review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Admittedly, I am not a fan of the Monogram Chan films. . The plot, involving radium theft from a bank vault, is a bit far fetched and a long way from the atmospheric mysteries that Fox produced. Mantan Moreland and Benson Fong (as No. 3 Son Tommy) provide some laughs as usual. But otherwise there isn't much here. Great title that is wasted. | 1 |
Amanda Bynes is an enormously talented actress, and I've really enjoyed all of her roles in the past, especially in the fantastic 'She's the Man.' For that reason alone, 'Sydney White' was a huge disappointment for me. The real reason for my dislike of this film is the poor use of characters. In a good fun teen comedy, its perfectly alright to have a cast of all fairly reality-based teen characters. In 'Sydney White,' this idea is thrown out the window.<br /><br />Amanda Bynes makes a fine Sydney, but she is really lacking in a lot of what usually makes her sparkle as an actress. I blame this on the script, which makes her character too bland and restrained, and on the hair/makeup department, which gives her a detestable plastic look and an annoying hair style. The seven 'dorks' that Sydney eventually befriends are far worse. They are so dorky that it's impossible to like them or even respect them as characters. They're essentially repulsive gag fodder. As is the story's 'Prince Charming,' who is completely unbelievable as a character and is about as cheesy as can be.<br /><br />Perhaps the film's biggest star-to-be (with the possible exception of Amanda Bynes) is Sara Paxton, who's actually very good as the conniving Rachel Witchburn. It's just a shame that the script-writers didn't make her a bit more gray than black.<br /><br />The plot is basically that of 'Snow White.' What kills it is that it is too blunt and obvious a re-imagining. The connections to 'Snow White' are thrown at us so much throughout the film that they are ultimately annoying and overblown. Prince Charming is unrealistically charming, the 'witch' is far too despicably witchy, the seven 'dorks' are too dorky, and Sydney is just too pure of heart. Now, this is not to say that the movie is all bad. Though Bynes is forced down by the script, she still has her moments. As does Sara Paxton, who brings physical comedy to the max in her scenes. Sydney's room-mate, named 'Dinky' is also great fun as a character. It's a somewhat funny film at parts that is ultimately just too cheesy and clichéd to recommend. | 1 |
If I could say it was better than Gymkata, I at least felt my money was not totally wasted.<br /><br />Then I saw Steven Segal's On Deadly Ground.<br /><br />This movie should see a resurrection though on MST 3K. If Santa Claus Conquers the Martians could make Tom Servo's head explode, one wonders what mayhem this movie could cause.<br /><br />There is a very good reason why Kurt Thomas never had a movie career.<br /><br />The writers of this dreck should be forced to wear placards every day of their lives that say 'Bitch slap me! I was a writer on Gymkata.' | 1 |
This Film exhibits dear irony, shaggy-dog roundabout story lines woven with subtle cultural references, Classic parallels, masterful use of rich saturated color, and fabulous rendition of chase scenes a'la Keystone Cops. <br /><br />The ensemble work of the cast and entire crew is Charming. Literally. How else could I go on so? <br /><br />This film speaks to everyone. The deft and poignant use of so many universal archetypes: That's what makes this Film so deep down satisfying. <br /><br />As a mature student of film, I find Checking Out contains all the vital elements. Sure and Bergorra, it's not the GODFATHER, but would serve perfectly as follow up; Tragedy's mandatory Satyr play that sweetly binds our collective cathartic wounds.<br /><br />Get thee to a theatre and see this film, you will be treated to a unique masterpiece. | 0 |
I went to see this film out of curiosity, and to settle an argument. The film is now best known from the suite of music Sergei Prokofiev extracted from his incidental music to the film, the Troika movement even turning up in pop arrangements. The general outline of the plot is well known from the sleeve notes on various recordings. A clerk accidentally generates a non-existent Lieutenant Kizhe in a list to be presented to the tsar. The tsar is interested in this person, and rather than tell him he doesn't exist, the courtiers and officers maintain the pretence that he is real. Kizhe is exiled to Siberia, recalled, promoted, married, promoted again, dies, is given a state funeral, revealed as an embezzler and posthumously demoted to the ranks.<br /><br />I had heard conflicting stories about how the clerk invented Kizhe, involving ink blots and sneezes, but I'd heard the film was lost, so there was no way to find out what happens. Then the film turned up at the Barbican in London as part of their Prokofiev festival. For the record, it turned out that all that happens is that the clerk confuses two words whilst writing an order and turns Kuzhe into Kizhe. As the tsar is in a hurry to see the order, there's no time to correct the mistake.<br /><br />Having gone expecting an historical curiosity, I was pleasantly surprised. The film is very funny, and the audience, myself included, laughed continuously. Although most of it is filmed straight, set mostly in the palace, there are a few 'trick' shots where multiple images appear on the screen. For instance, the tsar's army is represented by a small group, repeated across the screen. Four identical guards perform perfect drill in perfect unison. Two identical servants scrub the floor.<br /><br />One slight drawback was it was very difficult to work out who everyone was. There were two women who might have been the tsar's daughters, or a daughter and a servant or something else. And very few people were named. But all in all, an enjoyable film and I'm surprised it's not seen more often. | 0 |
So Mary and Rhoda have aged--who hasn't? I was a teen when Mary premiered, and a 'young adult' when it left the air. Yes, it was great to see Mary and Rho together, and yes, maybe the film didn't sustain the comedy of the original series, but there were enough moments that recalled the spirit of the series to make this a fitting tribute. Example: the producer who hires Mary and then dictates the idea for a new series about 'old people.' Isn't this typical of the mentality of present-day Hollywood TV and film 'bean counters?' This may not be THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW at its best--but it's a pretty damned good look back at one of the best shows we grew up with in the 70s. | 0 |
For two of the funniest comedians, the movie was awful. Fast forwarded it and never got any better! Waste of time and waste of money! Tina Fey is such a great writer, I thought that she would be so great in the comedy. The previews were so great, but they only showed the best parts of the movie. My husband even thought that for a chick flick, it sucked. What is up with that. Movie was very slow ans boring. I will not recommend it to anyone at this time. I would like my money back for this one! BOO from us here in Arizona. Thanks but no thanks. Who does this kind of stupid stuff to make people think that you are pregnant. I thought that it was going to be so funny, I have had my own children and I have helped others have children. It could have been more along the lines of reality. | 1 |
Probably one of his lesser known films, it suffers from the same lack of exposure as Salvador in that its actually one of his best.<br /><br />Written by and starring Eric Bogosian, Talk Radio tells the story of an opinionated radio phone-in host who upsets the wrong kind of listener. The film is important, and has much to say on the issues of free speech and just how free it should be, and you can easily tell that it started life as a stage play. Know what you're getting into before you sit down to watch it and you'll be fine.<br /><br />There isn't much to the acting really as Bogosian pretty much steals the film, he wrote and is given licence to rant, I couldn't take my eyes off him and that was part of the fascination many of the listeners had; the people who hated him wouldn't turn off in-case they missed something.<br /><br />Not for everyone, but a very good drama and overall a very good film. | 0 |
A gut-ripping baby T-Rex is on the loose in a small western town, prompting sheriff Eric Roberts and animal control agent Melissa Brasselle (who walks through her role in a very disinterest fashion) to get to the bottom of things. They discover that a mad scientist (Corbin Bernsen) is, unbeknownst to the government sponsorship, continuing on with a long-abandoned US research project called Operation Jurassic Storm (ha!) by creating an army of dinosaurs in a secluded underground lab facility. Before long, our heroes become trapped inside, the marines are called in, the power goes out and the dinos are set free to make a quick lunch of everyone they can get their claws and jaws on.<br /><br />Despite an often infuriatingly inept script full of plot holes, character inconsistencies and loose ends, this direct-to-video copy of JURASSIC PARK and CARNOSAUR is fairly digestible trash, thanks to good production values, passable FX, the occasional laugh and plenty of brainless action.<br /><br />Someone pointed out that an opening scene in this film was stolen from CARNOSAUR, but anyone used to watching Roger Corman productions knows he allows directors to liberally reuse clips from his early films to save both time and money.<br /><br />Score: 3 out of 10 | 1 |
Police Story is one of Jackie Chan's classic films that helped shape the Hong Kong cinema. It is a masterpiece that should not be missed by any action movie fan. From the beginning it is obvious that Jackie Chan's stunt team literally risked their live to make this film. Both the action and the stunts are extremely realistic and innovative. Even today, no movie has outdone police story in dangerous stunts. Many people were hospitalized in Police Story including Jackie Chan. The fighting is not as indisputably exceptional as the stunts but the fighting in this movie helped change and define Jackie Chan's use of props. Throughout the film Chan uses odd object to stop attackers and is constantly throwing assailants through thick glass. The action feels real because the stuntmen are giving the movie all they have to give and Jackie Chan's coordination is outstanding.<br /><br />The rest of the aspects of the film are not without flaws but they will not disappoint any action fan. Chan not only plays a believable risk taking cop but shows the powerful changes that his character goes through as he falls into escalating desperation. The plot is powerful but a modern viewer may find it tedious at times. While the comedy will provide a good number of laughs it does not always distract the audience from the lack of action. However, for the time period it was made in, the driving aspects of the plot are entertaining. There a good number of interesting and well played characters dispersed throughout the film as well.<br /><br />Overall police story is without a doubt one of the best action movies ever made. And even in Hollywood the influences of this one film are not to be ignored. | 0 |
I love Columbo and have seen pretty much all of the episodes but this one undoubtedly ranks as the worst of the lot. A mind-bogglingly tedious, pointless, muddled pile of unwatchable drivel that wastes both the time of the viewing audience and of the acting talents of an exceedingly bored-looking Peter Falk. The 'plot', such as it is, just seems to be made up as the film goes along with not even the slightest hint of the ingredients to the formula that made the show such a brilliant success to start with. One part of the proceedings which I found extremely puzzling ( or possibly annoying ) was Peter Falk's character being introduced to the guests at the wedding as 'Lt' Columbo. If the producers insist on keeping Columbo's first name a secret, why couldn't they have omitted this line altogether as it sounds ridiculous? Like I said, this is the pits and all true Columbo fans would do well to avoid it like the plague. | 1 |
They said it would be a film greater than Turks Fruit. How dare<br /><br />they? It's not even 10% of this classic. Bad acting. The only character i felt sympathy for was the one<br /><br />played by Angela Schijf. Her acting was the best in the whole film. The story could've been interesting, but it wasn't. Some scenes were very beautiful filmed (lights and camera), (the<br /><br />opening scene for example), but the bad acting made the magic<br /><br />disappear.<br /><br />I really don't understand why so many people voted this film so<br /><br />good. | 1 |
This Oscar-winning short film (40 minutes), based on a short story by William Faulkner, takes us back to small-town Tennessee in December 1941. Two brothers, one about 18 and one about 8 are looking for birds eggs (obviously a huge collectors item for boys in the South around this time). Well, the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor and the older brother, Pete, decides to enlist. He gives his prize egg to his little brother, Willie and heads off wishing to show more emotion and tenderness to his little acolyte. Well, Willie isn't having any of it, if Pete can be a soldier so can he. He heads to Memphis, showing his stubbornness and determination as he gets the better of several adults along the way. After finding the enlistment center in Memphis, he demands to see his brother, pulling a knife on a lieutenant and wounding him in the process. We are shown the devotion and love of a little brother (Jonathan Furr). He delivers a impeccable performance as a stubborn strong-willed boy in the gentler times of yesteryear. The movie tries and mostly succeeds in showing how brothers can show devotion and the importance of family ties in one's youth. As the two brothers reunite shortly, the movie delivers a cathartic cry as the brotherly love envelops us all.<br /><br />This movie is like a cold bottle of water. Maybe Dasani or Aquafina, good, clear water with a flavorful mineral packet, but not pure natural spring water like Evian. Still, it quenches your thirst and you don't doubt its purity and quenching effects. It is more run of the mill and less expensive than some, but gets the job done, leaving one refreshed and detoxified afterwards. 7/10 | 0 |
The second official episode of the 'Columbo' series ('Murder by the Book,' filmed later, hit the airwaves first). Robert Culp, who would match wits with Peter Falk's detective in several future installments, is terrific as the short-tempered head of a sophisticated private detective agency who murders a client's wife when she refuses to cave-in to his blackmail schemes. The two stars are well-matched in this clever cat and mouse exercise that is one of the best in the series. | 0 |
One of the better movies to come out of the 1980's, this based-on-fact movie tells the story of a disturbed high school student who murders his girlfriend, leaves her naked body on a river bank, and brags about it later to his friends. What is just as bad is their inability to FEEL anything about it.<br /><br />Disturbing but incredibly compelling look at aimless and apathetic kids who have no respect for their parents or any sort of authority, who seem almost doomed to live lives of rebellion and recklessness. This drama hits hard and is impossible to forget. The young cast does a creditable job - even Keanu Reeves, in one of his earliest roles, is better than usual. Of course, there's no reason for the character of Layne (Crispin Glover) to be as crazed and off-the-wall as he is, but that's just Glover being himself. Veteran Dennis Hopper has an especially good role as a loner who despite his own sordid past is saddened by the attitudes of this group of kids. I would like to point out the chilling performance by Daniel Roebuck as the young murderer; he's an under-rated actor and aside from Hopper, his is probably the best performance in the film.<br /><br />I saw 'River's Edge' for the first time a long time ago when it first started being shown on cable TV movie channels; however, I didn't catch all of it; I saw it in its entirety for the first time a number of years later, and now I've seen it again for what is probably the definitive time.<br /><br />Some potently affecting moments include Madeleine's (Constance Forslund) breakdown where she wails that maybe she should leave her children just like their worthless father did. I also liked the scenes where Matt (Reeves) faces off with his disturbed younger brother (Joshua Miller) and when the teacher, Mr. Burkewaite (Jim Metzler) deplores the fact that the girl has died and that none of his students seem to care.<br /><br />I will never forget this film, not as long as I live. It's too saddening for that.<br /><br />10/10 | 0 |
I don't know where to begin. This movie feels a lot like one of those cheap Saturday morning kids shows that they used to make back in the late eighties early nineties. Sort of like Captain Power or the Power Rangers. It's full of bad digital overlays and really cheesy sounding 'secret agencies' and villains.<br /><br />The acting is so bad that it's not even funny. The direction is terrible and there is little to now continuity. It seems as if someone just threw a bunch of scenes together and forgot that there was supposed to be a plot.<br /><br />Perhaps one of the most ridiculous scenes in the movie comes early on, when several villains plant an explosive device in an agents car. For some reason, even though the device is clearly stated as being 'remote detonated' the bad guys decide to chase her down on their motorcycles as she drives away. This chase carries on. all the while with the bad guys doing ludicrous and completely pointless bike stunts. Standing up on the bikes, doing wheelies and so on. At one point, a crash happens and one of the attackers is thrown from his bike, we see the bike (clearly cgi) thrown over the agents car but the rider has vanished. Then, a few seconds later the rider and bike return...apparently unscathed by the crash. At this point even though the car has an explosive device planted in it, the attackers choose to shoot the agent while driving past, then blow up her car. Which was also clearly done with cgi. Sound confusing? It is, and so is the rest of the movie.<br /><br />I might point out that when I say cgi, we aren't talking about Lord Of The Rings type cgi here. We're talking the cheap cheesy Power Rangers type cgi, actually I think it would have been done better on Power Rangers.<br /><br />Why Savini and Todd did this movie I will never know, I can only assume they did for money, as a favor to someone or because they were blackmailed into it...probably the last one. | 1 |
Previous commentators have noted the similarity in appearance between this film and The Third Man, director Carol Reed's classic film noir starring Orson Welles and Joseph Cotten. This similarity strikes the viewer almost immediately. It is, indeed, high praise to be compared to Robert Krasker's academy award- winning cinematography in The Third Man. <br /><br />The plot of Stolen Identity also has been delineated fairly accurately but in rather ordinary terms. I found it highly creative and entertaining. As common as the 'Mistaken - or Stolen - Identity' device is in both theater and cinema, it is only a device and not to be mistaken for the plot, itself. Consequently, while the viewer may have seen this device 'a thousand' times, the plot of Stolen Identity is full of surprises and twists based upon this device. It is the unexpected turns that make this film much fresher, more original and engrossing than a plot synopsis might convey. Stolen Identity doesn't rely on the kind of suspense that characterizes most film noire, because there is no real mystery here. Instead, it relies on constant, smaller surprises. In short, the Mistaken Identity device is rather common; but this plot is not.<br /><br />Finally, although I was not familiar with the cast, I found the acting to be uniformly good, occasionally outstanding. I easily could have imagined other actors turning this film into a melodrama, with bombast, overblown gestures and obvious facial expressions. The acting is always more restrained and subtle. Donald Buka is especially restrained and credible, never 'blowing his cover' with an obvious facial expression as we see too often in films that depend on the maintenance of subterfuge to sustain dramatic tension.<br /><br />The only disappointment in this otherwise fine film was the very weak development of the love story sub-plot. As it stands, it seems like an afterthought - a mild surprise, in fact - tacked on to the end. Or perhaps during their shared ordeal, the actors simply couldn't convey a palpable level of chemistry that I could appreciate. This sub-plot should have been made more apparent as the story unfolded. All in all, I thought this film was a fine little gem, and I wondered why I had not seen it before. Try it, you'll like it. | 0 |
Man To Man tries hard to be a good movie: it has its heart at the right place, it aspires to be epic and it has a message that no doubt everybody will appreciate. But there lies also some of the problems of this picture. It strives so hard to be good and to get its message across that sometimes the viewer must feel unchallenged. So it is only adequate that the images which are used by this picture are simplistic - Man To Man doesn't let the viewer decide what he thinks is right but is hammering its message in his head. Joseph Fiennes exemplifies this in his role: he does his best to look concerned, genuinely moved and all the other emotions you can express with the single one facial expression his repertoire has to offer. Add that the movie is overlong and loses its speed towards the end you would be easily led to the conclusion that Man To Man is not worth watching. But there are enough points to defend it: it is entertaining, has some humorous scenes and the show-stealing Kristin Scott Thomas. Of course you should not compare it to humanistic masterpieces like The Elephant Man (David Lynch) but you'll be leaving the theatre satisfied. It tries to grab your heart (even if your brain thinks that it is too obvious) and succeeds most of the time. | 1 |
This is a bad B movie masquerading as a mockumentary. The porn documentary filmmaker in the movie has almost as much screen time and dialog as any other character. That completely destroyed any 'documentary feel' that they may have wanted to create.<br /><br />The fact that the film is not actually a mockumentary is the least of it's problems. The film is not funny. The film is not sexy. The film doesn't have anything insightful to say about the porn business. It's not even particularly salacious. While there's simulated sex, the amount of nudity is mild for an R rated film.<br /><br />Someday, someone will make a good mockumentary about the porn industry. This is not it. | 1 |
This film makes 'American Pie' a sophisticated movie! No further comment needed. Humor is cheap, dialogues are stupid and the cast is awkward. Every cliché is used several times without any original twist. And far the worst, the movie turns out to be more catholic than the Pope. It's so sad. | 1 |
I thought the kids in the movie were great. I deal with kids in that age group, and I thought their behaviors were very believable. I did have a problem with the reference to the private parts made by the 5-year old. I didn't think the comment was necessary and actually slightly lowered my opinion of the movie. <br /><br />I think Luke Benward is up and coming star. I would like to see more of him on the big screen. I enjoyed his reactions to the situations that he found himself in. Often kids in this age group do things without thinking through the consequences. Almost all of the actors did this throughout the movie.<br /><br />I also think the message of bullying needs to be examined more in movies with this age group. It is a major problem in schools today.<br /><br />The ending was quite unexpected. Billy's thoughts on whether he won or didn't win the bet were very surprising. How he handled that situation was excellent. Too often today kids are not willing to compromise. The actors in this movie showed that compromise is an important part of life. | 0 |
<br /><br />I still can't belive Louis Gossett Jr. agreed to appear in this film. Everything about this move feels artificial, forced, and contrived. The air sequences are flat. The enemy characters seem like puppets. This is just a poor excuse of a movie. At least Top Gun had air sequences that looked good (the external shots anyway). The songs by Queen are cool, though. Rent Midway instead. | 1 |
TART is the worst movie I've seen this year, and that includes both the Affleck/J.Lo bomb GIGLI and the Rob Zombie borefest HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES. I don't know if that's a fair comparison seeing that TART was made two years earlier and probably has a budget half that of even the low-budget 1000 CORPSES. Regardless, all three movies suffer from the same shortcomings: horrible script, horrible acting, horrible direction.<br /><br />*** SPOILERS *** (although I honestly don't think there's anything to spoil)<br /><br />TART is about a group of super-spoiled private school kids. Most of them reside in super-sized apartments along New York's hyper-expensive Park Avenue, thanks to the finances of their neglectful parents. The film showcases the aimless life of one of the students (Cat) as she discards her only true friend (as frivolous a person as she was) in the pursuit of the 'good life' with the in-crowd. That, of course, leads to sex, drugs, and music that is substantially worse than rock & roll. Everything is overly dramaticized in the way that truly bad movies usually are. Cat's first sexual experience leads to her being branded a tramp and ostracized by her newly acquired circle of friends; her first encounter with drugs leads to her nearly being dumped down a garbage chute after her cohorts believe her to be dead from an overdose. No heavy-handed messages there, he said sarcastically.<br /><br />That's mainly what the 'seen it before 100 times' plot entails. Other minor, and even less interesting, plot details include one friend who steals jewelry and trinkets from all the others, a wild child who lives life on the edge (and finally falls off of it one night in the EAST Hamptons), an anti-Semitic British chick who ends her close friendship with Cat the moment she finds out Cat has a Jewish father, and Cat's strained relationship with her single mother who tries unsuccessfully to get Cat to appreciate the privileged life she has. The thief turns out to be an irredeemable lowlife. The 'wild child' is played as a toned down version of one of the Hilton sisters. The British girl disappears from the film after the break-up. The mother/daughter relationship is seen as totally inconsequential until the film's final schmaltzy scene, where she and her beleaguered mother have a reconciliation of sorts. *yawn*<br /><br />*** END SPOILERS ***<br /><br />About the cast and crew.... Dominique Swain came on the scene strong with her role as the underaged seductress in 1997's highly watchable LOLITA and FACE/OFF. Her performances were strong enough to land her on quite a few 'ones-to-watch' lists at the time. She was 17 at the time and I hope that they will not be the best roles of her career. If she takes a few more roles like the one she takes in TART, it very well may be.<br /><br />I've only seen Bijou Phillips in one other film (BULLY) and I swear her performance in that one was nearly identical to the one she gave here. I'm not sure if she's incapable of giving varied performances or if it was just a coincidence her roles in the two were so very similar. My guess is that the former is true. I sense this woman possesses very little talent as far as acting is concerned. Here, she is the actress tapped to portray the watered-down Hilton sister. That she gives such a weak performance is amazing considering that she grew up with, and remains friends with, the real-life Hilton sisters. She's essentially playing a version of herself in this film, and doing a damn poor job of it.<br /><br />As for writer/director Christina Wayne... I know nothing of her other than TART was her first, and only, film project to date. With a first effort like this it is no wonder her career in show business was short-lived. | 1 |
Rise of the Undead starts as some huge nuclear type blast rips through an unnamed American city, a few people survive in a building by leaning on the door so it'll stay closed & keep the nastiness out(!). They argue amongst themselves for ages, then a monster thing arrives from seemingly nowhere & begins to kill them of one-by-one...<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Jason Horton & Shannon Hubbell one has to say Rise of the Undead is terrible. The script takes itself very seriously but makes little sense, the first thing I asked myself was if there's this huge nuclear blast type thing going on outside destroying the entire city why are these people I'm watching still alive? Why is the building they are in still standing? Then I asked myself when was something actually going to happen, the entire first 20 minutes is set in one room, actually that's a bit generous it's more of a corridor as the main character's argue. Then it turns into some Return of the Living Dead (1985) rip-off with a Government created virus which turns people into zombies before one of the most abrupt, pointless & seemingly random plot twists I've ever witnessed which renders most of what has just happened a complete waste of time. Then for the final 30 odd minutes Rise of the Undead turns into some strange sci-fi type thing as something which resembles a ball of energy floats around killing everyone, was I the only asking what this floating ball of energy thing is & where it came from? Getting back to what was happening outside what was the reason again? Oh that's right we are never told. Rise of the Undead is a mess, the character's are awful & aren't even given names, the twist about halfway through will have you tearing your hair out in frustration, the dialogue sucks, nothing is explained & there's virtually no story here. The final 10 minutes (maybe a bit more) of Rise of the Undead features no dialogue whatsoever & the film just suddenly ends.<br /><br />Director's Horton & Hubbell were obviously working on a low budget, the entire film is set in about two rooms & three corridors! The photography is awful, they use annoying colour filters seemingly at random & sometimes it really does look like Rise of the Undead was shot on a camcorder. There's no special effects, there's some fake blood splashed around but no actual make-up effects to speak of. There are some CGI shots of the city being engulfed in flames which look alright but the floating ball of energy creature thing looks terrible. There is one baffling shot early on where two people are sitting against a corridor wall & talking, for some bizarre reason their heads are cut off at the top of the screen! Just their lower bodies from the neck down are seen yet nothing else is happening in frame, they are not moving & there's no else there but for some strange reason their heads are cut off the top of the frame as they talk to each other! It's quite an odd thing to watch actually.<br /><br />With an ultra low budget of about $10,000 & according to the IMDb shot in two weeks I have to congratulate the makers for getting Rise of the Undead finished & distributed but that's where my congratulations stop because otherwise this has awful production values & is set in about three corridors which are located somewhere in New Orleans in Louisiana as that's where Rise of the Undead was shot. The acting sucks so I won't dwell on it.<br /><br />Rise of the Undead sucks, it sounds like a zombie film but in all honestly it isn't, everything about it is sub par & I know the filmmakers were working on a low budget but that's not really an excuse as far as I'm concerned. Definitely not recommended. | 1 |
Michael Keaton is 'Johnny Dangerously' in this take-off on gangster movies done in 1984. Maureen Stapleton plays his sickly mother, Griffin Dunne is his DA brother, Peter Boyle is his boss, and Marilu Henner is his girlfriend. Other stars include Danny DeVito and Joe Piscopo. Keaton plays a pet store owner in the 1930s who catches a kid stealing a puppy and then tells him, in flashback, how he came to own the pet store. He turned to thievery at a young age to get his mother a pancreas operation ($49.95, special this week) and began working for a mob boss (Boyle). Johnny uses the last name 'Dangerously' in the mobster world.<br /><br />There are some hilarious scenes in this film, and Stapleton is a riot as Johnny's foul-mouthed mother who needs ever organ in her body replaced. Peter Boyle as Johnny's boss gives a very funny performance, as does Griffin Dunne, a straight arrow DA who won't 'play ball' with crooked Burr (Danny De Vito). As Johnny's nemesis, Joe Piscopo is great. Richard Dimitri is a standout as Moronie, who tortures the English language - but you have to hear him do it rather than read about it. What makes it funny is that he does it all with an angry face.<br /><br />The movie gets a little tired toward the end, but it's well worth seeing, and Keaton is terrific as good boy/bad boy Johnny. For some reason, this film was underrated when it was released, and like Keaton's other gem, 'Night Shift,' you don't hear much about it today. With some performances and scenes that are real gems, you'll find 'Johnny Dangerously' immensely enjoyable. | 0 |
Opulent sets and sumptuous costumes well photographed by Theodor Sparkuhl, and a good (not great) performance by Jannings as Henry cannot overcome poor writing and static camera-work. Henny Porten chews the scenery as Anne.<br /><br />It's all very beautiful; but it's all surface and no depth. The melodramatic tale of a woman wronged made it a hit in America where the expressionistic 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' flopped in the same year (1920), proving that what is popular is not what endures. Lubitsch would be remembered for his lively comedies, not sterile spectacles like this. | 1 |
For anyone who has trouble with naughty, mad or troublesome kids this is an essential programme to watch. It is just the best behaviour documentary programme, not just for tips but for the transformations. The quite attractive Jo Frost is Supernanny, with fifteen years of nannying experience she now has a programme where she shows a family where the kids are misbehaving very, very badly. Frost is the nanny who does not let the kids win. Every episode they have young kids who are mad and very, very naughty, e.g. throwing things, constantly swearing, hitting relatives and parents and many other horrible experiences. But every episode by the end of the show the kids are transformed by the parents (with the help of Frost) from little monsters to lovable children. It is just wonderful when the transformations are successful, Jo Frost is an excellent Supernanny. It was nominated the National Television Award for Most Popular Factual Programme (twice). It was number 15 on The 100 Greatest TV Treats 2004. Very good! | 0 |
Last time I checked in here I think there was no more than one comment. I'm very glad that more people have caught on this flick now,and even more so about you all digging it as well. I caught this the night of Christmas 2004,and I found myself unable to change the channel on my TV,even though it was an Asian flick-and I'm-sadly but truly-very used not to give any chance to any Off-Hollywood products. I did that night,though,and I thank God deeply for it. I've not been able to shake that movie out of my system since-not that I've tried to or wanted to-and it still amazes me-in an extremely grateful way-that such a great,beautiful experience came in such a way,completely unexpected,like a Christmas Miracle.Please,if you got the chance go see this movie,buy it or rent it of bootleg it or whatever,but watch it. I guarantee it will affect you. I'm out of time,but I'm far from finished with my appraissal here,so Ill be back as soon as I can. | 0 |
Red Sonja is a career-step-in-the-wrong-direction for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Having made a couple of sword 'n' sorcery films (as Conan) he had moved onto slightly more serious acting roles in films like The Terminator and Commando, only to make a mystifying return to the sword 'n' sorcery genre for this 1985 debacle. It's hard to figure out why he bothered, as this is weaker than both Conan films in every conceivable department. Allegedly, this was to have been the third Conan film, but for one reason or another the emphasis was shifted onto the leading female character, the titular red-head, leaving poor old Arnold to play an incredibly dull supporting role. Spare a thought, too, for director Richard Fleischer who had given the world classics like 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Fantastic Voyage, The Boston Strangler and 10 Rillington Place. In this - his penultimate film - Fleischer also has taken a gigantic career step backwards.<br /><br />Evil queen Gedren (Sandahl Bergman) wants to rule the world, and she needs a priceless and powerful talisman to do so. She and her brutish army storm a keep populated by priestesses and steal the said talisman, massacring the helpless priestesses as they go. One of the dead priestesses has a sister named Sonja (Brigitte Nielsen), a fiery red-headed warrior, who upon hearing of her sister's death swears revenge upon the evil Gedren. Sonja rides across the land in search of Gedren's lair. Along the way she picks up travelling companions in the shape of a boy prince, Tarn (Ernie Reyes Jr) and his bodyguard Falkon (Paul Smith). She also meets the muscular warrior Conan - sorry, I mean Kalidor (!) - who offers to join her in her quest. Initially Sonja doesn't want the help of Kalidor (Arnold Schwarzenegger), preferring instead to prove that she can confront and defeat her enemies alone, but eventually she warms to him and accepts his assistance.<br /><br />Red Sonja is a staggeringly poor film, all the more so when one muses that it was made in 1985 when the sword 'n' sorcery genre was close to its end. It seems so simplistic and amateurish that one could easily mistake it for an early example of its kind. The performances are poor on the whole, ranging from Bergman's embarrassingly OTT villain to Reyes' unbelievably irritating spoilt brat to Schwarzenegger's wooden and unenthusiastic hero. Nielsen is slightly better as the heroine - presumably full of enthusiasm at the thought of being in her first starring role - but she is let down very badly by the stupidity of Clive Exton and George MacDonald Fraser's script. The film is riddled with goofs, including a scene where Schwarzenegger is seen in close-up hacking down bad guys but in a long-shot in the same sequence there isn't a corpse in sight. Technically it is very inept too, with sub-standard special effects and appallingly mechanical monsters. There are a few compensations, such as Ennio Morricone's enjoyable music (Morricone spent a great deal of the '80s providing good music for awful films, e.g The Island, Treasure of the Four Crowns and Hundra). Another compensation is Giuseppe Rotunno's lensing of the locations - in fact, much of the time it's a hell of a lot more gratifying to look at the lovely scenery than the actors standing in the foreground! There were very few sword 'n' sorcery films after Red Sonja, so in some ways it might go down in history as the film which destroyed its own genre. | 1 |
The makers of this fine film did a terrific job of getting you involved with the characters,as they suffered through this horrible ordeal.The horrific scene in the woods was done so superbly that you forget that these men were just actors,playing parts.I have never gotten so immersed in a film as I have this one.Burt Reynolds and Jon Voight were never better on screen,as well as fine performances by Ned Beatty,Ronny Cox,Bill McKinney,and though he appeared only briefly,James Dickey,the man who authored the book upon which the film is based,as the sheriff of Aintry.It is somewhat disturbing,and kids,of course,should be shielded from it,but this is great,dramatic cinema. | 0 |
How hard is it to write a watchable film with Vince Vaughn, Paul Giamatti and Kevin Spacey? Apparently VERY difficult for the writers here.<br /><br />I still have no idea how Santa is younger and looks 20 years older than Vince (who plays the BIG brother). I must have missed that part of the story but in reality, it really didn't matter. Many scenes seemed out of place and contrived; the kind of 'funny notion' scenes that are drug out WAY too far to where any sense of comedy is lost.<br /><br />The director/producer tried to go 'tear jerker' at the end, which would have been suitable if ANYTHING leading up that point had been worth following.<br /><br />Ugh, major disappointment. I can see how some people might enjoy this OK, since many people will take any garbage they're fed, but I would strongly encourage waiting for DVD on this one. NOT worth the $23,978 it takes to get your family to the movies these days. | 1 |
Harem Suare is the best film I saw in the year 2000. Bravo Ferzan Ozpetek. Sensually shot and stunningly portrayed, Harem Suare is a bold film that tackles interracial romance, which is such a taboo in Hollywood. Women of all shapes, sizes, and color, populate the film. Cut off from the outside world, the women entertain each other by telling stories about intrigue, rivalry and jealousies within their ranks. | 0 |
This film enhanced my opinion of Errol Flynn. While Flynn is of course best known for his savoir-faire and sprezzatura (to throw in a couple of high-falutin' European terms!), this film gives him an opportunity to stretch (albeit only slightly) as an actor, as he plays an unabashed social climber with a big ego and a sense of nerve to match. The supporting cast is excellent; everyone seems well-chosen for their roles.<br /><br />The story moves briskly and, while not particularly profound (it misses, perhaps intentionally, the opportunity to render social commentary on the massively uneven distribution of income during that time), it certainly entertains and satisfies. From what I know of Jim Corbett, the story is also reasonably faithful to history. I also really liked the great depictions of 1880s San Francisco. All in all, there's little not to like about this film...very well worth the time to watch it. | 0 |
I have officially vomited in my own mouth, thanks to this movie.<br /><br />I expected the absolute worst with this movie, but I expected a heartwarming and pleasurable absolute worst. This is just terrible. Absolutely terrible. Terrible like Nazis spreading the black plague. Let me explain: Ewoks are speaking English. It's horrible.<br /><br />The villain girl looks like she travelled from the future set of Power Rangers. I really really want her to rise up from the ground and say 'At last! After ten thousand years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!' The putties... er, I mean the big bad whatever the heck they are... they growl a lot. Many of them look like an even lamer version of the Cryptkeeper. The Cryptkeeper was pretty cool, but these guys were not.<br /><br />The only merit to this movie was Paul Gleason. This movie might have been better if he'd went to the bad guys and said 'If I have to come in here again, I'm crackin' skulls.' It would have been even better if one of the Ewoks was played by Judd Nelson, who mouthed his words as he said this.<br /><br />Also, that speedy little creature is pretty badass. Word to that.<br /><br />No word to the movie, though. I want to give this movie a two. I want to, so badly. There's a passage I have memorized: The path of this movie is beset on all sides by the inequities of terribleness and the tyranny of spin-off awfulness. Blessed is nothing, for this movie blows. | 1 |
Kubrick proved his brilliantness again, now in a suspense-horror film based on Stephen King's book titled the same way. Jack Torrance is a man in his forties, married, with one child, and with a past of trouble and alcoholism. The Overlook Hotel in Colorado suspends service during the winter because of its extreme weather, and there is a well-paid job for the person who takes care of the facilities during those five months; and Torrance, who was looking to become a writer, found it perfect. But, the manager advised Torrance about the loneliness in this place during the winter, potentially dangerous, and told him that some caretaker in the past went crazy and murdered his family. Even before they got there, his son Danny, who has some sort of imaginary friend who illuminates him the future (shinning), knew the place wasn't good and didn't want to go. Once they installed themselves in the hotel, things started right but within a month, Jack began acting strange, irritated, and depressed. At this point, we know something is going to happen, but don't know when and how. Scary things happen such as the appearance of two twin girls talking to Danny, and someone who attacked him violently. They are not alone in this place. Later on, Jack started to see other people and immediately felt good with them, like if they were his family; among them the famous psychotic caretaker, Delbert Grady. Grady tells Torrance that he must kill his family because they are 'intruders' in the hotel. Obeying this order, Jack went for the objective and many of the most scary things I've ever seen happen here. The ending is spectacular and the viewers will stay interested and shocked until the last minute. | 0 |
There wasn't a 0 in the voting option so i was compelled to use the next available figure.<br /><br />It is a sad day for bollywood when such type of movies which have star-cast actors is nothing more are than a bunch of juvenile acting, and an awful script.<br /><br />This movie is nowhere near to be called a clone of Hitch. Salman khan with his usual take-off-you-shirt theme and Govinda with his in-humorous laughs. If somebody had told 2 decades ago that I would be writing a comment on Salman (after his success with Maine Pyar Kiya), I would have written him/her off. | 1 |
The film was very outstanding despite the NC-17 rating and disturbing scenes. In reality things like this do happen and that is why this movie shows a lot of it. It all starts with Maya (Rosario Dawson in superb performance) whose recently started attending college has everything going well for her. She meets Jared (Chad Faust in a terrific performance) at a frat party who turns out to be a real gentleman and sweet. He invites her out to dinner. They look at the stars from a bridge and they end going to his apartment. They talk and takes her to the basement were they become flirtatious with each other. She tries to put an end to it, but he rapes her. This incident scars her. She goes to a club meets a bartender/DJ Adrian (greatfully played by Marcus Patrick) who sees that she is getting to drunk and helps before she goes to far. They strike a friendship. He also does drugs and Maya starts using as well. In other words introduces her to a different world. She starts going back to school and working as TA (Teaching Assistant) and spots Jared as one of the students. While the students are taking a Midterm, she catches Jared cheating. Jared tries to smooth talk Maya, but she still has the upper hand decides to invite him to her place. Will history repeat itself? Or Will Maya have a surprise for Jared? You watch the movie. Excellent A. Rosario Dawson portrays the role with focus and endurance. Chad Faust does not like he can be a rapist, but he does a terrific job as Jared. Marcus Patrick is very brilliant the man who saves Maya and coaches her into a new world. This film deserves an award. | 0 |
Bloodsuckers has the potential to be a somewhat decent movie, the concept of military types tracking down and battling vampires in space is one with some potential in the cheesier realm of things. Even the idea of the universe being full of various different breeds of vampire, all with different attributes, many of which the characters have yet to find out about, is kind of cool as well. As to how most of the life in the galaxy outside of earth is vampire, I'm not sure how the makers meant for that to work, given the nature of vampires. Who the hell they are meant to be feeding on if almost everyone is a vampire I don't know. As it is the movie comes across a low budget mix of Firefly/Serenity and vampires movies with a dash of Aliens.<br /><br />The action parts of the movie are pretty average and derivative (Particularly of Serenity) but passable- they are reasonably well executed and there is enough gore for a vampire flick, including some of the comical blood-spurting variety. There is a lot of character stuff, most of which is tedious, coming from conflicts between characters who mostly seem like whiny, immature arseholes- primarily cowboy dude and Asian woman. There are a few character scenes that actually kind of work and the actors don't play it too badly but it mostly slows things down. A nice try at fleshing the characters out but people don't watch a movie called Bloodsuckers for character development and drama. The acting is actually okay. Michael Ironside hams it up and is as fun to watch as ever and at least of a couple of the women are hot. The space SFX aren't too bad for what is clearly a low budget work. The story is again pretty average and derivative but as I said the world created has a little bit of potential. The way things are set up Bloodsuckers really does seem like the pilot for a TV series- character dynamics introduced, the world introduced but not explored, etc. <br /><br />The film does have a some highlights and head scratching moments- the kind of stuff that actually makes these dodgy productions watchable. -The scene where our heroes interrogate a talking sock puppet chestburster type creature. Hilarious. - The 'sex scene.' WTF indeed. -The credit 'And Michael Ironside as Muco.' The most annoying aspect of it all though is the really awful and usually inappropriate pop music they have playing very loud over half the scenes of the movie. It is painful to listen to and only detracts from what is only average at best.<br /><br />Basically an okay watch is you're up for something cheesy, even if it is just for the 'chestburster' scene. | 1 |
this movie had a fairly good sounding plot, but the paste was very slow... very slow indeed. even if someone thinks this is a cult classic, i think that there are a lot better films from that era to be watched.<br /><br />the cinematography is not excellent, but not the worst either. the sounds are OK. lighting OK.<br /><br />i still wouldn't recommend this to anyone else than maybe a film-student.<br /><br />the movie does not contain music, and the horses having sex don't make it a good one either. and the woman masturbating on the edge of the bed was plain stupid.<br /><br />no winnings here, skip this utter boredom. i've seen worse believe me, but this is just waste of time, and i don't get the good reviews here. especially the high ratings... | 1 |
I saw this documentary film at the 2005 Slamdance independent film festival. This documentary is shot, directed and edited by a son (Craig) of his mother's year long battle with cancer. Shot over the course of one year 'The closer she gets', is a documentary in the truest form and gives you an inside look of a family's struggle with battling with the cancer, the viewer gets an inside point of view of the effects cancer has on a family as well as the individual throughout the entire process. I have never seen such an honest film, this is a powerful and raw film, and since it wasn't shot by an outsider you get the true emotions of everyone involved. Many documentaries are shot by an outsider, but having this story told by the son adds another emotional level to the film, unlike any I have seen before on this subject or any other. This is a touching story that everyone should see, and can relate to. I would highly recommend it. | 0 |
If you're a film student, or were one, or are thinking of becoming one, the name Battleship Potemkin has or will have a resonance. Sergei Eistenstein, like other silent-film pioneers like Griffith (although Eisenstein's innovations are not as commonplace as Griffith's) and Murnau, has had such an impact on the history of cinema it's of course taken for granted. The reason I bring up the film student part is because at some point, whether you'd like it or not, your film professor 9 times out of 10 will show the 'Odessa Stairs' sequence of this film. It's hard to say if it's even the 'best' part of the film's several sequences dealing with the (at the time current) times of the Russian revolution. But it does leave the most impact, and it can be seen in many films showcasing suspense, or just plain montage (The Untouchables' climax comes to mind).<br /><br />Montage, which was not just Eistenstein's knack but also his life's blood early in his career, is often misused in the present cinema, or if not misused then in an improper context for the story. Sometimes montage is used now as just another device to get from point A to point B. Montage was something else for Eisenstein; he was trying to communicate in the most direct way that he could the urgency, the passion(s), and the ultimate tragedies that were in the Russian people at the time and place. Even if one doesn't see all of Eisenstein's narrative or traditional 'story' ideas to have much grounding (Kubrick has said this), one can't deny the power of seeing the ships arriving at the harbor, the people on the stairs, and the soldiers coming at them every which way with guns. Some may find it hard to believe this was done in the 20's; it has that power like the Passion of Joan of Arc to over-pass its time and remain in importance if only in terms of technique and emotion.<br /><br />Of course, one could go on for books (which have been written hundreds of times over, not the least of which by Eisenstein himself). On the film in and of itself, Battleship Potemkin is really more like a dramatized newsreel than a specific story in a movie. The first segment is also one of the great sequences in film, as a mutiny is plotted against the Captain and other head-ups of a certain Ship. This is detailed almost in a manipulative way, but somehow extremely effective; montage is used here as well, but in spurts of energy that capture the eye. Other times Eisenstein is more content to just let the images speak for themselves, as the soldiers grow weary without food and water. He isn't one of those directors who will try to get all sides to the story; he is, of course, very much early 20th century Russian, but he is nothing else but honest with how he sees his themes and style, and that is what wins over in the end.<br /><br />Some may want to check it outside of film-school, as the 'Stairs' sequence is like one of those landmarks of severe tragedy on film, displaying the ugly side of revolution. Eisenstein may not be one of the more 'accessible' silent-film directors, but if montage, detail in the frame, non-actors, and Bolshevik themes are your cup of tea, it's truly one of the must sees of a lifetime. | 0 |
I just can't imagine any possible reasons why Madsen and Hopper wanted to be in this movie after reading the script. They got blackmailed maybe? Or are they that badly out of money? The main problem with the movie is that it's boring. The conversations between Madsen's and Hopper's character are pointless, just like the bored chatting between two buddies while drinking beer on a saturday night. You never feel for any of the characters (although Madsen's psycho killer is very likeable, comparing to the other characters). Hopper always was a good actor, and Madsen does a fine job as the serial killer, otherwise the acting is almost laughable. There are about three scenes in the whole movie where something is actually happening, each of them last about three minutes. Although the 'talking and thinking about murder and the nature of murderers' scenes would have been interesting, if they were scenes in a book. The whole concept would've been interesting for a novel, but a movie just can't bare with a story with that much inner thinking and so little action. | 1 |
How do I begin to review a film that will soon be recognized as the `worst film of all time' by the `worst director of all time?' A film that could develop a cult following because it's `so bad it's good?'<br /><br />An analytical approach criticizing the film seems both pointless and part of band-wagon syndrome--let's bash freely without worry of backlash because every other human on earth is doing it, and the people who like the film like it for those flaws we'd cite.<br /><br />The film's universal poor quality goes without saying-- 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' is not without competition for title of worst film so it has to sink pretty low to acquire the title and keep a hold of it, but I believe this film could go the distance. IMDb doesn't allow enough words to cite all the films failures, and it be much easier to site the elements 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' does right. Unfortunately, those moments of glory are so far buried in the shadows of this film's poorness that that's a task not worth pursuing.<br /><br />My impressions? I thought I knew what I was getting into, I had been warned to drink several cups of coffee before sitting down to watch this one (wish that suggestion had been cups of Vodka). Despite my low expectations, 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' failed to entertain me even on a `make fun of the bad movie' level. Not just bad, but obnoxiously bad as though Jobson intentionally tried to make this film a poetical yawn but went into overkill and shoved the poetry down our throats making it not profound but funny . .. and supposedly Jobson sincerely tried to make a good movie? Even after viewing the 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' promotional literature, I have trouble believing Jobson's sincerity. Pointless and obnoxious till the end with a several grin/chuckle moments (all I'm sure none intentional)spiced the film, and those few elements prevented me from turning the DVD off. So bad it's good? No. It had just enough 'I can't believe this is a serious movie moments' to keep me from turning it off, and nothing more.<br /><br />Definitely a film to watch with a group of bad-movie connoisseurs. Get your own running commentary going. That would've significantly improved the experience for me. So bad it's Mike Myers commentating in his cod Scottish accent on it as it runs, to turn this whole piece of sludge into a comic farce 'Ok dare ma man, pass me annuder gliss of dat wiskey'. | 1 |
Not sure why it doesn't play in Peoria, apparently, but this is a very funny, clever British comedy. It's set at the end of the 'swinging sixties'. Peter Sellars is fantastic as the rich, forty-something serial womaniser. The perfectly delectable Goldie Hawn, playing a 19 year American girl in London, is, initially, Sellars' 'catch of the day'. But the urbane TV food critic can't stop himself from falling for the dizzy American blond.<br /><br />Humour, pathos, great script, strong performances from the leads and supporting caste.<br /><br />It's a great film, and the best gag is the very last line.<br /><br />Try it, you'll like it. | 0 |
Like one of the other reviewers (might have been @ Amazon), I was first introduced to Tourist Trap by the beloved, decrepit old WOR-9 in NY, around January 1983. Devil Dog: The Hound of Hell, which I'd been waiting to see since it debuted on Halloween 1978, had just ended, and I thought I'd had my horror fill for the day (quit laughing - that three eyed 'Borgost' (sp?) monster Ike Eisenmann draws up in his room is scary).<br /><br />For as much as I still enjoy Richard Crenna wearing his made-for-TV horror hat, it was the first 10 minutes of Tourist Trap, following Devil Dog that day, that really left a mark - and months later, it ended up being the first movie I ever taped off TV. WOR used to play this fairly frequently, often as the Saturday afternoon Million Dollar Movie, as others have observed. It's one of those offerings that delivers a powerful horror punch up front, a veritable left hook - and then practically starts over with the rest of the cast, dances and jabs, putting the opening scene a larger context along the way, then moves on to the real climax (see Night of the Living Dead, Re Animator).<br /><br />Two paragraphs and I haven't mentioned a single mannequin. Face it - the damn things are scary enough, without the music and the script. I, too, can remember some scary dress dummies and the like in various relatives' attics and basements, and say what you like about how relatively straightforward Schmoeller and Carroll's approach is - no one, before or since, has played it this well. In real life, a good mannequin will make you do a double take - and here, that's about the last thing you're likely to see, if you happen to be stuck at Slausen's defunct wax museum and roadside stand. Yes, there is a point ('I loved her very much'), where Chuck 'Slausen' Connors is trying to pass for Vincent Price. Yes, the plot might have taken up all of a paragraph in the early stages; I can't see the script being all that thick. It doesn't matter. From direction to competent acting (Meryl Streep's emphatically not in attendance, and here, that helps instead of hinders), to another useful and effective Pino Dinaggio score (see Carrie and various other de Palma movies), to various lighting, film stock, use of varying sound levels ... I could go on - every element of this low budget production comes together and you get a work very much greater than the sum of its parts.<br /><br />Did I mention it's scary as Hell? Stephen King talked this movie up in Danse Macabre a year or so after its release, and with good reason. Like much of his work, it may not be great art, but it sure does tell a scary story, and does it well. The rest of the cast may be relatively unknown (wasn't Jocelyn Jones in that Texas car chase movie as well?), but Chuck Connors and Tanya Roberts were and are, just familiar enough to audiences, to make you think - Stephen King style - that this could happen to you, or people you know.<br /><br />Comparisons to Psycho (plot) and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (overall look and feel), even if they aren't the first associations in my mind, are valid. I only wish I could comment on the DVD, which I look forward to buying, as Tourist Trap has become notoriously hard to find on video since the near-complete extinction of independent video rental outlets, where it had a home aside from WOR and cable in the 1980s (though TMC/Showtime appear to have picked it up and play it regularly now). No, no spoilers here, I'm afraid, no plot breakdown - go see it yourself (all right, there may be a tiny little one below, so scroll away if you like - better safe than sorry). The mannequins are damn scary and I'd rather show than tell ... :)<br /><br />For the record, Tourist Trap is also chock full of great lines, from 'we are going to have a party! How do I look, huh, how do I look?!', to 'you're so pretty', 'you can't hurt me', 'I shouldn't have to hide it - it feels good!' (listen for that Vincent Price inflection again there), the inevitable 'you're crazy!' (delivered at the right moment, and in the right tone) ... and try - just try - to keep the hair on your arms down when you hear the mannequin's head screaming 'Molly!' - especially once you realize whose head it used to be ... :)<br /><br />P S ... Charles Band was the producer on this, I believe, and likely owned the rights to Dinaggio's music. Band, from what I understand, was the brains behind Full Moon Entertainment, which might explain both the music's subsequent use in Puppet Master, and, well, the 40 commercial approach has characterized Full Moon throughout, from the enjoyable Puppet Master and Subspecies franchises, to, uhhh ... Trancers and Bad Channels (sorry, BOC). | 0 |
As everyone knows by now, 15 Park Avenue is the story of a schizophrenic girl and her half-sister.<br /><br />The manifestation of Schizophrenia is still viewed as being an illness which people often feel might disappear if ignored. There are also those, who, however far fetched it may seem when it's shown in the film, think that the illness manifests itself as a result of some sort of supernatural influence. I think Ms. Sen deserves a lot of praise for '15 Park Avenue'. She has done a good turn, not only to the general public, but also to those who deal with schizophrenics ... relatives, social workers, psycho-analysts. The film actually helps in dispelling a lot of myths and misconceptions about the exact nature of this psychological disorder. I'm told that the film is largely based on her own personal experiences with a person very close to her, who suffers from this mental affliction. To that effect, I'm sure that none of what has been shown, is blown out of proportion ... on the contrary, it is a true representation of facts.<br /><br />The performances are good, on the whole, as can be expected. Konkona Sen Sharma, Shabana Azmi and of course Rahul Bose, are very good indeed. They emerge as very 'real' characters ... credible enough for one to be able to identify with them at times. People may think me terribly queer, but I think there are moments when one can identify with Meethi as well! I suppose all of us have a streak of 'insanity' inside us .... perhaps some more than others. These are the people who are singled out. After all, don't we all have our secret fantasies and dreams? Impossible ones, at times? Would we be dubbed as being 'off our rockers' if people could glimpse into these areas of our minds? Would a person with low self-esteem, be considered a schizophrenic because he/she shuns company ... preferring instead to live in a world of his/her own because that's the only space where there is a sense of security?<br /><br />Konkona, as Meethi, is outstanding!! Her performance is so effortless ... she lives her part. She has shown the ability to lull the audience into forgetting the divide between reality and acting! A case in point is the part where she's distressed at the scene, shown on TV, of Saddam Hussein's arrest. Her reaction seems so uninhibited and intense ...as if she's really heart-broken at this tragedy! Her brand of Indian English too, is so spontaneous and natural. <br /><br />However, the same cannot be said for at least a couple of the other actors. Kanwaljeet and Waheeda Rehman, splendid actors both, seem ill at ease when delivering their dialogue in English. Their diction is less than perfect ... stilted and affected, the fact that they are making a supreme effort, becomes more than apparent. Their dialogue delivery is jarring and tends to break the smooth flow of the unfolding of the tale.<br /><br />The brutal rape of Meethi (Konkona), seems somewhat unnecessary. Any other incident would have sufficed just as well, I feel. The point here is that something triggers off the extreme manifestation of the illness. As the psychiatrist explains, one cannot, with any modicum of conviction or certainty, say that the incident of the rape was instrumental in bringing the hitherto latent propensity towards schizophrenia, to the fore. Then why are we subjected to the scene where Meethi lies bleeding and unconscious. Was Ms. Sen trying to make a social statement about the state of politics in our country, where the voice of the masses is silenced by a handful of people who resort to violence in order to stay in power?? If so, then the scene of the rape is warranted but not strictly in the context of the main body of the film.<br /><br />The ending seems somewhat abrupt. Is the audience expected to find a solution? Where does Meethi disappear to? Does Ms. Sen want us to feel that perhaps what the psychiatrist says about whose reality is more real and hence credible, holds true? In other words, is she trying to say that we are not without bias when judging who is on this side of the fine line between sanity and insanity? I'm not very sure.<br /><br />A thought-provoking film on the whole and well worth watching. However, IF you are the sort of person who likes things to be neat and tidy ... everything cut and dried, with a water-tight solution to each issue that comes up ... this film is clearly not meant for you! | 0 |
If this was the best dutch cinema had to offer these years, my worst fears have come true. I have NEVER, even in dutch movies, seen worse acting. I couldn't get myself to watch it for more than 40 minutes, so if that's the cause of me missing the genius, so be it.<br /><br /> | 1 |
This was one of the shows that I wanted to follow-up on. But, I'd just couldn't bring myself on devoting my time to this show. To have a show that centers on the topic of politics, you really need a strong plot with twists and turns to enhance the mood of the show, something like 'The West Wing' or 'Commander-in-Chief.' Rob Lowe was OK, but actors like Kyle Chandler just couldn't act (he was awful in 'Early Edition'). It was a pain to sit through this show. With its lack of suspense, urgency, and characters who can actually act, I just had to give up on this show and am glad it was canceled so I would have nothing more to miss.<br /><br />Grade D- | 1 |
Murder Over New York is one of the better Chan mysteries and I've just seen this for the first time.<br /><br />In this one, Charlie Chan is visiting New York to attend a police convention. At the same time, people who are involved with aircraft plants are being murdered and he decides to help with the investigation, along with his Number 2 son. These murders turn out to be the results of sabotage at the aircraft plants and Chan helps to identify the murderer...<br /><br />Charlie Chan is played well by Sidney Toler and the rest of the cast includes Sen Yung as his Number 2 son and Marjorie Weaver.<br /><br />I rather liked this mystery and is worth having if you like this sort of thing.<br /><br />Rating: 3 and a half stars out of 5. | 0 |
Sorry, I just didn't find the subject matter as compelling as the filmmaker did. The robot guy and the mole rat guy were pretty interesting, although Morris didn't really tell us much about them. The other two subjects were a bore. And the supposed 'connections' between them didn't hold up. | 1 |
Time line of the film: * Laugh * Laugh * Laugh * Smirk * Smirk * Yawn * Look at watch * walk out * remember funny parts at the beginning * smirk<br /><br />Unfortunately, this movie has a good concept that it grinds to the ground. | 1 |
I've read approximately 10 reviews of this film, but haven't taken any of them 'to heart'. Harrison Ford is being criticized for everything from his haircut to his earring and I really don't see what any of these things have to do with the film. As I recall, he had bad hair plus bad reviews in Blade Runner but it's still a favorite among us videophiles. It is slower than the majority of his previous films but not worthy of the trashings it has received.<br /><br />I would gladly pay $7.50 just to watch a bald Harrison Ford mow his lawn. | 0 |
The plot of this boils down to Ah-nuld versus Satan, and what I remember most about the movie is a lot of explosions, gunfire, blood, noise, and let's not forget that flammable satanic urine. The story is nonsensical, utterly predictable, and so full of holes I couldn't take a bit of it seriously. Stick to 'Rosemary's Baby' or 'The Exorcist' if you want to see a really good devil movie and....um, well, I can't think of any good 'Action' movies at the moment (probably because they're so far-and-few-between), so you're on your own in that category. This flick does get a 3 out of 10 rating from me for its camp value, and for a pretty-good performance by Gabriel Byrne as that old debbil Satan! | 1 |
Not for those adrenaline maniacs etc It's a good movie, looking at after war, psychical problem, from the other point of view. <br /><br />Emilio Estevez is great as a young man, haunted by the demons of Vietnam war, causing problem in family. <br /><br />Marin Sheen is also good as a conservative father.<br /><br />It all comes down to the problem how to deal with the past, with whom<br /><br />Emilion Estevez's character can't seem to deal, and Martin Sheen's character don't want do deal with.<br /><br />Protective mother looks at this problem with warm , and open heart but with her mind closed for the obvious reasons. | 0 |
An overlong, but compelling retelling of the friendship between civil rights leader Steve Biko and Donald Woods. The first half of the film is the strongest where we see the bond formed between the two men, and how they help each other out, but the second half isn't as strong, due to the elimination of the Biko character. Still, its a compelling film with great performances by Kline and Washington, in the film that put the latter on the map. Washington was also was nominated for best supporting actor for the first time. Overall, a well made film that could have been trimmed down a bit. 7/10.____________________________________ | 0 |
I never fell asleep during a movie. Never. This movie did the impossible.<br /><br />While many people claim the superiority of Japanese horror films over their American counterparts, this movie was a lesson in over abundance. As in, the movie was 30 minutes too long. It would have helped if the movie had a little more movement in the plot and the camera work, but instead, all we got were awkward silences and a lot of slow movement. The acting was absolutely terrible, bordering on bad student film levels while everyone struggled to ad-lib something called a script. Did these people even get any direction? Were they coaxed to be boring and dull? Either therory wouldn't surprise me.<br /><br />What was even worse was the rather unscary make-up involved with the creatures from the other side. Either way, they all stunk. Don't watch this film. That's all I can say (unless you're an insomniac). | 1 |
I was hooked from beginning to end. Great horror comes from disturbing imagery and organic shocks that are created not to make you jump, but to make you go 'What the f*ck did I just see?' All the other commentators gave short summaries of what the film is about, so I won't rehash what has already been said. I was telling other people about this movie days after I had seen it just because it still haunted me. I even had a bad dream after seeing it, and I am a true horror fan, not easily spooked by tripe like 'The Grudge' or even 'Silent Hill'. What gave me the bad dreams was the unease I felt about what I would do if I were in that cell with those guys. What would my personal horror be? my subconscious took me there, and it was not pleasant. That my friends is what a good horror flick does to you! The best part of this movie is that it is subtle. It's not about Bogeymen that jump out at you,alien invasions, or tons of gore. It's the opposite. The horror you create in your own mind. The irony for the four characters is that the horror comes not from an external force that asserts it's power over them. Simply, the men ask for the one thing they desire, and they get it...but not in the way they imagined. So on the one hand, they get what they wish for from an occult book, but may ultimately wish they hadn't. Sometimes being locked in a jail cell is the best place to be! | 0 |
This film is to my mind the weakest film in the original Star Wars trilogy, for a variety of reasons. However it emerges at the end of the day a winner, despite all its flaws. It's still a very good film, even if a lot of its quality depends on the characters that have been built up in the superior 2 installments.<br /><br />One problem here is the look of the film, which isn't very consistent with the other 2 films. I put a lot of that down to the departure of producer Gary Kurtz. The first 2 films have that dirty, lived-in look with all the technology and so forth. In 'Jedi' on the other hand even the rebels look like they just stepped out of a shower and had their uniforms dry cleaned. This makes for a much less textured film. Also the creatures were excessively muppet-like and cutesy. At this point it seems like the film-makers were more concerned with creating the templates for future action figures than with the quality of the film itself.<br /><br />Another aspect is its lack of originality. Where 'Star Wars' created a whole new experience in cinema and 'Empire' brought us to alien worlds of swamps, ice, and clouds, 'Jedi' lamely re-cycled the locations of the first film. First we are back on the desert planet Tatooine, and then we are watching them face ANOTHER death star (maybe the emperor couldn't think of anything new... but you'd think Lucas or Kasdan could). Also we have these ewoks, who really are just detestable made-for-mattel teddy bears, in a recycled version of what was supposed to be the big wookie-fight at the end of 'Star Wars' if they hadn't run out of cash. It just feels like lazy construction.<br /><br />The most unfortunate aspect of 'Jedi' for me is the weak handling of the Han Solo character. Whereas he is central to the plot of the first 2 films here he is struggling for screen time, trading one liners with the droids. Instead of a real drama we're stuck with the lame pretense that Han is still convinced Leia loves Luke -- as if the conclusion of 'Empire' where she confessed her love of him had never happened. The whole thing is very contrived and barely conceals the fact that the Solo character was not part of this film's central story after his rescue. Ford, for his part, looks bored and lacks the style that distinguished his earlier performances. This is more like a 1990s Ford performance, bored and looking 'above' the film itself. Fisher for her part is visibly high in some scenes. Lando, an interesting character introduced in 'Empire', here is stuck as the ostensible person we care about in the giant space battle. Only Hamill, given an interesting development in the Luke character, is really able to do anything new or interesting with his character. Probably he was the only major actor in the film who still cared about his work. And to be fair the script gives him a lot more to do than the other characters. Really it is his story and the other characters are only there as part of the package. Ian McDiarmid does excellent work as well as the Emperor. The film would sink if he had been too far over the top (as he was at times in the new films).<br /><br />Visually and in terms of effects work, other than the 'clean' look of everything it's hard to find fault. Jabba is a very effective animatronic character, one of the most elaborate ever constructed. The space battles towards the end are very impressive.<br /><br />Ultimately this film coasts to success based on the accomplishments of its forebears. But on its own, it is a satisfying piece of entertainment and IMHO far superior to any of Lucas' later productions. | 0 |
Interesting tale of giant mammoth elephants running amok in modern India. Features transparent special effects-elephants dressed in shaggy coats sporting tusk extensions. All this said, we do have a good story and a fine cast at work, and an exciting climax. It's been said that the running time on this one was doubled when it showed in India-courtesy of Robert Lippert, a master at 'padding.' Given a choice, opt for the shorter version. | 0 |
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***<br /><br />I saw this movie last night at a screening. I started out already liking Tim Robbins and loving sci-fi. The first third of the movie was very cool. The score was good, the cinematography was interesting, the film maker's vision of the future was realistic yet starkly interesting nonetheless. I remember thinking to myself: 'this is the most intelligently done sci-fi movie I've seen in a while'. Then they just couldn't keep it together.<br /><br />Although from the outset, there were a number of more 'rough around the edges' issues with this film (namely the editing, and later some of the writing/plot development), these issues were forgivable. They became unforgivable once the movie sort of lost all momentum around the half way mark, and then the film just got tedious when you realized that it wasn't going to go anywhere at all. <br /><br />Robbins could not breathe life into his character, but did the best he could. His female counterpart (her name escapes me now) was good in her role.<br /><br />The main reason for the meandering of the movie seemed to be that the film makers could not decide whether or not to do a sci-fi movie or a futuristic love story. They ended up with neither.<br /><br />Good:<br /><br />Some of the cinematography: grainy, it felt like '21 days later' some times.<br /><br />Very fitting for a futuristic movie like this.<br /><br />I dug some of the location shots.<br /><br />The music was cool.<br /><br />The film makers vision of the future was realistic but still cool and interesting.<br /><br />I liked the interactions with the other minor characters in the movie.<br /><br />Some of the writing was interesting (early on). <br /><br />The girl who played Maria Gonzales (name?? can't recall), she was good.<br /><br />***SPOILERS BELOW***<br /><br />A few questions/comments:<br /><br />I felt that a lot of the futuristic things in this movie were convenient to fix a patchwork story. Namely VIRUSES. Obviously the virus they gave her at the end of the film that made her physically 'afraid' of him was just there so that they could stick in another sex scene and then she could uncontrollably report him for Code 46. Then they take him away and erase his memory and the movie ends. Classic 'dream sequence' cop-out ending if you ask me. ties up all the loose ends very neatly if you just make it all a dream right?<br /><br />Was Robbin's character naturally good as intuition or was it the virus?<br /><br />Why didn't they explore the myriad of issues surrounding the girl being a clone of his mom? That could have made some interesting story.<br /><br />At first I like the salutations from across the globe in everyone's speech. But it became intrusive especially since their accents were not convincing. I get it, the future will undoubtedly be racially and culturally more androgynous, but it started feeling like an AT&T Global Networking commercial by the end of it.<br /><br />If they were 'outside' how could they have gotten busted for Code 46?<br /><br />'Cover' was never well defined. Sometimes it seemed as trivial as a Visa, and other times it was as vital as life or death. Again, loose definitions allow them to use it for gluing disparate parts of the plot together.<br /><br />Okay, I'm starting to get to negative about it, so I'll stop. There were some cool scenes, and interesting things about this movie, but that only gives it a 4/10 | 1 |
It seems there are two kinds of people in the world: those who think that 'Five Characters' is one of the best episodes in the series and those who are so cool that they know it sucked because they were so clever and already predicted the 'lame' twist at the end (which apparently, in their small minds, is the only reason the Twilight Zone exists: to come up with twists).<br /><br />There are plenty of lame episodes in the series and I'm not one to rate all TZ episodes ten. But this one is certainly one of those that merit such a rating. It is claustrophobic and colorful. The suspense is built up and we cannot wait for the reveal of the secret at the end. But whatever that secret is, what these people are, it doesn't really matter. Most of the beauty of the episode is to lead up to that. It would be just as powerful if we never find out what these strangers in a strange place really are. | 0 |
The championship game is only a couple of days away, but things in New Orleans aren't as they should be. From players with marital problems to drug overdoses to gambling problems to a killer on the loose, life is getting in the way of what should be a memorable, wonderful time. Can things be put back into order and a killer stopped before the big game is ruined? <br /><br />Despite what you might think when you first read about Superdome, this is not a football movie. In fact football is nothing more than a plot device and an after thought. Instead, Superdome is another of those lousy soap opera-ish 70s made-for-TV movies populated with Hollywood has beens and those that never will be. The cast sleepwalks its way through the thing with no one really looking good. The best (or worst) example is Van Johnson in a very small role looking generally lost as to why he's there. The plot is dull, uninteresting, and unbelievable. Donna Mills as a hit'man'? Yeah, right! It's about as believable as the affair she has with the liquor soaked David Jansen. The movie also lacks any pace. Trying to get all four or five story lines into the film zaps whatever flow Superdome might have had. With no drama or suspense in sight, Superdome ends up being a very poor example of a 70s made-for-TV movie. The lone highlight for me was the voice-over work from the late Charlie Jones - a sportscaster I miss listening to. The eloquent way he overstates the intrigue and over-hypes the atmosphere in New Orleans is pure cheese at its finest.<br /><br />Like most others who have seen Superdome, I also did so courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It may be one of the KTMA public access episodes, but it's one of the best examples of the shows early start. So even though I've only rated Superdome a 2/10, I'll give this episode a generous 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale. | 1 |
This is only the fourth effort I’ve watched from this director (whom I met and found quite genial at the 2004 Venice Film Festival Italian B-movie retrospective) and also, possibly, the worst. As was the case with THE BRONX EXECUTIONER (1989), which preceded it, this is a prime example from the tail end of the Euro-Cult era – prime because it shows the depths to which the previously invigorating style had fallen by this time! <br /><br />Here, in fact, we get a plot revolving around – I’m not kidding, folks – a killer phone! Pretty but bland Charlotte Lewis – in her third film after PIRATES (1986) and THE GOLDEN CHILD (1986) – is a model who, apparently, has just ended an affair; she keeps expecting her architect lover to call her back but, every time the phone rings, all she gets is static accompanied by voices from the beyond (or some such crap). She befriends a new tenant at her apartment block who, conveniently, knows of an authority on paranormal activity (William Berger) – who, hilariously, explains that the negative energy which is unleashed, say, during family arguments can manifest itself via home appliances into a deadly force (I swear I ain’t making this up)! <br /><br />Among the highlights...er...lowpoints of the film are: the grumpy bartender from whose dingy place the heroine calls a couple of times (it seems that the chain-of-events can only be broken by having Lewis go through her paces again, EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)-style!), the sheer variety of preposterous-looking phones on display, the apparatus of the heroine’s photographer friend sneaking up on her before the kill, the sarcastic cop who greets Lewis on reporting the strange occurrences (“And what’s the toaster up to, I wonder?”), the would-be rapist killed by a barrage of coins shooting out from a telephone booth, and Berger’s own bloody demise (with the phone affecting the pacemaker he’s fitted with and causing the doctor’s heart to explode)! <br /><br />The film’s climax is rather confusing and, apparently, finally sees all the ‘lost souls’ inhabiting a flock of doves and flying out the window of the ‘possessed’ office (a lonelyhearts service!). For what it’s worth, the score – by ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti no less – is effective enough, despite the inclusion of dated heavy-metal numbers on the soundtrack. | 1 |
If you took all the stock elements of a Shrek movie (grumpy ogre, annoying donkey, cute kitty, obligatory dance number, etc.), put them in a blender and condensed it to 20 minutes, you'd have this mess. Painful to watch; I may have laughed once. The story and dialogue are rushed beyond comprehension, with the voice actors sounding like they phoned in their lines. The final reworked rendition of 'The Christmas Story' poem felt like it was written by a committee in five minutes. And boy, a little Eddie Murphy goes a long way. With its desperate attempt to be hip and current, this show will be long outdated and forgotten while classics like 'The Grinch
' will remain timeless. A sad waste of effort by all involved, a veritable 'jumping of the shark' for the Shrek franchise. | 1 |
This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother. | 1 |
*** REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SOME SPOILERS *** I'll make this review short and sweet. I bought this movie from Best Buy because it sounded interested and had some top actors in it like Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman. How bad could it be, right? Well, it's pretty bad. Justin Timberlake plays Pollack, a wannabe journalist who stumbles across a case that may lead to corrupt cops at Edison's Police Force. LL Cool J is Deed, a cop within the force on a special force team called F.R.A.T. (First Response Assault Tactics). He's teamed with an 'on-the-edge' bad cop named Lazerov (Dylan McDermott). In the opening scene we see Lazerov & Deed taking on some bank robbers, but at night they are busting a couple of guys doing drugs. I don't want to give to much away, but things turn bad for the guys doing the drugs. Pollack, who works for Ashford (Morgan Freeman) goes to a trial involving Deeds & Lazerov. He suspect foul play and with the help of Ashford, does some investigate that turns ugly. Wallace (Kevin Spacey) who is all within the F.R.A.T. team joins with Ashford to try to bring the corrupt cops to justice.<br /><br />You can tell from the beginning that Freeman and Spacey's performance are pretty lackluster. The only person that give a all out performance is Dylan McDermott. He is a complete nut case in this movie and made a believer out of me. LL Cool J is terrible in this film. He says every line the same way and shows pretty much the same emotion. He was much better in movies like Deep Blue Sea & Any Given Sunday. The film starts off with some nice action but then drags it feet through the rest of the film. The ending is far from satisfying.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this film. I'm putting it on Ebay this weekend. | 1 |
Who can ask for more? Taking my 2 and 4 year old children was a risk, I admit. But well worth it. They were enthralled from credit to credit, with their parents beside them.<br /><br />I have taken the kids to films before with mixed results: too scary, too boring, too sophisticated, whatever. With this film, however, I was glad to see a smart film with wit, style and a sense of passion emanating from the screen. Any film that takes 5(!) years of production to make, good or bad, deserves some respect for the bravery and the patience it takes to film a film like this.<br /><br />O.K. I'm gushing a little. Then again, why wouldn't I get excited? Looking through the movie listing today only reminded me of the poor quality of films that are distributed. At least for the moment Regardless, W & G is a film well made. Perhaps the originality wasn't the most inspired, nevertheless, well told and well paced.<br /><br />Too much adult humour? Too many sex references? Maybe. Though my kids didn't quite catch them. Too young. So, in my case, I didn't really notice.<br /><br />Well, needless to say, I liked it. | 0 |
Not even worth watching this tacky spoiler ruins everything about 'Annie'. The characters seem almost cheapened by the poorly written storyline and they low quality feeling to the production. It was very clearly made for TV, yet if I found it on my television, I would flick it straight over. The children in the film do an alright job, yet the adults acting is unbelievable and so the movie fails to really draw you in. This film lacked the music/dance numbers thats made the original brilliant and truly does take the shine of the Annie we all love. Johnson, as Annie is at times annoying and over acted..you cannot convince yourself that she truly is Annie. The differences in character appearance continued to irritate me throughout the duration of the film. Sad to say this sequel was a total flop. | 1 |
A surprising rent at a local video store, I was pleased to find a media satire worthy enough to challenge Oliver Stone's 'Natural Born Killers.' And almost as disturbing. I think it went well with my viewing to be in late 2004 watching the Republican Machine do it's magic on the majority of America's television viewing populous. It brings up the question 'Are we really that manipulative?' <br /><br />It definitely skewed my view. There was also a larger theological question being provoked- the story of Christ. Could word of mouth and overwhelming dependence on something exploitive as television produce a messiah? Could the story of Christ been exaggerated? Could it have been completely fabricated? It's something the movie puts in a extremely perceptive light. | 0 |
Am I wrong,or is the 2007 version just a rip-off of the original? I have to ask because the DVD I just bought is one of the worst films I have ever seen.....bad acting,bad editing etc....the only 'exploitation ' aspect here is how we were ripped off for our money buying this piece of crap. It is nothing more than a light-weight porn flick...no real gore, no scary images, just a cheaply done bit of garbage. If anyone wants to see an excellent film with no name actors,some slimy gore and a decent storyline...get Baby Blood...also done on a cheap budget but well made...and an actual story too!I Spit was a waste of money but I'll keep it just for a laugh....it is pathetic! New comment....Sept 3.....I'll keep this film forever just because it it SOOOOO bad it's almost good....in a really bad way....the worst acting ever...a real crap-movie classic! | 1 |
Worst pile of drivel to date! Everyone involved with this production should be ashamed of themselves. Not one single element of the movie was anything slightly like an original idea. A first grader telling you a story about nap time is more entertaining. | 1 |
If you're looking for an original horror flick, this might be the one for you. It's strange and at times lingers on stupidity, but it's just such a good looking, nice sounding and original movie, it never fails, except maybe during the over long climax. 'Nightbreed' is a must see for horror fans, or for fans of monster movie make-up.<br /><br />Boone (Craig Sheffer) has been having dreams of a town called Midian full of mutant creatures. In therapy, his psychiatrist Dr. Decker (horror director David Cronenberg) has come to the conclusion that Boone is a murderer, and gives him hallucinogenic pills, and tells him to turn himself in. After almost getting killed, Boone ends up at the hospital, where he runs into a mental patient who also knows about Midian, and tells Boone where to go. Midian, located in a graveyard, is inhabited by vile mutant creatures that don't let Boone in. After escaping with only a nasty bite, Boone is shot dead by the police, who were lead to his location by Dr. Decker. But Boone isn't dead. The bite causes him to live, and he goes off to Midian. Meanwhile, Boone's girlfriend Lori (Anne Bobby) tries to find Boone and get to the bottom of this. When Dr. Decker also finds out about this place, chaos ensues.<br /><br />The plot seems long and complicated, but it really isn't hard to understand. The plot, among other things, makes this movie really interesting. The make-up effects are astounding. The creatures look unique and amazing, and make this a very appealing film. To add to more senses appeal, we have a musical score by Danny Elfman, that is both lush and bouncy, and fits the film like a glove. The shots in the movie are also set up beautifully. The cinematography is lovely, and the movie sets up an atmosphere that is never broken. Even the acting is good, with the biggest surprise being director David Cronenberg giving a great, menacing performance as the man, who for one reason or another, wants to see Boone dead. It's odd for a horror film to be this well done.<br /><br />The problems with the movie...well there are a few, but the positives outweigh the negatives. The script features the occasional lame jokes to try and add some humor, but almost every one falls flat. The mutant creatures look great and for the most part are well acted, but sometimes it feels like they are just posing their awesome makeup for the camera. The worst part of the film would have to be the climax. It takes so long, and is just constant chaos. It's the portion of the film that moves from individual characters and nice tight knit shots, to fiery explosions from each direction and violence happening to characters we don't know or care about.<br /><br />Overall, this movie is amazing to look at. It's a well done horror film, but even with that said, it has the occasional failure in character's lines, and a messy climax. Nonetheless, this is one to check out.<br /><br />My rating: *** out of ****. 101 mins. R for strong violence and language. | 0 |
On a routine mission in Iraq a group of Delta soldiers recover a computer hard drive from an Alqueda training camp detailing the location of weapons specialist Dr Walsh. After witnessing the termination of his top secret weapons development program Dr Walsh finds an alternative funding source and sets up a new research facility deep in the notorious Belzan forest in Chechnya where he is developing weapons and selling them to Chechnyan rebels.The team of Deltas is sent on a black ops mission to retrieve the doctor and his technology before the Russians find him and his lab.What the Delta team soon discover is that the doctors latest weapons is a flock of large carnivorous bats that have been genetically altered to develop a taste for human flesh. I found this movie to be much better than what I was expecting.There is lots of action and lots of blood. Its more or less what you would expect from a creature feature. The acting isn't great but its passable. I have certainly seen worse.Overall its an enjoyable movie for what it is. A good popcorn movie. | 0 |
This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen. What were they thinking. Stop preaching to me already! This is why all of us watch Walker Texas Ranger and wont admit it to our friends. Terrible acting and a extremely phony plot. While the movie is unfolding the story stops and the actors start preaching to the audience. The director somehow believed the two meshed well. It looked like crap! When I saw the title at my local blockbusters it looked interesting. Their should have been a warning on it saying it was religious instead of the false advertisement of an action / adventure. First time in a long time I stopped a movie and couldn't tolerate finishing it. | 1 |
This movie is beyond Horrible AVOID AT ALL COSTS!! I want my hour and 20 minutes back!!!<br /><br />Not funny AT ALL, you can watch this movie without laughing or even smiling once. Swears spill out of the speakers like a waterfall, each one getting more annoying as the last, and not contributing to the comedy OR plot (general comedy - not this movie in general!).<br /><br />All in all, its a lame-a$5, watered-down -typed- 'Out Cold'ish movie - But Tremendously Awful. The movie focuses around two groups of a city Poories and Richies (how obviously dumb is that?), where the two opposites have snowboard battles with each other. (story is much like a 4-year-old's bed time story without all the swears and stupid jokes)<br /><br />MOVIE - 1/10 - because you can't give any lower scores | 1 |
In 1978 a phenomenon began. The release of John Carpenter's 'Halloween' got people queueing around the block to witness the evil that is Michael Meyers. The critics loved it, the world loved it, it was imitated, and has gone down as one of the greatest movies in cinematic history.<br /><br />plot: 15 years after a murder took place, four friends (all females) are babysitting(and having it on with their boyfriends) on Halloween night. After escaping from a hospital the night before, Michael myers Returns to his home town to stalk these people. He murders 3 of them silently and subtlety. He does not speak. He walks slowly. He hides....<br /><br />Only one of the friends escapes, after being saved by Doctor Loomis (Michael's pursuer and doctor) <br /><br />There is one reason why Halloween works so well. Simplicity. We don't know where Michael is, we don't know why he kills, and he frightens us. They're the only reasons why we are afraid.<br /><br />John carpenter wrote the movie, and directed. He builds unbearable tension throughout the story, and scares to such a degree, that sometimes we cannot watch. And the climax is truly startling.<br /><br />As horror, this is essential. It is terrifying and well acted. It is also mysterious. Michael is a force, not a human. A force that cannot be denied.<br /><br />The sequels focused too much around Michael and his 'history'. This movie focuses on the fear of the unknown. Perhaps that's why this thing is a masterpiece. | 0 |
Help, I've ended up in cinema hell! What a completely stupid film this is. Really nothing is good about it. <br /><br />Let's spit it out:<br /><br />1) The story is incredibly far-fetched: an anti-EU terrorist group is chasing a bunch of guys who drive around Western Europe carrying a delivery of see-through bags full of xtc pills. And the worst thing is: they are serious about it!<br /><br />2) The level of acting should put great shame on all faces involved. <br /><br />3) Some money-eyed guy decided to let every one talk English so that the international market would catch on. Ugliest advertising ever! The French and Dutch native tongues talking smart make all but sense and the result is laughable. <br /><br />4) The soundtrack is totally misplaced and ill-chosen.<br /><br />5) The camera, edit and effects work is supposed to be of some post noir road movie kind of style, but is hardly worth some thing and not meant to accompany this story (read: anti- story).<br /><br />6) Hidde Maas. The hero of Wildschut never fails to convince. A true actor. Usually I would give an extra point just for the sake of him being around. But no, sorry, not this time, I would just not forgive my self... | 1 |
This film is famous for several qualities: a literate script, for once in partly-religious film-making, by Philip Dunne, some very good performances, a first-rate production in every department and its intelligent direction by veteran Henry King. If one were making a film, then getting such talents as Leon Shamroy as cinematographer, Lyle Wheeler as art director and Alfred Newman as composer of original music would guarantee a quality production. Add the cast of this film, including Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward as the title characters, James Robertson Justice, Raymond Massey, Kieron Moore, Jayne Meadows and John Sutton plus a dance by Gwen Verdon and expectations might be raised that the resulting film could be made into something special. But in a biblical subject script, usually a sub-genre prone to illogical motivations and miraculous interventions, everything would ultimately depend on the author's skills. Philip Dunne here has supplied human beings, a rare achievement in biblical films. David is a man in this film, many-sided, not someone doing mythical deeds on paper in the Old Testament. Gregory Peck makes him curious, passionate, self-controlled, self-deprecating and appealing. As Bathsheba, Hayward is scarcely the perfect choice but conveys a good deal of common-sense earthiness and emotional normalcy that helps one see why the King of Israel would risk so much for her. The rest of the cast is stalwart and capable by turns. The familiar storyline provides them little to work with, but author Dunne and the cast do as much as is possible with the human situations. David's youth is told in flashback; how he was chosen by a Prophet of Yahweh to be King of Israel, and earns his way to be second to the king, Saul, by defeating Goliath the Phiiistine in battle when all else are afraid to beard the giant warrior. Thereafter, he finally is driven from the court of King Saul of Israel, becomes a famous warrior, and returns to claim the kingdom and become the instrument of death of Jonathan, the King's son, formerly a friend. His wars are successful-- the film opens in fact with a successful attack scene; but his life is empty since his wife Michal, Jayne Meadows, is Saul's daughter and is cold to him. He turns to Bathsheba, whom he sees from the palace roof bathing naked; later she admits she had hoped he would see her. But she has a husband, Uriah; when she becomes pregnant, it becomes necessary for Uriah to come in from the battlefield and spend time at home; he instead asks David to set him in the forefront of the battle, even after being aroused by Verdon's dance. David agrees. He is killed, a war hero; but this does not solve the infidelity question. Drought comes to Israel, and the king's infidelity is blamed for the phenomenon. At last, David places his hands on the Ark of the Covenant, recently brought to Jerusalem and housed in a temple, which has caused the death of others who accidentally came in contact with it, inviting his god to punish him--and nothing happens...David exits the temple, and finds that rain has come to his parched land. This film is always interesting, varied in its types of scenes and physically beautiful. The director and author make use of the observer principle, and are frankly more successful in humanizing the characters than in almost any film outside the Grecianized- Near Eastern canon, wherein the feat is a bit easier since neither miraculous nor religious themes are made central in such adventures. . Well-remembered for its glowing realization, fine performances and intelligent dialogue, this dramatic effort bears repeated study. | 0 |
Despite the feelings of most 'Star Wars' fans, in my opinion 'Return Of The Jedi' is the greatest cinematic film ever created. Ever since the first time I saw it, it's depth, intensity, special effects, and moving story have overwhelmed me. The film was so well put together that it has been able to stand the test of time over the last 20 years. Filled with powerful action, as the climax of the original trilogy, George Lucas gives us a rousing finish of the 'Star Wars' saga in 'Jedi'.<br /><br />Film Summary (Contains Spoilers For Those Who Have Not Seen It)<br /><br />After 'The Empire Strikes Back' left us hanging for 3 long years we finally find the end of the story in 'Return Of The Jedi'. Darth Vader, in emotional turmoil makes a surprise visit to a new uncompleted Death Star to oversee it's construction. The Emperor is first seen in this film as he has the ultimate plan to destroy the Rebel Alliance and bring young Luke Skywalker to the Dark Side. Luke, Lando, Leia, Chewie, and the droids all travel to Tatooine to rescue the frozen Han Solo from the crime Lord; Jabba The Hutt. After Han has been rescued, and Jabba defeated, Luke returns to Dagobah to find a dying Yoda where he learns the awful truth; Darth Vader is in fact his father. The rebel heroes regroup with the Rebel Fleet. Now joined by other species and races including the Mon Calamari the Rebels must make a all-or-nothing plan of attack to destroy the Death Star before it is completed. While Lando heads the space attack in the Millennium Falcon, the Rebel heroes must disable the Death Star's shield generator on the Forest Moon Of Endor. It is here that the Rebels happen upon the furry, but mighty Ewoks. During the the two part intense battle, a third battle must take place as Luke willingly delivers himself to Vader in an attempt to convince him to leave the Dark Side. In emotionally charged sequences Luke must face his father as the Emperor lures out his dark emotions. As young Skywalker is about to face his death at the hands of Palpatine, Vader turns on his wicked master to save his son's life. <br /><br />Filled with a deep timeless story of good vs. evil, 'Return Of The Jedi' is a spectacular, emotionally charged film that redeems the good in all of us. | 0 |
I picked up this movie with the intention of getting a bad zombie movie. But I had no Idea what I was getting myself into.<br /><br />I started the movie and soon I had been pulled into a world of pain and visual torture.<br /><br />I finally know what hell is like. It's this movie. For eternity. This movie has no value. It didn't even really have a plot. There was stuff going on in each scene but no overall explanation why anything happens.<br /><br />Instead of watching this movie I suggest that you line the nearest blender with oil and try and stuff as many bullets in it as you can. You will find that the outcome to be far more pleasant than this movie.<br /><br />Don't even watch it. Not even to see how bad it is. I beg you. If you watch it, then it means they win. | 1 |
Definitely not only for urban legend aficionados, Campfire Tales is an often scary and always fun ride through several popular stories. It is also a film that exceeded the (low) expectations I had. A horror film I had never heard or read about, a straight-to-video release (granted, the latter often presents us with a pleasant surprise, but with horror films nowadays it can be all or nothing), a cast of mostly unknowns... well, I'll leave the math to you.<br /><br />The film proves to be an entertaining, suspenseful and overall very enjoyable experience. The four stories are well-paced and satisfying. The only one I felt was a little weaker was 'The Locket', for the simple reason that it offers almost no explanation for its plot or the characters' actions; however, I still loved the tale, its atmosphere and ending. My favorite one was the third story, 'People Can Lick Too' - the suspense in it is not only palpable, but also educational.<br /><br />I found Campfire Tales to be one of those horror gems one discovers by chance, and then goes on recommending it to everyone.<br /><br />7/10 | 0 |
Every time I think about this film I feel physically ill. To read such a great book and later discover there's a film of it was a great feeling. Years later and imagine my joy at switching on the sci-fi channel and finding it starts in just 5mins!!! Up go the titles and then uggg. If just a couple of things had changed OK. Everything is changed. Numerous characters are removed entirely new rubbish ones are added. The main hero is shrunk and de-aged by about 30 years, and hilariously his girlfriend/wife is now his mother! Even the dog is reduced to sub-lassie capabilities. This is truly appalling cinema at its absolute worst. I would quite happily remove my own toenails with pliers rather than sit through another horrific viewing, and I urge anyone thinking of watching this - please don't. If you own a copy burn it now, right now and think how much better your life would have been had this celluloid insult never occurred. | 1 |
A shaky hand-held camera was used, presumably to give the film a documentary look, but the effect was so exaggerated that I started to get motion-sickness just from watching it. It looked like someone with cerebral palsy was holding the camera (no offense meant to CP sufferers, but I don't think you would expect to get much work as a cinematographer!) The camera work was so nauseating, and so distracting, that my wife and I considered it unwatchable and gave up on it after 10 minutes of torture. I checked back a while later (it was showing on TV), and it hadn't gotten any better. I suggest giving this one a miss unless you need to get rid of any bad sushi you may have eaten! | 1 |
This is one of the most boring films I've ever seen. The three main cast members just didn't seem to click well. Giovanni Ribisi's character was quite annoying. For some reason, he seems to like repeating what he says. If he was the 'Rain Man', it would've been fine, but he's not.<br /><br />3 out of 10. | 1 |
This film has the look and feel of a Student film project. Yeah, there are some interesting (albeit gimmicky) edits and shots, but the end result was juvenile.<br /><br />The director didn't seem to be saying 'Look at this film.' It seemed as if he were saying, 'Look at ME! I'm a DIRECTOR!'<br /><br />Thumbs down. | 1 |
A mild-mannered NY lawyer (George Segal) is slowly going crazy. He promised his father on his death bed that he would NEVER send their senile mother (Ruth Gordon) to a nursing home. Years later he's taking care of a senile, dangerous psychopath. He meets a beautiful nurse (Trish Van Devere) and they fall in love. But his mother keeps scaring her away. Segal is ready to kill her....<br /><br />Ummmm...THIS is a comedy? I have nothing against sick, black humor but come on...there HAS to be some limits! This movie goes out of its way to throw every tasteless sick joke it can think of and rub your face in it. Too bad none of the jokes are funny. The jokes involve rape, nudity, public humiliation, senile old people, swearing and racism. Basically this is a movie that thinks it's clever by trying to shock people and thinking they'll laugh at it. I was disgusted and didn't laugh once. The movie is morbid, disturbing and (surprisingly) dull. The cast is the only thing that kept me watching. Segal and Gordon were both wonderful in their roles--Gordon especially. And Van Devere is pretty good also. But the script is against them. The only interesting thing (not funny) was a pointless courtroom scene with Rob Reiner Jr. (and try to spot his then-wife Penny Marshall as a spectator).<br /><br />Actually this movie could have been worse--the original ending had Segal getting into bed with his MOTHER and pretending he's poppa! That was (thankfully) changed.<br /><br />A real lousy, sick film. Bottom of the barrel. I give it a 1. | 1 |
- Let me start by saying that I understand that Invasion of the Star Creatures was meant to be a parody of the sci-fi films of the 50s. I understand that none of it is to be taken seriously. The problem I have is that none of it works. A parody should be funny and this one just isn't. Not once during the entire runtime did I so much as crack a smile. In general, I am easily entertained, but I couldn't find a sliver of entertainment anywhere in Invasion of the Star Creatures.<br /><br />- I knew I was in trouble right from the beginning. The two 'stars' make their screen appearance with one of the lamest gags imaginable - a water hose they can't control that gets them both wet. These two come off as Bowery Boys wannabes. Why anyone would want to mime the act and persona of the Bowery Boys is beyond me. After the less than illustrious beginning, the movies goes on to feature comical chase sequences, dancing Indians, vegetable men, decoder rings, and other assorted unfunny bits. It's all just a complete waste of time.<br /><br />- I bought this on the double feature DVD with Invasion of the Bee Girls. That movie is Academy Award winning stuff in comparison with Invasion of the Star Creatures. | 1 |
I know it's a Power-Rangers gimmick and catered to 7 year olds but really why were they taking themselves seriously with this movie? If they are going to write a plot with crayons, at least have the decency to make it silly. It's kind of hilarious if you watch this. We have a typical family filled with cliched characters (father a war veteran who lost his wife and blames himself LOLOL), air-head children trying to hard to fill the stereotype but fails with horrendous acting, and a laughably horrid sidekick who serves no purpose to the movie but to fill camera space. Funny stuff!<br /><br />However, the real great moment comes near the end when war-dad and bad-acting-villain try to work a sword fight, but then they realize none of them know how to (probably because no room in budget for choreographers), so they come up with this American Gladiator type setting to run around in. LOL.<br /><br />1/10 rating because they try to treat this seriously. | 1 |
This horrible! The acting, costumes, production values, editing, the script, everything about this film is as bad as it can get. It looks as if it was filmed with a video camera. Can you give a movie a negative rating? Watch The Ring instead. | 1 |
'I have looked into the eye of this island, and what I saw was beautiful,' proclaims one of the main characters in ABC's award winning television show 'Lost'. The series could be summarized as a drama story about a group of plane crash survivors stranded on an unknown island, but that would be doing the show a disservice. 'Lost' follows a large group of characters who come into conflict with the island, each other, and ultimately themselves as they struggle with their new way of life and their dependency on each other. The situation becomes more complicated when it becomes clear this isn't an ordinary island, either - and that they may not be alone.<br /><br />My initial fear after hearing the concept of this series was the lack of new stories they could tell us after a certain period, but this proved to be unfounded. The narrative flows naturally, the dialogue is witty, the characters are memorable and the execution is superb. The island is a character all on its own, and to understand this comment you'd have to see the series for yourself, which only goes to show its originality and greatness.<br /><br />At the time of writing this review, only the first two seasons have aired, and they're filled with strong episodes. My only mild criticism is that the second season seems to slow down a bit halfway, but then fortunately comes back in admirable shape for the final episodes.<br /><br />If I can recommend one television series you should be following right now, it would certainly be this one. If you like excitement, adventure, character driven stories, an extremely strong cast and crew, beautiful locations, and an island that seems more spiritual than natural, 'Lost' is for you. Just be sure you start at the beginning. | 0 |
First of all, DO NOT call this a remake of the '63 film. Even though this version is truer to the stage play, it is Extremely long. The casting was good with some exceptions. Chyna Phillips was not a good casting choice. She was almost 30 when she did this film, and it was hard to believe she was a teenager. Jason Alexander was good choice, but after a while he gave me a headache. Tyne Daly overdoes her part as Mae Peterson. George Wendt was funny as Harry McAffee, and showed he could even hold a tune. Like the '63 film, they casted an unknown to play Conrad Birdie. Marc Kudisch had fun with his role as Birdie and it showed. I even have the soundtrack and i love listening to his singing. So what made this a TV ratings flop? It was lengthy for one. They put in new songs and scenes. Even though some of the new songs were good (like 'Let's Settle Down'), was it really necessary? Now don't get me wrong, I liked it, but I rather watch the '63 film (see my review). This was just a case of some actors overdoing roles, making some changes, and once again, LENGTH. One more thing I forgot to mention is Vanessa Williams. She does a good job with the role and the music. Give her any lyrics and she could sing them. So here is my advice coming from someone who's done a couple productions of Bye Bye Birdie: If you want to watch an entertaining take on the play, watch the '63 film. If you want to watch a version that is truer to the play, watch the '95 version. Just take it in moderation though. Don't be a hero and try watch it all in one sitting. | 0 |
Any chance to see Katharine Hepburn in something I haven't seen or from her early movie career is a treat, and on that level the film is amusing, but she's horrible miscast as a Hill Billy. Her famous New England enunciation slips through, making lines like, 'I'd better rustle up some Vittles' pretty ludicrous. She's so pretty and so young
it almost overcomes this major flaw. The story is an old fashioned melodrama, and there fore, a younger generation may think this pretty corny stuff, but this was the staple of American Entertainment well into the 1940's. It has its moments, but you might need to be a die-hard movie buff to appreciate it. | 1 |
Sometimes Full Moon makes entertaining movies. This isn't one of them. Full Moon is like a low-key Troma. Their movies aren't as violent or off the wall, but they're usually just as devoid of talent. The acting in this movie isn't terrible but the script is pretty bad, and overall it's pretty boring and it doesn't even contain any nudity (like many Full Moon movies) to somewhat redeem it. Skip this one, and go rent 'Head of the Family'. | 1 |
It is apparent that director, writers and everyone else knows nothing about their own religion or the people who practice it. This movie is endlessly flawed and overall a complete crock.<br /><br />For instance, there is a scene where the rabbi enters the woman's ritual bath while a naked woman is bathing, puts his hand on the head of a woman there and blesses her. This is complete mockery of the laws, in this scene alone some of the laws broken include: Modesty, a rabbi would never enter a ritual bath house while there are woman in it.<br /><br />Improper contact, a rabbi would never put his hand on a woman's head, not to mention that it is not the way a blessing is given.<br /><br />The woman from the ritual bath is dunking a naked woman by pushing her head under the water, the laws regarding ritual bathing require the entire body to make direct contact with the bath water; this means nobody should be in contact with the person bathing, certainly not pushing them under!<br /><br />There was more just in that scene alone, like dunking 13 times (where does that concept even come from?) not to mention the rest of the movie was a total fallacy. It is scary what ignorance can concoct! | 1 |
Yes, some people have said that this movie was a waste of money, but i'm the kind of die hard dragon/world-ending/holy crap action movie fan.<br /><br />But if you take it from my stand point this movie had some of the best action sences were pretty dang good. But its that kind of movie that everything just fell tougher at the right time, or just about when evil was trumph something fell in to save them at the right time. Though there were some funny lines and gangs throughout the movie which surprised me.<br /><br />The 3d graphics were pretty damn good. I mean for this kind of movie the 3d effects were GREAT!!!! Big battle that was shown in the trailers live up to whatever hype the movie had. The fight between good and evil at the end was, I have to to say could have been longer and slightly better, it was still pretty good.<br /><br />Now on to the parts that i think could have been better. The beginning was pretty good showing the parts that lead up to the big battles. I mean if you don't really want to go see this movie in theaters then at least this is a DVDer...<br /><br />overall i loved the movie,but the plot just fell into place to fast and fit tougher just to well. | 0 |
I wasn't sure when I heard about this coming out. I was thinking how dumb is Disney getting. I was wrong. I found it to be very good. I mean it's not The Lion King but it's cool to see another side from a certain point. It was very funny. Also it wasn't one of those corny disney sequels were the animation sucks, it was just like The Lion King animation. The only thing that eritated me was the whole movie theater thing through out the movie. Not to give anything way but you'll know what I am talking about. I also fun that it was cool to have most of the cast from the original to return. It was a very good movie over all. | 0 |
Whoever wrote up 'Redline' as a great car movie must be getting paid off by Daniel Sadek to promote this ultra crappy flaming, steaming pile of amateur crap. Easily the worst automotive movie or any movie ever made. This makes Showgirls look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Take every cheesy cliché out of an 80s action TV series, put in some really crappy special effects and lame characters with no relevance and you have living proof that Daniel Sadek should not write screenplays and produce movies but should remain in the real estate business.<br /><br />This is such a lame movie with such a lame plot and the most contrived action sequences ever. What offends me is not that the makers of this film are idiots but that they consider the movie going public to be idiots enough to fall for this crap. | 1 |
This story had a good plot to it about four elderly men that share a deadly secret concerning a young woman that they met 50 years ago. After all this time, the young woman returns to seek revenge on the men. This story occasionally made me nod off during the movie in the middle of tiring elevator music and the ever so consistent thunder storms. But it is well worth the wait in the end when we find out just who the mystery woman is that keeps plaguing the old men in their dreams and interfering in a young man's life. The most of what I liked in this film was the suspense in which the young woman appears to the men just before their deaths. The special effects were something. Every time I heard her call out to them I would think 'Not that face again.' But it was a good movie, I just wish that the pace was not as slow or the acting not as tiresome. And what I also liked about the movie was the flashback of the 20's, very authentic as well as the costumes being original. | 1 |
How, in the name of all that's holy, did this film ever get distribution? It looks as if it has been shot on someone's mobile phone and takes the screaming girl victim scenario to whole new depths. They literally scream for the full 90 minutes of the movie. And that's all they do. There is no plot, no tension, no characters, and not a lot of acting. Just screaming and more screaming.<br /><br />I gave up after fifteen minutes and fast-wound through it to see if anything happened. It doesn't - except for screaming, of course. Odlly enough, the act of going through it on fast forward highlights another problem - there is no camera-work to speak of. Every shot looks like every other shot - middle distance, one angle, dull, dull, DULL.<br /><br />It's not so bad it's good. It's just plain bad. | 1 |
** HERE BE SPOILERS ** <br /><br />Recap: Mia (Helin) is returning home from capital Stockholm to rural Rättvik to celebrate her fathers 70th birthday. She is by far the youngest child, and has two sisters Eivor (Ernst) and Gunilla (Petrén). Eivor has a family and still lives in Rättvik and Gunilla has divorced and moved a town away. Mia is still single and is focused on her career. There are a lot of jealousy and almost animosity between the sisters and conflicts arise all around as they confront each other and each have personal problems they have difficult to handle. As the party goes on (and alcohol consumed), more and more secrets become unveiled and more and more conflicts arise...<br /><br />Comments: To be the work of a new writer/director it was disappointing to see this movie to follow in the exact same tracks that older Swedish comedy/dramas has been following for years. There are really no new elements or ideas. This movie draws upon three basic areas. 1) Embarrassing humor only based on characters making a fool of themselves. 2) Sorrow and 3) Anxiety. This move has the focus on the last one, almost forgetting the first point as the movie goes along. No loss though, since the humor that is there is not funny. The performances from the cast are good I guess, though it is lost behind all the anguish and soon forgotten. I had hopes that there would be new ideas and influences, but there were none. To conclude, there are better ways to spend one's time than watching this.<br /><br />3/10 | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.