has been handed those roles in the last two years is testament to his ability.<br /><br />It was really his movie. Sure, there were others involved, but they pale in comparison to his role.<br /><br />This was a time when gold was reserved for the privileged. This victory opened it up to the masses, much the way that Tiger Woods has opened golf to all races.<br /><br />Like Harry Vardon (Stephen Dillane) said to Lord Northcliffe (Peter Firth): ' ...if Mr. Ouimet (Shia LaBeouf) wins tomorrow, it's because he's the best, because of who he is. Not who his father was, not how much money he's got, because of who he bloody is! And I'll thank you to remember that.' Go get charged up. | 0 |
This movie is bad. Just bad. In absolute terms, bad. <br /><br />The dialog jumps off the screen and slugs you in the face with its thoroughly artificial banter, and then defecates on your ability to detect even trace amounts of subtlety. <br /><br />Racism is bad. Racism in Los Angeles can be especially bad. I live in the city of Angels, I can attest to that. What is so terrible about the bigotry in Los Angeles is its insidious nature. It creeps at you with a knowing glance, or a swallowed word. Until just at the edge of a full on fist-fight, It almost never comes right out and says, 'why did he have to be black!' <br /><br />I can see quite clearly that the car-jackers are black, the detective's partner is hispanic, the DA is white. As long as there is film rolling through the projector, I can let the visuals, music and words take me to that conclusion without just telling me the conclusion. Characters emote, and we read between the lines to make the connections and conclusions. <br /><br />That is a partnership and trust between filmmaker and audience. That trust is raped by this movie. <br /><br />A good film pulls you in directions as an audience, and it steers you with cues to drive to a point. This movie beats you down with its point and insults you and your intelligence along the way. My unanswered question is, why did we as a society say collectively, 'thank you?' | 1 |
Yes, why? Among the filmmakers that came out in the 80's and 90's Gus Van Sant is one of my idols. There are others, a few. Steven Sodebergh, PT Anderson, Tim Hunter, Danny Boyle, Martin Donovan, Harmony Korine, Wes Anderson. Idiosyncratic, infuriating some times, but consistent, surprising, unpredictable. Their names make me switch on the TV, go to a video store or even buy a ticket and go to a movie theater. Van Sant's 'Psycho' however, gives me pause. Why? I wonder. A shot by shot massacre of one of the perennial classics. The color was jarring, the performances, atrocious. What was Vince Vaughn doing? Was it a parody? A bad joke? What the hell was it? Anne Heche as Janet Leigh? Who dressed her? Viggo Mortensen with a cowboy hat. Viggo is a superb actor but in this case he couldn't make us forget John Gavin and if Julianne Moore had been introduced to the world through this performance there wouldn't have been any 'The Hours' for her, 'The Minutes' maybe. So, here I am, bad mouthing the work of one of my idols. The crashing question remains: Why, Mr. Van Sant? Maybe, in the words of President Clinton, because he could. I'm afraid that's no excuse. | 1 |
iCarly is all that's wrong with the world. All the main characters but Carly's brother and Freddy are morally bankrupt.<br /><br />Sam damages other people on whim. She breaks a kids locker and he is forced to pay a 100 dollars to fix it, and all she says is 'Tough luck' and moves on to smash Freddy's cellphone. She just caused at least 300 dollars worth of damage and she is more focused on getting some food. What the hell?. The only time she's every felt guilt is when she made fun of Freddy on the show. And that's only cause Carly nagged the crap out of her.<br /><br />Carly is the 'I'm perfect, everything I do is nice.' type of girl. Everything she does is for her own benefit and she is often shown only having remorse for herself. What's worse, she encourages Sam's crap. Sam ruins some of Freddy's clothes? She laughs. Sam ruins a kids grades? She shrugs it off.<br /><br />Don't even get me started on the humour. The laugh track is played at every moment.<br /><br />Sam: He's not that hot Carly: Yes he is Sam: Yeah you're right *INSANE AMOUNT OF LAUGHTER*<br /><br />The shows humour consists around degrading others and saying obscure words and occasionally bantering on about trivial matters using similar sentences.<br /><br />Not to mention all the 'super cool special techno effects' they do can be done in Windows Movie Maker. | 1 |
A horrendous film, ill-conceived and crude. The acting of Anne Heche and Vince Vaughan is so inferior to that of Perkins and Leigh in the original version they have to be seen to be believed. There was no reason to make this picture, which only highlights how accomplished and brilliant Hitchcock was, and how inimitable. Also, there's a creeping, pervasive insensitivity in the film that isn't there in the first film. Hitchcock's Psycho was scary and shocking, but one could genuinely feel for all concerned, even the pitiful Norman Bates. There were moments of pathos, irony and fey humor the remake doesn't have. One of the best things about Hitchcock's film was its incredible and intuitive depth and sense of nuance, of when to cut away and when to show something, on whether to use a close-up or long shot, on whether to make an actor sympathetic and when to make him frightening, and so forth. The remake has none of these qualities and doesn't even try for them. It's an idiotic exercise that I'm amazed even got released. | 1 |
A young scientist is trying to carry on his dead father's work on limb regeneration.His overbearing mother has convinced him that he murdered his own father and is monitoring his progress for her own evil purposes.A young doctor uses reptilian DNA he extracts from a large creature and when his arm is conveniently ripped off a few minutes later,he injects himself with his formula and grows a new murderous arm...Admittedly the special effects in 'Severed Ties' are pretty good and grotesque,but the rest of the film is awful.The severed arm is behaving like a snake and kills few people.Big deal.The acting is mediocre and the climax is silly.3 out of 10. | 1 |
What an appalling film. Don't get me wrong, Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington are good actors, but aside from a few interesting set pieces, the film is mostly taken up with hysterical submariners shouting, crying, sweating and generally freaking out when anything goes wrong.<br /><br />Take that with simplistic asides to make sure the audience still understand what's going on (the scene where Denzel Washington explains to a radio repairman how he must be like Scotty in Star Trek is nothing more than a joke) and you have a dumbed down thriller not worthy of the acting.<br /><br />Let us just hope that the real nuclear US Navy is not in the hands of such a script!<br /><br /> | 1 |
Great movie. I thought it would never be as good as it was. Great special effects, great story, big laughs. It didn't take itself seriously, which is why I think it worked so well. Even the acting was surprisingly good. Overall a very funny and sometimes chilling story. | 0 |
Ruthless mercenary Bruno Rivera (Paul Naschy in peak nasty form) betrays his pregnant partner/girlfriend Meiko (well played by Eiko Nagashima) in order to have exclusive dibs on a fortune in stolen diamonds. But Meiko manages to seriously wound Bruno before he gets away. Bruno winds up in the swanky chalet of kindly rich doctor Don Simon (a fine performance by Lautaro Murua). He also attracts the attention of Simon's two hottie daughters: the fiery Monica (luscious Silvia Aguiler) and the sweet Alicia (nicely essayed by the lovely Azucena Hernandez). However, Bruno soon realizes that something is very amiss about the isolated place and plans to escape as soon as he can. Meanwhile, the bitter Meiko tries to find Bruno so she can exact her revenge on him. Naschy, who wrote and directed as well as stars, concocts one of his strangest, most twisted and perverse horror vehicles ever with this little seen oddity. The offbeat plot and mysterious atmosphere become more weird and unnerving as the story unfolds, eventually leading to a genuinely startling surprise downbeat ending. This film further benefits from occasional moments of graphic gore (watch out for the memorable sequence with one poor guy being devoured alive by vicious flesh-eating pigs!), Alejandro Ulloa's slick cinematography, and a decent sprinkling of nudity and soft-core sex. Good supporting turns by Roxana Dupre as sassy maid Raquel, Pepe Ruiz as amorous playboy Don Serafin, and Julia Saly as the deranged Teresa. A pleasingly grim and worthwhile shocker. | 0 |
I rented this movie with my friend for a good laugh. We actually got laughed at by the clerk at the video store because of our questionable movie tastes. Unfortunately, I don't remember the first half of the movie because all I did was stare at the giant metal braces Jane wore. and I didn't hear anything either due to the incomprehensible lisp. The other thing that was able to grasp my attention besides her metal mouth was her questionable fashion sense. This movie was made in 2005 but it seems like the wardrobe people jumped all the way back to 2000 for the clothes. If you remember the days when Aaron Carter was considered a 'popstar' and you like high waisted jeans, ankle socks and knee length skirts, then this little trip down memory lane is perfect for you. | 1 |
I saw this movie in the middle of the night, when I was flipping through the channels and there was nothing else on to watch. It's one of those films where you stop to see what it is - just for a moment! - but realize after twenty minutes or so that you just can't turn it off, no matter how bad it is. One of those movies that is somewhere in between being so bad it's good and so bad it's, well, just plain BAD, it's worth seeing just to experience the confusion of realizing that it's both! Great middle-of-the-night fare, if only for the fabulous tennis drag. Don't even bother asking yourself why nobody can tell that Chad Lowe is so obviously male, because logic does not apply. | 1 |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Unorthodox journalist Mike Sullivan (Vinnie Jones) flits away his time winding up the local constabulary and trying to romance a member of police personnel. But everything changes when the landlady of the Thames side pub he frequents is found murdered and a transcript of an unpublished novel cum confession by legendary writer Charles Dickens is found. As he digs deeper into both mysteries, he is plunged further into mystery and danger than he bargained for.<br /><br />In 1998, former footballer Vinnie Jones shot out of nowhere and took everyone by surprise with his gangster cult classic Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Okay, no one was blown away by his acting ability, but his presence as a hard man looked set to ensure a decent career as a movie tough guy. But it all proved to be a one hit wonder, and all he really achieved after this was supporting role status amongst far more acclaimed actors in films like Gone in Sixty Seconds and Swordfish, before descending into the realm of straight to DVD hell, the latest being this muddled and labourous thriller, which might have been okay had he not taken other acclaimed and promising new talent stars like Derek Jacobi, Julie Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Flemyng and Mel Smith along with him. What caused him to fall from the dizzying heights of success so quickly (apart from maybe being a one trick pony) is anyone's guess (a dodgy personal life being a possible guess) but here he is.<br /><br />A script as far fetched and incomprehensible as this would have been a task in anyone's hand, but with a miscast looking Jones in the lead, it's even more of a task to fathom. Jacobi's juxtaposing roles as a former thesp tramp and Dickens himself talking directly to the camera through-out are obviously hints building up to something and the script is predictable in other areas too. Add to this cheap looking production values through out and debut director (also writer) Brendan Foley has made a bad first impression.<br /><br />What exactly did I expect with something that came free with The Daily Mail? * | 1 |
At the opposite end of the spectrum from RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is David Hemmings' utterly inferior adventure regarding the salvage of a World War II-era plane with a valuable cargo. Assets include beautiful New Zealand settings, Brian May's energetic music score and some dandy helicopter flying and jet boat chases. The bad, however, far outweighs the good. Donald Pleasence hams as perhaps never before; half of his dialog is almost unintelligible. George Peppard attempts an Australian (I think) accent, then gives it up halfway through. Lesley Ann Warren is at her most irritating. Ken Wahl is, well, Ken Wahl. The dialog is painful to hear and Hemmings' direction is largely inept. The script is not only obvious but terrible. Jokes fall flat, scenes carry no punch and continuity is virtually non-existent. According to the end credits, two men were killed piloting jet boats during the making of the film. What a waste. | 1 |
The title got my attention and then I wondered what will come out in the plot, as we have seen so many 'super-people' movies these years... and in fact, I really liked it, as there were a number of unusual funny scenes that I didn't expect. Uma Thurman performed as average in G-Girl's role. Surprisingly, I was again able to watch her toes in wide screen (like in the beginning of Kill Bill). Luke Wilson however played very well the idiot everyday guy who meets the big woman, I could really get into his situation. If you want a light touch of fun, you should definitely watch G-Girl's and average Matt's adventures, especially to cheer up your partner. 7/10 in my collection. | 0 |
What happens when an army of wetbacks, towelheads, and Godless Eastern European commies gather their forces south of the border? Gary Busey kicks their butts, of course. Another laughable example of Reagan-era cultural fallout, Bulletproof wastes a decent supporting cast headed by L Q Jones and Thalmus Rasulala. | 1 |
Pegg has had a few hits in the past few years, starting with 'Shaun Of The Dead' in 2004, movie on to 'Hot Fuzz 2007', early 2008 he came out with 'Run Fat Boy Run' and now comes this, 'How To Lose Friends And Alienate People' which is in many ways one of my favourite comedy's of the year.<br /><br />The film is about Sidney Yound, a man who writes a failing magazine who makes fun of celebrity's mostly because he is not one of them. Anyway, one of the most successful magazine owners (Played By Jeff Bridges) invites him (Out of nostalgia) to work at his magazine. Sidney is of course excited and moves to America, there he meets a girl currently writing a book, and hilarity ensues.<br /><br />This film is great and I hope more come out like it in the near future. Pegg has once again given people everywhere another good film and I cant wait to the see the third part of the blood and ice cream trilogy 'Paul'. I Rate this film 81%. | 0 |
Dark Remains is a home run plain and simple. The film is full of creepy visuals, and scares' that will make the most seasoned horror veteran jump straight out of there seat. The staircase scene in particular, these guys are good. Although they weren't working on a huge budget everything looks good, and the actors come through. Dark Remains does have one of those interpretive endings which may be a negative for some, but I guess it makes you think. Cheri Christian and Greg Thompson are spot on as the grieving couple trying to rebuild there lives', however some side characters like the Sheriff didn't convince me. They aren't all that important anyways. I give Dark Remains a perfect ten rating for being ten times scarier than any recent studio ghost story/ Japanese remake. | 0 |
Such a BS movie. It's just some stupid anti-Russian propaganda, with a completely BS plot, not in any way related to the book. <br /><br />It looks like the production team got more money from the people who ordered the movie, than they will ever be able to get from selling the movie. The plot of the movie includes references to some of the real recent events in Russian and other parts of Eastern Europe, but puts them in such way that has nothing to do with reality. It looks like the movie is a brainwashing instrument, which helps to portray Russia as a place populated by evil people that always dream about killing someone. <br /><br />An of course there are hundreds of stupid mistakes like using the map of USSR instead of Russia when running news reports, showing a crowd with Ukrainian flags and commenting that it's Russian elections, etc. <br /><br />Also there are many bizarre episodes (i.e. a character runs though the Red Square in Moscow and in a second he is in downtown Sophia, Bulgaria). | 1 |
It is often hard to decide what the best film is that you've ever seen, since this may vary by genre, preferences for actors/actresses, or even the mood you're in on a particular day! Having said that, this movie is by far, in my opinion, the WORST movie I've ever seen!! I thought the acting was terrible (was there any?), the plot was just idiotic, and the props were totally fakey. Could a lower budget production be created without being an amateur production? I don't think so. Even the friends I watched the movie with agreed that it was the worst video we ever rented, and to this day we still joke about the night we saw this movie. | 1 |
Purple Rain is so cool for the dad. We Are Tracking 921 callers from Minneapolis. Hudson Horstachio prepares to ride a motorcycle , take a ride with Franklin Fizzlybear in the caddy. Let's go back to 1984 , it was a movie released and Prince tripped into stardom. You would think Hudson Horstachio will be a superstar for his new movie in 20th Century Fox Movie called 'VP : Purple Rain' , starring Hudson Horstachio (voiced by Dan Green , who played Max's Dad , the Pokemon gym leader). 9 Tracks. Tina Turner's Private Dancer and Billy Ocean's Suddenly was headed for the album as Prince held more concerts. It is time we've pulled the plug on the 1984 movies. Our 20th Century Fox Fans are not watching anymore. The Kid yells out 'Look Out For The Deer!' is such a danger in mind , Ralph Schuckett will be composing and conducting the new movie called 'VP : Purple Rain' released on video. Tom Cruise jumps into his motorcycle , Brad Pitt jumps into his motorcycle and Hudson Horstachio jumps into his motorcycle. Thanks to Bette Midler from Beaches and the keyboardists. You Are Beholding The Heroic Horstachio , Hudson! Bart is writing 'I shall not watch Purple Rain' on the chalkboard , Go On The Bloomington Ferry Bridge and enjoy The Kid's festivities. Hudson Horstachio is watching you! | 0 |
This DVD set is the complete widescreen 15-episode run of 'Surface', a television show made by Universal in 2006. The full running time is 10 hours and 34 minutes plus a few bonus features (deleted scenes, cast interviews, special effects featurette). This was a relatively high budget show and much of the budget makes it to the screen in the form of quality production design and special effects. <br /><br />Unfortunately 10+ hours is a lot of time and as typically happens with this type of stuff, the overall quality begins to fall off in the later episodes. I found the first 7 episodes (Discs 1 and 2) extremely engaging and the remainder a disappointment. 'Surface' was produced, written and directed by Josh and Jonas Pate; and it appears that they were surprised by the success of the series and unable to cobble together enough good subsequent material as they rushed to fill the order for additional episodes. It even looks like additional writers were brought in for the later episodes because the characters (who were already the weakest part of the series) lack consistency with the way they were played in the early episodes. The series was canceled and although the last episode provides a conclusion of sorts there are still a lot of things left hanging. <br /><br />It is basically a science fiction story about genetically created dragons; sort of a television blend of 'Jurassic Park' and 'ET'. The story begins as a puzzle as a crew-less Navy sub is found adrift at sea, boaters on a Texas lake are sucked into whirlpool, a lighthouse in Africa is destroyed by a huge monster, etc. etc. And as long as things stay this vague there is a fair amount of tension and suspense. A human element is introduced in the form of three American families, one on each coast and one on the Gulf of Mexico. Laura Daughterty (Lake Bell) is a California marine biologist who discovers a strange creature rising from an undersea thermal vent on the ocean floor. Rich Connelly (Jay R. Ferguson) is diving with his younger brother in the gulf when a similar creature drags his brother away (never to be seen again). <br /><br />Miles Bennett (Carter Jenkins) is a Wilmington teenager who finds some strange eggs floating in the ocean. He takes one home where it hatches into an 'ET' type dragon. He will spend the rest of the series trying to hide his strange pet from his family and from the local authorities. These dragons may look like lizards but they are more like indestructible electric eels, firing electromagnetic pulses, causing lightning strikes, emptying the sea of fish, and reproducing like a bunch of randy rabbits when they find an undersea thermal vent of boiling water. As long as it's uncertain whether or not they're intelligent, extraterrestrial, or harmless the premise is interesting. Once you begin to suspect their origin it all gets very tired and predictable. <br /><br />Jay R. Ferguson (a staggeringly bad actor in the tradition of David Hasselhoff) essentially plays the Richard Dreyfuss character from 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', so you know that with a better actor and a better director it could have been an interesting character. You will grow to hate this character more with each episode. Unfortunately what starts out as three parallel story lines is soon condensed into two as Ferguson and Bell (a low-budget version of Sandra Bullock) are soon paired up and involved in a series of moronic adventures almost as improbable as the stuff 'Jason Bourne' gets himself into. You expect plot holes and the need to suspend disbelief in this type of show (that can even be part of the fun) but their adventures are not just totally implausible, they are utterly and completely boring. There are three consecutive episodes that feature Ferguson and Bell together in a submersible that will have you longing for the excitement of an all-day actuarial conference. <br /><br />Jenkins (Miles) is the strongest member of the cast and the segments with his pet dragon (Nimrod) are inter-cut often enough with the boring Ferguson-Bell stuff to keep you watching. And these segments benefit from the presence of gorgeous Leighton Meester (of recent 'Gossip Girl' fame) as his sister Savannah. Apparently the producers picked up on the importance of this to their 'teenage boy' target audience and the one positive thing they did with the later episodes of the series was to introduce Linsey Godrey (Caitlin) as a 'first love' interest for Miles. So as Savannah's screen time decreases Catlin is gradually phased in. <br /><br />In retrospect they needed a third storyline to keep viewers sufficiently engaged and it would have been better to limit the adult melodrama in favor of a second group of young actors. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. | 0 |
It reaches the minds and feelings of everyone driving them deep in the black desert. A brutal but beautiful world that is explored through memories and edgy layers of sound and score. The landscape develops its own persona, paralleling the inner geography of all three characters as their stories unfold. The stark void of lost love, the fear of the unknown, and then transcendence of emptiness through the very openness of this desolation. Three misguided souls fighting to find something absolute and positive in all that negative space. The drama is compelling. James Franco and his co-stars deliver deft performances. Naive schoolboy, suicidal blonde, embittered car thief -- all converge with unexpected twists. Together they create an explosive portrait of fractured love -- one that unwittingly conspires to mend amidst the hardest forms of adversity and illusion -- the blindness of human emotion. | 0 |
'Opening Night' released in 1977, tries to be an ambitious production. It succeeds only in the truly stunning performance of Gena Rowlands. Her character of theatre actress Myrtle is not necessarily someone we would love in real life. She is self-absorbed, often obnoxious, and makes life miserable for those around her - in other words, not unlike some actresses! Myrtle is also a woman on the edge of collapse - we are not quite sure if the demons she is fighting are real or imagined, although we are let in on the secret early. Rowlands is obviously well directed with love by her gifted husband, actor/director John Cassavettes, who has a role in the film as well. This film is not without flaws - it is overly long, and the last part of the film where Myrtle goes on stage while very drunk seems almost cruel. The 'improvising' in some of the dialogue - at least while on stage - goes on way too long. Some of the supporting characters give good performances, especially from Ben Gazarra, playing Myrtle's sleazy producer. Joan Blondell's character is never fully developed, and I never could figure out why she was in the film, except to placate Myrtle. See this film for Rowlands alone - she is fascinating throughout - and it is tough to take your eyes off her, although you will want to at times. | 0 |
I agree strongly with some of the other critics of this film. I found it incredibly silly (at best) and downright misleading, misinforming and harmful (at worst). Like others, I found this film to be an awful mix of 'real' science and pseudoscientific, New Age propaganda. <br /><br />As a psychologist, I was especially offended by Candace Pert's contributions. True, I was not a fan of hers before this film, but her discourse on the 'consciousness' of cells was one of the best examples of taking a term ('consciousness') that has a predictable meaning to most people and using it in such a distorted manner as to cause it to obscure rather than clarify. It is an old Orwellian mind-f**k that the master himself described so well in his superb essay 'Politics and the English Language.' To refer to 'consciousness' in this manner--indeed, to refer to this film as 'based in science' in general (which is its clear intent)--is to use language in the same manner employed by Stalin when he labeled his slave-states 'democratic republics' and Hitler when he called his party a 'socialist workers' movement.<br /><br />I don't claim to really understand quantum physics. I know enough about it to know that to really understand it would take considerable study. Ah, but we Americans do love 'instant enlightenment,' and that's what this mistake of a film tries to accomplish. If it ASKED questions, that would be one thing, but it clearly attempts to ask and ANSWER them, which no film could possibly do simply because we are far, far away from the answers (if they indeed exist).<br /><br />By the way, ethically this film needed a disclaimer about the association of several 'expert commentators' with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (and TM), not to mention J.Z. Knight, who often speaks in her 'Ramtha' voice. (I'm always amazed at this channeled 10,000 year-old Atlantean superman's grasp of 21st century concepts and terminology. But then again, this film argues that the past, present and future are all one and the same, so if Ramtha existed in Atlantis 10,000 years ago, I suppose he could exist now and tomorrow. Only, then how come his financial advice has been so incredibly bad for his followers? Oh, I forgot, I'm the creator of 'good' and 'bad' advice, so it's all my fault, not Ramtha's.)<br /><br />What a mess. | 1 |
The Standard bearer of all movie serials, the definite good guy - Flash Gordon - versus Bad Guy - Ming the Merciless. Though the special effects seem awful by today's standards, for 1936 they were top notch. But the essence of the story is the battle between Earthman Flash Gordon (Buster Crabbe) versus Emporer Ming of Mongo (Charles Middleton). Crabbe and Middleton are terrific in their parts. And the supporting characters playing Dale Arden, Dr. Zarkov, Princess Aura, Prince Barin, Vulcan, and the rest are all very good. This serial is far superior to the 1980 movie, basically because Crabbe is much much superior to Sam J. Jones as Flash Gordon.<br /><br />This serial is the standard bearer for all movie serials. No question about it. | 0 |
Wow, even American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance have more adult stuff now than WWE ( at least the auditions has a number of people abusing the judges) and here is WWE, plodding with one of the worst moves in TV history, by changing itself into PG. Now when I switch sometimes to see what's going on, this is what I get:<br /><br />1) Hornswoggle, the ugly midget sharing his space with the main eventers for apparently no reason except for thrilling the young fans and of course beating Chavo Guerrero, a capable wrestler, in every match<br /><br />2) A guest host (arghh....!) every week to spoil the teaspoon of fun which was otherwise present. All these host are cheap B-grade celebs trying to catapult to fame again, by cracking horrendous, 5 year old jokes and making silly references.<br /><br />3) Cryme Time and a female wrestler (forgot her name, most probably Eve) giving lessons on various 'street' words (sob) which are neither street nor cool. They were fun before, stealing stuff and being loud mouths.<br /><br />4) The divas are clad in unwatchable outfits, tying their best to look 'sexy, smart and powerful (by the way, I hate this catchphrase) Remember when Torrie, Trish and Sable were there? Those were the times. Plus these divas are bad wrestlers, which adds to the misery. I have seen some old matches of WWE in Vintage collection and the divas over there were 'professional' not amateur.<br /><br />5) PG move restricts so many things: almost no blood during matches, DX being terribly irritating, John Cena doing even more of his patriotism act, crowd containing many children (who are so annoying), almost no 'heels' etc<br /><br />6) And yeah, why keep PPVs so often. One in every month, have they lost it? No actual feud or rivalry is ever created and the ones that are done look fake and just-till-the-PPV-gets-over ones.<br /><br />7)Vintage Michael Cole and a few of his quotes:<br /><br />' Ladies and Gentlemen, you are watching the longest running television show in history' (every week'<br /><br />' The BRUTAL and VICIOUS assault by (he doesn't use it for anyone else) Randy Orton/Legacy'<br /><br />' A vicious attack on Stephanie McMohan, Triple-H's husband!!!???'<br /><br />WWE is now almost towards its demise. Hope Vince gets up from his slumber and does something ( bring back the TV-14 or attitude era) 2 out of 10 for the current state of WWE. | 1 |
I originally saw this on its premiere in the UK. I was mesmerised by it, and it had me in tears all throughout its duration. I taped it off the TV for safekeeping, but over the years, it's worn out. And TV never seem to show it. Therefore it was a joy to find out that True Movies own the copyright and were showing it on their channels. This time, I taped it onto a DVD, so I can enjoy it again and again.<br /><br />Lucile Fray (played magnificently by Ann - Margret) discovers she has cancer, and that it is terminal. Her husband has arthritis, and, although he is loving, he is an alcoholic, and would be incapable of taking care of their children after she has gone. Therefore, she has to find new homes for each of her children before she dies.<br /><br />The acting is top notch, the music beautiful, and it has stood the test of time wonderfully (it still makes me cry!) If you ever get the chance, you would be silly to miss this. It is a wonderful film! A must see for everyone!!! | 0 |
Earth has been destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. Well, parts of the Earth, because somewhere in Italy, a band of purebred survivors--those without radioactive contamination--are holed up in a massive mansion surrounded by lush grounds, waiting for the next opportunity to go hunting for those with polluted blood. The Final Executioner is the story of one of their would be victims, Alan (William Mang, who looks, not surprisingly, a lot like Kurt Russell), and his efforts to take down the legally sanctioned hunters, who are led by Edra (Marina Costa) and Erasmus (Harrison Muller Jr. ). Alan has been trained to kill by former NYPD cop Sam (Woody Strode) who mostly hangs around giving his pupil moral support and mooching for tinned meat. Strode is by far the best thing about the film, though he doesn't look at all well and only appears for about a third of the running time. As for the story, it's a blending of elements from better films and stories, including Ten Little Indians, The Most Dangerous Game, and Escape From New York. The Final Executioner moves along at a fair pace and provides reasonable entertainment for less discriminate action fans. | 1 |
i was having a horrid day but this movie grabbed me, and i couldn't put it down until the end... and i had forgotten about my horrid day. and the ending... by the way... where is the sequel!!!<br /><br />the budget is obviously extremely low... but ... look what they did with it! it reminds me of a play... they are basically working with a tent, a 'escape pod', a few guns, uniforms, camping gear, and a 'scanner' thing. that is it for props. Maybe this is even a good thing, forcing the acting and writing to have to step up and take their rightful place in film, as the centers of the work, instead of as afterthoughts used to have an excuse to make CGI fights (starwars).<br /><br />The cgi is fine. It is not exactly 'seamless'... but imho it still works. why? because there isn't too much of it, and what there is, is not 'taking over' with an army of effects house people trying to cram everything they can into the shot. it prompts the imagination... it's some relatively simple stuff, with decent composition (especially the heavy freighter shot.. there is one long shot that must be at least ten seconds...that tracks the entire length of the ship... it must be a record for sci fi battle sequence film making in the past 10 years, to have an action sequence that lasts longer than 0.75 seconds), and some relation to the story. it might look old or not 'state of the art', but it doesn't look stupid and it doesn't take away from the story.<br /><br />The acting is good, except the characters die too fast to get to know them. The captain was great, but a few of his scenes could have used another take. I also got confused with his character losing his cool and stomping on a corpse, I like to think captains are calm cool and in control... what was going on in that scene? did the other crew worry about him losing it at that moment? did he feel himself losing control? <br /><br />Now, as for the plot.... mostly it is good... why? Because it doesn't try to explain itself. It just happens. It's called 'the planet', its a mystery, get it?? Nobody knows why there is a statue, and they don't find out either. The mysterious cult? The weird scientist with the tattoo? What do you expect to find out in less than 90 minutes? This isn't War and Peace. And, thank god, it's not star wars/trek either. No midichlorians, no 5 minutes of expository boring dialog that has no purpose in the story. The characters are stranded, and are only able to figure out a few basic things... it is not a star trek episode where they find out it's leonardo davinci or a child like space wanderer. It is mysterious, and i liked that. I don't know why, maybe I can identify with these guys more , since they don't know whats happening, and i don't either... they don't talk a lot of space gibberish or have magic boxes telling them what is happening. <br /><br />In fact, I would argue that one of the weakest moments is when the 'traitor' turns on the crew, and tries to 'explain' the reason for the planet, the cult, etc. This coincidentally has some of the weakest dialog, imho, in the whole movie, and it interrupts the flow and some of the characters look unnatural in that scene. <br /><br />OK, sometimes I felt it was a little too mysterious, though. Like, why did the guy get fried through his eyes with lightning? That was odd. Just weird. The 'hamlet' ending... again I would have liked to have known some of these characters better. And would it have been so hard to have a 30 second rescue scene at the end? This is not a serial show, it was a film, and we like closure in films, even if they can have a sequel. Imagine Hamlet with no 'flights of angels sing thee to thy rest'<br /><br />Anyways. What can I say. This was well worth the dollar I payed at the 'red box' machine at the supermarket. It was also, imho, a better piece of storytelling than starwars parts 1 2 or 3. Like I said, it sucked me in, wanting to know what was happening, and I couldn't stop watching until the end. | 0 |
LE GRAND VOYAGE is a gentle miracle of a film, a work made more profound because of its understated script by writer/director Ismaël Ferroukhi who allows the natural scenery of this 'road trip' story and the sophisticated acting of the stars Nicolas Cazalé and Mohamed Majd to carry the emotional impact of the film. Ferroukhi's vision is very capably enhanced by the cinematography of Katell Djian (a sensitive mixture of travelogue vistas of horizons and tightly photographed duets between characters) and the musical score by Fowzi Guerdjou who manages to maintain some beautiful themes throughout the film while paying homage to the many local musical variations from the numerous countries the film surveys. <br /><br />Reda (Nicolas Cazalé) lives with his Muslim family in Southern France, a young student with a Western girlfriend who does not seem to be following the religious direction of his heritage. His elderly father (Mohamed Majd) has decided his time has come to make his Hadj to Mecca, and being unable to drive, requests the reluctant Reda to forsake his personal needs to drive him to his ultimate religious obligation. The two set out in a fragile automobile to travel through France, into Italy, and on through Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, and Turkey to Saudi Arabia. Along the trip Reda pleads with his father to visit some of the interesting sights, but his father remains focused on the purpose of the journey and Reda is irritably left to struggle with his father's demands. On their pilgrimage they encounter an old woman (Ghina Ognianova) who attaches herself to the two men and must eventually be deserted by Reda, a Turkish man Mustapha (Jacky Nercessian) who promises to guide the father/son duo but instead brings about a schism by getting Reda drunk in a bar and disappearing, and countless border patrol guards and custom agents who delay their progress for various reasons. Tensions between father and son mount: Reda cannot understand the importance of this pilgrimage so fraught with trials and mishaps, and the father cannot comprehend Reda's insensitivity to the father's religious beliefs and needs. At last they reach Mecca where they are surrounded by hoards of pilgrims from all around the world and the sensation of trip's significance is overwhelming to Reda. The manner in which the story comes to a close is touching and rich with meaning. It has taken a religious pilgrimage to restore the gap between youth and old age, between son and father, and between defiance and acceptance of religious values. <br /><br />The visual impact of this film is extraordinary - all the more so because it feels as though the camera just 'happens' to catch the beauty of the many stopping points along the way without the need to enhance them with special effects. Nicolas Cazalé is a superb actor (be sure to see his most recent and currently showing film 'The Grocer's Son') and it is his carefully nuanced role that brings the magic to this film. Another fine film from The Film Movement, this is a tender story brilliantly told. Highly recommended. <br /><br />Grady Harp | 0 |
I have loved this movie since I saw it in the theater in 1991. I was 12 then and Wil Wheaton was my favorite actor and adolescent crush. I am now 23 and I still love this movie. The best part about it is whoever I am dating loves it too because it is a total macho-guy movie! It is wrought with enough action and mayhem to keep men with the shortest attention spans glued to the screen. I only wish that it was available on DVD! | 0 |
Walker Texas Ranger is one of the worst shows produced in the past 10 years. The script for James 'Jimmy' Trivette, Walker's sidekick, is about as pathetically written of a part as Wesley Crusher on Star Trek TNG, and is played with about as much conviction.<br /><br />On this show, people don't respond the way people respond to things in real life--everyone is polarized--everyone is either a completely good guy or a completely bad guy (unless Walker himself has a 2 minute talk with them and then they change instantly). That's not how life works, that's not how people are. This show doesn't take place in this reality.<br /><br />The plot lines are about as realistic as Murder She Wrote, a show where an arrogant old lady can just walk into people's houses without them getting angry, and she can demand that police officers do what she wants and they bend over backwards for her. With Walker, everyone on the show, including the 'bad guys', act like he's the sort of hero that myths and fairy tales are made of, and time itself bends to his whim. The lines that sometimes come out of people's mouths on this show are beyond ridiculous. It's as if the scriptwriter for the part of Wesley Crusher (for the 'serious' parts) and the scriptwriter for Bob Saget's funniest home videos (for the 'humor' parts) got together and wrote all the scripts for this show.<br /><br />This show is for people who think that good always prevails over evil. It's for the elderly. It's for wishful thinkers. It's for people who want to be guaranteed to always have a happy ending. It's for people who want to drift away into oblivion. It's for people whose drug of choice is their television.<br /><br />I cringe every time I see even a commercial for this show. My opinion is that it is THE worst show to be on television in the last 10 years.<br /><br />I used to like Chuck Norris, but this show has forever tainted him in my mind. I can't even watch his older movies without thinking of this show. | 1 |
This movie turned out to be pretty much what I expected. Of course it's sappy, of course it's predictable. We all know the fairytale. But knowing that when you go to watch it, it's enjoyable enough to watch. It was funny and sweet. I did find it annoying that they showed geeks as either kids who didn't wash there hair or kids who loved math and joined clubs about math and wore T-shirts about math. I was an outcast in high school and I didn't do these things. It goes much deeper than that. Having to do with many things, some of that being how much money your family has, how much you are willing to hide your uniqueness and how mean you are willing to be to other kids. Anyway, I won't get into it. I don't agree with other opinions that Drew isn't convincing as a geek. With braces, no make-up and unwashed hair, I don't think too many people would be drooling over her. And even when she goes back to high-school and sheds those things. She's still wearing the 'wrong' clothes, 'wrong' hair and has the 'wrong' attitude to be considered cool. And her other 'geek' friend may be beautiful but it doesn't matter, where I come from, you can still be an outcast and be beautiful. (inside and out) | 0 |
i was part of the cast of Space Odyssey, playing FIDO in mission control. i just want to say that none of us actors, specially those in mission control who had to react to a green screen most of the time, had any idea how amazing it would turn out to be. i knew it was going to be good, if only for the sheer camaraderie and professionalism that the production team at Impossible Pictures provided for everyone involved. but when we all saw it for the first time at the screening at the Curzon Mayfair, well, i for one felt very proud. I was so glad that none of us looked like we were in Star Trek. Joe Aherne, the screenwriter and director, is the most amazing man to work for. He pretty much gets a good team together and then just trusts them implicitly to freely do what they do best. I'm really lucky to have been part of this show. Who knew something this epic and complicated to understand would turn out to be so enticing to watch. and my god it's a beautiful universe out there. | 0 |
ABC has done more for this show by allowing television veterans James Garner and David Spade to join the cast of this show. At first, the show was watchable and even predictable with John Ritter and Katey Sagal. John's loss shocked the world. Katey and the three kids are really a solid professional cast. The hour lesson after John's death in real-life struck home to me. I lost my father at 17 years old and could sympathize and understand their pain and agony. ABC should be proud to maintain this show and even preserve this as John's final wish. This show has matured and developed because of such impossible circumstances. They should be rewarded with Emmys. | 0 |
For anyone who wishes to get an impression of the Soviet view of modern Russian history this monumental film is a treasure. The story starts at the turn of the century (1900) in the yellowish sepia colours of old photographs which improves to black and white during the middle of the century and to full colour when the story approaches modern times (i.e. the 1960s).<br /><br />The story focuses on a boy in a remote Siberian village, who is marked by the arrival and arrest of an anarchist during the czarist era. He later joins the Bolsheviks after the revolution and brings soviet communism to his village. His son, by the local beauty, fights the Germans during the Second World War. When he returns to the village, the oil industry takes off and we are treated to some Soviet economic idealism.<br /><br />This film is long and slow, but utterly logic and very well made. It can be seen in three parts. | 0 |
I think the biggest disappointment in this film was that, right until the end, I expected the acting instructors of the cast to break in and apologize for how poor the acting was. When you consider the powerful subject, the brilliant scenery and the effort made in creating a wonderful set and spectacular images, it is a shame that little attention was given to acting.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Before the regular comments, my main curiosity about THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is that while there's a running time listed on IMDb of 94 minutes, the DVD from Wellspring Media in the United States runs 88 minutes. Any input on this is appreciated!<br /><br />Two friends with very rough lives take on the road for an adventure. What they wind up in is just that, with one accidentally shooting a girl and the two escaping by foot into the countryside. Rather than just a big chase, the film is complicated by the the daft and rather childlike Spike behaving inappropriately, and clutching his boom box like a teddy bear. Some viewers may dislike the story based solely upon the character Spike, but without a bit of frustration added to the story, the film would have been too easy. You'll notice the way the more stable character Heaton refers to Spike as 'big man' in contrast to Spike's 'kid out of control' attitude and behavior. Frankly, I too was aggravated by Spike's ridiculous actions, especially the spray can sniffing, but in a desperate situation it's apparent someone of his mentality would choose an temporary escape. But, Heaton was there to keep things in check up until things get way over his head as well.<br /><br />Kenny Glenaan as Heaton is a marvel, and after a while I quit wondering why in the heck he would want to pick Spike up from prison and continue a friendship, due to Glenaan's great performance. After all, there are many many reasons during their run that would be a good idea for Heaton to just ditch Spike and try to save himself. I suppose Heaton felt like a protective older brother to Spike, and the loyalty between the two is hard to break -- until things get too desperate.<br /><br />While some of the cinematography is indeed artsy, it does offer more flavor to story instead of just shots of the men running through the wilderness. The beautiful landscapes, rain, and vast gray skies offer a somber tone that increases the feel of the tragic circumstances. The score is unusual as well, and the use of Public Image Ltd.'s song 'This Is Not A Love Song' and as the title of the film is quite smart.<br /><br />Overall, it's understandable if you don't care for THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG as it's focused on two contrasting personalities escaping from another man determined to hunt them down (played by a cool, quiet David Bradley). It's not big-budget action entertainment. For the rest of us that enjoy seeking out something minimal and dramatic, it's time worthwhile spent, and it DOES offer some extremely tense moments that have you holding your breath a bit.<br /><br />I'm really enjoying the films coming out of Scotland recently, with the likes of this one, Dog Soldiers, and The Devil's Tattoo. I'm also a bit thankful for the subtitles offered on this DVD, as the accents are sometimes lightning fast and difficult for some viewers like me to understand. <br /><br />Frustrating, dark, and often tense, THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is very tragic yet engrossing storytelling.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Take a look at those faces alongside the entrance to the jail. They're not the faces of Hollywood extras. Somebody in production was really smart to take filming to Oxford, Mississippi, because you can't get that kind of authenticity from a studio backlot. Scope out the narrow dusty roads, the frozen earth beneath, and the skeletal trees just barely hanging on. No wonder those faces look hard and unforgiving; they're just reflecting the soil from which they spring. Old man Lucas (Hernandez) better fear for his life, but then he springs from that same hard earth.<br /><br />The movie works because it tells a good story that neither preaches nor sentimentalizes and even has some suspense. Old man Lucas is not very likable. He's a victim and we sympathize, but he's also haughty and unfriendly. Wisely, the script refuses to sweeten him up. That way we're forced to recognize the effects of racism and injustice on even the less sympathetic. The script also wisely avoids dealing directly with racism since that tends to become preachy and less effective. Instead, we're shown how easily prejudice can convict an innocent man and condemn him to a horrible death. So, it's through our common instinct to see justice done that the effects of racism are exposed, a much more effective pathway. It also makes the actions of the sheriff and the lawyer more understandable since they are otherwise part of the Jim Crow system.<br /><br />Note how the movie doesn't attack segregation. It's doubtful that old man Lucas would want to mix with whites anyway and there's no hint that even lawyer Stevens (Brian) wants to cross the color line except to see justice done. No, the possibility of reconciliation lies in the future as symbolized by the kid (Jarman) whose head is not yet filled with 'notions'. He's not exactly friends with Lucas, but he has glimpsed the common humanity of being befriended after falling into the frozen creek. The last line of dialogue also shows him siding with his uncle, the lawyer, instead of his more hidebound parents (the dinner table scene is important and easily overlooked). The lawyer might not join a future civil rights march, but the kid might. That's the movie's realistically hopeful side.<br /><br />There was a bunch of racially themed movies during this brief 3 year period, 1949-51, (The Well, No Way Out, Home of the Brave, Lost Boundaries). Even famously detached MGM got into the mix with this little gem. Unfortunately, the McCarthy purges in Hollywood put an end to 'problem' films that might not serve Cold War ends. Even so, each of these is worth catching up with, not only because they're good movies, but because even with the passage of 60 years and Jim Crow, they're still relevant. | 0 |
I've rented and watched this movie for the 1st time on DVD without reading any reviews about it. So, after 15 minutes of watching I've noticed that something is wrong with this movie; it's TERRIBLE! I mean, in the trailers it looked scary and serious!<br /><br />I think that Eli Roth (Mr. Director) thought that if all the characters in this film were stupid, the movie would be funny...(So stupid, it's funny...? WRONG!) He should watch and learn from better horror-comedies such as:'Fright Night', 'The Lost Boys' and 'The Return Of the Living Dead'! Those are funny!<br /><br />'Cabin Fever' is THE reason why I registered to www.IMDb.com so I can release my thoughts of discontent about it.<br /><br />I've decided to watch the movie a second time >AAARGH!< and make notes for my partial 'review' to show how foolish the movie is. 'Resident Evil' (horror) or 'Dude, Where's My Car?' (comedy) I can watch over and over again and still enjoy! But this...!<br /><br />How bad can a script and a director be??? This bad. Here are the awful scenes in chronological order:<br /><br />In the early scenes we see Henry, who doesn't realize his dog lying on the ground with its tongue hanging out of its mouth and dead-glazed stare is dead!<br /><br />The movie doesn't explain anything about the blonde long-haired kid who like to bite people.<br /><br />And my answer to Marcy's unanswered question ('What's wrong with the woods?') is 'nothing'. The script has that bearded guy warn them about the woods just for 'suspense'.<br /><br />Then the 'smartest' of the 5-pack, Bert, almost gives us an example of how to start a forest fire. He meets now-infected Henry who begs for help and from here on the movie wants to break the record in using the 'F-word'. Bert starts to freak out because Henry looks awfully ill. Bert:'Don't make me shoot you!' (he forgets to add: '...with my BB gun!')<br /><br />Bert heads back to the cabin but how about that? He meets Marcy and Jeff who were having sex, but now suddenly decide to go out for a walk! Marcy wisely takes out the unguarded campfire Bert had started earlier (A moment of clarity for a change?) Bert doesn't mention a word about Henry because the fool thinks he has killed him with his BB gun.<br /><br />Later, as the Five Estupidos sit around their campfire, another weirdo shows up with his dog. (Maybe that's what the warning about the woods is all about? It's filled with weirdos...and their dogs!?) They let him sit with them only because he has a huge bag filled with cannabis. (Their brains are completely intoxicated! No wonder why they are all so DUMB!) This is the last time we'll see this forgettable character...alive!<br /><br />Henry shows up at their cabin, (NOTE: He was lying all the time a few yards from their cabin!!!) looking worse, almost like a zombie, covered in goo! He says he needs a doctor. But the Young Einsteins refuse to help the poor sucker. He gets into their unlocked truck which of course also has its key in the ignition. Henry almost seems smart enough to drive the Hell away from there but instead starts puking blood all over the dashboard, seats and windows. The Fantastic Five come out running, armed with: a BB Gun, a knife, a baseball bat (*huh? Ever tried playing baseball in the middle of the woods???), a poker, and a (insecticide?) spray-can, ready to combat the single, unarmed and terribly sick man. (clever script!) Bert manages to kill the car with one single shot of his BB Gun, which is only possible in the mind of director Eli Roth. 'What else am I supposed to do?' Bert yells in his defense. Jeff and Paul try to knock Henry down with their bat and poker but miss and crash the truck's windows instead. Henry walks up to the dumb girls who say: 'He's coming towards us!' (Thanks for the info, dumb broads, I can see that! But I don't think he wants to do you any harm!) Marcy sprays in his eyes, making Henry yelp! And our 'hero' Paul touches Henry's arm with a burning log from the campfire, which they recklessly left burning while they were INSIDE the cabin! (Where has all that wisdom gone? I guess the cannabis had started to take its toll!:-) Henry turns into The Human Torch and runs away, screaming.<br /><br />The following day, Bert and Jeff head out for a mechanic. And Marcy decides to 'go for help' all by herself, in the woods, as Paul stays behind with Karen...Doesn't that sound idiotic? Marcy could have stayed with Karen and Paul because Jeff and Bert were already 'going for help'!<br /><br />I skip my comments now to how we suddenly see Marcy in a CANOE rowing over a huge and winding river! How did she get a canoe? Does she even know where she's going!? Anyway, she goes to the riverbank and finds a very big and seemingly abandoned cabin and, like in most horror movies, walks inside the cabin saying:'Hello? Is anyone there?' Bert suddenly pops up from behind a furniture and scares her (and me at first). And along comes Jeff, as well. How did THEY get here!? Did they swim across the river??? Do you see how brainless the script is!?<br /><br />Deputy Winston meets Paul at the cabin. He somehow doesn't notice the blood on their truck. This happens around 35 minutes of viewing and I have decided to stop torturing myself anymore and popped the DVD out. (Before I take my own eyes out!...Now, THAT's funny!)<br /><br />If you liked this movie, do yourself a favor and watch 'Fright Night', 'The Lost Boys', or 'The Return of The Living Dead'. Then you'll see they are MORE entertaining than this...thing. Even the 'Toxic Avenger part 2', which is also a lousy film, is way MORE funnier than 'Cabin Fever'. | 1 |
I watched this film recently on DVD and I have to say I wasn't impressed. I know it's taboo to knock independent films, but this one felt devoid of entertainment.<br /><br />The premise was interesting, but the execution of it fell short. I found myself thinking 'okay, they're just getting into it, the story will pick up soon'. Before I knew it, the film was over and the story never picked up. I can't say I found the acting all that impressive either. It was pretty bad. Not Star Wars prequel trilogy bad, but bad nonetheless.<br /><br />I'm not sure what the running time was, I'll assume two hours (because it's a safe estimate). Anyway, when the film was finished, I felt as though I deserved some kind of recognition for the will power I exerted in not stopping the film and walking away halfway through.<br /><br />Again, I was thoroughly unimpressed, and eventually bored out of my wits. I'm not one of those guys who requires fast-paced action and explosions in a film, so don't start in on me as that being a reason for not liking it. | 1 |
When you compare what Brian De Palma was doing in the 80's to what passes for entertainment today, his films keep looking better and better. 'Dressed To Kill, 'Blow Out', 'Body Double', 'Scarface' and 'Carlito's Way' are all superb works of a cinematic craftsman at the peak of his powers. The guy had a long run of better than average films. This is pure Hitchcock with an 80's dash of lurid perversion, an affectionately told tale of lust and murder with plenty of twists, huge helpings of style, a stunning Pino Donaggio score, and a trashy, giallo-inspired plot. De Palma's love of complex camera-work and luscious, blood-smudged visuals helps overcome the logical holes while the terrific performances of Dennis Franz, Keith Gordon (a good director in his own right), Nancy Allen (De Palma's wife at the time) and Michael Caine make every scene special. Let the virtuoso take you on a surreal, scary, erotically charged odyssey and you'll enjoy every frame of 'Dressed To Kill'. | 0 |
Despite a great soundtrack and the presence of the ever amazing Rappaport and Woods, this is another one of those moronic comedies where New York throws itself at the hero in an effort by the writer and/or director to show what a zany place it is. Yeah there's some other stuff in the movie that sucks too, but that's what's important. The trend for New York independent filmmakers seems to be 'I don't need to be talented, I have NEW YORK!' Okay, to be fair, the movie has its moments. The flashback bit about why the one guy is called Wacky Jack was pretty amusing. The script isn't a story or a plot, it's a bunch of not-good scenes tied to each other by featuring the same character.<br /><br />One of the worst things is that there's no motive behind what the characters do. Uncle Sam has the kid deliver the drugs, why? If its so important why didn't Sam do it himself? Then the lead character lies his ass off in scene after scene with absolutely nothing to gain from lying. The guy falls in love with a flight attendant with neither of them having any reason to fall in love. The characters are a bunch of pawns for the writer to move around to see if he can get anything zany to happen.<br /><br />If you're easily amused or like watching bad indie movies because they make you feel smarter than watching bad mainstream movies, watch this. If you want to see what a GOOD light hearted crime movie looks like, watch Takeshi Kitano's 'Brother'. 'Kicked In The Head' is the perfect example of why so many people hate offbeat indie movies: A LOT OF THEM SUCK. And a note to the director: Don't be afraid to excite, amuse, enlighten or entertain the audience now and then. Being boring doesn't make you a better filmmaker than the ones who can interest me. | 1 |
I have to admit that by moments I had to laugh at how bad that movie was... But the laughs were too few and since this whole thing was in no way a parody, it felt more like an insult to the viewer's intelligence. The worst acting I have ever seen from any of these people... | 1 |
An unusual film for an audience outside the USA. Lena Horne looks fabulous and so does Ralph Cooper. There is not added background of tap steps as in other musicals so you do not hear the beat of the taps which is great realism. Music is muted to hear what dancing steps there are. Acting is a little stilted and the casts speak slowly so that you think the movie is older than it is. Costumes are daring for the time in the dance routines at the end. Often feels like you are part of an audience at a stage show. What furniture you see is very modern which adds to the movies feeling of other worldliness. A must for all film buffs. | 0 |
Seldom seen since theatrical release in 1970, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE has become a byword for cinematic debacles of legendary proportions. Now at last on DVD in an unexpectedly handsome package, it is as unlikely to win wide audiences today as it was when first released. <br /><br />Gore Vidal's 1968 bestseller was a darkly satirical statement. Most filmmakers felt that the novel's story, structure, and overall tone would not translate to film, and industry insiders were surprised when 20th Century Fox not only acquired the rights but also hired Vidal to adapt his novel to the screen. But studio executives soon had cold feet: Vidal's adaptations were repeatedly rejected and novice writer-director Michael Sarne was brought in to bring the film to the screen.<br /><br />Studio executives hoped that Sarne would tap into the youth market they saw as a target for the film, but Sarne proved even more out of synch with the material than the executives themselves. Rewrite upon rewrite followed. The cast, sensing disaster, became increasingly combative. In her DVD commentary, star Raquel Welch says that she seldom had any idea of what Myra's motives were from scene to scene or even within any single scene itself, and that each person involved seemed to be making an entirely different film. In the accompanying 'Back Story' documentary, Rex Reed says that MYRA BRECKINRIDGE was a film made by a bunch of people who hid in their dressing rooms while waiting for their lawyers to return their calls.<br /><br />The accuracy of these comments are demonstrated by the film itself. The basics of Vidal's story are there, but not only has the story been shorn of all broader implications, it seems to have no point in and of itself. Everything runs off in multiple directions, nothing connects, and numerous scenes undercut whatever logic previous scenes might have had. And while director Sarne repeatedly states in his commentary that he wanted to make the film as pure farce, the only laughs generated are accidental.<br /><br />Chief among these accidents is Mae West. It is true that West is unexpectedly well preserved in appearance and that she had lost none of her way with a one-liner--but there is no getting around the fact that she is in her seventies, and her conviction that she is the still the sexiest trick in shoe leather is extremely unsettling, to say the least. But worse, really, is the fact that West is outside her era. Her efforts to translate herself into a hip and happening persona results in one of the most embarrassing self-caricatures ever seen on film.<br /><br />The remaining cast is largely wasted. Raquel Welch, a significantly underestimated actress, plays the title role of Myra very much like a Barbie doll on steroids; non-actor Rex Reed is unexpectedly effective in the role of Myron, but the entire role is essentially without point. Only John Huston and cameo players John Carradine, Jim Backus, William Hopper, and Andy Devine emerge relatively unscathed. Yes, it really is the debacle everyone involved in the film feared it would be: fast when it should be slow, slow when it should be fast, relentlessly unfunny from start to finish. It is true that director Sarne does have the occasional inspired idea--as in his use of film clips of everyone from Shirley Temple to Judy Garland to create counterpoint to the action--but by and large, whenever Sarne was presented with a choice of how to do something he seems to have made the wrong one.<br /><br />The how and why of that is made clear in Sarne's audio commentary. Sarne did not like the novel or, for that matter, the subject matter in general. He did not want to write the screenplay, but he needed the money; he emphatically did not want to direct the film, but he need the money. He makes it very clear that he disliked author Gore Vidal and Rex Reed (at one point he flatly states that Reed 'is not a nice person'), and to this day he considers that Vidal and Reed worked in tandem to sabotage the film because he refused to play into their 'homosexual agenda'--which, when you come right down to it, seems to have been their desire that Sarne actually film Vidal's novel rather than his own weirdly imagined take-off on it.<br /><br />Although he spends a fair amount of commentary time stating that the film is widely liked by the gay community, Sarne never quite seems to understand that the appeal of the film for a gay audience arises from his ridiculously inaccurate depiction of homosexual people. When taken in tandem with the film itself, Sarne emerges as more than a little homophobic--and quite frankly the single worst choice of writers and directors that could have been made for this project.<br /><br />In addition to the Sarne and Welch commentaries and the making-of documentary, the DVD release includes several trailers and two versions of the film: a 'theatrical release' version and a 'restored' version. The only difference between the two is that the final scene in the 'restored' version has been printed to black and white. The edits made before the film went into general release have not been restored, but the documentary details what they were. The widescreen transfers of both are remarkably good and the sound is quite fine. But to end where I began, this is indeed a film that will most interest film historians, movie buffs, and cult movie fans. I give it three out of five stars for their sake alone, but everyone else should pass it by.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 1 |
'Written on the Wind' is an irresistible, wonderfully kinky film, as only director Sirk could have done it. The movie is submerged in a bucket full of Freudian symbols, weird melodramatics and colorful contrasts. The connection between financial success and moral decay is the film's main theme. Sirk seems to suggest that sexual dysfunction is one of the side effects of capitalism. However, I prefer to see the movie as a prime example of what Sirk could do with kitschy material. The palette of colors is particularly impressive. The acting in the film is great too. Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall are terribly glamorous and give the film an aura of elegance, but the movie belongs to Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone (she deservedly won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar), who manage to keep the film at a boiling point. Kudos to Frank Skinner's pulsating score, Russell Metty's brilliant camera work (every single shot is a masterpiece in itself), and the production design department. Also, the title tune is a beauty. It's an unforgettable movie. | 0 |
I am a long time fan of Luc Besson's work, and for about as long as I've known his name, I've also looked for this movie. I tried looking for this movie all over California for over four years. this past summer i took a trip to Europe, one of my missions on this trip was to at least see this movie. long story short, I bought it and watched it in France! I was blown away, it completely made my trip and i finally feel content that i have seen Luc Besson's first work. absolutely amazing character development, very thought provoking, great acting and the ultimate concept movie. if you are a concept movie fan this is one of the most original and classic. I feel as though it is a rare treat to see a movie like this one, its risky, its unorthodox, and ultimately its just downright unique. if you are a Luc Besson fan, its indeed a must see, however, whether your a Besson fan or not, its definitely an important work, overall a great contribution to the immortal art of cinema. | 0 |
The plot is straightforward an old man living off a main road in woodland one day witnesses a man murdering a child in the woods. Soft For Digging follows the old man's attempts to try and convince the police that what he saw was not a figment of his imagination. However, there is a problem each time the old man guides the police to where the murder happen no corpse can be found. Soft For Digging has a diminutive dialogue which reflects the majority of the scenes of the film, an old man living by himself in a house. During the film I found that I was scared twice namely when the murdered child abruptly appears before the old man. The rest of the film I have to admit did not engage me; I found the tempo of the film a little too slow. The limited dialogue was not a problem. However, the development of the story and its conclusions, after watching the film, took too long. I feel more could have been made of the relationship, ghostly encounters, with the child and the old man. Alone in the woods at night unsure of your own mind can lead to some eerie situations, children are always scary as ghosts, see Dark Water. | 1 |
Written by a woman, and directed by another. Whoppie. Are we in for a feminist ride or what. Fasten your seat-belts, ladies, for we are about to enter a world of mean men and innocent, well-intentioned women.<br /><br />In this soaper Trish comes across a guy in the employment agency who behaves, looks, and dresses like a pimp(!) and gives her a job with the hope of nailing her some time later. In his office he even touches her chin the way a megalomaniacal heavy in a Bond movie would a touch a girl just after he's captured her and just before he is ready to kill her alongside with Bond. Some time later the pimp/employment guy stalks Trish in a ladies' dressing-room, harasses her, and even comes close to raping her. Oh, these evil, evil men. They are ALL bad, don't you know. You can't even look for a job nowadays without getting raped, right ladies? Well, we'll show 'em! In this film there is some kind of a divorced women's club or something, headed by a Janet Leigh who speaks for all women involved in this film when she says that 'men are all s**t'. She moans about how terrible men are; she has been divorced five times. Now, seriously: any woman who marries twenty times and then uses that statistic as an argument that men are all 'bad' must have realized eventually that the explanation might lie elsewhere, or? It must occur to her that: a) she is a bad judge of male character, or - much more likely - b) SHE is the one impossible to live with - her ex-husbands were probably the victims, or if they were indeed a**holes then she probably got what she deserved. (Don't the likes of Zsa-Zsa Gabor and Liz Taylor prove this point? Show me a likable woman who got married this often and I'll show you a way to reach the planet Mars using only roller-skates and a ladder.) Trish eventually meets a computer guy who restores her faith in men - but hold your horses; this guy turns out to be married, therefore proving WITHOUT a doubt that men are indeed all 'bad'. Were it not, of course, for a kindly old vegetable seller around the corner who loves his wife even though she's still dead - proving that all men are 'bad' except for kindly old men whose penises don't work and they 'can't get none' anyway so they are forced to abandon a life of a**holocolism and finally give women the respect they deserve. Even the supporting male characters are all 'bad'; the black guy in the employment agency is unfriendly, and the guy in the mortuary is out-right rude - and insensitive (the bastard, *sob*...*sniffle*
) And what's with this corny, corny ending?... Minutes before court-time Trish abandons the claim to any of her husband's money, realizing that she is now 'free' and that she can finally do that jump into the swimming pool...?? What's all that about?? Her jump into the pool is then - very predictably - frame-frozen as the credits start to role in, while life-inspiring I-don't-need-revenge-nor-my-husband's-money music starts kicking in. Her girlfriends are shocked by her abandonment of money claims, but they don't stay shocked for long and soon start kidding each other about what a heart-attack Trish's lawyer will get when he hears about this. The shyster lawyer is naturally a man. An evil, evil, terrible 'bad' man, whose only interest in this world is money... Ah, these men; all they care about is money; they know nothing of the higher values in life - like shopping. I am glad we have movies like this; they bring the sexes closer together, but most importantly, they teach girls and young women that men are all horny, selfish, skirt-chasing bastards who will dump you into a world of poverty and misery the first chance they get. So, girls, open your mouths an stick your tongues into your girlfriend's mouths. Lesbian power! | 1 |
For me the only reason for having a look at this remake was to see how bad and funny it could be. There was no doubt about it being funny and bad, because I had seen 'Voyna i mir' (1968). Shall we begin? Here we go...<br /><br />Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Pierre Bezukhov - a lean fellow that lacks the depth of the original; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Natasha Rostova - a scarecrow, her image can cause insomnia; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Andrej Bolkonsky - an OK incarnation which, like the lean fellow (cf. above), lacks depth of a Russian soul and 'struggle within'; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Napoleon - a rather unimpressive leader; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Prince Bolkonsky - a turd with an English face; Robert Dornhelm & Brendan Donnison's Count Bezukhov - a spineless freak-show...<br /><br />The rest of the characters are not much better.<br /><br />The movements of the actors and the way they look and speak are often atrocious. They behave like modern EU citizens dressed up for a one-day masquerade. It all looks cheap and never comes close to the standards of our Russian men and women of the early 19th century.<br /><br />A good piece of entertainment to scrutinize and make fun of. We had quite a few giggles in our office when remembering this modern product, which had been shown the previous evening on our TV.<br /><br />'User Rating: 8.0/10 (29 votes)' - I guess, many young people have never watched our film ('Voyna i mir' 1968) or have weird sense of 'Tarantino-Spielberg' quality. Remember the scene when our hussar is saving his friend, turns around, shoots, and the bridge goes boom? Looks like a CGI explosion.<br /><br />There is neither sense nor craft to make a better version of the novel, which was screened properly in our country once. But I would be happy to watch a Russian remake of 'Gone with the Wind'. Hey, directors, wake up and get busy with that, instead of spoiling our classics.<br /><br />Now back to common sense. Jokes aside. What I mentioned above is nothing new, though deadly exaggerated.<br /><br />To make foreign actors trying to pass for Russians (while participating in very serious epics and dramas) is a rude mistake and the filmmakers are making this mistake again and again. Of course it results in numerous laughs - especially Clemence Poesy is uncomfortably ridiculous and her dancing and singing makes a Russian viewer think: 'This sucks so much that it's funny!').<br /><br />In order to say something new, I'd like to mention the pace of the movie. To my mind, this new version is very patchy. The narration and the scenes are not naturally flowing - they stagger and pop up like in a modern video. Again I have to remember our 'Voyna i mir', where the action is so natural and the narration is so easy that you simply sit back and enjoy 'going with the flow'.<br /><br />I thought that maybe the Borodino battle would be great (to somehow rehabilitate numerous drawbacks) but it has turned out to be no match for the war scenes filmed in 1968.<br /><br />There should be something good in this movie after all. And there is. The actors seem to be trying hard to make it all work. They did not have a chance from the start but they still joined 'the losers' team'. Plus 1 point for that recklessness. It makes a Russian viewer uncomfortable - some scenes are ironically ridiculous though they are intended to be dramatically powerful and the actors are doing their best. It all evokes pity, and sometimes - fits of laughter.<br /><br />What I still like about this serial is the last part of it. It shows very vividly how everybody gets his or her 'salary and taxes'. Besides, judging by the movie trailers I thought that the film would have an adult sex scene, which would definitely kill the whole project. But, fortunately, it does not have such rubbish. And that's a big plus.<br /><br />'Voyna i Mir' is no 'Harry Potter' and nowadays even we, here in present-day Russia, do not have enough craft to film it properly. Do I have to say that the moral quality of our life has deteriorated immensely? Fortunately, a proper film was screened during our Soviet times. The American version of the 1950s was justified to some extent - ours did not even exist yet. There were extenuating circumstances then.<br /><br />4 out of 10 (1 point is given from the start, 1 point goes for the recklessness, and 2 points for the last part of the serial. Thanks for attention. | 1 |
Until now, the worst movie I had ever seen was Ben & Arthur. You really should check the reviews for that movie instead of this one. The review statistics for this movie have been skewed positive through a relentless and unscrupulous push by some of the people involved in making it, evidence for which is fairly easy to uncover online. At least the people who made Ben & Arthur were honorable enough to let it stand on its own shaky legs, instead of unscrupulously promoting it so suckers like me would buy it.<br /><br />Everything about this movie is terrible, the script, the story, the casting, the acting, the direction, the photography, the editing, the music... what else goes into a movie? Whatever it is, here it's as bad as it gets. If it weren't so unpleasant it would be ridiculous. I kept watching it thinking it must get better, because I hadn't yet discovered that none of the positive reviews for it are reliable.<br /><br />It does not take a lot of money to make a great movie, nor does a low budget mean a movie has to be bad. My favorite example of a shoestring-budget masterpiece is Gus Van Sant's amazing Mala Noche, but there are many others. Sideline SecretsDirector's Cut or originalis bad not because the people who made it had no money, but because they had gigantic egos and no talent for anything at all except self-promotion. | 1 |
Honestly, I can't be bothered to spend my time writing about this milestone of cinematic incompetence - life is simply too short. What I will say is that, Alone In The Dark succeeds in only three things: 1. It will make you laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. 2. It manages to throw several useless plots into the air but dropping all of them.<br /><br />and<br /><br />3. It utterly disgraces the classic PC game on which it is supposedly based by being a complete failure in all aspects of film-making.<br /><br />Doctor Boll, if that is indeed what you are (I'm thinking proctology here), what on Earth are you doing in a director's chair? | 1 |
It's wonderful to see that Shane Meadows is already exerting international influence - LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDANT shares many themes with A ROOM FOR ROMEO BRASS: the vague class identity above working but well below middle, the unhinged father, the abandoned urban milieu, the sense of adult failure, the barely concealed fascism underpinning modern urban life. <br /><br />But if Meadows is an expert formalist, Mariage trades in images, and his coolly composed, exquisitely Surreal, monochrome frames, serve to distance the grimy and rather bleak subject matter, which, Meadows-like, veers from high farce to tragedy within seconds. <br /><br />There are longueurs and cliches, but Poelvoorde is compellingly mad, an ordinary man with ordinary ambitions, whose attempts to realise them are hatstand dangerous; while individual set-pieces - the popcorn/pidgeon explosions; the best marriage sequence since THE DEAD AND THE DEADLY - manage to snatch epiphany from despair. | 0 |
I gave this more than a 1 because I did think there were some moral lessons in this story and it provoked some thought and comment from my wife and I. The acting and the dialogue were mediocre and I must confess I came out feeling like I had been beaten over the head with the God this , God that and Christ is our saviour stuff. The movie and the story line did not need it. If , as I am , you are a recovering Catholic or Christian avoid this one it will make you nauseous. The movie did a good job of demonstrating the thin line between being a good citizen and how someone could become a potential stalker focused on what might have been. | 1 |
'Life stinks' is a parody of life and death, happiness and depression. The black and the white always present in our lives. Mel Brooks performance is brilliant as always, and the other actors work is fine too. This movie has some Capra flavor, that´s why is so good.<br /><br />There are some unforgettable gags such as the one when Brooks tries to earn some money dancing in the street, and all the people passing by just ignore him, or when he meets a funny crazy man who believes is Paul Getty and then start arguing and slapping each other.<br /><br />If you haven´t seen it, you don´t know what you´ve missed.<br /><br />This movie tells us about the old and eternal struggle of the poor against the rich. <br /><br />The only difference between this movie and reality is that this movie has a happy ending, and reality hasn´t.<br /><br />Yes indeed, Life Stinks. | 0 |
I never want to see this movie again!<br /><br />Not only is it dreadfully bad, but I can't stand seeing my hero Stan Laurel looking so old and sick.<br /><br />Mostly I can't stand watching this terrible movie!<br /><br />Frankly, there is no reason to watch this awful film. The plot is just plain stupid. The actors that surround Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are really really bad and Laurel and Hardy have been funnier in any of their earlier films! <br /><br />I warn you don't watch it, the images will haunt you for a long while to come! | 1 |
My curiosity and patience to finally see this controversial film, which now has been released on DVD for the first time in the UK, has been more than rewarded. Peter Watkins has excelled himself in his audacity and technical skills. This pseudo-documentary is certainly ahead of its time and still frighteningly relevant and up to date.<br /><br />The film is inspired by the upheaval of the late sixties in the US, when the government has increased its legitimized use of violence and oppression, while the anti-war movement reacts increasingly violent and radical. In order to deal with both this, the overpopulation of prisons and to provide special training to riot police units, the government has introduced the so-called punishment parks. Convicted 'criminals', mostly activists, are given the 'choice' to either be locked up in prison for years and years, or spend three days in one of these parks, where they either gain their freedom their death or an even longer prison sentence. The situation in the parks is beyond their worst expectations, however. It reminded me of a sort of realistic version of Battle Royale (2000).<br /><br />The film's structure is extremely effective and recalls parallels with Cannibal Holocaust, which is made almost 10 years later. Both movies are constructed and filmed in such a way that the viewer is challenged in thinking and feeling he is actually watching a real documentary and therefore shocked, even though aware of the fact that: this is a film. Both confront us with the inherently violent nature of mankind, but where Cannibal Holocaust is devoid of any deeper meaning (above all, it is an exploitation movie in every sense of the word) and does not raise any critical questions about the state of the world, Punishment Park does just that.<br /><br />I have been profoundly impressed with Punishment Park and find it hard to believe how such a powerful and important film could have been rejected and marginalized for so long. Maybe that says enough about the truth of its content, about the way power structures in this world function. I do not agree with the critique that Watkins polarizes and stereotypes, because the movie depicts activists and the keepers of the legitimized power structures who are in reality as polarized as they are here. If they weren't, there would not be any conflict and therefore no change in our societies. In reality, confrontations between these two groups often take stereotypical forms, whether you place them between activists and establishment in Latin America, Russia or New York City. If these groups would not be polarized to these extremes, the activists would be part of the silent majorities that tacitly complain but at the same time reside in the injustices of the world.<br /><br />As Peter Watkins tells us in the introduction on the DVD, the actors in Punishment Park are for the most part amateurs. Most kids were real activists from LA, most policemen had been part of the national forces and even some of the members of the tribunals are part of the social and political establishment of the time. Not introducing both groups previous to the shooting of the scenes taking place in the improvised court room, adds to spontaneous and improvised feel. Parallels are drawn with issues of the time, such as the repression of Black Panther members (one of the black prisoners is said to resemble the convicted charismatic BPleader Bobby Seale) and the trial of the Chicago seven.<br /><br />I admire Watkins' obvious and sincere engagement with injustice and his concern with human rights and the increasingly repressive measures taken by governments (nowadays in the name of the War in Terror) to silence those that do not agree and refuse to be brainwashed. Punishment Park remains to be an extremely important movie that should be shown in schools and seen by everybody who shares these concerns. Maybe its marginalization can finally be made up for. | 0 |
As many know, this is the feature film debut of Edward D. Wood Jr. as as a writer/producer/director/actor. I have been a fan of Ed Wood for several years now. While I don't like this as much as some of his other films it was probably the largest insight that the cinematic going public gets of Wood during his life. Everybody knows that he was a transvestite. This film is about changing one's sex and how being a transvestite can create conflict in relationships with loved ones. This film is way ahead of its time in dealing with this subject matter and how it deals with it. However, the film still contains Wood's usual pitfalls of bad dialog, meaningless stock footage, and hokey special effects. Throw in Wood's usual overdose of Bela Lugosi hamming it up and you have Wood's first attempt at being a director.<br /><br />The plot is that a police inspector goes to a doctor after he discovers the body of a transvestite who committed suicide for advice on how to avoid further problems along these lines. The doctor tells him the story of Glen, who is also a transvestite. Glen wants to marry Barbara, but can't bring himself to tell her about his secret. He also tells the inspector about Alan who undergoes a sex change because he is really more suited to being a woman. Bela Lugosi plays a scientist who seems to add some kind of running commentary on what is going on (Lugosi's part really isn't well defined and proves to be most likely a vehicle for Wood to have a star in his film and Lugosi to get some cash).<br /><br />All in all, the movie shows the hallmarks of Wood's career. It was obviously shot on a very low budget and has quite a few things thrown in rather haphazardly. It definitely has the 'it's so bad, it's good' feel to it. However, I do have to applaud Ed on his progressive thinking in making this film. Transvestitism and sex changes were not extremely open subjects in the early 50s. Wood took a big risk in making a film that portrays transvestites as people who are not sexual deviants and putting a more human face on cross-dressing. | 1 |
And I may be being generous. The overwhelming majority of the movie consists of looped footage...the shambling monster, two women exercising, the shambling monster again, a bunch of people in the pool, the shambling monster again, none the worse for wear despite having been injured...you get the picture. I restrained myself from yelling 'GET ON WITH IT ALREADY' on several occasions.<br /><br />And it doesn't help that the footage they used was poorly produced. The sound is disconcertingly out of sync with the image. And in the one scene where they tried to get 'artistic' with the lighting and camera techniques, the lighting guy, holding the flashlight that provides the scene's only illumination, is clearly visible in the shot.<br /><br />My hope is that the production was the victim of some horrible disaster in which the original audio track and most of the footage was destroyed, but they decided to release it anyways, cobbled together from the editing room floor, in memory of the heroic crew members who gave their lives trying to save the *real* film - the one with the plot and the interesting dialog. Sadly, there's no evidence of this, and I'm forced to conclude that, in the immortal words of Joel and the Bots, they just didn't care.<br /><br /> | 1 |
There was a Bugs Bunny cartoon titled 'Baby Buggy Bunny' that was EXACTLY this plot. Baby-faced Finster robbed a bank and the money in the carriage rolled away and fell into Bug's rabbit hole. He dressed up as a baby to get into Bugg's hole to retrieve the money. The scene in 'Little Man' where he's looking in the bathroom mirror shaving with a cigar in his mouth is straight from the cartoon. This was a hilarious 5-minute cartoon; not so much an entire movie. If you are really interested in this, buy the Bugs Bunny DVD. It's was much more original the first time (1954). Plus you'll get a lot more classic Bugs Bunny cartoons to boot! | 1 |
This is halfway to being a top movie. The opening section, which spoofs Hollywood 'social message' films is absolutely brilliant. It is a riot from start to finish.<br /><br />The second section, which introduces us to the main characters of the story is really great too. We get a lot of great comic setups, top notch performances, and the dialog is really dynamic.<br /><br />(Spoiler warning!)<br /><br />The one think that really annoyed me about this film though is the ending, which I think contradicts everything that went before. My interpretation was that this film was taking the mickey out all the silly prejudices and innuendo of small town gossip and national tabloid sensationalism. I loved that the film was championing the cause that a person's sexuality is NOT determined by their hobbies, idiosyncrasies, fashion sense or whatever. And then the ending goes and re-enforces all the gossip and stereotypes that the movie successfully lampooned in the first place. It turns out everyone was 100% right!!! (godamit!) This was very disappointing to what was actually a great story. | 0 |
First of all there wasn't really anything in this movie that grabbed me really. It wasn't a bad movie, just another movie where I said 'Well, that wasn't anything special' after I'd seen it. There was probably drama and stuff, but it simply didn't grab me, but more seamed semi-dull. As I said in the headline it seamed very cheap in a way. The quality of the film itself (the images) seamed like a low quality and reminded me more of some cheap made for TV-movie than a well respected English film-maker. The camera angles and shots were very amateur like in my opinion. Didn't really have any close up shots or similar effects to produce interesting scenes. I haven't seen many English films and the ones I've seen didn't really impress me more than this and they seamed kind of similar done with the camera work, colors and such. 'Game' tried to be more cool, hip & smart (see my review of 'Lola Rennt' about this if you wish), but didn't succeed for me either. Overall just a little indifferent movie that wasn't anything special (at best, I'm afraid) and basically unfortunately over two hours wasted. | 1 |
By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). 'Three' AKA 'Survivor Island' keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.<br /><br />In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals. | 1 |
A documentary without a loss for words... ever...<br /><br />Let us assume that the narration is more than a spoof, let us assume it is a commentary on Japanese society. And as this film is as fast paced an absurdist documentary as they come, the constant wordplay, as fast is it goes, and as poorly translated as it is-- in its current festival screener version as seen tonight at the Copenhagen Cinematek-- It is still quite enjoyable. <br /><br />But for the patient, and ONLY the truly patient and open-minded, I'm talking to you Jim Jarmusch fans with ADD relapses, I believe this is a film for you. It's an intelligent film if you allow it to win you over.<br /><br />Quite beautiful, and quite kitsch, and quite Japanese sub-culture. And quite experimental. Static 2D in a 3D world. All in all, Fun for those that want to see a Japanese film that spoofs Japanese food culture. A thumbs up if you're in the mood for something completely different. | 0 |
One of those films that I happened across through The Criterion Collection and as usual indulged as a change of pace. That turned out to be a great decision. I was almost mesmerised by the quality of the film, the story it told and the way it was told. The almost minimalist feel to the film with sparse dialogue and almost constant music just added a whole evocative level to the film. This really is a superb film to spend some time with and enjoy. | 0 |
I watched this movie with some curiosity. I wanted to see if 1) Paul Muni could play Chinese and 2) Luise Rainer deserved her Oscar. I came away from the film thinking YES! Having seen Muni in only one film where he was quite hammy, I expected the same type of performance here. I was happily proved wrong. Although some might criticize him as being too childlike and stereotypically simple in the Hollywood idea of Asians, I thought he was just right in the role. Keye Luke, if he'd been given the chance to play a lead role, might have played him in much the same manner.<br /><br />I was particularly impressed by the camera work and the use of crowd scenes, especially during the sacking of the palace where O-Lan was once a slave. The graphic and grim atmosphere of the firing squad and the drought made this an epic quite unlike others of the same time where it was all glitz and glitter. I watched this film from beginning to end enthralled. I can't say the same for the 'epics' of today. | 0 |
Elizabeth Ashley is receiving phone calls from her nephew Michael--he's crying, screaming and asking for help. The problem is Michael died 15 years ago. <br /><br />This film scared me silly back in 1972 when it aired on ABC. Seeing it again, years later, it STILL works.<br /><br />The movie is a little slow and predictable, the deaths are very tame and there's a tacked-on happy ending, but this IS a TV movie so you have to give it room. Elizabeth Ashley is excellent, Ben Gazzara is OK and it's fun to see Michael Douglas so young. And those telephone calls still scare the living daylights out of me. I actually had to turn a light on during one of them!<br /><br />A creepy little TV movie. Worth seeing. | 0 |
I loved this movie, I'll admit it. This has to be the best (straight to?) video movie I've seen. Well... me and my friend decided just for shits n' giggles that we'd rent this movie. We knew what to expect and we got exactly what we expected, plus more. When that red neck gets slammed up against the tree by the Sasquatch, we literally watched that part about three to four times, it was that amazing (hysterically, of course). And why? Oh why does the main character have to roll that much? Like honestly, we know that you're in danger, rolling that much isn't gonna help all that much. But really, if this movie is in you're local video store RENT IT. It is worth the money and it's not even that bad, like it's bad, but not incredibly bad. Overall, complete amazing will be in store for you if you rent this movie. | 1 |
I love these awful 80's summer camp movies. The best part about 'Party Camp' is the fact that it literally has no plot. It simply drops a weak batch of 'characters' into a location and then things occasionally happen. The cliches here are limitless (SPOILERS): the nerds vs. the jocks, the secret camera in the girls locker room, the hikers happening upon a nudist colony, the contest at the conclusion, the secretly horny camp administrators, and the embarrassingly foolish sexual innuendo littered throughout. The only cliche missing is the presence of Corey Feldman. This movie will make you laugh, but never intentionally. I repeat, NEVER. A final note, be prepared to bust a gut watching the nonsense that is the 'dramatic' scene where Jerry Riviera and D.A. share a beer late at night, spilling their guts to each other. The dialogue literally makes no sense, and the acting belongs on a high-school stage. It's a classic. | 1 |
I just don't get it. Why call this a sequel to the film 'American Werewolf' when it has absolutely NO connection with it whatsoever? The first film was funny *and* scary with ground breaking special effects. (If memory serves, the Oscar category for special make-up effects was *created* for this movie). 'Paris' is none of these things. Awful effects, and not much else. Do not see this movie. Rent the original 'Werewolf in London' instead. You'll be much happier. | 1 |
Woody Allen has made some of the greatest comedies ever and I would seriously consider saying that Annie Hall is the greatest movie ever but if I really think about it I will probably think of one or two that are better, but it would be hard. He has had of course some films that aren't quite good but not that bad either like Manhattan Murder Mystery and Sweet and Lowdown but he has never before had a film quite as bad as Melinda and Melinda. Not quite so tired and so unfunny, his films are usually witty and hilarious but how did this happen, is it still our good old Woody? The plot runs around four friends who are having dinner together. Two are play writers and one of the others mentions a funny story that happened to a friend of hers. It is about a young woman who bursts in on a dinner party unexpected. We never hear the rest because the two play writes start to debate whether it would make a better comedy or tragedy. Than we begin to see the two points of view. Both center on this woman named Melinda who is having trouble both with drugs and with her ex-husband. In the tragedy she is an old family friend who after attempting suicide decided to show up at her old best friends front door for no apparent reason. The comedy is about Melida who stumbles in on the dinner party after popping 28 sleeping pills. Both go on a wild whirl wind of events that never really make sense or fit together, or make you laugh more than once or twice. There are some nice performances by Radha Mitchell and Will Ferrell but they can't fit it together on there own. They cam't stop it from sinking farther down than most of the other films this year. | 1 |
This is your standard musical comedy from the '30's, with a big plus that it features some well known '30's actors in small fun cameo's.<br /><br />There is not much to the story and basically the movie is all about its fun and 'no-worries' overall kind of atmosphere, with a typical Hal Roach comedy touch to it. Appereantly it's a 'Cinderella story' but I most certainly didn't thought of it that way while watching the movie. The story gets very muddled in into the storytelling, that features many different characters and also many small cameo appearance, when the main characters hit the Hollywood studios.<br /><br />Of course the highlight of the movie is when Laurel & Hardy make their appearance and show some of their routines. It's like watching a movie and getting a Laurel & Hardy short with it for free. Also Laurel & Hardy regular Walter Long makes an appearance in the routine and James Finlayson (without a mustache this time) as the director of the short.<br /><br />It's certainly true that all of the cameo's and subplots distract from the main plot line and character but in this case that is no problem, since its all way more fun and interesting to watch than the main plot line and the shallow typical main character.<br /><br />The movie is most certainly not any worse than any of its other genre movies from the same time period, though the rating on here would suggest otherwise.<br /><br />7/10 | 0 |
When I saw this movie, all I could think was: What a disaster! No I'm not talking about the volcano, but about the movie itself. I have seen a lot of movies, but this is certainly one of the worst ever. I don't care about the fact if a volcano erupting underneath downtown L.A. is possible or not. Perhaps it isn't, but even than this could have been a good movie... but it sure isn't and I'll explain you why.<br /><br />I don't know how much lava flows out of an average volcano, but what I do know is that the volcano in this movie makes the Vesuvius, Etna and Mount Pinatubo together look like a little barbecue. I don't think there has ever been so much lava flowing out of a volcano as what we see in this film. I'm sure the director had a lot of money to spend on his movie, but I really wonder why he all spent it on the special effects and not on the script and the actors. I'm not saying that he should have hired a top cast, but this really is the opposite of what I would call good acting. Their performances are so unbelievably poor that it makes the entire movie even worse.<br /><br />And what's wrong about the script you probably ask yourself. Well, can you tell me who comes up with the idea of people standing a few yards or even a few feet from the lava without getting burned or having to hide for the heath? Or people sinking in the earth when the flow of lava isn't even two foot high? <br /><br />I'm sure I wouldn't be proud if I wrote such a script, but apparently there are script writers in Hollywood who don't mind about believability as long as it pays good money! VERY good money!!!<br /><br />When you see the movie, you'll probably agree with me that this is one of Hollywood's worst disaster movies, not worth more than a 3/10. | 1 |
This is just plain bad. Sometimes remakes, even if they stray from the original, are good on their own. They can bring another viewpoint and achieve a certain interpretation that makes them unique and enjoyable. This was as poorly thought out and carried out as can be. This wasn't any good even standing on it's own. Viggo Mortenson is a top-notch actor, but some of his selections of roles and projects leaves something to be desired. The original 'Vanishing Point' was such a thrilling, psychological adventure; this is not an adventure at all, and is not enjoyable or entertaining whatsoever. This was made from a by-the-numbers approach to film-making, stuffing in plot points that someone in Hollywood believes will please what they see as today's film-going audience. Basically, they see us as a bunch of idiots. It's insulting that someone will put this out as a feature film, and even attempt to remake a cult classic this sloppily. The manipulative plot devices, the 'make-it-obvious-so-they-don't-miss-the-point' aspects, ridiculous dialogue, stereotyped characters, amateurish direction...<br /><br />This is plain bad.... | 1 |
Bonfires of the Vanities is a film drenched in flop sweat. I can recall no film that has tried so hard to be so unrelentingly outrageous, provocative and important, yet failed so consistently across the board. It is like a stand up comic who's not getting laughs, but can't leave the stage. The harder the film tries, the louder each attempt at a laugh results in a resounding thud. The desperation the film displays is so glaring it almost rouses pity for all those involved.<br /><br />The film achieves laugh-out-loud status only twice. Once is in the sight of Geraldo Rivera playing an obnoxious, arrogant and amoral TV tabloid journalist -- which is funny only because he apparently doesn't realize he is playing himself. The other scene that deserves to be laughed at is the film's final 'big moment,' wherein the judge played by Morgan Freeman delivers the sanctimonious lecture about what morality is ('it's what your mama taught ya!'). The pomposity of the moment is insulting to the point of being absurd. <br /><br />Yet, one must admit it is a noble effort. It does have a good, if poorly cast, band of actors, who try to make characters out of cardboard thin caricatures. The film looks professionally made and the little cinematic flourishes that director Brian DePalma just loves are apparent, if not particularly effective. But the film, which apparently wishes to be a commentary on modern morals and ethics, never arises above the level of cartoon. Satire requires style. Farce requires energy. Even sitcom requires timing. But the best Bonfires can muster is desperation. In the end, you don't want to laugh, you just want to turn away. | 1 |
It had potential...it really did. But there is so much about the movie that was ridiculous and laughable. I'm a horror movie weenie and I thought it was stupid; as did my 13-year old! I was expecting to be at least creeped-out. And, yes, the gross-factor of the vines squirming in the people was there; however, the lead-up to getting to the ruins is just dumb, dumb, dumb.<br /><br />I mean really who goes on a hike...in a jungle... with a total stranger... with a little water and a few snacks...IN FLIP FLOPS, NO LESS?! Puh-lease! Better still who goes to a foreign country and leaves the tourist area without an interpreter or being able to speak a bit of the language? Are these people complete morons?<br /><br />The German's brother isn't heard from and he doesn't call for assistance? Who doesn't do that? He just finds some Greeks and Americans to go on a little search and find? | 1 |
And yet another run of South Park comes to an end. This wasn't as strong an episode as I'd hoped for, but Night of the Living Homeless was a stronger finisher then Stanley's Cup, Tsst, Bloody Mary, or Erection Day. It still can't hold a candle to Woodland Critter Christmas and Goobacks, but few episodes can.<br /><br />Night of the Living Homeless is a spoof of the zombie genre, done in a way only South Park would think of. Instead of flesh eating zombies, the entities are homeless that request change and seem to survive off of it.<br /><br />Randy and other residents are locked in the Community Center, though this time on the roof, where they can survey the scene. A particularly funny moment is when one member finds out his home is gone, and becomes homeless, leaving Randy no choice but to shoot him.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the four boys set out to solve the problem, with the whole story behind the homeless takeover trying to convey a message, but being seriously uninspired. South Park is at it's best a lot of the times when it is being ridiculous. Matt and Trey played it safe this week, and didn't really critique the homeless problem, just lampooned it.<br /><br />The shock moment of the episode comes when a scientist shoots himself in an attempt to avoid the homeless. This is the first time a suicide on South Park goes wrong, and we watch the poor man miss his brain and then attempt to shoot himself many times while he painfully dies. Another inspired South Park moment.<br /><br />Overall, the episode was funny, but it was kept from being great by withholding any real commentary on the homeless and sticking straight with the zombie shtick. The ending is somewhat funny, but nothing new.<br /><br />Now we must wait until October for the next batch of episodes. It's a long haul, but South Park must be applauded for it's run. The show seemed to be running out of steam last season, but now it's back in full form. | 0 |
I have just lost three hours of my life to this travesty, and I can honestly say I feel violated. I had read the reviews and heard the warnings, and I thought I was prepared for anything - at best I thought, a faithful (if misguided) attempt at an original adaptation; at worst, a so-good-it's-bad 'Plan 9' for the new millennium. So when I managed to pick up a copy in Walmart while in Florida and brought it back to the UK, I joked to my friends 'Prepare for the worst movie ever made!' Oh, cruel Karma. There is absolutely NOTHING to recommend this film. The 'special' effects look like the work of a first year design student using a Spectrum ZX81. The acting is terrible, the accents are WORSE than terrible (one artillery mans' accent seems to take us on a tour of the British Isles, from Scotland to Wales via Northern Ireland), the dialogue is stilted, the editing is non-existent, the production values prove that no expense has been gone to. Words really cannot describe how bad this movie is; from the Union Flag flying from the horribly CGI'd Thunderchild (the Royal Navy flies the White Ensign, NOT the Union flag) to the woodworm ridden acting, this is quite simply a crime against film making. When you consider some of the literally-zero-budget fan films that are available on the 'net (the Star Wars short 'Troops' for example), the whole 'we're enthusiastic amateurs' argument goes right out of the window. And if you believe an interview with Hines on the Pendragon website, this film had an 8 figure budget! I can only assume that dodgy facial hair does not come cheap in the US. Maybe the problem is that Hines & co tried to make a film of the book, rather than turn the book into a film (if that makes any sense). Characters and extras spout chunks of text verbatim without trying to convey the feelings behind the words. Ironically enough, the ONLY person who even came close to giving a decent performance was Darlene Sellers, the ex-soft porn actress. My advice? Pray like crazy that Jeff Wayne doesn't screw up, and go watch the Spielberg version. It may not be true to the text of the book, but I can say this; As a lifelong HG Wells fan (and Englishman as well) Speilbergs film IS true to the Spirit of the book. Maybe customs were wrong to let me carry this monster into the country, but I will say this: Timothy Hines stole three hours of my life, and I want them back. | 1 |
I watched this over the Christmas period, I don't know why but it reminds me of Christmas so I watched it, so there we are. <br /><br />Arthur is a film I watch all the way through with a big dumb smile on my face and its a mixture of special performances, great jolly music and a script crackling with wit and charm that causes it. <br /><br />Dudley Moore makes a character that could well be hated very easily (spoiled, rich, lazy drunk who feels sorry for himself) but turns him into someone you love. Liza Minelli is great as Linda Morolla a queens waitress who manages to pull off the tough/soft on the inside lady Arthur nearly gives up his world for. John Gielgud gets all the juicy lines and polishes them off with relish. <br /><br />I can watch Arthur again and again and it always makes me feel good, check it out if you need a lift its a lovely film. | 0 |
Whatever happened to British TV drama? From John Major through Tony Blair, the focus of the genre appears to have shifted from social realism to smugly normative women-focused tales about the piddling domestic problems of nice middle class professionals.<br /><br />(Or perhaps TVNZ doesn't buy the good stuff? Please let that be what it is...)<br /><br />The writer's long career in soaps probably explains why the dialogue is made up mostly of stale clichés. Niamh Cusack's performance is strong on meaningful looks, each held by the director for at least half a dozen beats longer than they deserve. Baleful looks, however, are a poor substitute for depth of character, if the writer has failed to provide such material for actors to work with. <br /><br />Of course this is theoretically a thriller, about a murder investigation; but that's not as important as the central character's failing marriage and its attendant problems. Is Cusack's character's husband a complete bastard? Will her son be utterly traumatized by the marriage break up? Making these the central issues isn't a sign of insight -- it indicates a profoundly narcissistic identification by the writer and director with a character who should be getting on with her job.<br /><br />Lynda La Plante knows how to write this stuff so that it feels as if it matters and involves viewers other than housebound neurotics ; evidently Paula Milne isn't up to the task. | 1 |
This is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. This, in my opinion, is Rob Lowe at his best. I'm not quite sure why this film has gotten such a low rating. I guess you either love it or hate it, but if nothing else, it is definitely worth a rental. | 0 |
Reeves plays Haji Murad, a hero in 1850's Russia.<br /><br />This is a badly dubbed movie, with June Foray doing some of the voices. Unfortunately who ever was suppose to sync the voices to the lips was blind since the words never match the lip flaps. Anyone who says that Japanese films are bad have never watched this film.<br /><br />The film's plot is instantly forgettable and so I've forgotten it in the time its taken the movie to end and for me to sit and write this down. Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the film is one of the many that Reeves made in hopes of moving away from action to more plot driven sort of films. It may have been a good thing for Reeves, but its deadly for the audience who have to slug through nooze fests such as this, where its all court intrigue with very little action.<br /><br />In Reeves defense, he was a good actor, he just had no real luck in picking films that were any good. They all looked great, but very few of them didn't put the those watching them into a coma for the film's running time.<br /><br />This film will put you in a coma. Watch it only if you have the need for sleep and all other gentler means have failed. | 1 |
I love this show! Mr. Blick, Gordon, and Waffle are cats so different from each other, yet they refer to themselves collectively as 'brothers.' I often find myself trying to imitate the tired, sighing accent of their butler, Hovis, or even the Scottish borough of Gordon. There should be more episodes made about Human Kimberly. The episode about the cats disguising themselves as pre-teen girls to gain admittance to Human Kimberly's slumber party in order to get their thirsty paws on their favorite drink, Rootbeer, is a hilarious classic. We can't drink rootbeer in our house now without either doing the Catscratch voices or the Hanson Brothers from the movie 'Slap Shot.' Future classic. Where can I get the first two seasons on DVD?? | 0 |
It's hard to imagine that anyone could find this short their favorite if they have seen most of their shorts, but I know that humor is VERY subjective. I have seen all of their sound shorts (by far the best of their stuff IMO) and I found this one of their weaker efforts.<br /><br />In the year this was made (1930) Stan and Babe made 15 shorts and one feature. They were extremely popular and their boss Hal Roach took full advantage by keeping them working constantly. In addition, this was a time of experimentation for the writers and Stan. I would say this was an experiment that really did not work. As someone else said, it does not play to their strengths. Too much dialog and plot.<br /><br />The best part of this one for me is the largely improvised sequence with Stan as Agnes the maid and the great Thelma Todd talking about 'girl' stuff.<br /><br />If you really want to see the boys at their most creative and funny check out Blotto, or Brats From the same year.<br /><br />They made so many shorts in such a short time that I think they can be forgiven for turning out a few less then par shorts. They made something like 108 films altogether. Very few (except for the ones made at FOX) were outright failures but there are some. County Hospital, Me And My Pal, The Live Ghost, The Fixer Uppers come to mind as essentially weak ones. But other then those I find something wonderful in just about all their shorts. Quite a record in my book.<br /><br />If you have seen and enjoyed all their other shorts then by all means check this one out, but I would be willing to bet that this one was less then memorable to Stan and Babe. | 1 |
The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going. Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to conceal their embarrassment with this crappy stuff. It delivers endless, meaningless dialog and very little action.<br /><br />Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright. Visit Tulsa, don't watch this movie. It doesn't do the location justice. | 1 |
The thing with Ali G is that he takes the mick out of himself and his character. <br /><br />The humour is very much a 'like it or love it' brand of totally politically incorrect, irreverent and self effacing type.<br /><br />Personally I totally love this film, and so has everyone i have met who has seen it. You can watch it several times and pick new gags up each time. The humour is both aural and visual, and the timing is impeccable. The humour is probably very English, and specifically London, so its possible that non-English viewers may not get some of the humour. Think of yourself as a teenager and you will love it - especially if the likes of Kevin & Perry Go Large tickled you! | 0 |
I chose 'The English Patient' for a history extra credit assignment. I thought that this movie would be incredibly boring. Instead, it has become one of my favorites. It portrays life in WWII quite accurately, and the love story is amazing. The love story made the movie so incredible. I felt this interesting feeling, of passion or something. It made me want to watch the movie over and over again. Kristin Scott Thomas and Ralph Fiennes are amazing actors and the way they played their characters is amazing. The look wonderful together and actually seemed to be in love. I recommend this movie to anyone looking for a movie to watch as a leisure activity, or for an assignment. | 0 |
The summary line above, spoken by James Cloud (Robert Preston) to his brother Tom (Robert Sterling) just about says it all. Jim, AKA Kid Wichita, has a way of making things happen, only trouble is, he usually leaves dead bodies where he's been. Not the sort of mentoring Tom envisions for younger brother Jeff, who likes what he sees in Jim, especially when defending their ranch against local Texas cattlemen.<br /><br />The opening credits state 'Introducing John Barrymore Jr. as the Younger Brother', in this his very first screen appearance. That seemed rather odd to me, particularly since he was addressed as Jeff almost immediately into the story. Approximately eighteen at the time of this movie, he bears a passing resemblance to Sean Penn. No stranger to personal and legal problems throughout his career as well as estrangement from his family, I was left wondering if his daughter Drew Barrymore might have ever seen this picture. I'm inclined to think not.<br /><br />On the subject of resemblances, I was also struck by the thought that the young Robert Sterling looked a bit like Roy Rogers early in his career. Knowing Sterling previously only from his role as George Kerby in the early 1950's TV series 'Topper', I thought he looked out of place in a Western, but that might just be me. His character becomes emboldened by his brother's resourcefulness at creating trouble, and provides some of the edginess to this not so typical story. Minor subplots abound, including the relationship rancher John Gall (John Litel) has with his son the Sheriff (who Kid Wichita kills), and the troubled marriage between Kathleen Boyce (Cathy Downs) and her husband Earl (who Kid Wichita kills). Chill Wills rounds out the main cast as one of Tom Cloud's hired hands, and figures in the somewhat predictable finale.<br /><br />What's not quite predictable is how things eventually wind up there, and for that reason, this Western earns points for following a less traveled, hence not quite as formulaic a plot as a lot of good brother/bad brother Westerns do. Combined with the eclectic casting of the principals, it's one I'd recommend, even if you have to endure some of the jump cuts and sloppy editing that I experienced with my copy. | 0 |
It's not so much that SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION had little potential. Indeed the under-explored title phenomenon is quite intriguing and, for at least the opening half, this Tobe Hooper effort promises to entertain in a way only cheesy '90s horror can. But somewhere between Brad Dourif's on-again-off-again performance and the overly intricate plot, this would-be thriller loses its way.<br /><br />Dourif, featured here before his built-in horror fan base had accumulated, is average guy Sam. Of course average guys don't stay average for long in horror movies, so after a well-done origin outline, we see Sam's various body parts start to ignite. Soon he's igniting other people, too, much to the consternation of gal pal Lisa, played unmemorably by Cynthia Bain.<br /><br />While the title of the film implies a fire-happy monster on the loose, director Hooper opted to make Sam an unwilling killer. This approach gives the film an added human depth it would otherwise lack, but it also prevents us from truly fearing the human flamethrower. We're left wondering whether this would have worked better as a straight-up villain-versus-everyone effort ala NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET.<br /><br />SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION is a pretty nominal effort when all is said and done. It will carry added appeal for Dourif's fans and those who can't get enough 1990s horror, be it good, bad or in between, but only on a slow night. | 1 |
It's a strange feeling to sit alone in a theater occupied by parents and their rollicking kids. I felt like instead of a movie ticket, I should have been given a NAMBLA membership.<br /><br />Based upon Thomas Rockwell's respected Book, How To Eat Fried Worms starts like any children's story: moving to a new town. The new kid, fifth grader Billy Forrester was once popular, but has to start anew. Making friends is never easy, especially when the only prospect is Poindexter Adam. Or Erica, who at 4 1/2 feet, is a giant.<br /><br />Further complicating things is Joe the bully. His freckled face and sleeveless shirts are daunting. He antagonizes kids with the Death Ring: a Crackerjack ring that is rumored to kill you if you're punched with it. But not immediately. No, the death ring unleashes a poison that kills you in the eight grade.<br /><br />Joe and his axis of evil welcome Billy by smuggling a handful of slimy worms into his thermos. Once discovered, Billy plays it cool, swearing that he eats worms all the time. Then he throws them at Joe's face. Ewww! To win them over, Billy reluctantly bets that he can eat 10 worms. Fried, boiled, marinated in hot sauce, squashed and spread on a peanut butter sandwich. Each meal is dubbed an exotic name like the 'Radioactive Slime Delight,' in which the kids finally live out their dream of microwaving a living organism.<br /><br />If you've ever met me, you'll know that I have an uncontrollably hearty laugh. I felt like a creep erupting at a toddler whining that his 'dilly dick' hurts. But Fried Worms is wonderfully disgusting. Like a G-rated Farrelly brothers film, it is both vomitous and delightful.<br /><br />Writer/director Bob Dolman is also a savvy storyteller. To raise the stakes the worms must be consumed by 7 pm. In addition Billy holds a dark secret: he has an ultra-sensitive stomach.<br /><br />Dolman also has a keen sense of perspective. With such accuracy, he draws on children's insecurities and tendency to exaggerate mundane dilemmas.<br /><br />If you were to hyperbolize this movie the way kids do their quandaries, you will see that it is essentially about war. Freedom-fighter and freedom-hater use pubescent boys as pawns in proxy wars, only to learn a valuable lesson in unity. International leaders can learn a thing or two about global peacekeeping from Fried Worms.<br /><br />At the end of the film, I was comforted when two chaperoning mothers behind me, looked at each other with befuddlement and agreed, 'That was a great movie.' Great, now I won't have to register myself in any lawful databases. | 0 |
Perhaps the wildest outlier in Alfred Hitchcock's career is this straight-out comedy vehicle by the director, pairing Carole Lombard with Robert Montgomery as a couple who discover a mistake has invalidated their marriage. Where do they really stand with each other?<br /><br />Contrary to what others say, there IS an element of suspense here: The idea that these two miserable people might escape each other, free to inflict their awfulness on some other, undeserving mate.<br /><br />It's funny reading comments here about how miserable Lombard's Ann Smith plays out in this film, because Montgomery's role is as much of a heel. He manhandles Ann, snaps at witnesses, short-shrifts clients - just the kind of lawyer who gives his profession a bad name. Ann is overbearing, too, of course, the kind of wife who holds her husband hostage from work for six days over a petty squabble, bringing up things like what he did in Paris when he was 20 and hadn't even met her yet. 'I forgave you that!' she says, as if it was big of her.<br /><br />For David, a revoked marriage is an opportunity to have a little illicit pleasure with his 'mistress' before tying the knot for good. For Ann, it's an attempt at premarital sex that must be repelled with a bottle of champagne to the head, followed by expulsion from their apartment and her life.<br /><br />The acorn doesn't seem to fall far from the tree, as Ann's mother is scandalized into apoplexy when she learns what David tried to pull: 'Oh my poor baby! Thank Heaven your father is dead!'<br /><br />That's a rare good line in this laughless, unlikeable comedy.<br /><br />You can call this an example of the 'remarriage comedy', in which the bonds of matrimony are challenged in order to be reaffirmed. You can also call this an example of what Roger Ebert calls the 'idiot plot', in which the storyline depends on the main characters acting like idiots. Hitchcock seems to have a laugh at uptight American morality, but can't really do much more with it than a jokeless scene where an older couple is scandalized by the sound of loud plumbing.<br /><br />Lombard died within a year of this film's release; it was the last film of hers she lived to see. What a shame it couldn't have been something better! She was overbearing in 'My Man Godfrey', too, but in such a likable way you didn't just have to go with her, you wanted to. Here she plays for laughs that aren't there while sadistically breaking David's chops again and again. Montgomery rolls his eyes a lot like Groucho, a study in smugitude.<br /><br />The only really decent thing in this movie that lasts more than a few seconds is Gene Raymond as David's law partner Jeff Custer, who makes a play for Ann and acts with honor and decency. Raymond underplays his many reaction shots, and even a drunk scene, all to good effect.<br /><br />***SPOILER***So decent a guy is Jeff that Ann ends up rejecting him for not fighting David after she goads him into a confrontation, calling Custer 'a lump of jelly'. Jeff exits the scene, leaving Ann and David together for their future murder-suicide. Here's one Custer that managed to escape a massacre!***SPOILER END*** | 1 |
I always try not to be harsh while criticizing something that I didn't like, but after watching this mini-series I was so disappointed that could not help my irritation. On the one hand, it is true that series stayed faithful to the novel and of course I found that very nice, but on the other hand terrible casting, poor acting, especially of key characters like Funny Price, impression of stage play, I mean theatrical way of acting makes you irritate from the beginning to the end. I am sure with this budget, even if it was low, could have been done something much better and worthwhile. it is up to you to watch this series, but personally i don't advice you to spend your time on this disappointing ecranization. | 1 |
i thought it was terrific! very realistic and funny dialogue, and realistic action in a newsroom. i didn't like how the jennifer storyline is not really concluded or how the ending doesn't give us closure. holly hunter fit the part perfectly...she's one crazy actress. this movie is well worth seeing. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits