review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Imagine you have just been on a plane for 18 hours. You have been on a business trip to South Africa. You are a high-paid professional. You've lived in the US for 20 years. You are in your thirties, you have a wife a little boy and another baby on the way. One thing, even though you have a green card, you are still Egyptian. On transit you are asked to come with 2 security guards, next thing you know you are overpowered, hooded and chained and after a brief ( but still reasonably civil) interrogation you are to be rendered! This is what happens to Anwar el Ibrahimi at the beginning of the movie. His is a story of pain and ( literally )torture. It's one of several story lines. One follows his wife's attempts to get more information. One follows the (cold) bureaucrats behind the rendition. Another story deals with the family of the man who leads the interrogation of Anwar el Ibrahimi. There are some other stories too and by the end they all neatly come together. Though the more famous actors like Reese Witherspoon ( as the distraught pregnant wife ) Jake Gyllenhaal ( as the CIA rookie forced to watch the interrogation in Northern Africa) and Meryl Streep ( as CIA hotshot Corine Whitman) it is really the more unknown actors that carry the story and give it it's heart. For me the actor playing the unfortunate Mr El Ibrahimi ( Omar Metwally ) was the heart and soul of this movie. His portrayal of a man in distress was shockingly well done. It's almost as if he was being tortured for real! Also Israeli actor Yigal Naor was very impressive as the part worried family-man and part extremely cruel chief of torture. Hard to watch and not exactly fun, but still very worthwhile. | 0 |
Slausen's Lost Oasis. . . a place for food, fun. . . and MURDER! After a guy disappears on his way to a gas station, a group of her friends head out on a trip to search for him. They come across a wax museum where they think their friend might have ended up. Unfortunately for the friends, however, the owner of the roadside attraction possesses the power to control his wax mannequins and use them for evil. One by one, the tourists are stalked down and killed by Slausen and his legion of wax dummies. Can the friends escape or will they fall to the same fate as their lost friend? Following in the footsteps (and twisting them around) of the great classic wax films (House of Wax, Mystery of the Wax Museum), Tourist Trap takes the slasher genre to a whole new level of strange and fascinating with its bizarre story and style. As far as character development, action, dialogue, flow, etc., it seems to be just a basic slasher flick. But, it goes far beyond that as the director takes control of the plot and moves it to the supernatural thriller it is. The acting ranges from acceptable (from the main cast) to very good (from backwoods-showman Mr. Slausen (played by Western-legend Chuck Connors)). The writing moves well and the dialogue is well structured, but there are some flaws in logic as the film moves deeper into the story. Also, some scenes are a bit silly, like the moaning-mannequin attack on Becky. It's nothing, however, that would detract from the effect of the film. As one would expect from a film about wax dummies, it is full of the endless creepiness supplied by the mannequins. It's strange that a (mostly) inanimate object can just sit still and somehow be so unsettling. . . perhaps it's the human likeness, or the blank stare, or the fact that you know it's about to spring an attack. . . whatever it is, the dolls are extremely spooky and that effect is used very well throughout the entirety of the film. As far as slashers go, it's one of the best, and it stands as one of the creepiest films I've ever seen.<br /><br />Obligatory Slasher Elements:<br /><br />- Violence/Gore: The film is full of some cool deaths. The gore isn't excessive, but it's done well and leaves it as being realistic.<br /><br />- Sex/Nudity: There is an extended skinny-dipping scene with the very attractive lead females (though 'very attractive' barely begins to describe the ravishing future-angel Tanya Roberts) but it's all a tease as the girls remain mostly underwater. They do remain scantily clad throughout the film, however.<br /><br />- Cool Killer(s): Creepy is just the beginning of Slausen and his mannequins. One of the best killers in the slasher subgenre.<br /><br />- Scares/Suspense: From the opening scene on, the film maintains a great blend of the creepiness of the mannequins, jump scares from the attacks, and a strong level of suspense in the stranded situation. . . it's all very well done to make for a genuinely scary film.<br /><br />- Mystery: Well, mystery wasn't really the point of the film. . . just the meaning behind all of it is what matters.<br /><br />- Awkward Dance Scene: All these cute girls and not a single dance. Shame.<br /><br />Final verdict: 8/10. See this creepy slasher!<br /><br />-AP3- | 0 |
I suppose that any novel that's as much of a downer as Moby Dick would not find much favor with Depression era audiences who had enough of their own troubles. But any resemblance to the classic Herman Melville novel is a pure coincidence. <br /><br />In fact half of the film is a prequel to the main story as we know it, not that too much of it was kept for the film. We first meet Ahab Creely (he's got a last name and a brother) as one happy go lucky soul with two legs and intentions to marry Joan Bennett who is Father Mapple's daughter. That brother Derek, played by Lloyd Hughes, also wants to marry Bennett.<br /><br />John Barrymore is Ahab in an over the top performance. Barrymore had not quite mastered the sound cinema and he gave out with all the silent era histrionics plus a stage voice that would have shaken the rafters of any movie theater this film was playing in.<br /><br />We see Ahab lose his leg to the great whale Moby Dick and I have to say the amputation scene was pretty gruesome. Of course this was all before the Code. Still I'm sure 1930 audiences shuddered.<br /><br />After that the story of Ahab's hunt for the whale that he thinks made him unsightly in Joan Bennett's eyes. That is not exactly Melville's motivation, in fact there are no women characters in Moby Dick as he wrote it.<br /><br />One of the things Melville did was invest the crew of Ahab's ship the Pequod with personalities. Other than Queequeg the cannibal harpooner the names are there, but not the personalities. Starbuck and Stubbs might as well be Smith and Jones.<br /><br />I'd see this version of Moby Dick strictly for curiosity and nothing else. | 1 |
Despite the previous reviewer's screed, this is a well paced and interesting documentary with lots of clips from classic 1950s sci-fi films that influenced Spielberg, Lucas and others in their more recent efforts. I agree that Spielberg's films aren't even in the same league as the films discussed here, such as William Cameron Menzies' brilliant INVADERS FROM MARS, to name just one of the many titles examined, but this is still a remarkably good overview of 1950s paranoid sci-fi. Yes, it turns into a commercial for the tepid remake of WAR OF THE WORLDS during the last fifteen minutes; you can turn that off. The rest is surprisingly good, and it's nice to see contemporary filmmakers remember the films that inspired them, even if they can't begin to match the originals. | 0 |
Harry Langdon's 'Saturday Afternoon' is often ranked among the greatest silent comedies, at least where short subjects are concerned, and therefore may come as a bit of a letdown for some. Unlike some of the other recognized classics such as Keaton's 'Cops' or Chaplin's 'The Immigrant' this film is in some respects a familiar, conventional situation comedy and doesn't offer much in the way of belly laughs; one may even wonder whether Langdon belongs in such rarefied company. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it's a perfectly charming comedy in its minor-key way, and Harry is fascinating to watch.<br /><br />For a modern viewer raised on TV sitcoms the plot of 'Saturday Afternoon' may suggest The Honeymooners or its many spin-offs: two dim guys, one of whom is married and very much under his wife's thumb, try to sneak out with a couple of good-time girls for a fun afternoon; but everything goes wrong, and they wind up having to fight the girls' tough guy boyfriends. Does this sound familiar? And perhaps a little dreary? Well, the premise was already shopworn when this film was made, but beyond that nothing about Langdon was typical. He was odd, starting with the fact that he looked like a middle-aged baby who was half asleep. Any Freudians who catch 'Saturday Afternoon' will have a field day with the scenes between this timid, pudgy-faced baby-man and his stern, gently domineering mommy-wife. When Harry tries to hide money under the rug but she catches him in the act and forces him to hand it over, you'd swear you're watching an interaction between a 6 year-old boy and his Mama . . . and maybe that's why Harry Langdon gave some people the creeps, and still does.<br /><br />But he's a compelling screen figure, and it's not what he does so much as the way he does it. In that scene with the coins under the rug, for instance, Harry finds the coins by placing one foot before the other, carefully, like a tightrope walker, counting off his paces until he finds the right spot, and his technique is hypnotic. Langdon moved like no one else. Whether or not he makes you laugh, the guy is mesmerizing, seemingly in a world of his own. Where the plot of his films is concerned Harry is curiously passive, and almost never drives the story forward himself. In the finale of 'Saturday Afternoon,' when the big fistfight is taking place, Harry's co-star Vernon Dent is in the thick of the action, but Harry is in a daze for much of the time, and winds up sort of punch-drunk between two cars (sitting on the running board of one, but with his feet on the other) while they race through the streets. It's a memorable image, and, as the critic Walter Kerr wrote, it encapsulates Langdon's screen persona quite perfectly: he's a passive figure who somehow finds himself in the middle of frantic action, blinking sleepily while the world rushes past. It's also worth noting that Langdon and Dent, who worked together frequently, have a rapport in this movie that suggests a blueprint Laurel & Hardy would follow when they teamed up a year or so later. Langdon's style was a likely influence on Stan Laurel, especially here.<br /><br />'Saturday Afternnon' and its star may not be for everyone, but the film is well worth a look, and you might find that Langdon makes an impression that's hard to shake. | 0 |
REALLY??? <br /><br />I am truly amazed to see the glowing reviews here! <br /><br />This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is one big pathetic, grainy, cliché. I would have laughed out loud, and a lot, but was on a date with an ex-military guy. I could not hide my other response, BOREDOM. Yes, I think my date, a flat-line 'good old boy', liked it. That's not a compliment. I know an actor wants to work.... Fine for the others. But Ralph, come on.<br /><br />It was a painful tease from Ralph. I vote a 2 only because Ralph looked SO STUNNING. But I must plead, Ralph, how could you? And, why?? <br /><br />I'm going to go watch The End of The Affair to heal and recover now.... C1 | 1 |
The author of numerous novels, plays, and short stories, W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) was considered among the world's great authors during his lifetime, and although his reputation has faded over the years his work continues to command critical respect and a large reading public. Published in 1944, THE RAZOR'S EDGE is the tale of a World War I veteran whose search for spiritual enlightenment flies in the face of shallow western values. It was Maugham's last major novel--and it was immensely popular. Given that the novel's conflicts are internalized spiritual and philosophical issues, it was also an extremely odd choice for a film version--but Darryl F. Zannuck of 20th Century Fox fell in love with the book and snapped up the screen rights shortly after publication.<br /><br />According to film lore, THE RAZOR'S EDGE was to be directed by the legendary George Cukor from a screenplay by Maugham himself--and it does seem that Maugham wrote an adaptation. When the film went into production, however, Cukor was replaced by Edmund Goulding, a director less known for artistic touch than a workman-like manner, and the Maugham script was replaced with one by Lamar Trotti, the author of such memorable screenplays as THE OXBOW INCIDENT. Tyrone Power, recently returned from military service during World War II, was cast as the spiritually conflicted Larry Darrell; Gene Tierney, one of the great beauties of her era, was cast as socialite Isabell Bradley. The supporting cast was particularly notable, including Herbert Marshall, Anne Baxter, Clifton Webb, Lucille Watson, and Elsa Lanchester. Both budget and shooting schedule were lavish, and when the film debuted in 1946 it was greatly admired by public and critics alike.<br /><br />But time has a way of putting things into perspective. Seen today, THE RAZOR'S EDGE is indeed a beautifully produced film--but that aside the absolute best one can say for it is that it achieves a fairly consistent mediocrity. As in most cases, the major problem is the script. Although it is reasonably close to Maugham's novel in terms of plot, it is noticeably off the mark in terms of character and it completely fails to capture the fundamental issues that drive the story. We are told that Larry is in search of enlightenment; we are told that he receives it; we are told he acts on it--but in spite of the occasional and largely superficial comment we are never really told anything about the spiritual, artistic, philosophical, and intellectual processes behind any of it. We are most particularly never told anything significant about the nature of the enlightenment itself. It has the effect of cutting off the story at its knees.<br /><br />We are left with the shell of Maugham's plot, which centers on the relationship between Larry and Isabell, a woman Larry loves but leaves due to the growing ideological riff that opens up between them. Tyrone Power and Gene Tierney were more noted for physical beauty than talent, but both could turn in good performances when they received solid directorial and script support. Unfortunately, that does not happen here; they are extremely one-note and Power is greatly miscast to boot. Fortunately, the supporting cast is quite good, with Herbert Marshall, Clifton Webb, and Lucille Watson particularly so; the then-famous performance by Anne Baxter, however, has not worn as well as one would hope.<br /><br />With a running time of just under two and a half hours, the film also feels unnecessarily long. There is seemingly endless cocktail party-type banter, and indeed the entire India sequence (which reads as faintly hilarious) would have been better cut entirely--an odd situation, for this is the very sequence intended as the crux of the entire film. Regardless of the specific scene, it all just seems to go on and on to no actual point.<br /><br />As for the DVD itself, the film has not been remastered, but the print is extremely good, and while the bonus package isn't particularly memorable neither is noticeably poor. When all is said and done, I give THE RAZOR'S EDGE four stars for production values and everyone's willingness to take on the material--but frankly, this a film best left Power and Tierney fans, who will enjoy it for the sake of the stars, and those whose ideas about spiritual enlightenment are as vague as the film itself.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 1 |
I thought the movie started out a bit slow and disjointed for the first hour. However, it became more absorbing, fascinating, and surprising in its last two hours. So, while it starts out like a cheap horror film, it evolves into a beautiful and wonderful fantasy film.<br /><br />Bridget Fonda stands out as the Snow Queen. This was her best performance and it is sad that this apparently was her last performance, as she has not acted in the last 7 years. She absolutely personifies both the beauty and coldness of Winter.<br /><br />My daughter, age 14, found the film a bit frightening, so if you are showing it as family entertainment, please stay with your child and reassure her or him that it is just a fairy tale fantasy and not to take it too seriously.<br /><br />It is really one of the best fantasy films that I have seen in a long time, slightly better than 'Eragon' or any of the 'Lord of the Rings.' It is about as good as 'The Golden Compass'. | 0 |
Have no illusions, this IS a morality story. Granger is the troubled ex-buffalo hunter, tempted back to the plains one more time by kill-crazed Taylor. Granger can see the end is near, and feels deeply for the cost of the hunt-on the herds, the Indians and the land itself. Taylor, on the other hand admittedly equates killing buffalo, or Indians to 'being with a woman.' While Granger's role of the tortured hunter is superb, it's Taylor who steals the show, as the demented, immoral 'everyman' out for the fast buck and the goodtimes. There's not a lot of bang-bang here, but the story moves along quickly, and we are treated to a fine character performance by Nolan. The theme of this story is just as poignant today, as in the 1800s-man's relationship to the land and what's on it, and racism. Considering when this was made, the Censors must have been wringing their hankies during the scenes in the 'bawdy house', Taylor's relationship with the squaw, and much of the dialogue. Although downbeat, this is truly a great western picture. | 0 |
I got this on a double feature DVD called 'Scream Theater' and it's no doubt one of the most terrible movies I've ever seen. And I've seen some really bad ones. School's out, and of three girls (who if they're teenagers I'd eat my hat) are talking about 'non-stop party', so of course they all go to the house of the girl whose parents are the most strict for a slumber party. Meanwhile, a psychotic has escaped the local bug-house where one girl's father works & is on the loose with sharp objects and wearing green scrubs, and sporting wide-open eyes...I guess that's to show he's bonkers. Of course since he has a bone to pick with that particular doctor off he goes to his house, the location of which is apparently common knowledge. In the meantime, some dumb-jock types are slamming down beers and out to scare the girls, and of course the loony shows up too and starts cutting throats. And that's about it, as the heavy metal music chugs along in the background. Or, maybe that's not it, but really, that's all you need to know. Unless you spend your time perpetually stoned or drunk, you'll find little of interest here, and even if you are wasted most of the time, you'll still probably find your intelligence insulted. 1 out of 10. | 1 |
This movie is a lot of fun. What makes it great especially are two things: one is the straightforward way the characters embrace the stereotypes, with discussions of their costumes and superpowers. There's an endearing earnestness to the parody that's very appealing; the second is basic sweetness of the characters and the quality of the chemistry. Claire Forlani deserves particular note as the object of Mr. Furious's desires. There's a boatload of talent here. I realize some with high expectations may have been disappointed, but this movie is a lot of fun, and kind of sweet. | 0 |
Besides the fact that it was one of the few movies that I ever shed a tear over (bye-bye manhood), this is one of the most beautifully crafted Indian films that has ever been made. From the finely crafted sets, to those haunting looks Meena Kumari gives, no one can ever forget it. The music of Pakeezah is amazing, all the more if you can understand the sublime poetry, and is definitely one of those 'OMG, 5 minutes another song' movies. You get the feeling of how trapped Sahibjaan is in among all the amazing jewelery she wears and fountained court yard she casually walks past.<br /><br />A parody of all the dreams you've ever had.......... | 0 |
(Spoilers) 'Cash Crop' goes something like this. Down-on-their-luck farmers grow pot to make ends meet. DEA agent blows into town. Farmers hide the pot. DEA agent leaves town. End of story.<br /><br />This flick features solid performances by some second tier actors, mediocre direction, and a so-so screenplay...but it ain't got no story. And since the story is the foundation of every drama, 'Cash Crop' is an utter failure. Too boring to recommend. | 1 |
Too fractured to be enjoyable, too loose to be interesting and too clumsily photographed to be tolerable MR LONELY is an interesting idea ruined by really bad film making. Like a Ken Russell film at its worst, or DAY OF THE LOCUST remade by amateurs, MR LONELY might have seemed like a good idea on a few scraps of paper (no script, you see) and a free holiday to somewhere, but in the end we have a widescreen film that seems as if it was made by film students whose parents told them that EVERYTHING they did was a brilliant creation. Or did I get the film maker right? MR LONELY is a waste of resources, trying to be (gawd!) quirky and deliberately off kilter. It ends up being annoying and indulgent.. and pointless. What's the point of going to a commune in Scotland? What a stupid idea in this film about Hollywood delusion. Maybe Korine wanted to remake GODSPELL ... well the result is GOD-AWFUL. Oh and there is some subplot like leftover footage from FITZCARRALDO including Werner Herzog, nuns and a plane. Add slo-mo drifting and violin music all wistful and melancholy, add James Fox who seems to hope he might be seen as daring (like in PERFORMANCE) and the result is amphetamine fantasy alphabet soup in widescreen. It might have been fun to film but the result on the screen is a mess. Imagine American PIE BAND CAMP with food poisoning. | 1 |
'Sleeping With the Enemy' is a predictable, 'been there before' thriller that never seems to find any inspiration no matter how desperately cast and crew try. I can't believe a bunch of my friends talked me into seeing this at the movies some sixteen years ago.<br /><br />The complete lack of originality from the Ronald Bass screenplay (based upon the Nancy Price novel) does not help, nor does the stale direction of Joseph Ruben or the very average performance from Julia Roberts. The supporting cast including Patrick Bergin and Kevin Anderson do little to help.<br /><br />There really isn't a lot to say. Just give it a miss.<br /><br />Sunday, April 14, 1991 - Hoyts Cinema Centre Melbourne | 1 |
I have some great memories watching 'Robin of Sherwood' on TV as a kid (but I think I only saw Michael Praed´s episodes, by some reason). And recently my brother bought the new released DVD-boxes of the complete series. It was great to see it again, and it is the best of all the Robin Hood movies and TV-series. The cast is great, and the locations mixed with Clannad´s music adds this very special feeling. I personally think that Praed is the best of the two Robins, but Jason Connery was a great choice to continue the series with. Ray Winstone, Nicolas Grace and Robert Addie is terrific in their roles as Will Scarlet, The Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisburne. It´s a pity that a fourth season never got made, and I´ve also heard that the writer Richard Carpenter actually had plans to make a feature film following the events of the series. Robert of Huntingdon (Connery) could finally have married Marion (Judi Trott), or maybe Herne the Hunter could resurrect Robin of Loxley (Praed), and he could take his revenge against the sheriff. As have been mentioned before; if the producers of 'Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves' would have been smart, they would have got the cast from 'Robin of Sherwood', and made the movie to a sort of sequel to the series. As Ray Winstone puts it in the DVD bonusmaterial, it would have been great to see them as old men, just like in Sean Connery´s 'Robin and Marian'. Who knows, maybe we will se more of this perfect interpretation of the legend in the future. In any case, we can now watch our favorite series over and over again! | 0 |
Some people may call 'Cooley High' the same sort of thing as 'American Graffiti', but I wouldn't. For starters, in 'AG', everyone was white, whereas in 'CH' they're all black. Moreover, this one has a Motown soundtrack. Specifically, the movie focuses on several working-class African-American students in 1964 Chicago and their antics. The movie deals mainly with home life and relationships. In their apartments, we see that there's never any dad around. But these young men always know how to live life to the fullest.<br /><br />One thing that really distinguishes this movie from most other portrayals of black people is that the teenagers in this movie are portrayed as very responsible, worrying about missing school. Two really funny scenes are the gorilla scene, and the one white guy in the movie. But overall, the main star is the soundtrack. It is truly one of the best soundtracks in movie history (we even have it on vinyl here at home). A classic in the real sense of the word. | 0 |
When John Wayne filmed his Alamo story he had built a complete Alamo set in the town of Brackettsville, Texas which is still there and quite the tourist attraction. As long as that stands, we will have a set for future Alamo interpretations for the screen. One such with Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton was done in this century.<br /><br />But I would say The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory is the best Alamo story filmed I've seen. John Wayne's film is a good one if over-hyped, but it's a John Wayne film with the story redone to fill parameters of screen character of John Wayne. Brian Keith plays Davy Crockett here and gives a fine interpretation of the rollicking frontier character he was.<br /><br />It's a lot closer to Professor Lon Tinkle's book on The Alamo than the Wayne film was and having read the book years ago I can attest to that. Tinkle's book is listed as the source in both films, but Tinkle who was alive back then when the Wayne film was done and he was not pleased with the result.<br /><br />Alec Baldwin was around the right age for young William Barrett Travis, the idealistic freedom fighter who incidentally was a slave owner. Back in the day no one saw the ironic contradiction in that. One thing that was not explored and hasn't been was Travis's hyperactive sex drive. He was the Casanova of the Southwest, he even kept a salacious diary of his libidinal conquests.<br /><br />But the man who always gets the whitewash is Jim Bowie, played here by James Arness. He was a hero at the Alamo to be sure, but his career before the Alamo was that of a scoundrel. He was a smuggler, a slave trader, an all around con man selling land he had questionable title to. But his heroic death certainly redeemed him. No hint of that is in Arness's portrayal nor any others I've seen of Bowie on the screen. And of course he did design the Bowie knife, done to his specifications. That man needed such a weapon.<br /><br />However the main asset that The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory has is a full blown portrayal of Antonio De Lopez De Santa Anna, the president of Mexico who comes up personally to put down the rebellion stirred up by the North Americans who've come to settle in Texas at Mexican invitation. Unfortunately those Americans came with some pre-conceived notions about liberty that just hadn't made it that far south, at least liberty for white people. Raul Julia plays Santa Anna who remains an even more controversial figure in Mexican history. He was also quite the scoundrel, but he was the best Mexico produced until a genuine reformer named Benito Juarez came along.<br /><br />This film was the farewell performance of Lorne Greene who appears briefly as General Sam Houston. Greene's not quite my conception of Houston, he really was way too old for the part, Houston was in his early forties in 1836, he was not yet the patriarch of Texas. But within the limits imposed on him, Greene does a fine job.<br /><br />For a romantic telling of The Alamo tale by all means see John Wayne's version, but for historical content I recommend this film highly. | 0 |
After watching this movie, I have nothing but contempt for any of those who were involved in the making of this abysmal film. For one, as a general comment, the storyline was literally unbelievable and filled with incredible clichés all around. The same obviously goes for the dialogue which panders to the lowest common denominator and manages to offer absolutely zero unpredictable original lines. The acting was terrible as well with Kane showing, throughout the entire movie, at the very most 3 separate and distinct emotions. Even the use of modern special effects failed, as each prop was easily distinguishable from its real life counterpart. Overall, I would not recommend for anyone to even think about viewing this feature, as it will most surely waste 83(not even 90!) minutes of your life. | 1 |
Leslie Sands' stilted play 'Deadlock' becomes a poor-choice vehicle for Bette Davis and Gary Merrill, just after their joint-success in 'All About Eve'. After killing her spouse, a scheming woman is visited by her husband's best friend, who passes himself off as her husband once others begin stopping by the house. Irving Rapper, one of Bette's best directors from her peak years, is sadly unable to elevate this ridiculous material, in which Davis is curiously aloof and restrained until the outrageous finale (where she thankfully pulls out all the stops). Production and supporting cast strictly second-rate; only for Bette Davis completists. *1/2 from **** | 1 |
I am one of the biggest fans of silent comedians and have probably reviewed more Buster Keaton films for IMDb than any other person. Every film he made from the beginning of his career to the early 30s with only two exceptions have I reviewed, so you can tell I am a major fan. It's because of this that I found this episode so painful and hard to watch. I loved this man's films and kept thinking 'Buster, how could you?!'. Well, now that I think about it, I guess I can see why Buster Keaton starred in this god-awful episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE. He'd lost much of his fortune after a messy divorce in the early 1930s and his film career as a leading man was long passed as well. Now, in the 1960s, Keaton needed the money and loved his resurgence in popularity so he whored himself out to anyone willing to pay--appearing in Beach films and this mess of an episode of a great series.<br /><br />The biggest problem with the episode is that it is just terribly written and Buster deserved much better. The show is supposed to be funny but isn't and instead of a homage to silent films is just painful to watch--particularly with Keaton putting that stupid time travel helmet on as well as all the poorly executed slapstick. Do yourself a favor, SKIP THIS ONE--it's a pale imitation of the greatness that once was Keaton's career!!! | 1 |
I grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid. It was like Get Smart for kids. Bumbling boob can't solve any case and all the work is done by the walking talking dog Brain and his niece Penny. I had heard the live action movie was decent so I checked it out at the library. I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.<br /><br />Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget. His voice was all wrong. The girl who played Penny looked nothing like the cartoon Penny. She is brunette where the cartoon version was blonde with pigtails. But she does do a decent job given what she had to work with. Dabney Coleman gives a good performance as Cheif Quimby. Saldy he never hid in any odd place or had exploding messages tossed at him accidently by Gadget.<br /><br />The gadget mobile was wrong. It never talked in the series and it did fine. Why did they do this?<br /><br />Gadget was too intelligent in this film. In the show he was a complete idiot. Here he had a halfway decent intellect. It would have worked better if he was a moron.<br /><br />Also the completely butchered the catchphrase. Borderick says 'Wowser'. It is and should always be 'Wowsers'. It sounds lame with out the 's'. I got upset when they showed the previews and they didn't have the correct phrase.<br /><br />The ONLY decent gags were during the credits. The lacky for Claw is in front of a support group for recovering henchmen/sidekicks. Seated in the audience is Mr. T, Richard Keil aka Jaws of Bond movie fame, a Herve Villacheze look alike, Oddjob, Kato and more. This is about the only part I laughed at.<br /><br />The other is at the end where Penny is checking out here gadget watch and tells brain to say somethin. Don Adams voices the dog saying that 'Brain isn't in right now. Please leave your name at the sound of the woof. Woof.' of course this isn't laugh out loud funny, just a nice piece of nostalgia to hear Adams in the movie. He should have at least voiced the stupid car.<br /><br />Kids will like this, anyone over 13 won't.<br /><br /> | 1 |
The first two sequences of this movie set up the two conflicts: the -thematic- conflict between the soldier Todd and his suppressed humanity, and the -physical- conflict between Todd and his bio-engineered replacement. Both sequences are quite gripping in different ways.<br /><br />Peoples' screenplay falters somewhat by resolving the first of these arcs half-way through the movie, which means the second half is little more than a straightforward action romp.<br /><br />Nonetheless, kudos to the makers for creating an genre action piece with heart and even a bit of soul and especially to Kurt Russell who conveys much with very little.<br /><br />Not a great film, but one worth seeing. | 0 |
I first saw this when I was around 7. I remembered what I believed to be a vague outline of what took place. Turns out now, 15 years later, that I remembered everything with great accuracy because it seems the writers never got beyond making an outline to the story. There is no plot to this movie/cartoon. There is no character development, no back story, no character arcs, nothing. The good guys do things because they are good, while the bad guys do things solely because they are bad. One unintentionally hilarious part is when someone who you would think to be important dies and nobody cares in the least. They just shrug their shoulders and move on. There's barely any dialogue either. If you cut out the fight scenes and the running scenes, you lose 70% of the movie.<br /><br />Watch this because you want to see some good animation and for no other reason. Or if you like to look at scantily clad hot cartoon chicks (or scantily clad hot cartoon dudes). | 1 |
I rented this movie from the library (it's hard to find for good reason) purely out of curiosity. I'm a huge Plath fan and this movie was a complete disappointment. The Bell Jar (1979) is by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The script is horrible, not because it strays from the original novel text, but because it strays without focus or intent. The scenes are ill-constructed and don't lead the viewer anywhere. What's with the hokey voice over of Plath's poetry? Lady Lazarus has little do with Greenwood's situation; Plath's poetry was completely misused. Marilyn Hassett is completely unbelievable as Esther Greenwood (or any 20 year old for that matter) partly due to casting (she was 32 during filming, the age Plath was when she DIED) and partly due to the fact that she can't act. Hassett is all emotion, no craft, no skill. The direction is mediocre; the director simply covers what's there, which isn't much. The only reason I'm giving the film a 1 is because 0 isn't an option. Sorry Sylvia, you'll have to wait for someone else to adapt your fine work into something more fitting. | 1 |
The story of Ned Kelly has been enshrouded in myth and exaggeration for time out of hand, and this film is no exception. What ensures Ned Kelly has a permanent place in history is the effort he went to in order to even the odds against the policemen hunting him. During several battles, he marched out wearing plates of beaten iron, off which the bullets available to police at the time would harmlessly bounce. Indeed, it is only because there were a few bright sparks among the Victorian police who noticed he hadn't plated up his legs that he was captured and hanged. The story has been told in schools and histories of Australia for so long that some permutations of the story have, ironically, become boring. The more the stories try to portray Kelly as some inhuman or superhuman monster, the less people pay attention.<br /><br />Which is where this adaptation of Our Sunshine, a novel about the Kelly legend, excels. Rather than attempting to portray a Ned Kelly who is as unfeeling as the armour he wore, the film quickly establishes him as a human being. Indeed, the reversal of the popular legend, showing the corruption of the Victorian police and the untenable situation of the colonists, goes a long way to make this film stand out from the crowd. Here, Ned Kelly is simply a human being living in a time and place where in order to be convicted of murder, one simply had to be the nearest person to the corpse when a policeman found it. No, I am not making that up. About the only area where the film errs is by exaggerating the Irish versus English mentality of the battles. While the Kelly gang were distinctly Irish, Australia has long been a place where peoples of wildly varied ethnicities have mixed together almost seamlessly (a scene with some Chinese migrants highlights this).<br /><br />Heath Ledger does an amazing job of impersonating Australia's most notorious outlaw. It is only because of the fame he has found in other films that the audience is aware they are watching Ledger and not Kelly himself. Orlando Bloom has finally found a role in which he doesn't look completely lost without his bow, and Geoffrey Rush's appearance as the leader of the police contingent at Glenrowan goes to show why he is one of the most revered actors in that desolate little island state. But it is Naomi Watts, appearing as Julia Cook, who gets a bit of a bum deal in this film. Although the film basically implies that Cook was essentially the woman in Ned Kelly's life, but you would not know that from the minimal screen time that she gets here. Indeed, a lot of the film's hundred and ten minutes feels more freeze-dried than explorative. Once the element of police corruption is established, in fact, the film rockets along so fast at times that it almost feels rushed.<br /><br />Unfortunately, most of the film's strengths are not capitalised upon. Rush barely gets more screen time than his name does in the opening and closing credits. Ditto for Watts, and the rest of the cast come off a little like mannequins. I can only conclude that another fifteen, or even thirty, minutes of footage might have fixed this. But that leads to the other problem, in that the lack of any depth or background to characters other than the titular hero leaves the events of the story with zero impact. One scene manages to do the speech-making thing well, but unfortunately, it all becomes a collage of moments with no linking after a while. If one were to believe the impression that this film creates, a matter of weeks, even days, passes between the time that Ned Kelly becomes a wanted man on the say-so of one corrupt policeman, and the infamous shootout at Glenrowan. Annoyingly, the trial and execution of Ned Kelly is not even depicted here, simply referred to in subtitles before the credits roll.<br /><br />That said, aside from some shaky camera-work at times, Ned Kelly manages to depict some exciting shootouts, and it has a good beginning. For that reason, I rated it a seven out of ten. Other critics have not been so kind, so if you're not impressed by shootouts with unusual elements (and what could more more unusual than full body armour in a colonial shootout?), then you might be better off looking elsewhere. Especially if you want a more factual account of Ned Kelly's life. | 0 |
Look, I loved the PROPER Anchorman film, but this was reaaaaallly bad. The kind of bad that makes you wish you could get that time back in your life, the kind of bad that makes you think 'what on Earth were they thinking to film this in the first place', the kind of bad that makes you wish you'd taken 50 more minutes when stepping into the kitchen to grab a snack during the film, the kind of bad that makes leprosy look fun, the kind of bad that makes you think you wish you rented a Pauly Shore film instead....seriously, I cannot explain how very bad this was.<br /><br />Having said that....there were some semi-amusing laughs, but they are all so much LESS funny than Anchorman. Sure, they tried to make it entertaining and fun, but the entire subplot that was left out of Anchorman that made it here was genuinely left out for a good reason...it wasn't even a little bit good.<br /><br />Do yourself a favour (or in the USA, a favor), and don't watch this DVD...it will tarnish the good movie that Anchorman is and you don't want to do that.<br /><br />Okay...I'm alright now. | 1 |
Now what's wrong with the actors that took part in that crap? Michael Dorn should stick to the Star Treck merchandise. John Diehl, does anyone remember him in Miami Vice? Liked him there... Well, whatever - what can one expect from a movie with one of the lifeguards from baywatch in the lead? Nothing, and that's what we get. None of the characters is even likable, the special effects are hilarious (but not funny). The story is a (very bad) joke. There is no logic whatsoever for what's happening. I got the feeling that the film makers were trying some kind of 'Attack of the killer tomatoes' kind of thing. Especially in the scene where all the important people were discussing national security in some kind of a closet...<br /><br />If you happen to see it on TV, switch channels - your TV set will be ever thankful. | 1 |
Cabin Fever is the first feature film directed by Eli Roth.Roth and Randy Pearlstein co wrote the script from a story by Roth.this a zombie film,which owes a lot to George Romero and his earlier 'living dead movies',and to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacrenot to mention Sam Ramie's 'Evil Dead'.there is nothing original here,and the story is not compelling.the acting is about par with this genre,it's just that the story fails.we have pretty much seen this movie before and better made.having said that,after having achieved commercial, if not artistic success from this movie,Roth decided he was a director and came out with the abysmally atrocious,mean spirited,pointless(though much more ambitious)crap fest Hostel.Roth should have quit while he was behind.Cabin Fever is not a good film,however compared to Hostel it is a work of art.I hope somebody (preferably a psychiatrist)convinces this guy that film-making is the wrong career choice.as for Cabin fever,a weak 3/10 for not being as abysmal as Hostel. | 1 |
Luise Rainer received an Oscar for her performance in The Good Earth. Unfortunately, her role required no. She did not say much and looked pale throughout the film. Luise's character was a slave then given away to marriage to Paul Muni's character (he did a fantastic job for his performance). Set in ancient Asia, both actors were not Asian, but were very convincing in their roles. I hope that Paul Muni received an Oscar for his performance, because that is what Luise must have gotten her Oscar for. She must have been a breakthrough actress, one of the first to method act. This seems like something that Hollywood does often. Al Pacino has played an Italian and Cuban. I felt Luise's performance to be lackluster throughout, and when she died, she did not change in expression from any previous scenes. She stayed the same throughout the film; she only changed her expression or emotion maybe twice. If her brilliant acting was so subtle, I suppose I did not see it. | 1 |
'Dogmatic,' as another reviewer described this film, is a fitting word. The director's idea was to present Bach without plot, acting, fun, theatrics, dialog, narrative, or drama. Mission accomplished, Monsieur Straub. 'Pretentious?' Yes. 'Cinematic?' No way. This is anti-cinema. No one moves. Hardly anyone talks. The camera holds static shots for 10-12 minutes at a time: very very occasionally the camera will dolly in. You may catch a glimpse of Gustav Leonhardt's fingers moving over the keys. That's it.<br /><br />If you like the idea of staring at the back of a harpsichordist's (bewigged) head for 7 minutes at a stretch while listening to Bach, this is the film for you. I'd rather listen to Bach on my stereo with my eyes closed. | 1 |
The premise for this movie is simple and so is the script: an elderly Muslim gets his teenage son to drive him in his similarly elderly station wagon from France to the haj in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, so that he can fulfill his holy Muslim obligation before he dies. The father is clearly devoutly religious, but the son is unimpressed; he accepts out of obligation to his father rather than to religion, he'd rather be with his (non-Muslim) girlfriend. The father is stubborn in a lot of things which the son doesn't understand and the petulance between them is the device that maintains the drama, although it is often rather irksome. However, like any good road movie there are oddball characters encountered along the way; for example a woman on a backroad in Croatia who upon being asked for directions to Belgrade simply gets in the backseat and points with her hand uttering one word which they assume to be a place but can't find it on the map. In Bulgaria another man they ask directions of confirms he can speak French but then provides an extensive commentary in Bulgarian. There is also occasional humor - in one country the son tires of eating egg sandwiches and wants meat - they are given a goat, but unfortunately (perhaps fortunately for the viewer) it runs away before the father can perform the Muslim slaughterman ritual. They eventually make it to Mecca - the Muslim equivalent of the Vatican but on a much grander scale. For westerners it is all bizarre but fascinating. The movie isn't sophisticated but is charming in its own way, a kind of National Geographic with soul. | 0 |
What is it about drug addiction that so draws first-time filmmakers to offer their own take on the subject? This subject has been done to death. Drug abuse is bad. We get it. Drug addiction is painful to watch. We get that too. But the bleak subject matter doesn't give the filmmaker license to make a sloppy film. Every film need not be Hitchcockian masterpiece of cinematic excellence, or use Orson Wellesian deep focus, but it's still a narrative movie. Verite does not mean pseudo-documentary. Even consumer mini-DV cameras are capable of producing white whites and black blacks, and this filmmaker is just being lazy by shooting no contrast scenes with existing lighting: the subject is bleak enough without artificially forcing it with sloppy cinematography. And even documentary films have a sound mix. Vera Farmiga is very talented, given the right material, but the director obviously over-directed her and sucked all the life out of her performance. Addicts may live in a fog, but they still have emotions, but none of these characters seem to exist off-screen. The supporting players merely delivered their lines without creating real people. Sorry to be so harsh, Debra, but some things are true whether want to believe them or not. I'm sure your next film will be better -- but please, not another drug movie. :) | 1 |
Adrian Pasdar is excellent is this film. He makes a fascinating woman. | 0 |
No, this hilariously horrible 70's made-for-TV horror clinker isn't about a deadly demonically possessed dessert cake. Still, this exceptionally awful, yet undeniably amusing and thus enjoyable cathode ray refuse reaches a breathtaking apex of absolute, unremitting silliness and atrociousness that's quite tasty in a so-execrable-it's-downright-awesome sort of way. Richard Crenna, looking haggard and possibly inebriated, and Yvette Mimieux, who acts as if she never got over the brutal rape she endured in 'Jackson County Jail,' sluggishly portray a disgustingly nice and respectable suburbanite couple whose quaint, dull, sleepy small town existence gets ripped asunder when the cute German Shepard they take in as the family pet turns out to be some ancient lethal evil spirit. Pretty soon Mimieux and her two repellently cutesy kids Kim Richards and Ike Eisenmann (the psychic alien moppets from the Disney 'Witch Mountain' pictures) are worshiping a crude crayon drawing of the nasty, ugly canine entity in the den. Boy, now doesn't that sound really scary and disturbing? Well, scary and disturbing this laughably ludicrous claptrap sure ain't, but it sure is funny, thanks to Curtis ('Night Tide') Harrington's hopelessly weak direction, cartoonish (not so) special effects, an almost painfully risible'n'ridiculous plot, and a game cast that struggles valiantly with the absurd story (besides the leads, both Martine Beswicke and R.G. Armstrong briefly pop up as members of a Satanic cult and Victor Jory has a nice cameo as a helpful Native American shaman). Favorite scene: the malicious Mephestophelion mutt puts the whammy on Crenna, practically forcing him to stick his hand into a wildly spinning lawnmower blade. While stuck-up snobby fright film fans may hold their noses at the perfectly putrid stench of this admittedly smelly schlock, devout TV trash lovers should deem this endearingly abominable offal the boob tube equivalent to Alpo. | 0 |
Don't know how this missed award nominations. Great film. Certainly of the calibre of 'Beautiful Mind' Great acting, photography, script and drama. I can't imagine anyone not being entranced by this film. | 0 |
If 'Love Me Tonight' is 'the musical for people who don't like musicals', it has to be said that 'The Gay Desperado' is definitely not a musical for people who don't like opera. In fact -- despite apparently being based on a comic operetta -- it is not really a musical at all but a spoof bandit story with interpolated unrelated arias to show off the voice of one character; and what a voice it is.<br /><br />Nino Martini, as the young singer Chivo who joins the bandit troop to get a spot on the radio (no, the plot doesn't make a lot more sense later on either...), has a glorious golden tenor whose style hasn't dated a day since the era when it was recorded. The trillings and warblings of some of his musical contemporaries belong to a bygone fashion, but it's very easy to picture Chivo belting out 'Nessun Dorma' to a World Cup crowd and topping the charts in the process. Unfortunately, while he has an engaging grin and a decent dramatic range, he is completely incapable of acting and singing at the same time. The result is that the otherwise rapid-paced film grinds to a shuddering halt every time Chivo lays his hand on his breast and starts to declaim, and the viewer's tolerance of the result is likely to depend on his appreciation of operatic performance.<br /><br />Aside from this drawback, the film is an enjoyable broad-brush satire on Hollywood conventions and the Mexican bandit stereotype in particular, which achieves the vital goal of all such spoofs in making its characters engaging enough in their own right to hold the viewer's interest when the joke would otherwise have grown stale. The bandit chief and his sidekick have the traditional double-act relationship, there is an enigmatic peon with a carved-teak face, and a spirited heroine (a young Ida Lupino) who performs the generic 'you say you hate me but you love me really' routine with a refreshing twist.<br /><br />Overall the film is entertaining and pretty funny, and I feel I did get my money's-worth -- but it can't be denied that the musical interludes, while admirable in their own way, introduce severe pacing problems. | 0 |
Yes, it can be done. John De Bello and Costa Dillon cleaned out the garbage of their minds and come up with the worst comedic, horror , Sc-Fi musical. If there is any acting, it is terrible or way over the top. Special effects; take your pick...very low budget or kindergarten. Every cheap cliché thought of is used. No doubt a fun movie to watch. Worth a cold six-pack or two. Point the finger at radiation if you need an excuse. Mutant tomatoes grow to almost the size of a tow truck and begin attacking mankind. San Diego is a good place as any to start. Scientists and an absent minded military must find the way to stop this red rolling menace. This cult favorite features: David Miller, Eric Christmas, Al Sklar, Tom Coleman, Sharon Taylor and John Qualls. | 1 |
Four holy young men from Mormon country go to L.A. to preach the gospel to urban heathens. But, one of the young Mormons is a repressed gay who 'happens' to cross paths with a very 'out' young L.A. party boy. (What would film plots be without coincidences?). These two, very different, young men become friends, and in the process, affect each other's outlook which, in turn, sets up an inevitable clash between gay and Mormon cultures.<br /><br />That is the premise of 'Latter Days', a 2003 film, written and directed by C.Jay Cox, himself a former Mormon missionary. The film's story is, of course, highly relevant, especially in contemporary America. Variations of this story need to be told, and retold, and retold, hopefully in future films ... because the underlying theme brings to light the hatefully superior attitude that Christian fundamentalists too often display toward gays. By its nature, 'Latter Days' is provocative, and I doubt that the film was well received in Provo or Pocatello, even though the script is intelligent, sensitive, and insightful. | 0 |
This film is more than the story of Danton. It was a joint Polish French production filmed at the time of the beginning of the end of the Soviet system. It probably helped spur the Solidarity movement's union activity. It is more about Poland in the 20th century than the French Revolution. Solidarity began the end of the system. This film itself is historical by it's very existence....the rest is History.<br /><br />Robspiere, aka. totalitarian leaders. Danton, aka. Walensa. When one watches this film, one must remember the snowball which began in Poland. <br /><br />Actually, it could be useful for seeing the superpower struggle within the only superpower left. | 0 |
I saw 'I Smell the Dead' -- sorry, 'I SELL the Dead' -- at a press screening. Glenn McQuaid, the film's writer-director-editor, is a laddish Irishman who introduced the screening by announcing that -- whilst it was in progress -- he would be 'going out for a pint'. I don't begrudge him a drink, but -- by telling us about it -- he seemed to feel he needed to certify his laddishness or his Irishness, or both. When the opening credits rolled, there were -- as usual at press screenings -- loud ovations for the names of every actor or crew member who'd got friends in the audience, and silence for those who hadn't. McQuaid returned for a witty Q&A afterwards.<br /><br />This horror movie doesn't take itself seriously, which is good because its humour is considerably stronger than its horror. Only one scene is even remotely scary, and most of the 'horror' is merely gross-out, but I laughed throughout much of the film.<br /><br />This movie appears to be set in Ireland circa 1850 (by which time grave-robbing was mostly defunct). The story is told in flashback: we get flashbacks within flashbacks, and the narrating character flashbacks material that he couldn't know about, because sometimes he wasn't present or (in one case) because the action is unfolding behind his back.<br /><br />The story begins with a prisoner being taken to the guillotine. Guillotines weren't used in 19th-century Ireland, but -- for once -- we actually see a plausible guillotine sequence. The prisoner struggles on his way to execution, the rope cleats are accurate, and the prisoner manages to look up to see the blade overhead. (And there's a payoff later to justify the historically inaccurate use of the guillotine itself.)<br /><br />The characters are ostensibly Irish, but one major character speaks in Cockney slang: using phrases like 'a mug's game' and 'take a butcher's' (for 'have a look'). For once, actors in 19th-century roles display 19th-century dental hygiene, yet nearly all the clothes and hairstyles (and the women's make-ups) are resolutely 21st-century. I'm not complaining in the case of Heather Bullock, who wears a very fetching black miniskirt cozzie that appears to be PVC. Phworr!<br /><br />The lead actors (except Ron Perlman) are excellent, but most of the supporting cast have no sense of the Victorian period. The worst offender is Joel Garland as the publican, whose characterisation is firmly rooted in the twenty-first century. Just when I thought that Garland's performance couldn't get any less Victorian, he used his fingers to make 'ironic' air-quotes.<br /><br />The sets (especially Angus Scrimm's lab) are detailed and impressive, yet failed to convince me that people actually lived and worked in these places. Nearly every interior contains burning candles, but never once did I see what would have been there if these were actual Victorian homes or workplaces: leftover drippings from previous candles.<br /><br />One scene features an extra-terrestrial: I was annoyed that McQuaid plumped for a stereotypical 'grey' Schwa alien, rather than something original.<br /><br />There are splendid montage sequences, but McQuaid opts for flashy effects -- split-screens, overhead shots -- that don't serve the story. I was impressed by a recurring blue-screen device superimposing the main characters' heads over other backgrounds. Less effective was a recurring 'Creepshow'-style motif of camera shots morphing actors' faces into drawings resembling panel art from 1950s EC horror comics. I'm a fan of EC Comics, but they don't belong in 19th-century Ireland. The money that McQuaid spent on flashy photo F/X -- showing off his editing skills without serving the story -- should've been spent on accurate costumes.<br /><br />BIG SPOILERS NOW. Ron Perlman gives an 'Oirish' performance full of acting-school tics. Ostensibly playing a 19th-century Irish priest, he writes with his left hand. (In Victorian Ireland, left-handed children were punished for using 'the devil's hand' and were forcibly retrained to become righties.) But Perlman's character turns out to have a reason for concealing his right hand. Elsewhere, a character is bitten by a zombie yet suffers no ill effects, so I knew there'd be a payoff later. Several scenes that would more logically take place at night are shot in daylight, apparently only because this was easier and less expensive. (Since McQuaid is a proficient director and editor, he could easily have shot 'day for night' ... but using a process-photography effect to help tell the story seems to interest him much less than showing off his flashy editing techniques.)<br /><br />McQuaid seems to be giving homage to those great old Hammer horror flicks. But those Hammers were so great because the actors and production designers worked hard to convince us that we were actually witnessing events in 1888 Whitechapel, or wherever. 'I Sell the Dead' almost entirely fails to evoke the 19th century.<br /><br />Glenn McQuaid shows talent as a director, scripter and editor, yet in all three capacities here he makes odd choices ... then largely fails to justify those choices. But I enjoyed 'I Sell the Dead'. I'll rate it 7 out of 10, and I look forward to his next movie. | 0 |
Typical Steven Seagal fare: that is, it's crap. The plot relies on a series of incredibly improbable coincidences; there's a hefty dose of conspiracy theory which would be much more palatable if we didn't know that Seagal takes it all literally; and once again, bad-movie multi-millionaire Seagal tells us all about the evils of The Rich.<br /><br />Seagal's survival relies, as usual, on the fact that Bad Guys never fire their guns from out of arm's reach, and always like to give a little 'I'm gonna kill you' speech before blowing a man's head off.<br /><br />Watch this one right after the even-worse *Fire Down Below* and note how the carpet in Keenen Ivory Wayans's apartment is more flammable than a big puddle of gasoline.<br /><br />Oh, and watch in the final fight scene for the Incredible Disappearing Forehead Wound, which is probably the most entertaining thing in the film. | 1 |
OK, I'm Italian but there aren't so many Italian film like this. I think that the plot is very good for 3/4 of the film but the final is too simple, too predictable. But it's the only little mistake. The Consequences of Love in my opinion have great sequences in particular at the beginning and great soundtrack. I'd like very much the lighting work on it. The best thing on it is a great, great actor. You know, if your name were Al Pacino now everybody would have still been talking about this performance. But it's only a great theater Italian actor called Toni Servillo. Yes, someone tell me this film and this kind of performance it's too slow, it's so boring, so many silences, but i think that this components its fantastic, its the right way for describing the love story between a very talented young girl, the grand-daughter of the Italian actress Anna Magnani, Olivia and the old mysterious man Toni. One of my favorite Italian films. | 0 |
While the overall idea of Escape from Atlantis was intriguing, I found the film to be far less than what I had hoped for upon reading the plot summery. Perhaps I am too much of a child in the technological age: the movie was made, as it is now 2002, an official five years ago --after viewing fantasy epics such as Lord of the Rings, and science fiction feats like Star Wars, as a whole it could not compare to other movies of similar line such as Dinotopia or Homer's The Odyssey.<br /><br />My beef, basically, is that I couldn't relate --I am just about the same age of the children (a young adult), and have no trouble putting myself in the place of a middle-aged man if that is the character available. But the picture did not take me to a different mental plain of existence. I didn't find myself saying 'ACK! I would have done the SAME thing!'. It did not open the doors to my imagination. Even without comparing it to high-budget films or other TV movies, standing alone, certain aspects of the feature I found to be cliche: The character development in the children occurred too rapidly for my liking, seeing too much of the stereotypical selfish-teenager-bitter-after-divorce image changing into the we're-a-big-happy-family-let's-never-separate-again feel that can ultimately make or break a picture in the long run. Even the characters themselves could have undergone improvement: a typical set of one or the other stereotypes. There was the ever-present selfish beauty looking to be rebellious, accompanied by Mr. Perfect image of combining athletics, good looks and intelligence yet a brooding attitude, and lastly the smart-aleck little brother we find to be so common these days. While I know the personalities pushed the story along, I think that adding more individuality as far as nuances and more unique differences would have made it a more enjoyable --and believable (as far as character)-- movie.<br /><br />I do have to raise my glass to the costume and set design --that made it worth finishing to the end for me. Don't get me wrong: all movies are worth seeing for yourself, and the opinion of one could never account for the opinion of many, but I think that with a little more depth to the script, and a little more (I cannot believe I am saying this) realness I dare say Escape from Atlantis could have been magical. | 1 |
After the success of the first two 'Godfather' films in 1972 and 1974 respectively, Francis Ford Coppola embarked on an ambitious attempt to bring home the reality of the war in Vietnam, which had concluded with the fall of Saigon to the Vietcong in 1975
The plot was loosely based on the book 'Heart of Darkness,' a story by Joseph Conrad about Kurtz, a trading company agent in the African jungle who has acquired mysterious powers over the natives
Coppola retains much of this, including such details as the severed heads outside Kurtz's headquarters and his final words, 'The horror
the horror
' <br /><br />In the film, Sheen plays an army captain given the mission to penetrate into Cambodia, and eliminate, with 'extreme prejudice,' a decorated officer who has become an embarrassment to the authorities
On his journey up the river to the renegade's camp he experiences the demoralization of the US forces, high on dope or drunk with power
<br /><br />Although, as a result of cuts forced on Coppola, the film was accused of incoherence when first released, it was by the most serious attempt to get to grips with the experience of Vietnam and a victorious reinvention of the war film genre
In 1980 the film won an Oscar for Best Cinematography and Best Sound
<br /><br />'Apocalypse Now' was re-released in 2001 with fifty minutes restored
As a result, the motion picture can now be seen as the epic masterpiece it is
| 0 |
Gena Rowlands plays an actress who loses her grip on reality when she witnesses the death of a fan of hers. She becomes increasingly deluded from reality, and as a result her emotional turmoil intrudes with her work as an actress. In the sense that she breaks all the rules of acting and improvises everything, yet still manages to engage her audience makes the film interesting (if a bit self-important) as a parallel of Cassavettes' own struggles as a filmmaker. There's so many ideas thrown around, and as result it becomes a bit muddled (I'm still pondering the relation between the dead fan and Rowlands, among many other things), but the way they're presented in their rawest form makes it a consistently interesting and thought-provoking film. Would be great on a double bill with Mulholland Drive.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Apparently in early 2005, SciFi Channel threatened to release the incriminating photos they have of John Rhys-Davies and said, 'We need you to star in another SciFi Original.' The scary thing is, he's actually pretty damn good in this movie. That's really saying something since this is a silly SciFi creature feature; you've gotta put some feeling into it in order to be well-acted. Unfortunately, nobody else does. It's your stereotypical 'moster-run-amok' movie on a cruise ship. The cryptozoologist wants to keep the creature alive, the Navy SEALs think they have everything under control but they don't know what they're dealing with and they all end up dead, a girl jumps into the 'movie sexpot' role as Rhys-Davies' daughter and the creature mauls about 100 or so shipmates. What this movie has going for it is, it's VERY fast-paced and lively; you're never bored or waiting for another kill. Other than that, though, it does nothing to distinguish itself, and it's silly that this thing crawls all over the ceilings and can't be wounded by Navy SEAL machine guns, but can be karate-kicked into submission by Rhys-Davies' daughter. Kinda went back and forth on giving this bad boy a 5, but for the above silliness I'm giving it a 4. | 1 |
i hired this movie out from my local movie shop, not really expecting anything to flash or fancy. Since it was a 'B' grade movie, made on a very tight budget. The opening scenes of the film were rather original and so was the plot and thats what made me hire the movie out. However the film becomes very boring and frustrating at points. The story had plenty of holes in it and the acting had its fair share of disappointments as well By the end of the film i was praying that a higher power was going to strike me down where i laid as i was extremely bored but more importantly frustrated with how the story turned out. i still don't understand what actually happened and i don't particularly care. in conclusion the devil would cry in disgust to know that Hell (his domain ) was used as a basis for such a crappy film. | 1 |
I picked this movie up to replace the dismal choice of daytime television and to go with my thirst for femme fatales. Well, for the previous, it is better than daytime television....though I'm not sure how much.<br /><br />It does have its points but after about the first 20-30 minutes, the good points pan out and one comes to the conclusion that they are watching a made for TV movie that was put together with not much time to make something that will hold together. In short, a terrible Sci Fi channel type movie.<br /><br />It has its points such as the future is dirty, like 'Blade Runner' showed ..... of course, this is no 'Blade Runner'. The Captain looks, sort of feels like actor Robert Forster, the kind of person one might want to be around.<br /><br />But unfortunately, it rather ends up feeling like a bad 'Andromeda' rehash where the muscle of the crew consists of poor copies of the smart gunners of 'Aliens', the mystic is vampire Willow sexually intensified, and the new Captain might as well be like Jan-Michael Vincent running around on 'Danger Island' in the 'Banana Splits'; he only put on the uniform with the epaulets; he's got very little right to it. All of them running around with their version of force lances inside a ship that looks very much like the 'Eureka Maru' as they are fighting a class of 'people' who occupy the universe and are broken up into several different tribes or sects of different evolutionary qualities.......just like the Nietzcheans in 'Andromeda'.<br /><br />It might have a redeeming feature with Michael Ironside, but after a while, one gets the feeling that he took the part as a hoot! He probably had fun doing it, but it doesn't help the movie much.<br /><br />It's ..... 'okay'. Okay in the way that one might watch the DVD once without turning it off; if they watch it with commercials, they will probably change the channel. One might watch it once .......... but a few hours later, be wondering what it was that made them watch it all.<br /><br />For me, that was the femme fatale ............. when she was fighting. | 1 |
I didn't really know what to expect when going out to watch the film, apart from the slightly surreal basic plotline that a lonely man orders a Russian bride over the internet. That and it had Nicole Kidman in it. I absolutely loved the film though, and came out thinking 'wow'.<br /><br />Refreshingly down to earth, the film moves along nicely, with a few suprises at each corner. The relationships in the film are believeable, with Nicole and Chaplin working against each other beautifully. The humour is subtle, with some great 'Office'-like scenes at the bank, and the thriller element add tension without being Hollywood.<br /><br />Overall the film is about real people in an unusual situation. It's less about heroics and more about delicate relationships. Brit-filmmaking at its best...<br /><br />(9/10) | 0 |
...and even then, even they can live without seeing it. To be honest, this film (if one deigns to call it that) is of real interest only to bondage freaks. Bettie Page fans will learn absolutely nothing new (and I do mean *nothing*), nor will they enjoy the warm fuzzies of experiencing anything familiar, loved, or cherished.<br /><br />Nevermind the abysmal screenplay, the wooden, less-than-community-theater acting, the utter absence of direction, the crappy lighting, or any of the rest of the bargain basement production values. This is definitely 'Hey, kids, let's make a movie!' movie-making of the lowest order. I suppose one could be thankful that at least they knew how to run the camera. No, I'm sorry to say that none of that is germane to why this thing is so outright *wrong*.<br /><br />It's wrong because the young lady playing Bettie Page, a somewhat zaftig girl whose only resemblance to the Queen of Curves is dark hair and the trademark bangs, utterly fails to bring anything to the role beyond a willingness to be bound and gagged. This is apparently a good thing for her film career before and since this wretched excess, but not for the wretched excess itself, which consists primarily of a number of lovingly re-enacted B&D set-pieces sandwiched between horrendously awful faux-biographical scenes delineating Ms. Page's fall from grace (so to speak). There's actually probably more information, per se, about Page's life in the opening and closing credits than the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Do not be fooled. This is not a worthy companion film to 'The Notorious Bettie Page.' This is not a worthy film at all. This is a fetish piece that trades on the allure of one of the greatest pin-ups of all time, and does it without class, without style, and without any real sense of understanding the character of Bettie Page whatsoever. No true Bettie Page fan will find it to be anything but a disappointment, I guarantee that.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs. If free, remember that time is money, too. Yours may not be worth much, but I'm betting it's worth enough that you'll be sorry you wasted time with this one. That's it, I'm done, you've been warned. | 1 |
Now I do understand that this film was not meant as an indictment against all Indians but it is an amazing film because it dares to investigate the hypocrisy that some Indians have concerning their women and sexuality. I have known for some time that sexism is very common in this society (with women being murdered because the husband's family doesn't want them any more after his death or because she had a small dowry as well as the frequent killing of female fetuses because they are seen as a curse instead of a blessing). I also realize that some from this culture will be greatly offended by the film, but the bottom line is that there is some truth to the subject matter--even if the film was so strongly attacked when it debuted in India a decade ago. As a result of the extreme misogyny in the movie, most Western audience members will be shocked or at least be emotionally pulled into the plight of the ladies in this film.<br /><br />Although I am a male, am not rabidly feminist and I am straight, the film had a strong positive impact on me and it is NOT an agenda film that can only be enjoyed by Lesbians and 'man haters'. In fact, I don't think the film is promoting hatred of men or homosexuality but instead gives a credibly argument how in the case of these two ladies it was the only reasonable alternative due to their wicked husbands. Yes, I use the word 'wicked' and mean it, as both husbands living in this large household are intensely selfish and have no regard for their spouses' sexuality. In many traditional societies this is indeed the case and women are doomed to an empty emotional existence.<br /><br />One husband married a vivacious young woman, Sita, out of family obligation. This arranged marriage is uncomfortable for them both but in the beginning Sita makes an attempt to connect with her sullen husband. However, he sees himself as a victim and could have cared less about Sita--and he continues to have an affair with a liberal-minded Chinese lady. To make matters worse, he did nothing to hide the affair and made no apologies. In their dead marriage, sex was purely meant to produce children and there was no way Sita could have any of her sexual or emotional needs met. And unfortunately, he could have cared less.<br /><br />Another husband was married to a lady who was infertile (Radha). Oddly, after initially trying to have children, they have gone the next 13 years without any sexual contact whatsoever! It's because this man has decided to become an ascetic (i.e., in Hinduism, a person who gives up the pleasures of the world to gain inner enlightenment). Now his wanting to do this was all well and good IF he was not already married and had obligations for his wife. However, being married, this was an incredibly selfish act and like his brother, he assumed his wife had no sexual feelings nor did he seem to care. The closest he would allow her to him sexually was to sleep next to him--as having her next to him helped teach himself to 'overcome the desires of the flesh'. This must have brought nothing but frustration to her.<br /><br />So, you've got two neglected and normal women living in the same household who long for emotional connection as well as an outlet for their sexual needs. Eventually, these needs bring these sister-in-laws together--at first, just emotionally but later sexually as well. The movie was brilliant how it got me to look at and understand how in some cases homosexuality is inevitable and even healthy compared to a life of emotional desolation.<br /><br />Late in the film, when the intensity of their sexual relationship is discovered, it leads to a not totally unexpected reaction from Radha's 'enlightened' husband--a man who seeks religious insight and peace yet is so wrapped up in himself that true insight and growth is impossible.<br /><br />This is a very challenging and adult film. While there is very little nudity, the subject matter is very adult and this is not a film to show your kids. Very disturbing indeed is one minor character who masturbates in front of an old paralyzed lady--as I said, this is NOT a film to let your kids watch. However, for a mature audience, this is an excellent and highly erotic film that will get you to think.<br /><br />The film features good acting, complex characters, excellent writing, lovely mood music and a slow pace that might annoy some, but which I found rewarding. The only serious negative I cannot blame on the movie itself but on the idiots who released this on videotape. This is because although the movie is in English, the accents are quite strong at times and it's not always easy to understand what's being said. BUT, and this is the worst part, there are no closed or open captions--including them is a must for Western audiences. If you do watch this film, see if you can find it on DVD or hopefully a newer release on video will have captioning--mine sure didn't.<br /><br />By the way, director Deepa Mehta (a popular female director) has made several other wonderful films such as EARTH and BOLLYWOOD/Hollywood. A consistent theme in her films is the conflict between traditional Indian culture and expectations and Westernism--with a strong emphasis on female characters. Not surprisingly, this West-thinking lady makes her home in Canada and is divorced--a truly unusual woman to say the least. For a similar film that explores traditional culture meets Western culture, try another Canadian gem, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN. | 0 |
'An evil spirit takes over a girl and diffuses panic in the Louvre museum' that's all I think, the summary of the movie and the movie itself ! Which I think it's one of the worst French or non French movies ever made in the history of cinema ! <br /><br />Nothing good in here except the music (of the credits only !), some tender moments of (Sophie Marceau), and of course the movie's finale shot.. Not because it ends ages of what seemed to be a countless years we had in watching THAT CRAP but also for being so perfect as one magical C.G.I work that was too good to be true in here ! <br /><br />By the way I want to change the plot summary to be like this 'An evil spirit takes over some cinema artists to make lousy movies'.. Just like this one for sure. | 1 |
Although it got some favorable press after playing at the Toronto Intl. Film Festival, there were a number of reasons not to expect too much from this. One -- it's an ultra-low budget Canadian film. Two -- it's written, directed and starring the same person (usually a bad sign, unless it's Woody Allen, George Clooney or one or two other respected filmmakers). But despite my watching it with lowered expectations, it still turned out to a far bigger disappointment than I thought possible.<br /><br />In a nutshell -- bad script, bad acting, terrible directing! Don't waste your time or money on this turkey. It claims to be a comedy, but I only laughed twice. Plus, there is awful music blaring throughout. How this got any attention I'll never know. | 1 |
I totally disagreed with those comments which said this is a good movie. This is a totally SUCKED movie. I mean SUCKED - S.U.C.K.E.D. The story development is strange. Mia Kirshner changed from an innocent girl to a party-fun seeking chick for no convincing reasons at all. In addition, all the actresses looked way too old for being college students - College students looked like about 30 years old - you figure out the rest. I watched only about first ten minutes and started fast forwarding to look for sex scenes. all the sex scenes are lame, hasty and, most importantly, no frontal at all. All the sex scenes are laughable, considering how many clothes they had on. Do yourself a favor - put it down and save yourself a few bucks. Conclusion: Story - 0, Sex - 0, Acting - 0, Score - 0 out 10. | 1 |
Now this is a bad movie if I've ever seen one. In one of film's greatest years, 1999, Detroit Rock City contends with Runaway Bride and Wild Wild West for the bottom spot in a barrel of junkies. The plot is masterful. Four scrawny high school youngsters finally have their chance at seeing the hard rock theatrics of KISS for
the third year in a row. So when their tickets are toiled by an ultra-religious, chain-smoking mom, the pals scramble themselves in getting to Detroit, and I'm sure you can figure out the rest.<br /><br />Well, not exactly; the movie does go to extreme measures in explaining how the four band members (no, not Gene, Paul, Ace and Peter) go about getting these tickets: losing your virginity in a confessional; saving a smoked-out bimbo and your mom's Volvo (from the Soprano's Steve Schirripa, nonetheless); preventing a robbery in the midst of botching one for a 12-year-old's debt; and of course, stripping down to your bare essentials for MC Ron Jeremy after shuttling a full blender with bourbon-leftovers. Sounds funny, doesn't it? Perhaps Detroit Rock City does have a point with all this tomfoolery in how extreme sometimes these fans can go. And we do understand this movie is a comedy; it is supposed to be filled with slapstick. But does Detroit Rock City aim to the proper audience? It is rated R, meaning the only way prepubescent adolescents-the audience as I see it, to which many will eventually hail this one a classic-will voyeur is through illegal terms.<br /><br />Detroit Rock City also fails at giving itself the late-1970's touch. The camera's texture quality is way too clear and way too bright, missing the necessary flair from films like This is Spinal Tap and Sid & Nancy. This would've allowed audiences to feel `more at home' with the times. Simply costuming kids into pre-90's grunge-wear and settling others into `disco infernos' does not do the trick. Environment does mean something you know; I doubt Detroit looked this glamorous in '78. If there's anything positive coming from this movie it's the kick-ass soundtrack of hard late-70 to early-80's rock. Van Halen, AC/DC, you name it, it's all here. Of course we can't forget KISS, the band aptly subjected throughout.<br /><br />What the film noticeably fails to manage are questions concerning why the Knights of Satin's Service (it's really just KISS) were so frowned upon by moms around the nation. Sure, the loud rock and devilish makeup might be a part of that; encouragements for youth to explore themselves and have a good time might be fair reasons as well. But, what is KISS saying in the music we hear throughout the film towards this highly rebellious group? What separates these anthems of `rock[ing] and roll[ing] all night and partying everyday' from the rest of the music? Most likely, these questions will remain in a music communication class and not in the films that should answer them, simply because it is KISS and they rock and we must do everything in our God-forgiven power to see them.<br /><br />1.5/5 stars | 1 |
At the Academy Awards ceremony on March 27, 1957, Dorothy Malone won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her torrid, over-the-top portrayal of a spoiled heiress of a Texas oil tycoon in WRITTEN ON THE WIND. The 1956 potboiler, adapted from Robert Wilder's novel , was a veritable three-ring-circus showcasing alcoholism, greed, impotence and nymphomania.<br /><br />Malone's performance as Marylee Hadley , a lonely rich girl who picks up men to assuage the pain of rejection from a former childhood sweetheart, was representative of the movie as a whole. Mesmerizing to watch even as it resorts to the 'lowest -common- denominator' melodrama, WRITTEN ON THE WIND is ultimately the work of one man, the incredibly gifted director Douglas Sirk, an émigré from pre -World War 2 Weimar Germany who left his European theater heritage behind to pursue a career in Hollywood.<br /><br />An extremely erudite man, Sirk made a name for himself in the 1950's as Universal Studios' reliable director of lavish soap operas, most notably with Ross Hunter's productions of MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION , ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS and IMITATION OF LIFE . Independent producer Albert Zugsmith offered Sirk the opportunity to work outside the limiting constraints of Universal's demure entertainments and create a more adult , 'sensational' product , hence the sultry WIND and its follow-up, 1957's TARNISHED ANGELS, both released under the Universal International banner. It's anyone's guess why Sirk didn't pursue loftier themes, but apparently directing these exaggerated dramas appealed more to his artistic sensibilities. WRITTEN ON THE WIND could be considered Sirk's epic soap opera ; indeed, it is so rife with human vulnerability and neurosis as depicted among the very rich that it is as compelling to watch as any real life domestic squabble among the rich and famous, perhaps more so. Robert Stack (not an actor typically known for over -emoting) nearly matches Malone in intensity with his offering of the weak- willed brother Kyle Hadley, a mere shadow of his patriarchal father. When he finds out that he is unable to impregnate his new bride ( a beautifully leonine Lauren Bacall ) , Hadley goes off the deep end, escalating an already serious drinking problem with a 'secret ' gun fetish that threatens to make him a human time bomb. Both brother and sister, as venal and unlikeable as they are, are presented as victims of their past, giving them a human quality that makes them seem less monstrous ( and far more interesting than the 'good' side of the family, mainly Bacall and the impossibly handsome Rock Hudson , young Hadley's old boyhood friend and business associate, a surrogate son to the old man and Malone' s unattainable object of desire. ) Despite all the domestic co-dependency on display , it's not so much the story that is memorable here as the way it is filmed. With a real panache for pictorial composition and editing, director Sirk draws his audience into this picture with the most heightened Technicolor cinematography imaginable : every single shot in this film is an eye-filling canvas of saturated colors, from the sight of a tank-like pink Cadillac pulling up to an enormous mansion's front doors to the garish decor of a luxury Miami hotel , a spectrum of hues almost blinding in their diversity. Action and dramatic scenes feature Sirk's adept use of tilted camera angles , shadowy lighting and cross-cut editing , shown to greatest effect in the scene where a rebellious , drunken Malone dances uninhibitedly in her upstairs bedroom to the loud blaring of a record player while her stricken father precariously ascends the huge staircase ; the scene is so riveting that you swear you are experiencing a great oedipal drama unfold. What you're really watching is trash of an enormously entertaining kind, gussied up in lurid Technicolor and polished to perfection by a visual genius. | 0 |
It was riveting. I just could not look away. As the movie rolled on I started to feel that it was powerful and confronting, but i had no idea how much more intense it would get. <br /><br />The movie gives an insight into what unfortunately is everyday life for a lot of school kids. Some of us live outside that environment and would walk by and not know what is happening.<br /><br />Parents need to see this film in particular, just to see a glimpse of what their kids go through. Often parent dismiss their kids problems as trivial, but unfortunately to a high schooler they are massive. And unfortunately the problems can escalate into a tragedy.<br /><br />Definitively a must see for all. | 0 |
Very good dramatic comedy about a playwright trying to figure out how to keep his head above water after running out of ideas. Can't say much about this film without giving away the story. I can say that little was as it seems as you are watching the picture. Everybody has his or her own agenda. Nice little surprise at the end - after all the other surprises. Well written with good performances by all. | 0 |
Young Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello are outstanding in this excellent film about two boys who have promised to 'take care of their mother,' and how they cope when their new stepfather begins beating the younger boy. The supporting cast around the boys is top-notch as well. The script really gets inside the mind and heart of an imaginative child. It's hard to believe Wood could grow up to look anything like Tom Hanks, but that's nothing new in Hollywood. That's honestly my only criticism of the film. | 0 |
This is a pretty strange movie. It does comes across as an exploitation film with over-the-top violence and unrealistic situations, but unusual for being constructed around rural characters at war with each other, as opposed to an invading 'other'.<br /><br />The movie is an excessive stereotype of Vietnam veterans, in a long line of films that portrayed the vets of that war as dangerous psycopaths. Kris Kristofferson's last line is 'I ain't lost a war yet', as he meets his demise after wreaking a long trail of murder and destruction, including the town's chief of police and his brother's girlfriend in a particularly chilling scene. However, Kristofferson is a good enough actor, and charismatic enough, to carry this villain with a surprising depth. Vincent is clearly the golden boy, but with enough intensity layered over his clean cut goodness. The movie bears some plot resemblance to Winchester 73 where Jimmy Stewart tries to tolerate a criminal brother until being forced to act against him.<br /><br />The movie has b-movie grade action, though the presence of Kristofferson, Vincent, a gorgeous Victoria Principal and Bernadette Peters give it an A-grade lineup.<br /><br />I give it a 7 for being a long lost view into an American psyche of post-Vietnam/pre-Reagan introspection, paranoia, and confusion, and a movie industry that was willing to address such topics at that time.<br /><br />Seen on the THIS channel, a great network that keeps playing lots of old movies of the 70s through 90s, regardless of political bent. | 0 |
I remember being terrified of movie blood when I was younger, and gradually getting less so, until getting jaded enough, as I'm sure many other viewers have become, so that the barrage of gory films produced in last few years have entertained me but not scared me or made me squirm. 'The Dentist' turned that around.<br /><br />The setup seems simple: a mentally unstable dentist wreaks havoc on the insides of mouths, and perhaps bodies as well. A clever twist, though, is that the dentist is the film's protagonist, so instead of being some one-dimensional bad guy with no clear motivation, his development is the most extensive of any character and he is very human and believable. The viewer thus feels sympathy for him as well as his victims, and instead of hoping for justice to come to him, I found myself hoping he would somehow find a way to cover up his tracks and return to a normal life.<br /><br />What really 'makes' a horror movie is the violence. And 'The Dentist' does it better than any other film I can think of. First off, the film has tons of tension, which is something that modern gore films tend to lack. In one scene (), the dentist is emotionally distraught and has to see a young child patient for the first time. As he reaches into the child's mouth, you hope that, for the dentist's and the child's sake, the encounter ends without injury. I won't spoil what happens. Second, when the gore does come, it hits all the worst, squirmy nerves. Once again, I won't give anything away.<br /><br />Of course, being a movie that you've never heard of, it does have flaws. Most importantly, it's exclusively for horror fans. Also, as another reviewer mentioned, by taking place over a span of just a few days, we don't really get any background on the characters. And the tension drops a little bit during the very end. But really, the fact that we would even want to know background about the characters is evidence to how good it is, and the bulk of the film is solid enough that any small lapses in tension can be forgiven.<br /><br />It's strange, after years of being accustomed to movie gore, to suddenly want to cover my eyes at the sight of blood. 'The Dentist' made me scared and thoroughly uncomfortable, and for this it earns my full approval. | 0 |
I am a big fan of Lonesome Dove and all the books in the series and I love the movie. I was happy to see that they finished up with Comanche moon. I have been a long time fan of Steve Zahn and was eager to see him in a serious role. I personally think that Steve Zahn has done an amazing job of re-creating Gus. I can't think of another actor who would have been better. He has the voice, the mannerisms, the pronunciation of word all down to a T. Granted, no one could ever hold a candle to Robert Duvall as Gus, but I think that Steve Zahn has done a pretty darn good job. Karl Urban acts the same in all the movies he has been in so he has made a good match for Woodrow Call. AS for the movie itself, yeah it's a little corny but can you really beat Lonesome Dove? No, I don't think so. | 0 |
SPOILER WARNING: There are some minor spoilers in this review. Don't read it beyond the first paragraph if you plan on seeing the film.<br /><br />The Disney Channel currently has a policy to make loads of movies and show one a month on the cable channel. Most of these are mediocre and drab, having a few good elements but still being a disappointment (`Phantom of the Megaplex,' `Stepsister From Planet Weird,' `Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century'). Every once in a great while, they make something really, really great (`Genius,' `The Other Me'). But once in a while The Disney Channel makes a huge mistake, and gives us a real stinker. This month (December 2000) The Disney Channel featured `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' which I thought was terrible due to poor writing and worse acting. Apparently, `The Brainiacs.com' was rushed out a few days before Christmas to get a jump on the holiday, because the plot has to do with toys. They even paid for a feature in the TV Guide, so I thought it must be better than the norm. I was in for a complete shock. Only Disney's `Model Behaviour' has been worse than this.<br /><br />The plot was more far-fetched than normal. I usually let that slide, but here it just goes too far. Matthew Tyler gets very sick of his widowed father spending most of his time at work. His father owns a small toy factory that has taken out large loans at a scrupulous bank to stay afloat. Time and time again, his father has to skip out on the plans he makes with his son and daughter. Matthew decides that the only way he can spend time with his dad is if he becomes the boss and orders him to stay home. He gets a hair-brained idea to create a website where kids all around the world can find and send him a dollar to invest in a computer chip that his sister is inventing. That whole concept is full of fallacies. When kids send in millions of dollars, Matthew opens his own company's bank account and buys up most of his dad's business's stock. He is the secret boss, but he doesn't reveal this to his dad, but instead presents himself at board meetings as a cartoon image through a computer. That image itself is so complex (and ridiculous) that it isn't possible for someone to create it at home, much less someone who comes across as stupid as Matthew. To make a long plot short, Matthew orders his dad to spend more time having fun and doing stuff with his kids, but a federal agent shows up inquiring about Matthew's company, as it is fraudulent.<br /><br />There's so much wrong here. As mentioned, the stuff they do here is impossible even for true geniuses, which these kids are not. The website, the cartoon image, the computer chip, even the stuff they are being taught in school, are far too advanced for these kids. The acting by most of the cast, especially Kevin Kilner, is terrible. Some familiar faces are wasted. Dom DeLuise plays the evil bank owner, but his part is a throwaway. He has one good scene with Alexandra Paul (who shows she has the ability to act) in which he explains his motives, but nothing more. And Rich Little is wasted in a small role as a judge. There's even some offensive and uncalled for anti-Russian jokes. But the greatest atrocities are the hard-hammered themes. These themes show up in many of The Disney Channel's films, but never before have these ultra-conservative messages been pounded so strongly. The typical `overworking parent' idea is really pushed hard, and after delivering it inappropriately in `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' seeing it again sours my mood. Family relations are important, but Disney must stop this endless preaching, because working is important to maintaining a workable family, too. Except for cancelling activities thanks to work, the father didn't come across as that bad, but I found it offensive when the grandmother told him `I don't like what I see.' Just as bad is the preaching of the idea that all single parents MUST marry if they want to raise their kids right. Enter Alexandra Paul, whose character, while important to the plot, is there solely to be the love interest for the father. This offensiveness only proves that the Disney brain trust lacks the brains to avoid scraping from the bottom of the Disney script barrel. Instead of letting this movie teach your kids how to commit serious fraud, wait for the next Disney Channel movie. It has to be better than this. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10. | 1 |
I know I should like this film, and I do for the most part, but as other's have mentioned, it is a bit long in the tooth. I to also found the raging hormones of the all male crew to be a bit annoying. It's a wonder they didn't start panting and howling at the moons as well. I also have to say that overall, the movie leaves me cold. It's a very sterile atmosphere that permeates the film. On the plus side the effects are great (besides the cartoon monster), as are the effects, props, costumes and of course Robbie. If the robot was not in this film, I don't think it would have been as popular as it was/is. The second half of the movie picks up steam once we start to investigate the forgotten gadgets of the 'Krell.' As many times as I've seen this movie, the Krell still leaves me scratching my head as to exactly who or what they were. Based on what was being produced at that time, besides 'This Island Earth,' Forbidden Planet is miles above the average Sci-Fi movies of the time. Being filmed in color also adds to its enjoyment. Certainly a classic in its own right, flaws and all, and deservedly so. | 0 |
This supernatural Peter Weir thriller is truly one of the most haunting and fascinating movies ever seen. Richard Chamberlain does his best performance here as the Australian lawyer who defends a group of young Aborigins accused of murder. As he gets closer on the case, he discovers more about the main defendant, Chris, and not least about himself. Chris tells him that he is a Mulkurul, which appear to be a race of supernatural beings that lived in Australia thousands of years ago. At the same time, extraordinary high rainfall seems to confirm the Aboriginal prophecy of the coming of the LAST WAVE, the one that will drown the world.<br /><br />The dream sequences and the supernatural effects enhance this movie and make it a spectacular experience. Olivia Hamnett and David Gulpilil are solid in the supporting roles, as well as the chap with the difficult name who plays Charlie, the old Aborigin who can turn into an owl. The climax and the ending don't disappoint, in contrast to many other supernatural thrillers who fall flat after a promising hour or so. However, this can not be called a pure thriller. It is a drama as well and talks about spirituality and spiritual identity in the modern world. A masterful work by Peter Weir, the master of visually stunning dramas. | 0 |
Grieving couple move to a cabin on a mountain after the loss of their daughter, discovering that there may be ghosts haunting the place, restless spirits of past occupants who committed suicide. Julie Pyke(Cheri Christian)blames husband Allen(Greg Thompson)for the horrible death of their daughter due to leaving the door unlocked and the marriage has deteriorated because of it. Julie remains in a zombie state, eliciting next to no emotion, remote and numb, only photographing a nearby abandoned prison, finding a startling image of a ghoul girl clinging to the bars of a cell. Though Allen doesn't see anything out of the ordinary, Julie continues to take pictures and we can recognize that something isn't quite right. A local handyman, Jim Payne(Scott Hodges), a rather distant fellow who harbors a secret becomes a dangerous threat when it is revealed that his dead mother might have something to do with the haunts occurring to the Pykes. Meanwhile the neighbors who sold the Pykes the cabin find themselves victims as well, alcoholic Mr Booth's abuse to his wife coming back to haunt him. Allen will conduct an investigation into the history of his cabin, attempting to unravel the mystery about the place.<br /><br />Plenty of ghosts moving about in the background in this somber supernatural tale with practically every character miserable. Cheri Christian remains so vacuous and lost, it's incredibly hard to connect with her despite the fact that you understand her plight. The acting, as is often mentioned, remains frustrating because none of the characters exactly are easy to latch on to. I guess it's supposed to be this way, under their circumstances, but the trouble I had was never being able to properly embrace the Pykes due to their constant state of aloofness. Cheri comes off as cold and detached, as I figure a mother would tend to be when you lose a child in such a way, but the icy nature left me pleading inside to embrace her which I just never could. I think the right performers, even if the characters are going through an emotional turmoil, can grab the hearts of their viewers, if a humanity reaches out to us..in this movie's case, the leads are unable to do so, for whatever reason. It could've been me, I don't know. I wanted to care for them, but nothing in the characters tugged on my heart strings. Anyway, as the film continues, Allen slowly uncovers certain truths and must defend himself against his wife who has convinced herself that their daughter is among them and she won't lose her little girl again. Jim, the unstable neighbor who believes that to stop the hauntings plaguing the area he must kill the Pykes, becomes a vital threat. The ghosts remain a central part of the movie, their presence, particularly Jim's mother, established throughout, off in the distance. The finale reveals all of them as Allen must find help for his wife while trying to thwart Jim's mission. I had a hard time getting into this one due to my unease with the leads and their characters. | 1 |
Alistair Simms inspired portrayal of Miss Fritton transcends drag. It is one of the great comedy characters in film. Equally wonderful is Joyce Grenfell's character - Ruby Gates.<br /><br />This is a movie you should curl up on the sofa with on a wet Sunday's afternoon and be transported to a time long ago when terrifying, rampaging school girls only gained our respect - not our ire! I hear that a remake is in the offing with Rupert Everett as Miss Fritton? He will have a hard job competing with the master - or should that be mistress? - Alistair Simms.<br /><br />Go and rent it - it beats so much of what today goes for comedy. | 0 |
Hi, Everyone, If you saw 'Singing in the Rain,' you remember the scene of Gene Kelly dancing in the rain. You also remember the dance number of Donald O'Connor, 'Make 'em Laugh.' If you saw 'Royal Wedding,' you will remember Fred Astaire dancing on the ceiling. If you saw 'Jailhouse Rock,' you will even remember the title dance number choreographed by The King himself.<br /><br />That is what is missing here. There could have been some blockbuster dance numbers in this presentation. The closest was Chuck McGowan's 'I Can Do That.' the mere fact that you have some talented people on stage moving together does not make a great dance film. Richard Attenborough was to blame for this failure. He pointed the camera at the stage and thought that would be a good thing.<br /><br />Yelling at people auditioning for a part in a Broadway production is not entertainment. Michael Douglas would be just as badly cast if he were in a Western or a comedy. He is OK when he is in a Michael Douglas movie where we see him yelling at someone we would like to yell at. It does not work here.<br /><br />The cast was good except for Michael, of course. A good movie could have been made even using the songs that were in the stage production, but someone should have thought about how to film it.<br /><br />Next time they do one of these I hope they call me first.<br /><br />Tom Willett | 1 |
The fluttering of butterfly wings in the Atlantic can unleash a hurricane in the Pacific. According to this theory (somehow related to the Chaos Theory, I'm not sure exactly how), every action, no matter how small or insignificant, will start a chain reaction that can lead to big events. This small jewel of a film shows us a series of seemingly-unrelated characters, most of them in Paris, whose actions will affect each others' lives. (The six-degrees-of-separation theory can be applied as well.) Each story is a facet of the jewel that is this film. The acting is finely-tuned and nuanced (Audrey Tautou is luminous), the stories mesh plausibly, the humor is just right, and the viewer leaves the theatre nodding in agreement. | 0 |
Although this was obviously a low-budget production, the performances and the songs in this movie are worth seeing. One of Walken's few musical roles to date. (he is a marvelous dancer and singer and he demonstrates his acrobatic skills as well - watch for the cartwheel!) Also starring Jason Connery. A great children's story and very likable characters. | 0 |
This is a beautiful movie that is wonderfully acted by all players. It will make you laugh and it will make you cry. The very end of the movie gets me to mist up every time. If you want to see a great movie, this is it. Jimmy Stewert supplies a wonderfully witty performance and Frank Morgan as Mr. Matuschek is spellbinding. Morgan's diversity of character is nothing short of amazing. William Tracy as Pepi is terrific comic relief and delivers some of the movies most important lines and performances. Felix Bressart delivers a fantastic performance as Perovitch, a stumbling bumbling shop worker who's life's ambition is to please those he works with. It is a simple story of how close co-workers can become and how two people who have great animosity towards each other fall in love though unusual circumstances. | 0 |
Out to Sea was a great movie. I expected comedy and from about 10 minutes into the film to the end, there was comedy, and laughing points. Jack and Walter are great together, and the addition of Rue McClanahan made it a wonderful movie, that should be seen over and over again. | 0 |
This is not a good movie at all. I cannot believe that after fifty years, this movie gets the National Award when there have been such gems from Marathi cinema that have been so systematically ignored. This is a very overrated movie that got very, very lucky. It was given the National Award, harvested the popular opinion and now is going to represent India before the international audience. Anyone with even a marginal understanding of good, quality cinema will know very well that this will not even be nominated at the Oscars.<br /><br />I cannot understand where to start. There are just so many things that are wrong and lacking in this movie that it amazing it even got considered for the National Award. That this movie is awarded as the best movie to come out this year goes to show the biased judgment of people who hold the reins of Indian cinema and the diminutive understanding of the people who blindly appreciate this movie.<br /><br />The topic chosen is great. It is important that such movies be made but only by people who are able to handle them. Sandeep Sawant does not measure up to the task not even close. His direction is jumpy, confused. There is no clear thought process. He tries, but is not able to explore the depth of the characters, especially the grandfather. He is not able to show the initial horror, anxiety and then hopeless detachment and yet the insurmountable courage of the grandfather. He wastes our time in the hospital when we should have been shown the time pair spend together. He is trying to cram in everything without any priorities. He does not understand his subject properly and that really counts against him.<br /><br />However, the cast does not help Sawant either. Worst job Amruta Shubash. She is a terrible actor and a terrible choice for this or any sensible acting job. How did she get 'Tee Phulrani'? Extremely lucky and/or extremely influential and/or extremely pitiful casting. Having said that, she goes out of her way to do an even terrible job in this movie. Her act of the MSW should have gone to the more responsible actor Sonali Kulkarni. Amruta Subhash did not understand it. MSW's work under constant emotional stress and yet it is important for them to project a calm, strong exterior, as this is reassuring to the patients. Amruta Subhash's Asawari seems even more scared and in need of support than the people she is working for.<br /><br />Second worst Arun Nalawade. I have never seen a more wooden face in Marathi film industry (it is abound and everywhere in today's Hindi cinema though). He is the producer and so he chose himself; no second thought, no consideration. Any good actor would have jumped to play this role even if he had to pay the producer's to do it, but Arun Nalawade would not let anyone else do it. Over ambitious and obtuse, he contributes to bring down the movie more than everyone else combined. His acting lacks research and even the basic acting skills. My choice for this role would be Vikram Gokhale.<br /><br />The music is uninspired. The movie is technically lacking. It could well have been an FTII project job.<br /><br />On the up side; brilliant performance by Ashwin Chitale. It is amazing that such a young boy could give such a respectable performance. He put many of today's actors to shame. Unintentionally maybe, but he brought his own innocence to his character and that made it a memorable performance. Also, Sandeep Kulkarni really gave a very believable performance. Really put in all his efforts and it shows. The script too is well written.<br /><br />'Shoestring budget' cannot be a valid argument to praise this movie. Lack of funds dogs all of the Marathi movies. Cricket and Hindi movies sponge all the money and the rest are left to fight for the scraps. It is a sorry state of affairs but yet not reason enough to praise any immature movie that comes out. 'Doghi' was brilliant movie and it too was made on a shoestring budget. 'Doghi' also lacked technically but it was well researched and well made. It was abound in details and supported by wonderful performances by everyone and that made it rich cinema. Why did it not receive the accolades it so very deserved? only proves my point of biased judgment.<br /><br />Lack of research and not of funds, is what makes 'Shwaas' such a bad movie. | 1 |
With all of the violence on TV and in the local news, it is refreshing to have a show that has no violence or adult language, yet is still entertaining. My children look forward to watching with us every week. Each of us have a favorite chef and favorite judges. We all enjoy Elton Brown. We enjoy learning about the background of the main ingredient, unique vegetables and seasonings. We play along at home to guess who the winner will be.<br /><br />It is a great hour of entertainment, as well as informational. Best of all in our hussle, bussle life, it is an hour the family spends together. | 0 |
I was reticent to see this flick before reading the external reviews and user comments posted here. Why? Firstly because Mick Malloy's humour can (in my humble opinion) be pretty crass and over the top, evidenced by his ill fated shemozzle of a television show some years back. And secondly because good Aussie comedy films are sadly as rare as the Tassie Tiger. <br /><br />Sensibly Mick has restrained his natural comedic exuberance in this surprisingly watchable movie. Who would have thought that a bowls club would provide the setting for one of the funniest Australian films in years. The cast is excellent with familiar local old timers all putting in believable performances. <br /><br />Interesting to see John Clarke playing the villain in this piece. It's a one dimensional part but JC still adds a touch of class, as always. Good to see Judith Lucy also getting a Guernsey or should I saw bowls uniform on the big screen. She's a real talent, pity a number of her retorts were expletives. Her own material is a lot wittier. Interesting character though. Bowls reporter on a local rag. How low on the journalist food chain can one get!!<br /><br />Crackerjack may not be the funniest film I've seen this year but it's certainly an enjoyable diversion, well worth a look. Lots of other people obviously agree with me as it's headed to be the biggest grossing Australian film this year. Good to see someone finally make a quirky, gentle comedy without trying to sledgehammer the laughs like so many Australian 'comedies' before it. <br /><br />Finally a bit of trivia. If you're wondering which Aussie Rules team Mick supports check out the flag on his workstation. Also look out for his old partner in crime, Tony Martin doing the announcing in the final bowls scene. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> | 0 |
This is the first American film to successfully adopt the naturalistic style used by Europeans, particularly the French and Belgians, for at least a decade, and isn't it about time? Following three high school girls in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn during the last days of their summer break between freshman and sophomore years, it does what all good art should: it discovers the universal in the particular. Even though the girls' preoccupations are outwardly conventional--boys, sex, popularity, money, freedom, and clothes--we glimpse how their whole lives are being shaped, the universal interface between character and destiny.<br /><br />The naturalism is whole, complete. The film breathes, stays in the moment, inhabits real time. The story tells itself. The medium and its artifacts, for once, are not the message. The film unwaveringly, truthfully conveys the childhood perspective of its characters; it does not impose its own adult meanings or morals. Details emerge of their own, are never pushed, and thus seem all the more real and powerful for their understatement. Even though great pains have been taken to capture the authentic social reality of Crown Heights, part of the largest Black ghetto in New York City and one of the most dangerous violent places in the US, the subject is childhood in the ghetto, not the ghetto itself.<br /><br />Documentary footage of the practice sessions of a marching band, the Jackie Robinson Steppers, punctuate the film at regular intervals with an explosion of color, movement, and sound. Otherwise, the camera stays very close, very intimate, a patient, sly, and unobtrusive observer. The language is rich, spontaneous, the acting transparent. Some scenes standout, such as the girls lolling about, each revealing her deepest fantasies. Lanisha's confession of her acceptance of a death by random violence is the most shocking, one of the deepest scars of the ghetto. Her sharing with her mother her confusion and fear before the stark challenges of adult life is equally moving, and beautifully, unsentimentally affirmative.<br /><br />Social realities are respected, not propagandized: All three girls are being raised by single moms, only one, Lanisha, has a father active in her life (and, not coincidentally, of the three she is the most emotionally stable and empathetic to others, and the one with the most self-respect). Two of them suffer from asthma, a disease disproportionately prevalent in the inner city. Gunfire, an accepted daily occurrence, only momentarily interrupts their conversation. Only one of the girls, Joy, feels hope for, feels she has control over the future, while the other two to varying degrees have already accepted despair.<br /><br />This is by far the best dramatic American film I've seen in years. See it, see it, see it. | 0 |
To anyone who is interested, I have managed to get this on DVD from Ebay (haven't received it yet - any day now).<br /><br />I have been desperate to get this even if it is a VHS quality put on a DVD I don't mind. So to anyone interested get in touch with me and maybe I can help you out.<br /><br />To be honest it's ridiculous that I've had to wait nearly 7 years to see this again but boy it will be worth it.<br /><br />All my mates at work are desperate to see it too.<br /><br />Anyway I'll post later regarding the quality.<br /><br />Just do a search on Ebay if u want it guys. it's there to buy | 0 |
There's tons of good-looking women in this flick. But alas, this movie is nudity-free. Grrrrrrrrrr Strike one.<br /><br />Ahem. One story in this film takes place in 1971. Then why the hell are the main characters driving a Kia Sportage? Hello? Continuity, anyone?<br /><br />As you might know, this movie was released in stereoscopic 3D. And it is the most hideous effect I have ever seen. I'm not sure if someone botched the job on this, but there WAS no 3D, just double-vision blurs. I didn't have the same problem with this company's other 3D movies, HUNTING SEASON and CAMP BLOOD. Sure, the 3D in those ones sucked too, but with them I could see a semblance of 3D effect.<br /><br />This thing is a big ball of nothing.<br /><br />And whoever that women was who played the daughter of the ear-eating dame, yum! I'd like to see more of her. In movies, as well. Looks like Janet Margolin at a young age. Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr<br /><br /> | 1 |
This is absolutely nothing like the WWF and the 'Attitude Era' of the WWF. I have always been a dedicated WWF fan and I never took a glimpse of its competition. Now, I rue the day that I wanted the WWF to take charge. At the least the WCW would try something new and radical all the time instead of keeping up as a mask of the actual intentions of the show and this holds true to ECW as well. The WWF has always been about Hulk Hogan, Andre The Giant, and other old wrestlers like so and the 'Attitude Era' only happened to catch up with the radical ideas of the competition. The WWE is the same trash as it was before the Attitude Era only dumbed down and demoralized. The wrestlers are terrible, the brand split is mind scrambling, and the story lines and stipulations are non-existent. The WWE is so bad that it ceases to even be a former shell of itself by pushing characters and wrestlers into the main event suddenly and by retaining barriers of creativity. Sure, the show shakes the brains of sweet, innocent, and easily brain-washed children and meager, lousy, pariah, stupid people of the Internet Wrestling Community that actually consider the company anything good. Anybody that even shudders and rests on the thought that this show and product is good can go straight to hell. | 1 |
Blazing saddles! It's a fight between two estranged brothers (Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard), both of whom can ignite fires mentally; they square off over childhood differences, with dippy love-interest Debra Winger caught in the middle. Director Glenn Gordon Caron (the TV whiz-kid behind 'Moonlighting') smothers the darkly-textured comedy in Vince Gilligan's screenplay with a presentation so slick, the movie resembles an entry from an over-enthusiastic film student on a fifteen million-dollar grant. It has the prickly energy of a big commercial feature, but a shapeless style which brings out nothing from the characters except their kooky eccentricities. These aren't even characters, they're plot functions. Barely-released to theaters, the film is a disaster, although strictly as an example of style over substance it does look good. Winger is the only stand-out in a cast which looks truly perplexed. *1/2 from **** | 1 |
This one is a real bomb. We are supposed to believe that Merle Oberon is the sequestered daughter of an ambitious politician who must prove to the Tom DeLay of the 1930s that he is worth supporting as a presidential candidate. Poor Merle can't go anywhere, but is surrounded by politicians and their quacking, quaking wives and supported only by kindly uncle Harry Davenport. She joins her two maids on a blind date and Gary Cooper happens to show up. Some shots of rodeo might have enlivened things, a la 'Misfits,' but no such luck with this one. Gary later breaks in to a formal dinner, at which Merle is presiding, and, though invited to sit down and join the group, reads them a lecture on their snobbery. Where did this diffident cowboy's sudden eloquence come from? The most excruciating scene in the film is a phantom party that Gary holds in his unfinished house for his absent wife, Merle. Will it never end? One to avoid. | 1 |
As a huge fan of horror, I had given up on the vampire sub-genre due to the fact that in most vampire flicks the vampire has become feminine and non-threatening, benign and basically weak. This was the attitude I brought to a viewing of Soul's Midnight and I am happy to say that the vampires in this film at least have the hunger to kill old ladies and sacrifice babies! Armand Assante, one of my favorite actors of all time, was born to play the charming vampire with savage intensity. <br /><br />Another thing that interested me is that the central location is the Borgo Hotel. That is cool because (and I went back to my high school copy to look this up) in Dracula, the Borgo Pass is where Jonathan Harker must pass to get to Dracula's castle.<br /><br />Finally, my hats off to whoever made the decision to make the creature a real effect and not a darn CGI! That's the one thing great about many low-budget movies, they cannot afford the garbage computer effects that plague many Hollywood monstrosities.<br /><br />Bottom line...this is better than Underworld for sure, especially if you are a vampire purest. Cheers, JA | 0 |
The Kindred opens to shots of a Porsche racing along a highway, it catches up with an old pick-up truck and gets held up. As it speeds past the pick-up the driver (Benjamin J.Perry as Ben Perry) shouts obscenities and honks his horn. Distracted he doesn't notice an obstruction ahead and crashes his Porsche. He is quickly freed from the wreckage and is taken to hospital. On the way the Paramedic (Randy Harrington) trying to save him suggests that he probably won't make it. Then the Ambulance is attacked and forced off the road by a van. The driver of the van, Jackson (Jim Boeke as James F.Boeke) beats the Paramedic up and steals the patient. The Ambulance driver, Harry (Charles Grueber) makes no attempt to stop him. Once the injured man has been placed into the van Jackson turns his attention to Harry whom seem to know each other. Harry asks Jackson not to hit him because he broke his jaw 'last time'. Jackson punches Harry to the floor and throws a bundle of money at him. The film then makes it perfectly clear we are in San Fransisco by showing a shot of the Golden Gate Bridge. Sharon Raymond is woken up by a phone call for her boyfriend Dr. John Hollins (David Allen Brooks) to inform him that his Mother, Amanda (Kim Hunter) who has recently had a heart attack has regained consciousness. Hollins works for a company called the 'Geneticell Corporation' and is delighted at the news and heads off to see her. Once there she asks him to go back to his old childhood house in a small town called Shelter Cove and destroy all of her notes and experiments, especially the 'Anthony journals' which Hollins has never heard of, she also claims that he has a brother named Anthony. Back at Geneticell, Hollins talks with a Dr. Phillip Lloyd (Rod Steiger) about his Mother as they had both worked together before they had a falling out with each other, and questions him about her research and if he knows of anyone called Anthony. He claims he knows nothing. When Amanda dies after a visit from the sinister Dr. Lloyd, Hollins decides to carry out his Mothers request and try to find out who Anthony is. While paying his final respects at the funeral a woman named Melissa Leftridge (Amanda Pays) introduces herself to Hollins and says she was a big admirer of his Mothers work and research after she helped her. Because Melissa seems to know so much about his Mothers work he invites her to the house as she may possibly be able to help find some answers to various questions he has. Hollins, Sharon, Melissa and three lab assistants, Brad Baxter (Peter Frechette), Hart Phillips (Timothy Gibbs) and Cindy Russell (Julia Montgomery) plus a girl with a watermelon(!) named Nell Valentine (Bunki Z, great name what were her parents thinking!?). They get down to business straight away but find little of any interest. For some reason no one at this point thinks to look in the basement, which is just as well as there's something down there, something large, slimy and has lots of tentacles. First it kills Duke, the dog. Then it moves on to larger prey. When Hart is attacked by something in a barn Hollins decides he must destroy all traces of his Mothers work and whatever Anthony is. Jointly co-written and directed by Stepehn Carpenter and Jeffery Obrow, Carpenter also acted as cinematographer and Obrow as producer. This is a pretty poor film in my opinion. The script is credited to five(!) writers, Carpenter, Obrow, Earl Ghaffari, John Penny and Joseph Stefano and with five people working on it I'd like to think they could come up with something a little bit better and more coherent than this. Nothing is explained that well, why did Amanda create these monstrous sea creature/human hybrids? What is Dr. Lloyd's interest and his motives? Why does he steal bodies from the back of Ambulance's? Why does he have a basement full of mutants? Why do none of these so-called genetic scientists think to check the basement out? Could Melissa act more suspiciously even if she tried? Why are none of the characters given any background? Why do people keep mentioning a substance found in sea creatures called Hemocynine when 99.9% of the audience isn't going to have clue what their on about? There is also a serious lack of blood and gore, only one person dies on screen, just one! And all the scientists survive in a vomit inducingly mushy 'happy ending'. This is a horror film guys, all we want to see is the slimy monsters kill and eat people in various gory ways. The one on screen death is actually quite cool, someone has slimy tentacles inserted under their skin, in their ear and up their nose in the films only decent horror sequence. To try and up the gore quotent there is a scene where Dr. Lloyd is experimenting on a skinned animal but it only lasts for a few seconds, and in the context of the rest of the film doesn't mean a thing. Melissa also turns into a fish, don't ask. There's no nudity either, which isn't a surprise. The film looks professional enough with decent production values but is just so dull and plods along at a snails pace, we don't even get to see the giant monster in the basement until 15 odd minutes before the end which is far too little far too late, when it does make an appearance the effects are OK and that makes it even more of a shame that it wasn't used more. Overall I was very disappointed and I was expecting a lot better. A horror film with only one on screen death and only three in total, what's the world coming too? | 1 |
The effects of job related stress and the pressures born of a moral dilemma that pits conscience against the obligations of a family business (albeit a unique one) all brought to a head by-- or perhaps the catalyst of-- a midlife crisis, are examined in the dark and absorbing drama, `Panic,' written and directed by Henry Bromell, and starring William H. Macy and Donald Sutherland. It's a telling look at how indecision and denial can bring about the internal strife and misery that ultimately leads to apathy and that moment of truth when the conflict must, of necessity, at last be resolved.<br /><br /> Alex (Macy) is tired; he has a loving wife, Martha (Tracey Ullman), a precocious six-year-old son, Sammy (David Dorfman), a mail order business he runs out of the house, as well as his main source of income, the `family' business he shares with his father, Michael (Sutherland), and his mother, Deidre (Barbara Bain). But he's empty; years of plying this particular trade have left him numb and detached, putting him in a mental state that has driven him to see a psychologist, Dr. Josh Parks (John Ritter). And to make matters worse (or maybe better, depending upon perspective), in Dr. Parks' waiting room he meets a young woman, Sarah Cassidy (Neve Campbell), whose presence alone makes him feel alive for the first time since he can remember. She quickly becomes another brick in the wall of the moral conflict his job has visited upon him, as in the days after their meeting he simply cannot stop thinking about her. His whole life, it seems, has become a `situation'-- one from which he is seemingly unable to successfully extirpate himself without hurting the ones he loves. He can deny his age and the fact that he has, indeed, slipped into a genuine midlife crisis, but he is about to discover that the problems he is facing are simply not going to go away on their own. He's at a crossroads, and he's going to have to decide which way to go. And he's going to have to do it very soon.<br /><br /> From a concept that is intrinsically interesting, Bromell has fashioned an engrossing character study that is insightful and incisive, and he presents it is a way that allows for moments of reflection that enable the audience to empathize and understand what Alex is going through. He makes it very clear that there are no simple answers, that in real life there is no easy way out. His characters are well defined and very real people who represent the diversity found in life and, moreover, within any given family unit. The film resoundingly implies that the sins of the father are irrefutably passed on to the progeny, with irrevocable consequences and effects. When you're growing up, you accept your personal environment as being that of the world at large; and often it is years into adulthood that one may begin to realize and understand that there are actually moral parameters established by every individual who walks upon the planet, and that the ones set by the father may not be conducive to the tenets of the son. And it is at that point that Alex finds himself as the story unfolds; ergo, the midlife crisis, or more specifically, the crisis of conscience from which he cannot escape. It's a powerful message, succinctly and subtly conveyed by Bromell, with the help of some outstanding performances from his actors.<br /><br /> For some time, William H. Macy has been one of the premiere character actors in the business, creating such diverse characters as Quiz Kid Donnie Smith in `Magnolia,' The Shoveler in `Mystery Men' and Jerry Lundegaard in `Fargo.' And that's just a sampling of his many achievements. At one point in this film, Sarah mentions Alex's `sad eyes,' and it's a very telling comment, as therein lies the strength of Macy's performance here, his ability to convey very real emotion in an understated, believable way that expresses all of the inner turmoil he is experiencing. Consider the scene in which he is lying awake in bed, staring off into the darkness; in that one restless moment it is clear that he is grappling, not only with his immediate situation, but with everything in his life that has brought him, finally, to this point. In that scene you find the sum total of a life of guilt, confusion and uncertainty, all of which have been successfully suppressed until now; all the things that have always been at the core of Alex's life, only now gradually breaking through his defense mechanisms and finally surfacing, demanding confrontation and resolution. It's a complex character created and delivered by Macy with an absolute precision that makes Alex truly memorable. It's a character to whom anyone who has ever faced a situation of seemingly insurmountable odds will be able to relate. It's a terrific piece of work by one of the finest actors around.<br /><br /> Sutherland is extremely effective, as well; his Michael is despicably sinister in a way that is so real it's chilling. It's frightening, in fact, to consider that there are such people actually walking the earth. This is not some pulp fiction or James Bond type villain, but a true personification of evil, hiding behind an outward appearance that is so normal he could be the guy next door, which is what makes it all the more disconcerting. And Sutherland brings it all to life brilliantly, with a great performance.<br /><br /> Neve Campbell looks the part of Sarah, but her performance (as is the usual case with her) seems somewhat pretentious, although her affected demeanor here just happens to fit the character and is actually a positive aspect of the film. If only she would occasionally turn her energies inward, it would make a tremendous difference in the way she presents her characters. `Panic,' however, is one of her best efforts; a powerful film that, in the end, is a journey well worth taking. 9/10. <br /><br /> | 0 |
Julie Delpy stars in this horrific film about a sadistic relationship between a father and a daughter in France of the 14th Century. The film attempts to shatter the romantic chivalry image of the heroic medieval knight, by showing a rather dreary image of the period, defined by psychological dysfunction, and violence. <br /><br />The movie opens with a child, François, growing up in the shadow of the Hundred Years' War, told by his father to keep his mother safe and to wait for his return. François takes action when he discovers his mother with a lover in bed. François murders him in the name of defending his father's honour. Like father like son, François grows up, and leaves his family, also to go to the same war. This setting is somewhat of an explanation for the events to come, as on his way home, we already notice that something is wrong with François. The war has not done well with him, he has changed.<br /><br />The daughter, Béatrice de Cortemart (Delpy), awaits her beloved father, to return from captivity of the English. She is pure of heart and she was left to take care of the estate while her father was gone. In her father's absence, Béatrice needs to deal with financial difficulties, which strengthens Béatrice's hope that her father will return to save her. But, upon his return, she notices that he lost the will to enjoy life, and he tortures and humiliates everything around him, even his own daughter. From this points the film depicts various ways how François torments his family. Starting with humiliating his own son, and ending with the rape of his own daughter, Béatrice.<br /><br />Setting the film in the Middle Ages supposed to soften the blow, as the viewer may tell himself, that these kind of violent acts were held in difficult times. And indeed, many films on the topic of Incest, such as Tim Roth's 'The War Zone (1999)' which are contemporary were more shocking because of that.<br /><br />Delpy appears in this film in several daring nude scenes. Indeed she appears to be angelic and beautiful.<br /><br />I was annoyed when I saw some animal torture scenes. I believe, and this is not confirmed, that some birds were killed for the making of this film, which really upsets me. The quality of a film drops when real violence is used towards animals. I would hope that this movie will be re-released without those cruelty scenes. Those scenes do not contribute much to the film storyline.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is too long. The script is problematic. We don't get to see François and Béatrice before the war, we don't really get the answer why is he changed to such extreme. I would have pass on this film, however, I have to mention a few scenes that made this film worth watching:<br /><br />* Scenes of a young child being able to murder in cold blood is truly shocking. I saw it first time on 'City of God (2002)'. Here, François, murders his mother's lover, while his father away at war. Excellent scene and very graphic. * The scenes from Béatrice being raped by her father till she finds out she is pregnant from him are truly shocking and interesting. The scene after the rape, where Delpy burns her cloths and cleans herself. She asks her brother to kick her in the stomach with hopes to have a miscarriage.<br /><br />* The brother humiliation scenes where the father dumps his son's head into the food - humiliating him then ranting about the war. Later, dressing his son with women's cloths.<br /><br />The film won the César (French Oscar) for Best Costume Design, I agree, the costumes here really make the film look authentic for the time period. The movie location is Château de Puivert, a real 12th century castle and a historical monument, located in Aude, South-Central France. Beautiful castle and mountain view, really helps you set into the period of this film. The film also nominated for 3 more César awards, but they were all snatched to the widely successful French film 'Au revoir, les enfants' ('Goodbye, Children', 1998).<br /><br />--- Released as 'Beatrice' in New York City, March 1987. Only to be screened in France on November 2007. Watched it on YES3 on 3 May 2007, 17:45, at work. | 1 |
Yes, In 35 years of film going I have finally viewed the stinker that surpasses all other ghastly movies I have seen. Beating 'Good Will Hunting' Baise Moi' and 'Flirt' for sheer awfulness. This is pretentious blige of the first order... not even entertaining pretentious bilge. The effects are cheap, and worse - pointless.<br /><br />The script seems to have been written by a first year film student who doesn't get out much but wants to appear full of portent! The acting is simply undescribably bad - Tilda Swinton caps a career filled with vacuous woodeness with a performance which veers neurotically between comotose and laughable 'intensity'. Apparently, some fool out there has allowed the director of this film to make another one... be warned | 1 |
This film deals with the Irish rebellion in the 1920s and more specifically one man's life after he informs on a friend for the bounty on his head and the subsequent consequences. Watching the film, I got the feeling that you could take the script and with just some minor updates, do it again and it, sadly, would still fit contemporary events. But te remake wouldn't be nearly as good. A magnificent performance by Victor McLaglen (for which he deservedly got an Oscar) and a fine ensemble cast that includes most, if not all the actors with brogues in Hollywood at the time, most of them recognizable character actors either established at the time or just starting out. A very good film well worth watching. Highly recommended. | 0 |
I'd never thought that I would be caught saying this: But I think 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' is more entertaining than this 90's era cop drama. Walker is very melodramatic and actually set a standard of the genre of 'High Octane' cop shows such as CSI, CSI: Miami, and so forth. I'm not saying all these shows are bad, but they aren't good either. I like the karate chop action that Walker dispenses on the enemies of justice, and the diverse cast of characters as much as the science tech of the CSI series. But there are some elements that I hate in a show like this. Stereotypes/Countertypes! That's right, Stereotypes/Countertypes! Unfortunately, this is a show for the moderates of Red State America who refuse to part with the old prejudices of yore especially when it comes to crime. For example, there was an episode in which a kid with psychic powers ventures into Dallas where he encounters group of kids in Goth/Punk clothing and they start harassing him. Now! This is exactly what Middle America perceives the Goth/Punk culture. I mean come on, how often do people that dress like that rob and steal from people just minding there own business. Whenever there are Blacks and Latinos in the plot it's always about gangs in some impoverished neighborhood. Okay! Not everyone who's a minority is a desperate recruit of a gang surrounded by crime, drugs, poverty. Again, this is what Middle Red State America sees of these people. Finally, Why is the Trivette the bumbling sidekick, can't you make the sidekick an equal ass-kicker? | 1 |
Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.<br /><br />Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his 'backstage' footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.<br /><br />Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his 'smoking gun'.) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.<br /><br />As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence. | 1 |
Flockhart's performance is very disappointing. It seems she is trying to make up for her lack of emotion by substituting obscenities. Why the R rating includes 'sexuality' is beyond me. There is no nudity or steamy love scenes. The plot is old and tired. | 1 |
the guy who wrote, directed and stared in this shocking piece of trash should really consider a carer change. Yes Rob Stefaniuk, i mean you! Seriously, who funded this crap? there are so many talented writers out there whom money could be better spent on. I think the idea is great but the acting, script and directing is just plain awful! The jokes are so not funny, I understand that they are supposed to be taking the mickey. BUT do it with style, this movie is screaming 1995 Saturday night live skits. Why, I say again why do studios give money to hacks like Rob Stefaniuk - NEVER GIVE A COMEDIAN THE Opportunity TO WRITE DIRECT AND STAR IN HIS OWN MOVIE. DUH! | 1 |
I and a friend rented this movie. We both found the movie soundtrack and production techniques to be lagging. The movie's plot appeared to drag on throughout with little surprise in the ending. We both agreed that the movie could have been compressed into roughly an hour giving it more suspense and moving plot. | 1 |
This is not the typical Mel Brooks film. It was much less slapstick than most of his movies and actually had a plot that was followable. Leslie Ann Warren made the movie, she is such a fantastic, under-rated actress. There were some moments that could have been fleshed out a bit more, and some scenes that could probably have been cut to make the room to do so, but all in all, this is worth the price to rent and see it. The acting was good overall, Brooks himself did a good job without his characteristic speaking to directly to the audience. Again, Warren was the best actor in the movie, but 'Fume' and 'Sailor' both played their parts well. | 0 |
Zero Day leads you to think, even re-think why two boys/young men would do what they did - commit mutual suicide via slaughtering their classmates. It captures what must be beyond a bizarre mode of being for two humans who have decided to withdraw from common civility in order to define their own/mutual world via coupled destruction.<br /><br />It is not a perfect movie but given what money/time the filmmaker and actors had - it is a remarkable product. In terms of explaining the motives and actions of the two young suicide/murderers it is better than 'Elephant' - in terms of being a film that gets under our 'rationalistic' skin it is a far, far better film than almost anything you are likely to see. <br /><br />Flawed but honest with a terrible honesty. | 0 |
This happens to be one of my favorite horror films. It's a rich, classy production boasting an excellent cast of ensemble actors, beautiful on-location cinematography, a haunting musical score, an intelligent and novel plot theme, and an atmosphere of dread and menace. It's reminiscent of such classic films as ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE SHINING, wherein young, vulnerable women find themselves victimized by supernatural forces in old, creepy buildings with a macabre past. Here, CRISTINA RAINES plays a top New York City fashion model named Alison Parker. Her happy, outgoing exterior masks a deeply conflicted and troubled soul. This is evidenced by the revelation that in her past, she attempted suicide twice- once as a teenage girl after walking in on her degenerate father cavorting in bed with two women and having him rip a silver crucifix from her neck and toss it on the floor, and the second time, after her married lawyer-boyfriend's wife supposedly committed suicide over learning of their affair. Telling her beau(played by a suitably slimy CHRIS SARANDON) that she needs to live on her own for a year or so, she answers a newspaper ad for a fully-furnished, spacious one-bedroom apartment in an old Brooklyn Heights brownstone. This building actually exists and is located at 10 Montague Terrace right by the Brooklyn Heights Promenade off Remsen Street. The producers actually filmed inside the building and its apartments, paying the residents for their inconvenience, of course. The real estate agent, a Miss Logan(AVA GARDNER), seems to be very interested in having Alison take the apartment- an interest that cannot be solely explained by the 6% commission she would earn. Especially when she quickly drops the rental price from $500.00 a month to $400.00. Alison agrees and upon leaving the building with Miss Logan, notices an elderly man sitting and apparently staring at her from the top-floor window. Miss Logan identifies the man to her as Father Halliran and tells Alison that he's blind. Alison's response is very logical- 'Blind? Then what does he look at?' After moving in, Alison meets some of the other residents in the building, including a lesbian couple played by SYLVIA MILES and BEVERLY D'ANGELO, who provide Alison with an uncomfortable welcome to the building. Alison's mental health and physical well-being soon start to deteriorate and she is plagued by splitting headaches and fainting spells. When she relays her concerns to Miss Logan about her sleep being disturbed on a nightly basis by clanging metal and loud footsteps coming from the apartment directly over her, she is dumbstruck to learn that apart from the blind priest and now herself, no one has lived in that building for the last three years. Summoning the courage one night to confront her nocturnal tormentor, she arms herself with a butcher knife and a flashlight and enters the apartment upstairs. She is confronted by the cancer-riddled specter of her dead father and uses the knife on him in self-defense when he comes after her. The police investigate and find no sign of violence in that apartment- no corpse, no blood, nothing. Yet Alison fled the building and collapsed in the street, covered in blood- her own, as it turns out. But there's nary a mark on her. What Alison doesn't realize until the film's denouement is that her being in that brownstone has a purpose. She was put there for a reason- a reason whose origin dates back to the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden and of the angel Uriel who was posted at its entrance to guard it from the Devil. She is being unknowingly primed and prepped by the Catholic Church to assume a most important role- one that will guarantee that her soul, which is damned for her two suicide attempts, can be saved. At the same time, the 'invisible' neighbors, who turn out to be more than just quirky oddballs, have a different agenda in mind for her. This is a competent and intelligently done film and one that surprisingly portrays the Church and its representatives in a mostly sympathetic light. | 0 |
Greetings All,<br /><br />Isn't it amazing the power that films have on you after the 1st viewing ?<br /><br />I was so delighted by the first viewing of this film, I couldn't stop talking about 'Flatliners' to all my friends for weeks - mind you I was a very impressionable 18 year old back then and my taste in films have become a little more conservative since then.<br /><br />Then somehow I forgot about this film until I saw the DVD in my local department store and remembering how great it was I thought 'Right ! I'll pluck you off the shelf when they bring out the Special Edition'.<br /><br />Last week, I was overjoyed when my best friend invited me over to watch Flatliners on DVD. The expectation was that I would love this film even more on 2nd viewing.. How wrong I was !<br /><br />Verdict: after 11 years my view on this film had changed from a very scary 1st class movie to total junk which overplays on the religious and supernatural side of things ratherly superficially.<br /><br />I have never been a big fan of Julia Roberts' acting (excepting for Erin Brockeridge in which she deserved her Oscar) I think the problem with this film definitely lies with the director and a so so mediocre script. I left this film feeling it had no real substance or potential, and just a couple of scarey cheap thrills which weren't very well done at all. Not even the score by James-Newtown Howard, who I rather like as a film composer, could captivate and thrill me.<br /><br />In 1990 I would have given this film 9.5 / 10; but in 2001 I'd be lucky to give it 2 / 10 at best.<br /><br /> | 1 |
The subject matter of this film is potentially depressing: a man about thirty, with no job, little education, three kids from a failed relationship, living in his parents' house, but with a dream of directing feature films. But about a half-hour into the movie you realize that Mark Borchardt has a bottomless supply of drive and ambition--it's just that it's all channeled into his need to direct movies, and nothing else will make him happy. The movie jumps all over the emotional spectrum, but in the end you come away feeling happy, because you've just gotten to know some wonderful people. Go to see this--you'll end up wishing it was longer. | 0 |
The slightly overlong set up episode of the previous week paid off in no uncertain terms with an episode that hit the heights. There was a certain deus ex machina flavour to the resolution of the cliffhanger, but it was a good start for all that. As is now common with this Doctor the moral, ethical and emotional considerations of his actions were centre stage. They were always there in the classic series, but they were a side issue, to be glossed over when the Doctor was in the heat of battle. This regeneration even says sorry to a cyberman during the battle! This episode finally shows Mickey embracing the heroic side that had been hinted at in previous episodes. His journey from zero to hero is complete, and it has been an utterly convincing one. With scares, humour and scenes that brought a lump to your throat this episode had everything. After much consideration I can finally say that the new series betters the classic series in every single respect. Coming from a die hard Whovian you can get no better recommendation than that. | 0 |
Some people have the ability to use only 3 neurons, one for eating, one for breathing and the other one for s**ting... This is not a movie for them... <br /><br />But for those who enjoy using the brain... the whole movie is a metaphor, everything is there for a purpose, every single detail, the coffee mug, the red couch, everything... is a underestimated masterpiece... <br /><br />It is hilarious, is raw and totally realistic, that's how we actually interact.... it is a royal comedy... total causality...<br /><br />Just hang on, don't let the first scene shock you..... hang on... and enjoy the show.... | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.