review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
I don't want to seem too much of a nitpicky spoilsport, but if the accidental death of a butterfly by a time traveler caused such an enormous change in the timeline, how could that be since the butterfly would have been incinerated by the pyroclastic blast of the erupting volcano anyway? And, how could time travelers keep going back to the same moments and not keep meeting up with their prior and later selves who were also at those same few minutes in the timeline? It seems there would have been quite a large crowd standing in front of that dinosaur charging.<br /><br />While i can accept the idea of a time wave, i seriously doubt the wave would have caused only a few changes. As the wave passed, all changes that would have happened, would have happened at once during the passage of that wave. So, scratch the idea of the city starting to become overgrown with jungle. And why jungle at all? The location of the city would have still been at the latitude and longitude it was before and would have had vegetation appropriate to its geographic place on Earth.<br /><br />And an endless list of other illogical inanities.<br /><br />Bwahahaha! This flick is a weird combination of some fairly decent production values and totally ridiculous plot holes and factual errors.<br /><br />Too bad. A terrific story idea that was botched up with silly science.<br /><br />Sigh... why, why, why, why? Why spend all that money on production and not even bother to proofread the screenplay to see if it made some sort of actual sense? | 1 |
IVAN (Marco Ricca) and GILBERTO (Alexandre Borges) are partners in a company together with ESTEVÃO (George Freire), but the first ones contract a professional killer, ANISIO, to murder ESTEVÃO (the plot, at least at the beginning, doesn't explain very well why). The guy does it and after receiving his money he starts blackmailing the two partners, appearing in their company and saying he wants a job there (as supervisor or something
). At the same time he meets MARINA (Mariana Ximenes), daughter of ESTEVÃO, and starts dating with her! <br /><br />In a story like this, where crime, corruption, betrayal and blackmail go hand in hand, no one is innocent or can be victimized, exception made to MARINA, which is the only person who doesn't know what's going on and didn't betray anyone
<br /><br />This film portrays with sarcasm the sad and cruel reality which exists in big metropolis like São Paulo, where crime is every day's presence. We can feel irony but also veracity in characters like ANISIO (brilliantly played by Paulo Miklos), which does blackmail to the guys who paid him without any scruples, and even flirts with the daughter of the guy he killed! He really must be a monster to do something like that, but of course I know there're people like him out there, in Brazil or any other place
<br /><br />It's a very good movie, cruel but truthful, about a sad reality
The acting is great and the soundtrack too. | 0 |
More directors like Nacho Vigalondo need a greater outlet for their talents. 7:35 De la mañana is absolute genius. What Nacho is able to convey in 8 minutes takes some Hollywood directors hours of film to achieve. I watched this smiling, but feeling a little dirty and not in the sexual way. You sit and wonder how you should feel after watching this 8 min. nugget. I was entertained, but was disturbed at the same time. Not many people can do that in just 8 minutes. It starts off simple enough. A young women comes in for breakfast at her usual place. She sits down and someone starts singing. From there, the film takes you through so many different emotions all at once it is hard to describe. It is in black & white, but this helps with the feeling the film gives you.This film makes you want to know more about the characters, how they interacted previously and how the ending impacted their lives afterward. I guess it like the old saying,'Leave them wanting more', Nacho Vigalondo is able to do that. Watch this when you can. Show it to your friends and wonder how 8 minutes can be so much fun without taking off your clothes. | 0 |
Great CGI effects & a truly Oscar-worthy performance by Gary Sinise as Lt. Dan. <br /><br />Tom Hanks is a one-trick pony in this movie, how he got the Best Actor Oscar that year over Morgan Freeman was a crime. <br /><br />This movie is a pandering treacly love letter to the baby boom generation, with a barely concealed right-wing prejudice, beginning from Forrest's service in Vietnam all the way through to the 'resolution' with Jenny at the end.<br /><br />With that said, though, it is hugely entertaining and an American movie through and through. I found certain parts of this film exceedingly offensive, Zemeckis dumbs down this movie almost to the level of Gump himself . . .maybe that was the point he was trying to make.<br /><br />Watch this film and ask yourself 'What is Robert Zemeckis saying about what makes a good American?' <br /><br />Forrest seems to have made the 'right' choices and been at the 'right place at the right time' for the last 45 years. Those who are wrong according to the director's vision seem to pay a heavy price. So is Zemeckis saying that idiocy disguised as innocence and naivety is a patriotic, even AMERICAN quality? | 1 |
This is the page for 'House of Exorcism', but most people have confused this film with the Mario Bava masterpiece, 'Lisa & the Devil', which explains the ridiculously high rating for this, 'House of exorcism.' When 'Lisa & the Devil' was shown at film festivals in the early 70's, it was a critical success. Audiences responded well to that gorgeous, Gothic horror film. Unfortunately it was a bit ahead of it's time, and was considered too unusual, and not commercial enough for mass consumption. No distributor would buy it. So producer Alfredo Leone decided to edit 'Lisa', seemingly with a chainsaw, by removing just about half of the original film, and adding new scenes, which he filmed two years after the original product! It is important to note that Bava had little to do with these new, hideous additions, so technically 'House of Exorcism' is not a Bava film. The original product is a slow, dreamy, classy production. A few minutes into the film, the viewer is jarred out of this dream world, as suddenly we see Lisa, (two years older, and with a very different haircut), begin to writhe on the ground, making guttural sounds and croaking epitaphs like 'suck my co@k', etc. Subtle, huh? And the film continues like this, jumping back and forth between a beautiful, visual film, and a grade Z 'Exorcist' rip-off. Leone was trying to incorporate these shock scenes, while keeping some semblance of a story intact. He failed miserably. When the choice was made to basically destroy 'Lisa and the devil', Bava himself refused, saying that his film was too beautiful to cut. He was right, and it must have been quite sad for this artist to see all his work destroyed and flushed down the toilet. It was many years before the original 'Lisa and the Devil' was seen again, re-surfacing on late night television. I had seen 'lisa' long before i saw this new version, and it was downright disturbing to witness one of my favorite films 'vandalised' in this way. Worth seeing only for curiosity sake. Otherwise avoid this insidious disaster like the plague. | 1 |
MULHOLLAND DRIVE made me the definitive fan of David Lynch. He's a modern genius, because he's not only a film-maker. His stories and his style have a spell that cross the screen. So THE STRAIGHT STORY was quite a surprise to me, with its easy to follow storyline and sunny sets. Still, Lynch is there, and, while this is far from his best, it's a film not to be missed. Late Richard Farnsworth's performance is one of the reasons.<br /><br />8/10 | 0 |
When I was chairman of our college's coffeehouse, one of our jobs was to review groups and films for student activities. One of the best things to come along in 1972 was Groove Tube. The original premise was that it was being shown off-off Broadway in theaters where television monitors were being placed throughout the audience, so everyone had a great seat. The premise was that the skits would change on a regular basis-ala Saturday Night Live, keeping the thing fresh. They decided on making it into a film for general distribution.<br /><br />I believe the developers said it was the first time Chevy Chase was on film. Watching him run naked though the woods was a howl. Like many of the reviews before mine, it WAS Saturday Night Live before such a thing existed. I highly recommend this vid. I've told my 13 year old son about Koko the clown- He can't wait to get a copy! | 0 |
This movie was chosen, quite frankly as a pig in a poke from our local Video store. It turned out to be quite a pig. The plot line-such as it is-was disjointed, inconsistent and predictable. The actors constantly looked embarrassed to be mouthing the poorly written lines. The only funny moment in the entire film revolved around the dangers of smoking and the inadvertant deployment of an airbag. The remainder of the film lacked the punch to amuse either of my young daughters (aged less than ten years), myself, my wife, my mother-in-law, or even the cat or the dog. My advice, if you are tempted to borrow this turkey, is to save your money and your time. Look for something else... | 1 |
The Toxic Avenger, hideously deformed creature of super-human size and strength is back in this sequel that gets mostly everything wrong. Toxie goes to Japan to find his father at the suggestion of his psychiatrist, whom is in cahoots with an evil corporation who just want the avenger gone to get a stranglehold on Tromaville in his absence. With new actors for Toxie and his girlfriend, who has a different name in this one, a much less grim, much more comical tone, and a plot line that can't hold a candle to the original. Even with the totally uncut version that one can only get if you buy the Tox Box DVD set, the gore is the only thing going for this one. And if you happen upon ANY other version forget about getting any enjoyment from this one at all. While the first one is a low budget classic, this simply is not.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />Eye Candy: Erika Schickel has a very quick nip slip; Phoebe Legere goes topless; one villianess gets fully nude; and a few extras in a bath house scene show various amounts of skin <br /><br />Tox Box unrated director's cut DVD Extras: Intro and Commentary by director Lloyd Kaufman; Second commentary with director Lloyd Kaufman, Troma editors Gabriel Friedman and Brian McNulty; Toxie on Japenese TV; Interview with Fangoria managing editor Michael Gingold; Interview by Videohound's Mike Mayo; the same damn Radiation March that's on EVERY Troma DVD; Clip from Lisa Gaye; 'Toxie 15 Years Later' mockumentary; 2 PSAs; Troma Intelligence Test; Troma Studio Building Tour; Ad for Lloyd Kaufman's autobiography; Stills gallery; Theatrical trailer; and trailers for: 'Toxic Avenger', 'Toxic Avenger 3', 'Def by Temptation', 'Class of Nuke 'Em High', 'Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D.', 'Tromeo and Juliet', 'Bloodsucking Freaks', & 'Surf Nazis Must Die' | 1 |
Wings Hauser and son, Cole Hauser team up to make a film about Neo-nazi thugs targeting a gay man, and terrorising a city. Wings plays the hero, and his real-life son is the villain. Fairly low-budget film that has not many redeeming features, and for some reason, no one has seen it! Perhaps because it is quite a laughable and ridiculous film, and the studio realised this! Maybe Wings Hauser himself prevented the distribution of 'Skins', after seeing it himself! Maybe people just didn't want to comment on such a bad film! Oh well! I generally like Wings and Cole as actors, but this was a film that they both should have skipped. Wings directed, wrote and was the lead actor in 'Skins'! An extremely bad and stupid film! 1/2 out of *****! | 1 |
First, this is a review of the two disc set that came together with the 'Wonderland' DVD rental.<br /><br />The two movies included with the rental, 'Wonderland' and the Johnny Wadd documentary, totally obliterate the myth created by 'Boogie Nights'. That myth being that the characters involved in the adult movie trade were considerably more than slimy lowlifes that would do anything for money, basically denying that they were anything other than detestable self-centered whores. This is amazingly similar to what the book 'Wiseguy' and the movie 'Goodfellas' did to 'The Godfather' fable and most of the rest of the gangster romanticism lore.<br /><br />Now, what irritated me most while watching these movies, and will probably irk anyone who saw and liked 'Boogie Nights', is how foolish and gullible supposedly educated and sophisticated people can be. 'Dirk Diggler' in 'Boogie Nights' is without a doubt John Holmes, who unlike 'Dirk Diggler', had no redeeming quality. Holmes was a criminal sociopath who abused anyone close to him, was totally consumed by his quest for self-gratification, and was without a doubt a key participant in the brutal murders on Wonderland Avenue in Los Angeles in 1981. The movie lays bare the big lie that 'Boogie Nights' was, and reinforces the Linda Lovelace description of the cruel and pathetic business that is known as the adult film entertainment industry. This should be required viewing, both features on the 'Wonderland' DVD, for anyone who had any positive opinions on the story in the movie 'Boogie Nights'. | 0 |
This is one of the first films I can remember, or maybe the first one. Exactly the beautiful kind of film than introduce a kid, sweetly, into the world of violence and addictions were we live. A little bit of Babe, Casino and Constantine, all this well mixed into a carton, and we get this. I don't know if its truly rated for kids, but I think it was very cool, very funny and interesting. I hate when a film (spescially a carton)can have a good end and its ruining because every character must have a happy end, even if it sounds weird (Im not a bitter person).But this was OK, he simply goes heaven and they let it in that way.<br /><br />All this is just a critic, Its a good movie an something new. very touching and I gotta go | 0 |
Yes! this movie was just bad in every way in things like cast,effects,boredom,excitement,and of course,being fantastic and we all know the four heroes in this one were a bit more colourful compared to the new ones but it still has to go,A fantastic bore like this really was just silly trash which i knew nobody would like when i saw it,i mean surely with that budget about 3 or 4 GOOD movies could have been made but no. I am just glad that the new version made this year totally showed everyone how the fantastic four should have been made with good story,great cast like Jessica Alba one of my favourite actresses otherwise it would have been totally forgotten but thankfully no. The new one was excellent when i saw it with my mates at the cinema but this old fantastic bore has gotta go. | 1 |
The 1973 musical version of LOST HORIZON is the most wonderful endearing and campy musical films of ALL TIME. The 1973 musical remake of the James Hilton novel about mythical SHANGRI-LA! is a real special gem. Music by BURT BACHARACH and lyrics by HAL David. A strange mixture of straight drama, adventure and musical sequences. It has the distinction of being the ONLY anti war musical fantasy ever filmed. <br /><br />This film was a critical and financial disappointment in the United States, but made a lot of money overseas. Only in America did it fail. Highly different and unique in it's approach as a film musical, it deserves far better credit than it's given. As a story, LOST HORIZON is an incredible adventure and both the 1937 Frank Capra film and this 1973 musical are faithful adaptations of the James Hilton novel. What I like about the 1973 version is the freedom in which the musical numbers are presented. The film has a prestigious cast and a gifted director and cinematographer. This is a BURT BACHARACH Shangri-La and it's a wonderful place. Songs like THE WORLD IS A CIRCLE, SHARE THE JOY and LIVING TOGETHER, GROWING TOGETHER evoke a happiness that Hilton wrote about in his novel. Why shouldn't Shangri-La be a slightly goofy place? The two love songs, I MIGHT FRIGHTEN HER AWAY and the deleted I COME TO YOU are the sensitive spots in the picture. There's a peacefulness and soft spoken quality in both these songs that is very much keeping with the philosophy of the story. Moreover, THE THINGS I WILL NOT MISS is a good duet with a strong melody. It's a nice exchange of different types of perspective and who can fault with Olivia Hussey and Sally Kellerman stomping, singing and dancing on tables? They're a wonderful team and the number is well staged. <br /><br />I always found it interesting in this story how the High Lama kidnaps someone from the outside world to take his place in Shangri-La. The character of the High Lama is a gentle soul but somewhat radical in his view of mankind as a whole. He has no hope for the world outside of Shangri-La. If this film were to be remade today, it would be interesting to see more emphasis put on the leading character, RICHARD ONWAY'S conflict with what he left behind in the outside world as opposed to what he's found in Shangri-La.<br /><br />Of course, for the film to be believable, the character of RICHARD CONWAY must be presented as suffering amnesia at the end, like he was in the book. Neither film versions of LOST HORIZON were faithful to the novel in that regard. Did Conway find Shangri-La or was it imagined? Did they all die in the plane crash? Every man has his own idea of what his Shangri-La would be. The conflict with Conway wanting to believe in Shangri-La and returning to his old life in the outside world is powerful. I like the melancholy on the faces of Kellerman, Kennedy and Van as they watch their friends leave the mystical valley. Interesting how Conway doesn't want to leave paradise, but is being pressured out by his brother. Both versions of LOST HORIZON work in different ways, but both are successful in probing James Hiltons ideas of a hidden valley where money has no value and moderation is the rule. So in a sense it's anti capitalism in it's theme where as money and materialism is not the motivation. Human kindness, decency, compassion, courtesy, etiquette and living harmoniously with each other is the rule. <br /><br />LOST HORIZON has a much stronger story than most musicals. It attempts to answer the basic fundamental questions of life and one can hardly fault it for not succeeding. One has to remember that LOST HORIZON in 1973 was post CABARET. It was no longer fashionable for characters to break out in song in a musical, much less to be dubbed by other singers. LOST HORIZON was an easy target for jaded critics. The expectations for it were high, almost unreasonable. There were two targets to be hit, the producer, ROSS HUNTER and BURT BACHARACH and the critics were out to get both of them. Ross Hunter had enjoyed decades of financial success as a producer and LOST HORIZON was his follow up film to his 1970 blockbuster AIRPORT That film was Universals biggest moneymaker up to that time and the success of that picture triggered a decade of disaster films. For years AIRPORT was the most watched film ever to be shown on television. It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards including Best Picture. At the time, Burt Bacharach and Hal David were the most successful songwriters in the country. The unabashed sentimentality of LOST HORIZON hardly had a chance in the wake of the breakdown of censorship in films like EASY RIDER, MIDNIGHT COWBOY and THE GODFATHER. Sex and violence was a new frontier in the late 60's and early 70's Audiences were flocking to films with content that they were not use to seeing on the screen. Lavish musicals were no longer well received no matter how well they were made. Today LOST HORIZON can be enjoyed and appreciated on several levels. It's the ultimate escapist film with a strong story, wonderful music, an expensive budget and some quirky humor. It's unconventional in the sense that the music is not introduced until 45 minutes into the film. It changes course mid way when the mystical valley is introduced and why not? LOST HORIZON '73 is a heavenly film that deserves rediscovering. A lost and legendary treasure deserving far better than it's reputation. | 0 |
There's something wonderful about the fact that a movie made in 1934 can be head and shoulders above every Tarzan movie that followed it, including the bloated and boring 1980s piece Greystoke. Once the viewer gets past the first three scenes, which are admittedly dull, Tarzan and his Mate takes off like a shot, offering non-stop action, humor, and romance. Maureen O'Sullivan is charming and beautiful as Jane and walks off with the movie. Weismuller is solid as well. Highly recommended. | 0 |
Naturally, along with everyone else, I was primed to expect a lot of Hollywood fantasy revisionism in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON over the legend of Custer. Just having someone like Errol Flynn play Custer is enough of a clue that the legend has precedence over the truth in this production. And for the most part my expectations were fulfilled (in an admittedly rousing and entertaining way).<br /><br />Yet even in this obviously biased (and much criticized) retelling of the Custer story, I was struck by some of the points made in this movie that, sometimes subtly but nevertheless solidly, seemed to counter the typical clichés of manifest destiny and unvarnished heroism usually found in Westerns of the early 20th century.<br /><br />For instance, even while this film attempted to whitewash it's hero, certain scenes still suggested the more flawed and foolish character of the real-life Custer: <br /><br />1) His initial entrance at the West Point front gate, in which his arrogance and pompousness is a clear aspect of his character.<br /><br />2) His miserable record at West Point, which seems to be attributed as much to Custer's cluelessness about the demands of military service as any other factor; there are moments in the way Flynn plays Custer at West Point where he seems downright stupid.<br /><br />3) Custer's promotion to General is not only presented as a ridiculous mistake, but it plays out as slapstick comedy. I half-expected to see the Marx Brothers or Abbott and Costello wander into the scene.<br /><br />4) Custer's stand against Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg is not whitewashed as brilliant military tactical leadership, but is presented as reckless and wildly lucky.<br /><br />5) Custer's drinking problem is certainly not ignored.<br /><br />And although the music and some of the ways the Indians were shown in this film were certainly reinforcements of the racist stereotype of the ignorant savage, it still came as a surprise to me that the movie actually went into some detail as to why the Indians were justified in attacking the whites who were moving into their land, and fairly explicitly laid the blame for the battles in the Black Hills squarely at the foot of the white man. In fact, no one can argue that the clear villain of the piece is not Anthony Quinn as Sitting Bull, but Arthur Kennedy & Co. as the white devils making the false claim of gold in the Black Hills. Sure, that part of the story is true, but I didn't expect to see it portrayed quite so unequivically in a movie like this.<br /><br />And one other thing: usually in these films it is the Indians who are portrayed en masse as drunken animals seemingly incapable of the basic common sense to avoid getting falling down drunk any time they get near alcohol. In this movie, it is actually the troops of the 7th Cavalry, and not the Indians, who in at least two scenes are portrayed this way.<br /><br />All in all, this movie slips in some surprising moments in the midst of the Hollywood bunk. | 0 |
Bad plot, bad dialogue, bad acting, idiotic directing, the annoying porn groove soundtrack that ran continually over the overacted script, and a crappy copy of the VHS cannot be redeemed by consuming liquor. Trust me, because I stuck this turkey out to the end. It was so pathetically bad all over that I had to figure it was a fourth-rate spoof of Springtime for Hitler.<br /><br />The girl who played Janis Joplin was the only faint spark of interest, and that was only because she could sing better than the original.<br /><br />If you want to watch something similar but a thousand times better, then watch Beyond The Valley of The Dolls. | 1 |
First of all, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever, Plan 9 From Outer Space not withstanding. Coleman Francis deserves that title. I present Exhibit B, Glen or Glenda.<br /><br />The first half of the movie consists of a surprisingly thoughtful exploration of crossdressing, especially since it was made in 1953. The last 15 minutes of movie are also not bad as well.<br /><br />This is not to say the movie doesn't have problems. Bela Lugosi was totally extraneous, intoning odd lines. Poor Bela looked like even he wasn't sure what was happening at times. The acting was decidely wooden, though no worse than a period Universal B movie. The long dream sequence that makes up the middle of the film was totally bizarre; more like a vaguely menacing stag film than a dream sequence. The Alan/Ann story, the supposed original focus of the film has a tacked on quality about it.<br /><br />No, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever. He was able, at least for part of this movie, to make an earnest social statement. When Coleman Francis tried to do that in Night Train To Mundo Fine (aka Red Zone Cuba), it just ended in chaos. Glen or Glenda is at least watchable without Robot help. | 1 |
The Dukes of Hazzard will academy awards!! Best actor and actress 4 the persons who can say with a straight face that this was a great movie.<br /><br />This 'movie' was a torture to watch. So sad how an weekly half hour entertainment was destroyed by these amateurs.The only good thing about this crap was the car! I remember when Daisy was a real threat to look 4ward 2. Who's the moron that decided that Jessica Simpson is hot?! We know she can't act but come on. In the TV show Daisy was a fox and brunette.<br /><br />All members who contributed in these waste of time please please please don't even think about makin a sequel, a prequel or anything that's got 2 do with a former TV show.<br /><br />I gave a empty DVD so this 'movie' could be burned 4 me. I sat trough it and i want my money back! | 1 |
I have always been a huge fan of 'Homicide: Life On The Street' so when I heard there was a reunion movie coming up, I couldn't wait.<br /><br />Let me just say, I was not disappointed at all. It was one of the most powerful 2 hours of television I've ever seen. It was great to see everyone back again, but the biggest pleasure of all was to have Andre Braugher back, because the relationship between Pembleton and Bayliss was always the strongest part of an all-together great show. | 0 |
Life Stinks (1991) was a step below Mel Brooks other productions. He stars as a rich man who wages an insane wager with his 'friends'. Brooks claims that he can life like a homeless man for a month. His shocked and amused friends accept this unusual wager. During his 'stay' in the Bowery, he meets a bunch of odd homeless people, one of them catches his fancy (Lesley-Ann Warren). They strike up a friendship as she teaches him the many tricks she learned whilst living on the street. Can Mr. Brooks survive on his own without the luxuries of being filthy rich? Will he win this unorthodox wager? Who are his true friends? Find out when you watch LIFE STINKS to find out!<br /><br />This film has been slagged unfairly. Sure it's not a classic like his earlier films but it's still enjoyable. I liked the way Mel Brooks pays homage to Charles Chaplin in this film. If you have watched Chaplin's earlier silent films then you'll get the humor as well.<br /><br />Recommended for Mel Brooks fans. | 0 |
Along with Darkwing Duck this is unfairly cancelled. Disney has been in decline since Tarzan and we need a show like this to get Disney back on track. Ed Gilbert and Jim Cummings were perfect for the voices of Louis and Baloo (sounds familiar?) The theme theme tune is also catchy. Out of all the villains, which are all great on their own merits, Tony Jay stands out as Shere Kahn. Louis and Baloo actually sound very similar to the voice overs in the Jungle Book, which isn't a bad thing at all. As a matter of fact, it's quite inspirational! The animation was spot on, and the script had plenty of wit that has been severely lacking in animations for years. PLEASE BRING THIS SHOW BACK! 9/10. Bethany Cox | 0 |
Please, why on Earth did Bava had to add insult to injury making this pathetic piece of follow up crap?<br /><br />To begin with we, 'the viewers' at home are treated to a narration from some unknown ding-bat informing us of the aftermath events of the previous episode indicating mankind's triumph over the demons, (yeah right).<br /><br />I can tell you 'right now' that this doesn't in anyway what-so-ever have anything to do with Demons as this is a completely new story with a different backdrop altogether. Bava as usual, makes a casual appearance that doesn't even seem to fit into the main context of the story at all. Acting in this one beyond appalling and the whole concept about the demons appearing through a TV set, Oh God I'm not going to go on. Go see for yourself.<br /><br />As usual you'll be treated to laughable dubbing, crap scenarios that don't make any sense and above all un-answered questions. How typical of a sequel that dished out the first batch of crap.<br /><br />Overall if you're one of those DVD Argentophile collector's, then maybe you'll wanna give this a go otherwise avoid like the plague, it's no way near the first, so you may wanna avoid like the plague. | 1 |
Let me be clear. I hate these kinds of movies. I do not like anything where the protagonists are all bourgeoisie English. I find this kind of literature and film awfully pretentious. You will never get me to read a Jane Austen book willingly. That said, the only reason I read W. Somerset Maugham's book and watched the subsequent film was for a class.<br /><br />Mary Panton (Kristin Scott Thomas) is a beautiful English woman living in a borrowed villa in Florence before World War II. One night after dinning with some of her rich royalty related friends, she willingly picks up an Austrian refugee, has sex with him and ditches, and then he kills himself. As the movie gets further and further, you really want to dislike Mary.<br /><br />What a load of crap this movie was. First of all, there were many subplots and characters invented in the movie that weren't even in the book. I doubt very much the late Mr. Maugham would've appreciated them. The characters, though wealthy, were some of the most superficial and self-centered people I have ever seen.<br /><br />The only reason I didn't give it anything less than three stars was because the acting was the only thing redeemable. The always talented Kristin Scott Thomas is perfect for the role of Mary. In fact, I couldn't picture anybody else filling her shoes. Sean Penn and Anne Bancroft also had supporting roles, that were just as good as the lead.<br /><br />Save yourself the pain of watching this movie. | 1 |
Or at least you feel pretty high after this movie. It's the kind of film that the word 'rollicking' really can be applied to, though it's rollicking in that entirely casual, intelligent, and open-minded way that belongs to the French.<br /><br />No, Catherine Deneuve does not spend the entire movie high (sorry to disappoint any puritans with an agenda).. but the one scene to which I refer involves all the members of a wedding party - AND it's a musical number! Anyway, everything fits pretty seamlessly together, and the unusual, bright, colorful family ( Deneuve's mother is a lesbian, Deneuve her bon vivant daughter) alternately entertain and annoy us as real families do..but since it's a movie they mostly entertain.<br /><br />Don't want to say too much about the ending, but Deneuve ends up marrying a man about twenty years younger. This is entirely believable as we see the relationship develop over time, and as the two are naturally drawn closer and closer together. The ending is a happy one; and like the rest of the movie, satisfyingly quirky as well as pitch-perfect. | 0 |
I think it's time John Rambo move on with his life and try to put Vietnam behind him. This series is getting old and Rambo is no longer a solider but a cold blooded killer. Ever time he turns up on the screen someone dies. Vietnam was not a fun place to be and frankly I am tired of Hollywood making it seem like it was. This is not the worst of the films concerning Vietnam, that honor goes to John Waynes Green Berets. In any case John Rambo carrying around a 50 cal Machine Gun taking on what seems to be half of the Viet Cong army plus a good many Russians is an insult to watch. What is worse is Rambos cheesy speech at the end...Please!! Oh yeah I heard they are making another one... | 1 |
Farewell Friend aka Adieu L'Ami/Honour Among Thieves isn't perfect but it is a neat and entertaining thriller that sees mismatched demobbed French Algerian War veterans Alain Delon and Charles Bronson trapped in the same basement vault, one to return stolen bonds, the other to clean out the two million in wages sitting there over the Christmas weekend. Naturally things aren't quite that simple even after they open the vault, leading to some neat twists and turns. On the debit side, there's a very bizarre striptease scene in a car park, Bronson has a very irritating Fonzie-like catchphrase he uses at the most inopportune moments, Brigitte Fossey, sporting perhaps the most hideously misconceived hairstyle of the 60s (it makes her look like a bald woman whose wig is blown back off the top of her head by a high wind), is something of a liability her 'I'll cook spaghetti! I'll learn to make love well! I'll read Shakespeare!' speech is hysterical in all the wrong ways and it's a shame about the horrible last line/shot, but otherwise this is a surprisingly entertaining and unpretentious number that's worth checking out if you can find a decent print.<br /><br />Cinema Club's UK DVD only offers the English soundtrack, but since Delon voices himself and the rest of the cast are fairly well dubbed that's no great problem, especially since the widescreen transfer is pretty good quality. | 0 |
Lucio Fulci, later known for his graphic horror films like The Beyond and Zombie, was years earlier a master of the Italian giallo (in the company of Argento and Bava) with films like A Lizard In A Woman's Skin and his masterpiece, Don't Torture A Duckling. This film has all the elements of the Italian mystery/thriller genre known as the giallo, but really pulls the viewers in by having each key character with a skeleton in his/her own closet. This keeps you doing as much detective work as the detectives in the film itself. Who is killing the young boys in town? The young rich woman who is so bored that she sexually taunts the eventual victims, the reporter who likes to tamper with a crime scene to get a better photo shot, the townswoman with a mentally retarded daughter, the local witch, the town idiot....the list goes on, and you have to keep mental notes like a true game to play and solve. The themes in this film are very daring and done with that perfect Italian style in the early 1970s. It is certain that no American studio would have even considered making a film of such strong content, and that is precisely why this is such a satisfying film (despite some unusual accent choices for the dubbing) and will definitely have people discussing its meanings long after viewing it. As the saying goes, they don't make them like this anymore, so get a copy and cherish an important film like this one! | 0 |
First off, this really is my favorite film ever. I don't need to give anyone a description because every a**hole does that. I am literally obsessed with this practically bloodless, cheesy, lame effects having', boom-stick showing', badly edited, 80's metal horror masterpiece. The director (I heard) had hoped for a hit at the box office so that he could do sequels and have a FREDDY/JASON type of deal for himself. Damn, I wish that could've went down like that! The soundtrack's banging'. The acting's good....CHECK THIS MOFO OUT. and any die-hard fans out there, feel free to email and chat sometime. Midgetorgy....I can be found at YAHOO. | 0 |
A lot is dated in this episode (just like most Twilight Zone episodes), such as the Woman's incredibly sexist military 'uniform.' And some things are so unbelievable, like the easy availability of clean water. Still, consider the year this was made and the time, and you quickly understand why this episode is so special as you watch. It has a nice sense of hope, something missing from a lot of Twilight Zones, as well as an interesting female character (despite the fact that she rarely speaks), something else rare on the Twilight Zone. 'Two' is a great example of how the Twilight Zone, in just over 20 minutes, could pack more emotion and drama than most two hours movies today. And it's great to see two people who became American icons so early in their careers. | 0 |
A retired diplomat, played nicely by Michael York, goes to Russia to get revenge on the Russian gangster that murdered the diplomat's policeman son. There the diplomat meets an exceptionally strong and decent Russian cop who helps him bring the Russian gangster to justice.<br /><br />I remembered the old action flicks of the 1980s that always portray the Russians as evil bad guys out to undermine the righteous U.S. government. It's interesting to see this time the Russian guy as a hero.<br /><br />Not a great flick, it's really typically a 'B' action flick. Michael York lends some class to this mediocre movie. Alexander Nevsky, who plays the Russian cop is kind of 'blah' but surprisingly has some chemistry with Michael York. Face it, Michael York is such a good actor that he'd have chemistry with anyone he's doing a scene with. Disappointingly, the handsome Adrian Paul gets killed within the first 15 minutes into the movie. Now, if Adrian Paul was in this movie longer, it would've been an above average 'B' action flick. All I can say about Adrian Paul is that he is real nice to look at for the first 15 minutes of the movie. The villain, played by Richard Tyson, is your typical bad guy. He's very blonde and very villainous in this movie.<br /><br />Rent this flick if there is nothing else on TV to watch. It's okay. It doesn't suck too bad. The action scenes are decent. The acting could be better, the plot could've moved much faster, but hey, you get to see what Russia looks like today! | 1 |
When the Grinch came out I was excited though I thought it was going to be a happy go lucky film and it was. Though it did have a little Nightmare before Christmas touch to it. You know kind of dark and spooky. I loved this film because it helped fill people with the Christmas spirit. So mostly the Grinch saved Christmas. And what happened then well in Whoville they say that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day. MERRY GRINCHMAS! | 0 |
The story has been told before. A deadly disease is spreading around... But the extra in this film is Peter Weller, his interpretation of Muller on the run is real. He is indeed a desperate person just going home to see his child. This person could be working next to you. | 0 |
I was blown away when I saw 'The Best Years of Our Lives'. The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.<br /><br />The film is about Three World War II veteran's who come home together on a plane and all by chance live in the same town. They all are reunited with their families.<br /><br />The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) has to adapt to his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and Children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) being different than before he left for the war.<br /><br />The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews in an excellant role) has to find a good job and adapt to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.<br /><br />The third man Has a much more harder adaptation to make. Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his excellant oscar role)He has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands. All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scences. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.<br /><br />This film truly defines the meaning of a 'Classic'. This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.<br /><br />If I was asked to pick a favorite film I would pick this one.<br /><br />Out of 10 I would give 'The Best Years of Our Lives' An 11.<br /><br />So the next time you rent a movie rent this one you won't regret it. | 0 |
Ok, I did think that it would be horrible. But when I saw it.. I was proven wrong. Emily Bergl did a superb job as did Jason London. Sue Snell was under-used and under-written. The meanies were ok, Dylan Bruno and Rachel Blanchard are definitely the stand-outs. As for the things the teens do and how people claim it's all wrong. Whatever. My friends and I use the term 'swank' a lot and I have driven a car and had someone steer as I changed. It's pretty much all there. I've just never been at a after-game party in a house that big with it's very own light show.. The deaths are good. The best involves a pair of glasses, a spear gun and a pool.. all in that order. I must say, there will be people who hate it.. but I'm not one of them. | 1 |
Watching Showtime I got the impression that the producers got the idea to put Robert DeNiro and Eddie Murphy just for the sake of having a film that co-starred the two of them. Other than that I can't think of a reason to justify the film's existence. Not that it isn't amusing in spots, it certainly is, but the concept is so completely ludicrous that the laughs are somewhat muted.<br /><br />The thing that really got me was Eddie Murphy's character. I can't seem to wrap my mind around the concept of someone being a police officer as strictly a day job. When I was working person at New York State Crime Victims Board I had to deal with all kinds of cops and they ran the gamut between the really dedicated and some real slugs, but I can't think of one who thought that this was just something I do until I get my career going in an area far afield. I mean, can you really see Eddie Murphy or anyone else going through the rigors of the real Police Academy, not the screen version, just to get a day job?<br /><br />Anyway DeNiro is your basic hard working detective who's on the trail of a major gun dealer. He's undercover and Murphy is part of his backup. So what does the showboating Murphy do, he calls a reality based TV series like COPS to film the action. <br /><br />So DeNiro's bust gets blown sky high, but the producer of the show gets some good footage of Murphy and DeNiro and decides on a new reality based television series. So these unwilling partners get joined and try to continue working DeNiro's case with all the TV cameras around.<br /><br />Eddie Murphy's a funny guy, I loved him in Beverly Hills Cop and in the Doctor Doolittle movies, but he's done better things than Showtime and Robert DeNiro certainly has. <br /><br />I guess Murphy wanted a chance to work with DeNiro and DeNiro must have gotten one hefty paycheck to do this film. | 1 |
This was my first look at this short-lived British TV horror series, but I had seen a couple of Hammer horror films (Horror of Dracula, Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter) and thought highly-enough of them to give this a look.<br /><br />This first episode was a shocker - not for the horror but for all the nudity. Was this 'regular' TV in England in 1980? If so, it showed a lot more skin than what we see in North America. There were three separate scenes showing naked women and their breasts, one scene where a guy put his hand on one, and another scene with man a top of a woman faking intercourse. Hey, I'm not complaining. <br /><br />The story is a simple one: a witch who had disappeared in the 17th century comes back to her old house and makes life tough for the married man. The latter, Jon Finch as 'David Winter,' wasn't much of an actor, but his wife wasn't bad and was a really beauty. She was be Prunella Gee as 'Mary.' The husband suspected her, rightly so, of having an affair and that plays a part in this story.<br /><br />Patricia Quinn was entertaining as the laughing witch 'Lucinda Jessup,' who comes back with a mean streak in her and has a good time tormenting the couple until things go wrong at the end. As a man, I'd say it was particular fun to see the two women going at it! This starts off slowly but once 'Lucinda' starts stirring up things, it gets very entertaining. | 0 |
I have watched this show from the beginning, and I am a 45 year old man. To me, this is so much more that a show that appeals to women. This is the story of a family, possibly an unusual one, but a family none the less. It centers around a mother and daughter, Lorelei and Rory Gilmore, two bright, attractive, and in their own ways successful women. Lorelei makes her home in fictional Stars Hollow, CT, a small New England town with a sense of history, and a population of people that may be unusual, but acts as a dysfunctional family. The show also throws in the relationship between Lorelei and her parents, Richard and Emily Gilmore, old money DAR WASP people who do not approve of Lorelei's choices in life, though Lorelei doesn't care. The relationships story and through line are what makes this show, in my opinion the finest on the WB network (soon to be the CW). Watch this show! | 0 |
it was and a simpler time ( the seventies ), a simpler place ( San Francisco ), where a man could make a simple movie about a drug crazed psychotic re-Crucifixion of Christ as a woman on acid with never ending dream sequences and inter cut flashbacks while having a multi-racial inter gender orgies regardless of financial responsibilities or moral repercussion.<br /><br />this movie, tedious, slow, boring, is the worst example of the kind of pretentious heavy handed art school dreck that passed as art in the midst of the 70's. and i love it ! once this train wreck of endless slow motion zoom ins and heavy reverbed echo chamber acid guitar licks starts you can't take your eyes off of it until the ridiculous and absurd end. its kind of a cross between Jesus Christ superstar, beyond the valley of the dolls, and a really crappy acid trip with your parents on a water bed. its simultaneously a train wreck, completely fascinating, and also a great snapshot of the worst ( or best ) elements of b-grade seventies phychadelic film genre.<br /><br />the plot.<br /><br />I'll just tell you the plot because you will hardly be able to tell whats happening due to the constant cross edited flashbacks to events that may or may not have happened to characters that may or may not be themselves, and the face painted hippy freak nicks endlessly cavorting about in banal sequences of performance art level mime like street theater.<br /><br />'Logan' is a really annoying iconoclast film maker who yells at people allot and is surrounded by a mostly silent film crew who are always dropping acid and having what seem like really bad orgies. Richard Dreyfus has an ancillary role as what seems like the accountant. the film crew seems to hate him for some reason and break out into maniacal laughter perhaps to torment him. 'Suzanne' the titular character is a willowy blond who stairs vacuously into space and comforts the totally insane 'artist' character. 'the artist' is going completely mad, by the way. either from his hamfisted overacting or the incredible awfulness of his paintings. all of course terrible nudes of Susanne. there are some other characters that randomly show up, a cigar chomping 'the man' character. who also is all hot for Suzanne i guess. he has a monologue. i couldn't really ever figure out what he had to do with the story except everyone had to hate 'the man' back then and you couldn't make a movie without one. there is also a mute girl. the mute girl pays off in the end trust me, its incredibly stupid. | 1 |
Here is what happened:<br /><br />1) Head of BBC3 needs to make programmes aimed at different audience to BBC1 and BBC2 to keep licence and job.<br /><br />2) Lenny Henry offers his unfunny friends up.<br /><br />3) Head of BBC3 snaps them up, completely ignoring the fact that they are not funny.<br /><br />Worst of all, it is arguably racist, as all the characters play up to bad stereotypes. If a white person did this kind of thing, there'd be uproar!<br /><br />Trash. | 1 |
that Welles said was that he's been in decline his whole career.<br /><br />There was an interesting story here. Unfortunately, Welles seemed completely incapable of telling it. Instead, he was trying to tell a bunch of different stories, about Elmyr, about Clifford Irving, about his pompous view of critics and experts, oh, yeah, and trying to jump start his current girlfriend's career by giving her unneeded screen time. (Oja, honey, when they told you to sleep with the director, they didn't mean one washed up like a whale on a beach!) <br /><br />Welles was probably trying to cash in with a bunch of footage of Clifford Irving as Irving was becoming a household name with his role in the faked auto-biography of Howard Hughes. Unfortunately, it means the subject of his film, Elmyr, didn't get the time he deserved and he was probably the more interesting story.<br /><br />The great tragedy of Orson Welles was that he peaked early, and then spent the rest of his career sputtering, finally doing wine commercials and awful documentaries... | 1 |
I don't think the number of blunders militarily and strategically contained in this turkey can be beaten. Everything in this mess was done on the cheap and made soldiers look really stupid. Examples: at the start the 2-star General is given strategic advice by a Lieutenant and accepts it unquestionably. The map used by the Lt. shows enemy positions but they apparently have only a single narrow valley to use in advancing on the battalion (even though the map showed a dozen more). The rear guard takes up position from which they are clearly spotted by the enemy and exposed. They pound our heroes from high ground but this superior fire power makes little difference. An single enemy tank advances near the end (at the beginning referred to as armored division), proceeded by a solitary infantry point (!) who moves extremely slowly without cover scouting the area, then waives the tank on when he deems it save to proceed - a most bizarre scene. The soldiers take cover in a cave. All around them is ice and deep snow but in the cave not a yard from the entrance is a deep puddle through which they all wade repeatedly - their feet would last mere minutes before they freeze off. Later the survivors wade pathetically slowly and chest high through a river to return to their unit. Remember it is deep winter and the ground is frozen. Yeah right!<br /><br />And on and on it goes. They yell commands to positions on higher ground, they lay mines near their own position and warn each other not to trample on them (!) At the start, credit is given to some soldier who had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Was he blind, or did Director Fuller just ignore him?Truly the most inept soldiers I've ever seen. <br /><br />One of them pokes around in his own wounded leg with a bayonet and eventually pulls out a piece of shrapnel, without a wince or a moan. He announces that that should qualify him as a surgeon. Now that was funny. | 1 |
'Anita and Me' is a drama about growing up in multi-ethnic Britain, rather like 'Bend it Like Beckham', or more closely, 'East is East', with which it shares a 1970s setting. The tone is resolutely chirpy (in spite of the dour Black Country accents), but the film lacks 'East is East's vigour and the result seems rather thin and trite. Moreover, the portrayal of the film's central relationship, between an Asian girl and her white friend, is insufficiently deep to justify the way that the movie is structured around it. I have also grown tired of films where the hero years to be a writer, this is naturally often something that real writers have experienced, but hardly a fresh element in a fictional story. 'East is East' was fun and sharp; 'Anita and Me' seems obvious and dull in comparison. | 1 |
When the movie begins, it's obvious just how old and sick the boys are. Although Oliver Hardy is enormous, it is Stanley that looks like death warmed over. Apparently, he was deathly ill during production and had obviously lost a lot of weight. Although he would eventually recover and live another decade and a half, here he looks like a dying man. Additionally, as I watched the film I was shocked how many pratfalls Stan took--I half expected his to drop dead from the exertion. I really can't understand WHY they came out of retirement considering their health--especially when the story and production values are as poor as they are with this film. <br /><br />Stanley inherits an island and a boat. He and Ollie are ready to leave when Antoine, a stateless man, is literally dropped into their boat and they begin their voyage to find the island. Along the way, they discover that Giovanni has stowed away, but despite this the four men become friends and land on a different island. It seems like paradise and they are all very happy. A bit later, a pretty young lady joins them and everything looks grand.<br /><br />Unfortunately, uranium is discovered on the island and the place becomes flooded with riffraff. Eventually, the mob decides to hang the four men and take over--at which point the island sinks back into the sea and the men are spared.<br /><br />I will give the film some credit for being original and for being interesting. However, one thing it is not is FUNNY--and that is unforgivable for a Laurel and Hardy flick. While not a bad film, it certainly isn't a good one. A sad end to their brilliant careers.<br /><br />All the actors, except for the duo, are dubbed into English, as the movie was made in France. While it may not be the very worst film they made (this would be THE BIG NOISE), it sure is close!! Watching this film is painful and like watching people clean up after a severe accident. | 1 |
Even if one didn't realize that Sellers was in poor health at the time of filming and passed away before the film's release, THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU would be painful viewing. It is supposedly a lampoon of Sax Rohmer's famous Oriental villain but it lacks any focus. The potential for satirical commentary on the anti-Oriental overtones of Rohmer's concept are ignored. Indeed, the movie employs racist insults. There are hardly any actual jokes or gags, just mostly actors behaving idiotically and spouting dreary lines. It is especially distressing to see Sid Caesar forced to spout curses and racial slurs for attempted laughs. Most of the other actors embarrass themselves as well.<br /><br />And then there's Peter Sellers. He plays the dual roles of the sinister Fu Manchu, who is trying to concoct a formula to regain his youth and his stalwart British foe Nayland Smith. Sellers isn't one hundred per cent bad; he conveys a quirky warmth as Smith when he discusses his fetishistic attachment to his lawn mower and he's oddly moving as Manchu when he expresses his love for English music hall entertainment. But most of the time, he plays both roles with a weary grimness, thus further sabotaging any comical possibilities. Sellers' routines where he revitalizes his fading strength with electric shocks are particularly excruciating; he seems too convincingly agonized to be funny. <br /><br />A few genuinely witty lines, an apt slapstick bit by Burt Kwouk (Cato in the PINK PANTHER films) as one of Manchu's minions, and Helen Mirren's amusing musical numbers cannot salvage this mess. If anyone wants to understand why Peter Sellers is considered a comedic genius, they won't learn anything from THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU. | 1 |
The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her 'aunt's' footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.<br /><br />It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.<br /><br />It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.<br /><br />You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.<br /><br />If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places. | 0 |
I love Morgan Freeman. Paz Vega is an attractive, appealing and talented actress. I'm sure that this would have been a good movie had anything happened in it. Nothing does. It's short (less than 90 minutes). It was 75 minutes too long. After an hour of frustration, I scanned through the remaining 20-odd minutes. Excruciating.<br /><br />Freeman plays an actor - who hasn't worked in a while - researching a part that he might play, as a checkout clerk in a supermarket. He visits the supermarket where she works. Nothing happens. She decides to give him a ride home and they go to an Arby's, a Target, a car wash. Nothing happens. They converse about their lives. Nothing happens. Ever.<br /><br />I don't get it. But I also don't get the Bill Murray flicks 'Lost In Translation' and 'Broken Flowers'. If you like those movies, maybe you'll like this. Lots of people find movies like this whimsical, charming, or - for reasons that escape me - find the dialog fascinating. A common device in movies of this ilk is to have a LONG take of stillness/silence after an actor delivers a line that's supposed to be meaningful. We know it's meaningful because it's followed by two minutes of nothing on the screen. Sorry, I must be a philistine. I don't get it. To me, these kinds of movies aren't funny, or charming, or thought-provoking. They're just boring. Why? Because there's no comedy. No drama. No tension. No laughs. No suspense. No action. Nothing to watch. In short, none of the things I go to the movies for. I can be bored for free. I see oddball/quirky characters in real life. I go to Target, and fast-food restaurants, and car-washes. These elements do not a movie make, even if stars are doing this stuff. I pay to be entertained.<br /><br />If you're crazy about Morgan Freeman and just like to hear him ramble on about nothing, have fun. If you wanna drool over Paz Vega, you can look and listen to her. But nothing happens, I promise. A total snoozefest. | 1 |
Jay Craven's criminally ignored film is a sober breath of fresh air in the generally narcissistic and derivative world of independent film. First off, the photography is pure aesthetic pleasure, capturing all of the gloomy beauty of Northern New England in late autumn (Cinematographer Paul Ryan did 2nd Unit on Malick's Days of Heaven). Second, the performances are uniformly excellent - Rip Torn's Noel Lourdes is irascibly charming and Tantoo Cardinal's Bangor is at once sensitive and exuberant, to say nothing of a fine supporting cast. Overall though, it is a tribute to the narrative strength of the film that the story maintains a strong and lively pace while still unfolding in its own time, and the film comes to a conclusion, natural and genuine, that nevertheless does not seem expected. This is one of the rare cells of dignity in the independent film world, a film that explores a small piece of the intersection between humans and history. | 0 |
Baba - Rajinikanth will never forget this name in his life. This is the movie which caused his downfall. It was released with much hype but crashed badly and laid to severe financial losses for its producers and distributors. Rajinikanth had to personally repay them for the losses incurred. Soon after its release, he tried venturing into politics but failed miserably. Its a very bad movie with horrible acting, bad-quality makeup and pathetic screenplay. Throughout the movie, Rajinikanth looks like a person suffering from some disease. I'm one of the unfortunate souls who saw Baba, first day first show in theatre. The audiences were so bored that most of them left the theatre before the intermission. Sorry, I'll not recommend this one to anyone. | 1 |
I can't believe some of the comments here in the reviews. The film is dated of course, and from our comfortable viewpoint in the age of CGG a lot of the special effects are deeply unconvincing now. But even allowing for this, Helen of Troy is so bad that it is almost laughable. <br /><br />The scripting is awful, just awful, with no characterisation at all. The performances suffer as a result, you can see the likes of Hardwicke and Andrews writhing in an agony of embarrassment as they deliver the most ridiculous shallow trite codswallop lines. The writers seem to feel the need to explain almost everything in a dreadful didactic screenplay that allows the viewer to decide nothing for him/herself at all. The beginning of the movie spells out the historical background as if no one had ever heard of ancient Greece; I know they had American audiences to take into consideration, but the patronising way we are told everything twice to make sure we understood the action is really awful.<br /><br />I honestly can't believe the comments above describing this movie as a great epic film. Even allowing for the comparatively primitive cinematography and the relative sophistication of today's audience, this movie truly stinks. | 1 |
First - nick-623, Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941, not 1942. They didn't have to predict the bombing.<br /><br />Second - did nobody notice these six industrialist/lawyers/whatever were missing for a rather long amount of time? They were killed *before* the surgery took place! Third - how the heck did Lugosi get out of cabs without being seen? Fourth - why did the Japanese not just kill him, instead of putting him in jail with a convenient look-alike companion and his surgical kit? Fifth - oh, what's the use? This movie has a few interesting moments in it, but by the time they explain what's going on, you'll probably have stopped watching. If not, you won't care. | 1 |
From 2002 on Dutch cinema finally got better again. This movie is still part- and a schoolbook example of the bad period of Dutch cinema.<br /><br />The story is needlessly told in flashback style. All of the 'present' sequences set in France are completely redundant and add nothing to the story, emotions or power. For some reason European filmmakers often find it necessary to tell the story not chronological. I never understood why, or what the appeal of it is.<br /><br />The story self also isn't exactly the greatest. It isn't always clear were the movie is trying to go to and what it tries to tell. The story of a young unexperienced boy falling in love with a wild young girl, who later turns out to be quite psychotic might sound good enough on paper and even shows some parallels to Paul Verhoeven's 'Turks fruit', to which this movie often was compared to before and at the time of its release. However the end result is far from comparable. The story fails to capture the right emotions, which is also due to the unimaginative performances from the actors. The way the story is told also makes the movie far from always interesting or compelling. I lost interest for this movie at about 40 minutes through the movie.<br /><br />At the time this movie was made, both Antonie Kamerling and Angela Schijf were promising rising stars, with great potential and ambitions but both their careers have pretty much dried up by now. Angela Schijf seems to give her family more attention than her career (that is not a bad thing of course), while Antonie Kamerling tried to start a career in Hollywood. He never got any further than playing some small bit parts in 2 Renny Harlin flops. To be honest I'm not surprised. It's not that he is a bad actor and he certainly has got the right looks but his English just isn't good enough, to put it mildly. Just listen to him speaking English in the beginning of this movie and you'll understand what I mean. They are really not bad actors but for some reason it doesn't show in this movie. It's probably also due to the poor dialog. I still kind of liked Beau van Erven Dorens. He's been criticized a lot but his acting seems very natural. He always keeps the characters close to who he self is.<br /><br />It by no means is one of the worst movies ever made but it's not exactly one I would recommend either. Bad and uninteresting storytelling makes this a bad movie.<br /><br />4/10 | 1 |
This movie is terrible but it has some good effects. | 1 |
As I write this in November 2005 I've become aware that the great British boom of cinema has come to an end and while people will claim much of this is down to the British government not giving film makers tax breaks I think the cause is much simpler - A lack of diversity on the part of producers over the last few years . Let's have a look at what the Brits were producing 1995-2005:<br /><br />Funky gangster thrillers . LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRALES was a truly great and thoroughly entertaining film and people went out of their way to ape Guy Ritchie's style with usually disappointing results <br /><br />Romantic comedies . Yeah okay I do realise FOUR WEDDINGS , NOTTING HILL etc were produced by American studios but they're still vaguely ' British films ' . Unfortunately because they're guaranteed to make a profit for the studios they have to follow a winning formula which usually involved Hugh Grant playing Hugh Grant for the umpteenth time <br /><br />Black Comedies . Can anyone explain what a black comedy actually is ? In the British context it's usually a rambling film with often contemporary political statements made and which often resembles Mike Leigh's NAKED <br /><br />Jasmin Disdar's BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE is a good example of the third type of British movie . Filmed in 1999 but set in 1993 it opens with two men having a fight on a bus and it's later revealed that one's a Serb and one's a Croat so we get a bite sized rundown of what was happening in the Balkans at that time , though what's the odds of two former enemies in the Balkans bumping into each other on a London bus ? This sums up one of the major flaws of the movie - Irony takes precedence over likely situations , you can appreciate the final irony of the subplots but is the outcome likely ? Perhaps the greatest irony is the title of the film . It's called BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE but certainly this audience member found them clichéd stereotypical people that I couldn't believe in as three dimensional characters | 1 |
Eight teen convicts are brought to the abandoned Blackwell Hotel to clean it out as community service. They soon discover that it's the residence of a hulking psychopath (Kane) who has a thing for pulling out and collecting eyeballs. It doesn't help that the guard watching over them (Steven Vidler) has had a previous run-in with the beast four years earlier. <br /><br />A guilty pleasure of mine are slasher films. Most of them are poorly directed and acted but they still hold some appeal and entertainment value. See No Evil is a good example of this. It features atrocious writing and acting but the death scenes are pretty good and the movie proves to be entertaining. The premise sounds like a mixture between Friday the 13th, Saw 2 and Halloween: Resurrection. I really liked the idea but it didn't work out too well. It was really just a bunch of clichés and everything was predictable. Screenwriter Dan Madigan just focused on the death scenes and nothing else apparently. The death scenes themselves are pretty good and gruesome. Director Gregory Dark did a good job with them and he came up with some creative kills. <br /><br />The acting is pretty bland and unremarkable. This is because all of the characters are one dimensional and we don't know much about them. It was hard to feel for these people because they were pretty unlikable. Kane is surprisingly mediocre. I was expecting his on screen presence to be scarier but he didn't do that good of a job. A second rate Jason Voorhees, if you will. The rest of the actors are relatively unknown and this film will probably neither help nor hurt their careers. <br /><br />While the death scenes are gory, they aren't necessary scary. There's really no suspense just some gory death scenes. Because of this, the movie doesn't hold much of a repeat value. Also, if you don't like slasher films then don't waste your time with this one. It will do little to change your opinion. In the end, See No Evil is a decent slasher film but it is generic and forgettable so it's not exactly worth watching. Rating 6/10 | 1 |
Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) thinks he has found the perfect woman in Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman), who seems like a quiet but pretty woman, though he soon learns that she's needy and possessive, oh, and she's also the superhero G-Girl, though you wouldn't know it from the things she does to Matt after he freaks out and breaks up with her.<br /><br />A promising premise is ruined by a mediocre execution. My Super Ex-Girlfriend is still an enjoyable comedy however it relies too much on cheap sex jokes and it ends up being a forgettable experience. What went wrong? The cast and the director could not overcome the weakness of the script and I didn't like the way they played it out. I was expecting the guy to be a jerk and it could have been a female fantasy revenge film. However, they made the guy likable and they made the superhero a psycho. It just wasn't very fresh and after about forty minutes, the film wore out it's welcome. Sure, there were a few funny lines however the weak middle and horrible ending kept it from really breaking out.<br /><br />Director Ivan Reitman has lost his touch. After a successful run in the eighties and early nineties, he started making crap like Evolution and Father's Day. I wouldn't say My Super Ex-Girlfriend is a complete bust but I don't give him credit for any of the quality the movie holds, which isn't too much. Don Payne did an awful job with the screenplay. The majority of the jokes were lame and most of the supporting characters were just one-note. He also kept reusing a lot of the same jokes making the thing really tedious at times.<br /><br />A few of the actors were good enough to save the film. Uma Thurman was great as G-Girl and she had many funny lines. Luke Wilson was a bit pale and not very interesting. I don't think he makes for an appealing leading man and he's better in supporting roles like in The Family Stone. Anna Faris was just doing her 'Scary Movie' routine and it's getting a little old. She needs a challenge or at least some better scripts. Wanda Sykes is either hit or miss for me. She was great in Monster-In-Law and she was bad in Clerks 2. Here, she is just annoying and doesn't bring anything to the movie. Eddie Izzard was alright, nothing special. Rainn Wilson was just annoying and not funny. Overall, I was disappointed with the movie. It wasn't awful yet it had so much potential and the final result was just so average. Rating 5/10 | 1 |
One of my favorite villains, the Evil Princess is just the perfect villain for this movie. Full of space travel, horses, diamonds, mystical characters, colorful backgrounds, evil characters, etc etc. Very bright, full of action, you will not get bored. Great movie! | 0 |
Probably the worst Dolph film ever. There's nothing you'd want or expect here. Don't waste your time. Dolph plays a miserable cop with no interests in life. His brother gets killed and Dolph tries to figure things out. The character is just plain stupid and stumbles around aimlessly. Pointless. | 1 |
Sequels are a capricious lot with most nowhere near the stature of the original. Sometimes you find a sequel that is considered better than the original, some critics (such as John Charles) have stated that Project A2 is better than the original, I disagree somewhat but this movie is still a worthwhile follow-up and fits well in the output of brilliant Hong Kong action cinema in the 1980s as well as Jackie's own oeuvre. I do wonder how with such an awesome release of great films that his later films were not as good. He only has directed two films in the 1990s and none past that, but he has had much clout in many of the films where he is not officially the director.<br /><br />Earlier in 1987 Jackie had brain surgery following a disastrous fall in the filming of Armour of God. This encouraged him to work on his next film close to home. This did not encourage him to stop risking his life and his stunt team for our amusement. What resulted is a smash hit at home that eclipsed the original in box office tallies (31 million HK dollars compared to 19 million for the original).<br /><br />Jackie Chan is once again police officer extraordinaire Dragon Ma and he is ordered to work with 'Three Wan' Superintendent Chun (Lam Wai, Royal Warriors) who is the only Chinese police officer allowed to have a gun yet is thought to be staging arrests to make himself look better and ignoring the crimes of a triad lord named Tiger Au (Michael Chan Wai-Man, Dragon Lord). Apparently Chun has too much power to be taken down directly, but he is relieved of the Sai Wan district (now he is 'Two Wan') which Dragon Ma takes over. This inefficient and corrupt office will soon get a makeover and there is a great scene where three officers, who do not know who they are dealing with, attempt to assault Ma to teach him a lesson about complaining about police officers. He soon has that district ship-shape and Tiger Au taken care of. The fight choreography and stunts with Tiger and his men are quite awesome. My favorite stunt was a beautifully brutal fall from the second floor into a large vase and that vase did not appear to be soft.<br /><br />Meanwhile a couple of subplots are happening. There are pirates who have survived from the first film who are looking for revenge and food. Then there are revolutionaries including Maggie (Maggie Cheung, In The Mood For Love) and (Rosamund Kwan, Casino Raiders) who are trying to raise funds for Dr. Sun Yat-sen to overthrow the Qing Government as well as government operatives who are trying to find these rebels. Throw in a mixture of corrupt Hong Kong and British Cops as well as legitimate ones and you have a stew that is getting a bit too many ingredients, but yet still seems to coalesce. This works well when there is a Marx Brothers influenced scene (the Marx Brothers have done this type of scene a few times with The Cocoanuts (1929) being the first) at Maggie's place where everyone is looking for someone while hiding from someone else. Many weeks were spent on this scene alone and the effort certainly shows.<br /><br />There are several faults with the film. There is a certain didactic nature that creeps in the film that seems a bit out-of-place especially one small speech towards the end that Jackie gives when dealing with the Mainland revolutionaries and the extremely easy conversion of the pirates that survived from the first film. Female characters are once again underused and under-appreciated, especially Maggie Cheung. I was not as satisfied with the continuance of the plot as much as the first film either. The individual scenes dominate my feelings for the film instead of thinking of this movie as a cohesive whole. I do not fault the film for not being able to have Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao like the first though (I have heard the main reason behind this was that those two were filming Eastern Condors, but I do wonder if Jackie could have waited a small while to get them to perform in this they would work together for the last time the following year in Dragons Forever), but they are missed.<br /><br />I found this to be quite an enjoyable and well-made film and it is rightfully regarded as one of the better comedic action films of the 1980s. This film is also quite good in a few unexpected places. The art direction is superb (Eddie Ma Poon-chiu), the costumes are exquisite, the cinematography is good and the movie looks quite authentic. But the stunts, comedy and the action is what I remember this film for. There is a chase involving a handcuffed Dragon and Chun that is superb (part of the axe throwing scene would be used in Shanghai Noon). The last twenty minutes is full of awe-inspiring hits, falls, chili-peppers as a mouth-mace (Jackie writes in his autobiography about how he used real peppers in this scene; you can see him in a lot of mouth pain during the outtakes at the end) and is a worthy conclusion to this movie. The most famous stunt from this sequence is his homage to Buster Keaton from Steamboat Bill Jr. (1928) with the exception that there is no hole and only a weak section where his head pops through.<br /><br />Fans of Jackie and/or Hong Kong action cinema should consider this a must own and watch. I certainly do. | 0 |
I hate to even waste the time it takes to write 10 lines on this atrocity. Hyung-Rae Shim is lucky that bad film-making isn't a capital crime or he'd be put to death twice for writing and directing this disaster. I'm amazed that this film had a $75m budget, but actually glad in the sense that it was such a tremendous flop, that Shim will hopefully, never get to make another movie the rest of the life and, therefore, not waste any more of filmgoers time. I would think the actors would have gotten together and lynched him by now.<br /><br />With the effects resources available to them, a great film could have been made with this budget. As usual, the failure should have been spotted at the very beginning with the terrible script and story. 'Transformers' was another visual feast with a weak script, but this makes it look like 'Citizen Kane'. | 1 |
The great cinematic musicals were made between 1950 and 1970. This twenty year spell can be rightly labelled the “Golden Era” of the genre. There were musicals prior to that, and there have been musicals since… but the true classics seem invariably to have been made during that period. Singin’ In The Rain, An American In Paris, The Band Wagon, Seven Brides For Seven Brothers, Oklahoma, South Pacific, The King And I, and many more, stand tall as much cherished products of the age. Perhaps the last great musical of the “Golden Era” is Carol Reed’s 1968 “Oliver”. Freely adapted from Dickens’ novel, this vibrant musical is a film version of a successful stage production. It is a magnificent film, winner of six Oscars, including the Best Picture award.<br /><br />Orphan Oliver Twist (Mark Lester) lives a miserable existence in a workhouse, his mother having died moments after giving birth to him. Following an incident one meal-time, he is booted out of the workhouse and ends up employed at a funeral parlour. But Oliver doesn’t settle particularly well into his new job, and escapes after a few troubled days. He makes the long journey to London where he hopes to seek his fortune. Oliver is taken under the wing of a child pickpocket called the Artful Dodger (Jack Wild) who in turn works for Fagin (Ron Moody), an elderly crook in charge of a gang of child-thieves. Despite the unlawful nature of the job, Oliver finds good friends among his new “family”. He also makes the acquaintance of Nancy (Shani Wallis), girlfriend of the cruellest and most feared thief of them all, the menacing Bill Sikes (Oliver Reed). After many adventures, Oliver discovers his true ancestry and finds that he is actually from a rich and well-to-do background. But his chances of being reunited with his real family are jeopardised when Bill Sikes forcibly exploits Oliver, making him an accomplice in some particularly risky and ambitious robberies.<br /><br />“Oliver” is a brilliantly assembled film, consistently pleasing to the eye and excellently acted by its talented cast. Moody recreates his stage role with considerable verve, stealing the film from the youngsters with his energetic performance as Fagin. Lester and Wild do well too as the young pickpockets, while Wallis enthusiastically fleshes out the Nancy role and Reed generates genuine despicableness as Sikes. The musical numbers are staged with incredible precision and sense of spectacle – Onna White’s Oscar-winning choreography helps make the song-and-dance set pieces so memorable, but the lively performers and the skillful direction of Carol Reed also play their part. The unforgettable tunes include “Food Glorious Food”, “Consider Yourself”, “You’ve Got To Pick A Pocket Or Two”, “I’d Do Anything” and “Oom-Pah-Pah” – all immensely catchy songs, conveyed via very well put together sequences. The film is a thoroughly entertaining experience and never really loses momentum over its entire 153 minute duration. Sit back and enjoy! | 0 |
I have always been somewhat underwhelmed by Joe Dante's original THE HOWLING (1981) so I wasn't particularly interested in checking out any of its sequels; some time ago, I did catch HOWLING III: THE MARSUPIALS (1987) by the same director as this one and found it to be watchable but nothing special.<br /><br />The second instalment, however, has quite a bad rep and I knew I'd have a good time watching it if mainly to wallow in the sight of dear but pompous horror icon Christopher Lee squirming in the midst of it all (the gracefully-aged star has pathetically asserted a number of times in interviews that he hasn't appeared in horror-oriented fare since his last picture for Hammer Films back in 1976!). Anyway, this film should have borne the subtitle 'Your Movie Is A Turd' being astoundingly inept in all departments (beginning with the all-important werewolf make-up)! <br /><br />The plot (and dialogue) is not only terrible, but it has the limpest connection with Dante's film strangely enough, the author of the original novel Gary Brandner co-wrote this himself! Still, one of the undeniable highlights (er...low points) of the film is the pointless elliptical editing which tries to give the whole a semblance of style, but only serves to accentuate its embarrassment factor! Similarly phoney (and grating) are the hokey transitions between scenes, the inane punk-rock theme song, and the cheapjack special-effects at the climax! <br /><br />What about the characters, then?: Lee is the werewolf expert, naturally, whom everybody thinks a crackpot until they come into contact with the monsters, that is; at the very least, though, one has to admire the makers' ingenuity (or gall) in devising a stupid subtitle with a dual meaning! Incidentally, Sybil Danning (as Stirba, Werewolf Bitch the subtitle by which this is known in the U.K.!) is quite fetching in an assortment of outrageous S&M outfits...but her character is virtually given nothing to do (except preside over her brood of followers and engage in the occasional hilarious three-way lycanthrope sex!); her two snarling lieutenants (one of them a sluttish black girl) are especially irritating.<br /><br />Aiding Lee on the side of good are the two yuppie heroes (he being the brother of the Dee Wallace character from the first film and she a colleague of hers) and a ragged guerrilla-type band of Transylvians (still, they generally manage to effortlessly overcome Danning's rather dumb werewolves!). Notable among them is a knife-throwing dwarf who gets a particularly nasty (but, at the same time, side-splitting) demise; he's later revived, under Stirba's control, in order to lure Lee (by making childish taunts at him all through the village streets) into a trap. The latter scene has to be a career nadir for the distinguished and imposing actor well, either this or the early sequence in a discotheque where Lee is made to don a pair of ultra-cool sunglasses so as to appear inconspicuous among the partying youngsters!<br /><br />In the end, if I were forced to mention elements in this which weren't entirely displeasing, I guess I could say that the ossuary set (in which the heroine is to be sacrificed) is interesting, or that the hybrid werewolf/bat creature (Danning's pet who likes to 'inhabit' the body of its victims) is just too weird to be despised... | 1 |
Cult of the Cobra is now available on DVD in a pristine print that does full justice to whatever merits it has as a movie. Unfortunately, that is not saying much.<br /><br />It has a competent cast of second-rankers that acquit themselves as well as could be expected under the circumstances. It is efficiently directed, entirely on sound stages and standing sets on the studio backlot. It looks OK, but is ponderously over-plotted and at a scant 80 minutes it is still heavily padded.<br /><br />For example, the double cobra attack on the first of the GIs was surely one attack too many.<br /><br />The business about Julia choosing to marry Pete rather than Tom never amounts to anything. Tom immediately falls in love with Lisa and she never has any reason to be jealous of Julia (nor is she).<br /><br />Julia's 'feminine intuition' is introduced as if it is going to lead to an important plot development, but it doesn't. Similarly, Pete's investigation into cobra cults and the suspicion that briefly falls on Tom serve no purpose other than to fill up screen time.<br /><br />These are just symptoms of the underlying problem. The movie is structured like a mystery but it isn't. As soon as the curse is pronounced we know exactly where the story is heading, so the characters are left painstakingly uncovering what we already know.<br /><br />The ending is particularly lame. Julia is menaced purely by accident. Lisa has no reason to want to kill her - she just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. When Tom turns up in the nick of time to save her, it is not even clear whether she was threatened at all. He then simply disposes of the cobra in the way any of the previous victims might have done.<br /><br />It is such an inconsequential little pipsqueak of a story that I found myself wondering how on earth it had been pitched to the studio heads. Then it occurred to me. Someone said: 'Those Val Lewton movies were very successful over at RKO, so why don't we make one like that?'<br /><br />Cult of the Cobra is clearly modelled on Cat People: mysterious, troubled, shape-shifting woman falls in love with the hero, is apparently frigid, kills people, arouses the suspicions of the hero's woman friend and dies at the end. But 'modelled on' doesn't mean 'as good as' - by a wide margin. It copies, but doesn't understand what it is copying.<br /><br />It is obviously trying for the low-key, suggestive Lewton style, but this approach doesn't follow through into the story. Lisa is no Irene. She is meant to be strange and mysterious but there is no mystery about her. We get a glimpse of her after the first attack in Asia, so immediately recognise her when she turns up in New York. There is never any doubt about her purpose. Neither is there any ambiguity about whether of not she actually turns into a snake.<br /><br />Then again, during her nocturnal prowling we get, not one, but two attempts at 'buses'. Neither come off, because the director doesn't understand what makes a 'bus' work and, in any case, they happen to the stalker, not the person being stalked.<br /><br />These faint echoes of Cat People give Cult of the Cobra whatever small distinction it might have, but they only draw attention to the yawning gulf between the original and the imitation.<br /><br />Plagiarism may be the sincerest form of flattery, but I doubt if Lewton or Tourneur were particularly flattered when this tepid little time-passer came out. | 1 |
Sudden Impact is the 4th of the Dirty Harry films and one of the best traits of these films is that they don't really degrade in quality from one film to the next. Thus, Sudden Impact provides another thrill ride through the life of Dirty Harry Callahan. This time Harry attempts to solve a series of murders while on vacation. Harry's always on the job it seems. Clint Eastwood plays Harry as he plays all his men of action, slow, deliberate, and without fear. As the first of the Dirty Harry films to be made in the 80's, Sudden Impact lacks a bit of the 70's feel that characterizes the first three films. This doesn't mean that it's quality is any less. Bottom Line: Brimming with intensity and action, Sudden Impact is another worthy addition to the Dirty Harry series. | 0 |
This movie is about a fictional soap opera. It is very fast and funny. To say anything else would ruin the movie. There are several plots and sub plots in the movie. This movie has ensemble cast with today's hottest stars. They all gives over the top performances. This movie is favorite of mine from the year 1991. Soapdish is perfect for fans of either daytime soap opera /or prime time soap opera!!!If you watch soap go check this movie it's hilarious!!! | 0 |
I can't believe I'm wasting my time with a comment - but this movie is weirdly bad. If 20 different directors were brought in to film different parts of the movie without having any idea of the storyline being filmed by the other directors, this is pretty much the result I would expect.<br /><br />I also think some of the scenes were spliced out of order - things don't always seem to progress in order. The movie acts like we're already supposed to know about half the characters.<br /><br />And Steve Guttenberg tries to do manic, a-la-Robin Williams comedy in this movie. Ewww. And the whole premise of putting an ex-con in charge of a bunch of kids just doesn't seem realistic in this day and age. | 1 |
I just picked up the DVD release of this movie while on holiday in Norway where it has been released with English subtitles.<br /><br />The film is beautifully photographed and powerfully acted. The youngster portraying 'Frits' the lead character has an astonishingly open face which mirrors with painful accuracy the tragic events which unfold around him.<br /><br />Early on in the film we see that the father whom Frits loves so much has mental health problems and this is brought up when the brutal headmaster denies assaulting the boy and suggests it was his own father.<br /><br />The climactic scene where Frits refuses to show any respect to the headmaster; simply standing his ground and repeating 'Liar' as he is brutally assaulted in front of his classmates is a scene you are not likely to forget.<br /><br />The films only weak point is the rather clichéd 'Flower Power' teacher who uses every 'friendly teacher' trick in the book. Other than this I feel sure that this is a film you will really enjoy. | 0 |
The first 2 parts seek to reduce to absurdity the rise of wasteful wars and rule by nationalist barbarians. The 3rd part speculates that progress and exploration toward the moon and beyond is the key to ensuring a meaningful use of human talents and resources. It has speeches that some viewers dismiss as naive or bombastic but that make others tingle with excitement. It depicts a space gun/launcher and a helicopter, along with inventive mass communication devices, elevators, flat screen panels, and wireless intercoms. It's probably incorrect about windowless buildings in the future. But it portrays a child-like vision of boundless scientific/technological investigation.<br /><br />To me, it seems like a movie about a group of rational minded thinkers guided by a Spinozean-like morality in their quest to immortalize themselves and live ethically through scientific advancement and a unified world government. The pro-progress characters (such as the two Cabals) believe humanity could 'live forever' by preserving our experiments and progress for future generations, always standing on our humanity as if on the shoulders of giants.<br /><br />Arthur C. Clarke (author of 2001: A Space Odyssey) suggested this film to Stanley Kubrick as an example of an excellent SF movie. Kubrick hated it and said he would never watch another movie based on Clarke's suggestions (source: Clarke's special millennial introduction to his 2001 novel). Though the late Clarke kept suggesting it at the top of his list whenever someone asked him about the best SF movies. It has a beautiful Menzies art design, but mediocre special effects (esp. the toy tanks).<br /><br />I personally loved it and think it excellently captures the zeitgeist of modernity. It is a bit naive about the plausibility of creating a society without crime for an extended period of time. It also seems implausible about the inevitability of progress. It seems to me we could just as easily go right back to the dark ages or at least become so stagnant in science that we kill ourselves off through overpopulation or through our inability to escape the next major natural disaster. But it nicely portrays the importance of taking risks against public and nanny outrage for potential threats of space accidents and deaths. It challenges us to choose the side of progress over petty desires for safety or comfort or happiness:<br /><br />CABAL: 'Too much {rest} and too soon, and we call it death. But for MAN no rest and no ending. He must go on--conquest beyond conquest. This little planet and its winds and ways, and all the laws of mind and matter that restrain him. Then the planets about him, and at last out across immensity to the stars. And when he has conquered all the deeps of space and all the mysteries of time--still he will be beginning.' <br /><br />CABAL: 'If we are no more than animals--we must snatch at our little scraps of happiness and live and suffer and pass, mattering no more--than all the other animals do--or have done.' {He points out at the stars.} 'It is that--or this? All the universe--or nothingness...' (quotes from screenplay).<br /><br />If this sounds like a rationalization for devoting all of society to progress, then the council members (of the world government) will seem like technocrats. But actually those 'technocrats' allow their citizens to become artisans or pursue other passions freely, and they would have to be suppressed by government bans, laws against science and experiment, and other mandates and restrictive uses of power that would turn their critics into tyrants.<br /><br />In fact a huge group of rebels in the plot feel belittled by all the council's developments of science and technology, so they try to put a stop to progress and an end the council's freedom to experiment. The progress oriented council will not suppress the free speech of the rebels though, only preparing its 'peace gas' in times of emergency and merely wanting the freedom and space to pursue its progress.<br /><br />So it's also a story about the freedom to do science, just as much as it's about the wonders of progress. Many people in our society would actually agree with some of these basic premises, except in cases of social bias (many want to ban cloning, for example) or naturalism (some don't want us to progress freely, and would rather we just become extinct in due time while enslaved to the earth) or fear/reason (some believe we aren't ready for advanced science/technology since we might destroy ourselves). But Cabal (the president of the council) has an answer to the problem of danger: 'Our {scientific} revolution did not abolish death or danger. It simply made death and danger worth while' (screenplay). | 0 |
This movie started slowly, then gained momentum towards the middle. However, the fact that the movie ran over two nights broke that momentum at its peak. The second part really got interesting, but then gave way to a simply pathetic ending. Playing football in the yard? Really, could it get any more sappy and maudlin? Now I hear plans for a similar movie based on the '70s. I won't make any great efforts to tune into that one if it's anything like 'The '60s.' | 0 |
Sure, this film was retarded. But you expected that the moment you looked at the cover-box. It's a B movie, and on the T&A factor this movie delivered. Truthfully, it was funnier than expected. While it was by no means a work of comedic genius, like 'The Party Animal' or 'Orgazmo', as far as B movies go it was worth the watch, if you're into that sort of thing anyway.<br /><br />Christians and morally-oriented parental groups, this is soft-core adult entertainment. If you don't want your children watching sexual content and nudity, then you should keep your children away from this film. | 1 |
'A death at a college campus appears to be a suicide but is actually a cover for murder. The dead man's roommate finds himself embroiled in a mystery as he tries to uncover the truth behind the young man's murder. Twists and turns, as well as some false leads, makes this a tough case for our collegiate hero to solve, let alone (keep) out of the clutches of the killer,' according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />The stars may be bigger than the movie. Handsome Charles Starrett (as Ken Harris), who has a small 'lingerie' scene, became one of the top western stars of the forties, peaking in 'The Return of the Durango Kid' (1945). The man playing his father, Robert Warwick (as Joseph Harris), was one of the most respected actors of the teens, beginning with his performance in 'Alias Jimmy Valentine' (1915). Watch out for red herrings. <br /><br />**** A Shot in the Dark (2/1/35) Charles Lamont ~ Charles Starrett, Robert Warwick, James Bush | 1 |
Some wonder why there weren't anymore Mrs. Murphy movies after this one. Will it's because this movie totally blew snot. Disney was not the right studio to run this film. MAYBE Touchstone (well, they're owned by Disney, but it'd be more adult). The film is too kid-ish, as the book series is not. The casting is all wrong for the characters. The characters don't even act the way they do in the books. And why was Tucker changed to a guy? He's a girl in the frigging books! Was this done to make the film appeal to boys? Sheesh. And where was Pewter, the gray cat? One of the funniest characters from the book is absent from this filth. Rita Mae Brown is a good writer, but letting Disney blow her work was wrong. An animated feature film, perhaps in the vane of Don Bluth's artwork would suit a better Mrs. Murphy film. Overall, I give this a 2, because at least Disney made a film from an under-appreciated book series. But, I wish they did better. Either way, I still have my books to entertain me. | 1 |
The premise was intriguing, but sadly this film just doesn't do any justice to it. The casting was quite good, and it was shot beautifully - but stylistically much of the direction was inconsistent (overstylized fast editing been there done that to no effect.... I was waiting for Steven Bochco to run in the credits followed by a commercial), characters were identified exclusively by on-screen coke usage (and pretty much everything else left to Boogie Nights for character development), and no personable characters to draw the viewer into the story. A very forgettable film. | 1 |
'The Quickie' tells of a decadent Russian mob family who lives in Malibu and...well, frankly, this awful attempt at drama isn't worthy of commentary.<br /><br />Jason Leigh introduces herself to Mr. Mob-guy as being from 'Pacific Exterminators' with huge letters in plain sight on her back which say 'West Coast Exterminators'. Eventually the mob-guys get suspicious because she was exterminating in a bedroom. (duh).<br /><br />In another scene Mr. Mobguy plays Russian roulette giving a hooker $4000 to bet whether he'll live or die. She has 5 chances out of 6 of keeping the money if she bets 'live'. Well, she bets 'die'. (double duh) Later she complains it wasn't fair and wants to play again. (Triple duh).<br /><br />The list of flaws just goes on and on while this intelligence insulting film stinks and sinks in a quagmire of lousy music, mediocre camera work, poor direction, boring story, etc. Pass on this loser. (D)<br /><br />Note - The barebones DVD which I rented had no English same language subtitles or closed captions. | 1 |
This is absolutely beyond question the worst movie I have ever seen. It is so bad in fact that I plan on renting it again as soon as I can find it. This movie makes 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' look like an Oscar contender. Just LOOKING at the actors makes me want to laugh out loud. I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. It's awfulness aproaches perfection.<br /><br />The plot is based on a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon in San Francisco (I think). That's as far as I can go ... I am laughing too hard. I know it shouldn't be funny but ..... *LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL*<br /><br />MOVE OVER ED WOOD !!!<br /><br />Regard's *DATo* | 1 |
This movie is great, mind you - but only in the way it tells a very BAD story. Stella is so terribly crude, and never learns better. Her husband is incredibly snobby and small-minded. Neither ever learns better. Is this realistic? Somehow, Stella understands that her daughter is ashamed of her gaudy manners & dress, yet cannot understand that she just needs to tone it all down? I don't think so. Stella is a GOOD woman, and a VERY GOOD mother. Giving up herself, so her daughter can be associated with a bunch of bigoted snobs is disgusting. <br /><br />Much of what we see might have been normal for the times - people having a beer or two, enjoying a player piano, dancing - but it is made out to be some sort of moral inferiority. 'I can't have our child living this way!' Spare me. <br /><br />This story tells me one thing: that the Unwashed Working Class cannot ever hope to aspire to the heights of the Upper Classes. And that is simply a load of hogwash. | 1 |
This movie was really stupid and I thought that it wasn't so bad and I could tolerate a movie about a bed eating people. Then the part near the end where the guy has skeleton hands ended up being the cherry on top of a bad movie. I could see the screws in the plastic skeleton hands for goodness sakes. The brother was still alive and moving when his hands were bare bones. The funny thing was that he could still move his hands that was just not right. Without muscles, you really can't move your hands but he did. The brother should have bled to death even before he was moving his hands. The movie wasn't great but it was okay until the hand scene. I was laughing so hard that I don't really remember how it ended. It had something to do with foam or something. | 1 |
Outside of the fact that George Lopez is a pretentious jerk, his show is terrible.<br /><br />Nothing about Lopez has ever been funny. I have watched his stand-up and have never uttered any resemblance to a laugh.<br /><br />His stuff comes across as vindictive and his animosity towards white people oozes out of every single pore of his body.<br /><br />I have laughed at white people jokes from many a comedian and love many of them.<br /><br />This guy has a grudge that won't end.<br /><br />I feel bad for Hispanics who have only this show to represent themselves.<br /><br />The shows plots are always cookie cutter with an Hispanic accent.<br /><br />Canned laugh at the dumbest comments and scenes.<br /><br />Might be why this show is always on at 2AM in replay. | 1 |
The question, when one sees a movie this bad, is not necessarily, 'How did a movie this bad get made?' or even, 'Why did I see this awful in the first place?' but, 'What have I learned from this experience?' Here's what I learned:<br /><br />- Just because the 'rules' of horror movies have been catalogued and satirized countless times in the last ten years doesn't mean someone won't go ahead and make a movie that uses ALL of them, without a shred of humor or irony.<br /><br />- If your movie has to be described as **loosely** based on the video game, you have script problems.<br /><br />- The black character may not always die first, but the Asian character does always know kung-fu.<br /><br />- While you may be proud that you figured out how to do the 'the Matrix effect' on a budget, that doesn't necessarily mean you should use it over and over again ad nausea.<br /><br />- Being Ron Howard's brother does not guarantee choice roles.<br /><br />- Whenever a scene doesn't edit together, just use some footage from the video game, no one will notice.<br /><br />- If your cousin's rap-metal band offers to write your movie's theme for free, politely decline.<br /><br />- Zombie movies are not about people killing zombies. They're about zombies killing people, preferably in the most gruesome way possible. That's what makes them SCARY.<br /><br />- White people who can pay $1600 to get to a rave deserve to die.<br /><br />- If you find an old book, it will tell you everything you need to know. Anything else you will figure out on your own two lines after someone asks, 'What was that?' or, 'Where are we?'<br /><br />- Bare breasts are not horror movie panacea.<br /><br />- A helicopter boom shot and a licensing deal with Sega magically transforms your movie from 'student film' to 'major studio release'. Try it!<br /><br />- Just because you can name-drop all three 'Living Dead' movies, that does not make you George Romero. Or even Paul W. S. Anderson.<br /><br />I've seen worse movies, but only because I've seen 'Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.' | 1 |
I rate movies on this site all the time, but I don't normally write comments. However, in this case, I felt compelled to WARN OTHERS! This movie is bad! It's probably one of only a dozen movies I have scored as '1 (awful).' I know people say this all the time, but this truly was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It's easily on the bottom ten, anyway.<br /><br />When it comes to horror movies, I have very low standards. I'll overlook all sorts of shoddy film-making for a good scare. But this movie is embarrassingly bad. It looks someone bought a video camera at Sears and decided to make a movie with his buddies. (The fact that every single crew member's name appears in the cast list proves this theory, I think.) This movie has lower production standards than your average high school play. It's actually a little shocking to see a movie that looks this bad released on DVD. The special effects are somewhat effective at times, but are still amateurish at best. The best thing that can be said about the actors is that at least they remember no to look into the camera, most of the time. I can't say for certain if they struggling to remember their lines or making them up as they went along. Any and all attempts at humor are lame. This movie is such a colossal waste of time. | 1 |
I found this film completely and utterly incomprehensible. I knew some of he facts about Caravagggio, but here they were twisted and puzzling. The images were weirdly interesting but I was looking more for a biographical and/or critical accounting of Caravaggio's life and works, not an LSD type drug trip. The dialogue was very confusing and jumping back and forth in time via the use of trains, calculators, typewriters and cigarettes was extremely distracting. Had it been labelled an 'artsy film' I wouldn't have purchased the DVD; now I have a DVD that I'll never watch again and who would buy it? I prefer mainstream films not those that require translation or elucidation. Thumbs down on this one for me! | 1 |
I saw this movie in the theatre and it was a terrible movie. The way Michael Oliver who now turn even worse in the sequel is the biggest intolerance I cannot bare. Junior upset his father because he would not go to school which got his father Ben madly insane. Also the Crazy Dance ride operator is not fair to Junior for not letting him go on the ride. And that Lawanda Dumore is as horrible as a serial killer to Junior because she made threatening insults to Junior which is why I cannot tolerate this movie. Even if the movie is re-released back into theatres in the extended version, I still would not see this movie because this movie is not something I can even tolerate. In fact, it stinks! | 1 |
Hell to Pay was a disappointment. It did not have anywhere near the substance of a B Western movie, and should in no way be compared to a fantastic movie like Silverado. The dialog was dull, the plot was torpid, the soundtrack was overbearingly unnecessary, and the acting was awful. Even the professionals could've taken some lessons from the Sunset Carson School of Acting. The only positive thing about this movie is that it showcased some of the top Cowboy shooters in the nation, but you can see them in a better light in any SASS video. The packaging of this feature makes it very enticing, and the preview is decent, but it's all over after that. | 1 |
At first I was convinced that this was a made-for-TV movie that wasn't worthy of primetime. But after a few minutes of dumb-struck awe, I realized that there was at least comic value in the over-the-top stunts and c-movie acting. This movie would have gotten a 1 if my wife and I hadn't laughed so hard as we watched it in wonder that the actors could keep a straight face. It was like a less-funny spy version of The Big Hit (I laughed so much I actually bought the Big Hit DVD) with even-worse acting. We were disappointed that Nick chose to marry Elena, and not Jim, after all of the hugging and high-fives. A few rum and cokes will definitely help it go down easier. | 1 |
Even though this was set up to be a showcase for some kickboxing and swordplay, 'Vampires: The Turning' (VTT) could have aspired beyond that. Because it doesn't even aspire to be a good vampire movie, VTT fails to deliver any punch that it may have been attempting to.<br /><br />Using the idea of an 800-year-old thai vampire was interesting, but the story about progeny she mistakenly brought into existence (and now must wipe out) actually reminds me of Gizmo and his plight in 'Gremlins,' and that isn't a good thing when it come to a vampire flick.<br /><br />Stephanie Chao is attractive and serves as the 'good' vampire very well, but her lack of any accent grates when you realize that she's an 800-year-old vampire. Added to that, when she tells Connor he's 'a young soul,' she doesn't deliver the line with much of the weight you would expect from an 'old' soul. Attractive, but not believable.<br /><br />Meredith Monroe was more believable in her role but, for a 'Dawson's Creek' alum, you would think she would have more screen time. The question of whether Amanda succumbs and 'turns' is the most compelling reason to continue watching this movie, and you never get it. You get a tease of it, but you never actually get any type of development out of the characters for that plot device. It's a cheap way to play your audience, folks.<br /><br />If you want something that is a good vampire movie, go find Lugosi's 'Dracula,' and if you want a sexy vampire movie, you have dozens of flicks from Hammer with a lot more strength than this one. In the end, if you want good or sexy, this isn't the place. This is just forgettable. | 1 |
I'm surprised that mine, so far, is the only comment on this t.v. movie...as far as I'm aware, the series itself, has had a huge following, reviewer pundits and real people alike, have praised it to a person. Anyway, let me tell you right away that, if like me, you're a sucker for gritty police dramas, you'll like 'The Lost Child' Tennison, the heroine, throughout the 'Prime Suspect'series, has been battling the male police establishment, throughout the series, getting to her present, comparatively powerful rank in the police hierarchy through hard work,obstinacy, and sheer talent for police work. She is,essentially, an ambitious career woman, but she has a romantic side and is certainly no man-hater. Unfortunately her relationships are affected by the wicked hours, which her career demands, and she has never married, so when she finds herself pregnant from her latest affair, she is faced with the choice of becoming a mother, and jeopardising her entire police job, let alone future advancement, or having an abortion - which she opts for. This abortion never looms large in the ensuing drama - it's very skilfully dealt with, in less than a couple of minutes screentime, a marvel of economy in scripting, and editing - but it's always there, as a counterpoint to Tennison's desperate efforts to find another 'lost child' - a kidnap victim - before it's too late. The story takes many twists and turns,before the surprise ending, and one is fascinated, alike, by the plot, and characters (although I found the many villains a little overdrawn), the police, and especially Tennison, herself, are not always competent, nor that likeable, which figures, given the unpleasant job that they have to do, in the sleazy underworld which this series, habitually inhabits.<br /><br />Mirren, herself, has said that she'll make no more movies in the series, but, excellent as she's always been in the role of Tennison, the series, itself, is as 'actor proof' as is another addiction of mine -Dick Wolf's American'Law & Order' - whoever appears therein, each could go on forever. As is my fervent hope. | 0 |
First off, this movie leaves you in a limbo mood wise. You don't know what to feel. So much so that you don't feel bad for Caines character when his son gets murdered (which was actually mostly due to bad editing). The script was too bland. None of the situations matter as you watch them. The soundtrack, or lack there of (if there was it wasn't good enough to even remember) does not help it one bit. Only good surprise to this movie was Andy Serkis' performance. It was on par if not better than Caine's. The story would have probably gone better off if Serkis would have killed him. Because quite frankly you don't feel any kind of redemption in the climax. Just a feeling of lack of feeling, if ya feel me. Basically this movie massively lacks draw. Leaving the audience alienated throughout the entire thing. | 1 |
I was wondering if there was a place or a link that someone can send me or post for me so i can watch this show . it seems to be a missing show i have been looking for years now its about oz and a girl who has to help save it . it was really good . but i found a good oz type thing on the web but i cant find it again or seem to remember a lot of it due to being years and was thinking that this one maybe it and from reading all this it sounds good and maybe the missing show that i really liked please someone help me thanks so much so please anyone that can help me or give me a link that would be so helpful again thank you so much....or if anyone has an oz based good videos please post as well. | 1 |
I'm at a loss for words. This movie is beyond description. I don't believe there is a language on Earth that has a word that can describe how horrible this movie is. If you do attempt to watch it, be sure to stick around for the 'suprise ending'. I only made it about three quarters of the way through this piece of crap before I couldn't take it anymore. Fortunately(or unfortunately) a couple of my buddies stayed till the end. When they woke up from their coma and after a couple of weeks of therapy they were able to fill me in on what I had missed. This movie has no story, no plot, horrible writing, and even worse acting. If you enjoy watching train wrecks or auto accidents then this film is for you. I think my IQ dropped about 30 points from watching this (insert expletive here). | 1 |
I had suspicions the movie was going to be bad. I'm a Duke's fan from way back. Have three years of the TV series on DVD. Well I was right. Took the family to see it. I really wanted to see the General jump again and some of the chase jump scenes were good. But to sum it up, the movie was a dumbed down tarted up version of the TV show.<br /><br />Jessica Simpson was pathetic. While I can honestly say that the original Daisy's outfits were just as revealing, Jessica Simpson's interpretation of Daisy was simply awful. Sorrel Booke and Denver Pyle must be rolling in their graves as well.<br /><br />Don't waste your money. If you are an old tried and true Dukes fan like me and my three kids are you will be very disappointed. | 1 |
If any show in the last ten years deserves a 10, it is this rare gem. It allows us to escape back to a time when things were simpler and more fun. Filled with heart and laughs, this show keeps you laughing through the three decades of difference. The furniture was ugly, the clothes were colorful, and the even the drugs were tolerable. The hair was feathered, the music was accompanied by roller-skates, and in the words of Merle Haggard, 'a joint was a bad place to be'. Take a trip back to the greatest time in American history. Fall in love with characters and the feel good essence of the small town where people were nicer to each other. This classic is on television as much as 'Full House'. Don't miss it, and always remember to 'Shake your groove thing!!!' | 0 |
This film is the worst film, but it ranks very high for me. It is how a slasher movie should be. It takes place at a university in which there only seems to be a handful of students. The teachers are dumber than a sack of hammers. It is filled with good Catholic priest, sexually repressed humor. Bad hair, bad clothes. The dialogue is so cliched it is hard to believe that I was able to predict lines in quotes. The slashings have some creativity and seem to revolve around stabbing people in the genitalia. A lack of continuity in the soundtrack and characters that deserve to die because they are so bad, I recommend this film for a fun time. Get a case of cheap beer and some friends, watch it and laugh. | 1 |
There may something poetically right in seeing dentists suffer. Suffer they do, in this dreary, truly dreadful film, but they cause the audience to undergo pain of the non-dental variety too. If you ever wanted to see a movie full of screaming kids, barfing kids, sick kids, lots of long, long meaningful glances, a deadpan wife and a concerned husband: it's all here for you. Boring, overlong, it stands out as one of those examples that scream out: why? Is there a saving grace? Yes, there is. There is a short scene from Nabucco, with some pretty good singing. Save your money, or if it's on TV or cable, save your time. You can always read a book or make an omelette. | 1 |
I just finished watching this movie. It wasn't ridiculously bad, but I'm really disappointed with it. I'm not really sure why someone would make a movie like this. It was marginally entertaining, but I feel like the people making it had a lot of disagreements on what they were making. Monday, the writer was in charge; Tuesday, the director; Wednesday, the guy who gets the coffee; etc. It almost seems like they really wanted to make a couple different movies, but only had the time and money to make one.<br /><br />Someone else commented that the acting was really good, but I'd have to disagree. Then again, if the actors were able to keep a straight face during the filming, perhaps they're better actors than I give them credit for.<br /><br />The back of the DVD gives the impression that the movie would be a mystery... something along the lines of a historical Law and Order or National Treasure. It starts off like that, but then, out of nowhere it takes a turn towards a bad episode of the Twilight Zone, or... what was that other show that wasn't as good... A bad episode of The Outer Limits.<br /><br />My main complaint about the movie is that it is just so played out. There's the evil guy with spiked white hair. There's the love interest, who, when she first appears, the wind actually blows through her hair. Seriously. Once you realize it's a Christian movie, the end is also pretty easy to spot.<br /><br />The cinematography was poorly done, especially in the opening scenes - way to put your best foot forward. It wasn't atrocious for most of the movie, but there was the occasional ridiculously bad shot of an old lady, praying, arms up in a dark room while lightening is striking - the sort of thing that just makes you a little bit embarrassed to be watching the movie. | 1 |
Cops Logan Alexander and Debbie Rochon escort five black juvenile delinquents cross country and end up stranded out in the sticks when their van breaks down. After a deadly run-in with a racist, white trash bitch with a shotgun (played by the director), the survivors take refuge in the house of a blind voodoo priestess. One of the teens senselessly uses a spell to call up Killjoy, who finally shows up about midway through this bore in a subpar make-up job and bigger, greasier 'fro that looks like it could slide off his head at any moment. He then proceeds to kill off the stupid characters while spouting some of the worst one-liners heard since Hee Haw was canceled.<br /><br />The acting from the 'teens' is terrible, the dialogue even worse, the FX stink and it looks a lot cheaper than the first film. Although I enjoyed him in his earlier Troma films, Trent Haaga (trying to imitate Jim Carrey here) is awful and no match for the hyperactive overemoting of Angel Vargas in KILLJOY 1 (which at least had a few dumb laughs).<br /><br />Yet another nail in the coffin for Full Moon studios, whose reputation as a fun direct-to-vid franchise has completely vanished since the TRANCERS/PUPPET MASTER days. | 1 |
I first heard about this film about 20 years ago when I was a kid in grade school(!), it just so happened that I was thumbing through the encyclopedias in the classroom one day, and under the entry for movies (or cinema, I don't remember), were several stills for different movies from mainstream to experimental, and one of them shown on the page was a still for OffOn. It really intrigued me, since it stood out the most on the page (it was a still from the film of the scene with the eye with other elements superimposed over it).<br /><br />About 18 or so years later, the public library here where I live had available for checkout the whole 4-DVD set of 'Treasures of American Film Archives' released by the National Film Preservation Foundation. So when I was reading the notes on the DVD cases for the set, I was quite pleasantly surprised to see that OffOn was on one of the discs. After all these years, I could finally see the film! After viewing it, it slightly wasn't was I was expecting it to be (it tended to be a more organic-looking film, not that that's a bad thing, but I was expecting it to have a more electronic aesthetic), but it was still an impressive film, IMHO, considering the techniques Scott Bartlett used to make the film, including hand-tinting the film itself, and using video equipment for some of the film's scenes (filmed off of a video monitor), giving it a more distressed, lo-res look.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, the techniques used in this film were quite ground-breaking for 1972. That's why it's still one of my favorite short/experimental films, and a creative inspiration for me as well... | 0 |
Whenever I see most reviews it's called 'a misfire for Eddie Murphy'. These critics want to take a look at some of the stuff he's doing these days, and maybe soften their stance in retrospect... 'The Golden Child' is not highbrow entertainment, but thanks to some of the cast it breaths new life into old clichés, and gives Murphy one of his best roles. I don't understand the pervading lack of 'love' for its efforts, at all. Perhaps it was released at a time when the establishment had grown weary of knockabout, thrill-a-minute adventures? Steven Spielberg started it with Indiana Jones; it's unfair to make this one a scapegoat when what is possibly its biggest sin is also utterly harmless. There's nothing necessarily wrong with trying to capitalise on trends.<br /><br />Yes it's silly, but even an occasional observer should be able to understand that 'ridiculous' is where Hollywood's idea of mysticism begins and ends. What's more important than believability with a story like this is that the audience have entertaining tour guides on hand to show them the mysterious sights. Michael Ritchie and Eddie Murphy fit the bill for this capacity just fine. My advice to you is to buy the ticket and take the ride. | 0 |
Finally watched this shocking movie last night, and what a disturbing mindf**ker it is, and unbelievably bloody and some unforgettable scenes, and a total assault on the senses. Looks like a movie from the minds of Lynch (specifically ERASERHEAD), Buttgereit, and even a little of 'Begotten'. What this guy does to his pregnant sister is beyond belief, but then again, did it really happen or is it his brain's left and right sides doing battle. That's the main theme of this piece of art, to draw a fine line between fantasy and reality, and what would happen if the right side of the brain that dreams and fantasizes overtakes the reasoning and logical left side. And the music in this movie is unbelievable, a kind of electronic score that is absolutely perfect. Even though this movie is totally shocking and pretty disgusting in some of the most extreme scenes (including hard core sex) you will ever see in any movie, I viewed it as a work of art, and loved it. And that music still amazes me, I have to try and find the soundtrack if is available. Watching 'Subconscious Cruelty' is a real event, and not something the viewer will easily forget. And a note to gorehounds, this is a must-have.<br /><br />Warning... Be careful buying this movie, because some prints have fogging on the graphic sex scenes and extreme gore, especially the copies from the Japanese release. | 0 |
I saw most of 'My Bollywood Bride' today at the IAAC film festival in New York and had to leave the theater due to feelings of nausea welling up within me. I've seen Bollywood movies, and I've seen satires of Bollywood movies. This movie couldn't decide which one it wanted to be, so it ended up being a joke on itself.<br /><br />It seems to have been liberally copied from movies like Bride and Prejudice and Bollywood Calling, and what a sloppy, lazy job at that. How can Bollywood ever be weaned off of its determination to stick to overused, well-trodden scripts? Is there no one who can bring to the screen the millions of real, fascinating stories that surely exist and transpire in the land of a billion people? The over-smart auto driver, the cow on the street, gratuitous scenes of foreign locations, pointless scenes of Mumbai streets, they're all in there. Every possible cliché about India has been faithfully included. So sickeningly predictable. ugh!!! Acting performances are weak across the board except for Neha Dubey, who is talented and beautiful. One wonders why she would pick a project like this. | 1 |
The bad out takes from 'Reign of Fire' strung together, without any real story.<br /><br />Dean Cain tries to be a real actor, and fails again.<br /><br />In the end the dragons quit in disgust.<br /><br />BARF! | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.