review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
This movie starts out as if it were a comedy. It almost appears that the actors are reading off of cue cards, especially in the airport sequence. William Smith plays the role of 'Caribe,' a hunter, who is quite twisted and deranged. Smith seems to always play villains such as in 'The Ultimate Warrior' (1975), and 'The Frisco Kid' (1979) to name a few, although in this film the villainous role seems laughable. This is one of those films where senseless things take place only to fill up screen time, such as the girl chasing sequence at the beginning, and the long silly motorcycle race. I give this film 1/10. I would have liked to see this film on 'Mystery Science Theatre' it would have been hilarious. | 1 |
Live Feed is set in some unnamed Chinese/Japanese Asian district somewhere as five American friends, Sarah (Ashley Schappert), Emily (Taayla Markell), Linda (Caroline Chojnacki), Mike (Lee Tichon) & Darren (Rob Scattergood) are enjoying a night on the town & taking in the sights. After a scuffle in a bar with a Japanese Triad boss (Stephen Chang) they decide to check out a porno theatre, as you would. Inside they are separated & quickly find out that the place belongs to the Triad boss who uses it to torture & kill people for reasons which aren't made clear. Can local boy Miles (Kevan Ohtsji) save them?<br /><br />This Canadian production was co-written, produced & directed by Ryan Nicholson who also gets a prosthetic effects designer credit as well, one has to say that Live Feed is another pretty poor low budget shot on a camcorder type horror film that seems to exist only to cash in on the notoriety & success of Hostel (2005) & the mini craze for 'torture porn' as it's become known. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section for Live Feed writer & director Nicholson wrote it after hearing about certain activities taking place in live sex theatres, for my money I reckon he wrote it after watching Hostel! The script is pretty poor, there is no basic reason given as to why this porno theatre has a big fat ugly freak dressed in bondage gear lurking around torturing & killing people, none. Was it for the Triads? Was it for his pleasure? Was it to make snuff films to sell? Some sort of explanation would have been nice. Also why did he turn on the Triad boss at the end? If your looking for a film with a coherent story then forget about Live Feed. It seemed to me to be some sort of uneasy misjudged mix of sex, S&M, horror, torture, gore & action films which doesn't come off. I mean just setting a horror film in a porn theatre isn't automatically going to make your film any good, there still needs to be a decent script & story, right? The character's were fairly poor clichés & some of their actions & motivations were more than a little bit questionable. It moves along at a reasonable pace, it's fairly sleazy mixing gore, sex & nudity but it does look cheap which lessens the effect.<br /><br />Director Nicholson doesn't do anything special here, the editing is choppy & annoying, he seems to think lighting almost every scene with neon lights is a good idea & the film has a cheap look about it. Available in both 'R' & 'Unrated' versions I saw the shorter cut 'R' version which really isn't that gory but I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the 'Unrated' version & say that it might be much, much gorier but I can't say for sure. There's a fair amount of nudity too if that's your thing. I wouldn't say there's much of an atmosphere or many scares here because there isn't & aren't respectively although it does have a sleazy tone in general which is something it has going for it I suppose.<br /><br />Technically Live Feed isn't terribly impressive, the blood looks a little too watery for my liking & entire scenes bathed in annoying neon lights sometimes makes it hard to tell whats happening, it to often looks like it was shot on a hand-held camcorder & the choppy editing at least on the 'R' rated version is at times an annoying mess. Shot on location in an actual porn theatre somewhere in Vancouver in Canada. The acting is poor, sometimes I couldn't tell if the actresses in this were supposed to be crying or laughing...<br /><br />Live Feed is not a film I would recommend anyone to rush out & buy or rent, I didn't think much of it with it's very weak predictable storyline lacking exposition & which goes nowhere, poor acting & less than impressive gore (at least in the 'R' rated cut anyway). Watch either Hostel films again or instead as they are superior. | 1 |
This was on at 2 or so In the morning one Saturday a few years ago, for various reasons I don't remember the entire story but what remains are the two standout performances from the central characters. Dom has had a unfortunate lot, manipulated & literally working a rubbish job, Eugene torn between personal aspirations and duty towards his sibling. Tom Hulce' Dom doesn't plead for sympathy - It comes naturally. Ray Liotta Is a universe away from Henry Hill, displaying a soft centre In what must feel a thankless position.<br /><br />In many ways this deals with the dilemma many young carer's face - the past or the future. As It turns out, with some work the two can happily co-exist. Thoughtfully handled & sensitively played Dominick & Eugene Is difficult not to warm to. | 0 |
Well after three times through I still have no idea what this movie is about because, quite honestly, it failed to generate any real interest or concern. But here it goes: A bunch of too old to be teen Teen Actors dressed in horrifying latter 1980's fashions (did WE look like that too??) decide it would be a really good idea to get in a motorboat and go visit the abandoned Alcatraz after one of them has nightmares of people being slaughtered in various horrifying ways that manage to rip off POLTERGEIST, THE EVIL DEAD, and Freddy Kreuger in one fell swoop. The dimwit even envisions himself being roasted over an open fire with some deformed freak slicing off strips of tenderloin. Good thing it was only a dream or it might have hurt, and good thing his dreams had a decent special effects budget. Mine are usually pretty lame: Girls, model space ships, blowing things up with a bazooka, etc.<br /><br />Once on the Alcatraz island they find themselves in a Slasher movie, and meet up with Tony Basil, who cannot help but break into a couple dance poses at times and had her own lighting crew (complete with a smoke machine for that 1980's smoky haze infused light look, which I kind of miss). And such reminded me that Ms. Basil helped choreograph David Byrne of the Talking Heads for some of his videos and performances. This of course has nothing at all to do with the film but kept popping into mind as the movie posed very little to actually think about. It sort of happens, and you can either watch or keep working on your page markup with it on the TV set off to the side. But since the film isn't really interesting, you'll keep deciding to finish one last thing instead of wasting time, the movie will keep ending, and you'll find yourself wondering what you missed every time you realize the end credits are starting to roll again, dammit ...<br /><br />*SOME* 1980's Teen Horror movies can survive such specialized viewing: Umberto Lenzi's GHOSTHOUSE, CHOPPING MALL & it's Killbots, the hard to ignore NIGHT OF THE CREEPS and the over-the-top SLEEPAWAY CAMP all come to mind. They are films that, like them or not, demand your attention and usually pay off with some good gore or T&A, and typos in your work as evidence that you were watching the TV instead of your keyboard. I am sure that HELL ISLAND (as the British version I glommed onto is titled) does indeed have some good stuff in there, but frankly I don't care. And nothing is more annoying that encountering art of any genre that doesn't inspire admiration, some decent dislike or even good old honest hatred for it. The film is content with simpering away 80-whatever minutes of time and never really accomplishing anything more than being a sometimes distraction in spite of my best efforts to try and give it a chance, but no dice.<br /><br />There is some offbeat production design going on, the use of lighting is striking at times, and the occasional outburst of mayhem will probably keep fans of 1980's Teen Horror interested. The rest of you be warned though: YOU WILL WONDER IF YOU DRESSED LIKE THAT IN 1987, and the answer is probably more hideous than anything which happens on screen. Try to watch it as a free rental if possible so that if disappointed you aren't stuck with the damn thing: Movies like this take up valuable shelf space that is often at a commodity these days, what with the world coming to an end & all ... | 1 |
Hm. Where do I start? I usually ignore whatever rating IMDb has when looking up a movie because I think I might like it anyway or whatever and I should at least give it a chance, but this time I wish I'd paid attention.<br /><br />I know some people liked it, and I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't. It was semi-amusing at some parts. But if you're like me and you don't like watching cats prancing around in the undergrowth for 20 minutes, random fast motion cloud scenes, dogs barking in cages for another 20 minutes set to 'thrilling' music, and close-ups of faces while people are speaking, then you might want to avoid this movie. The actors were either positively wooden or way over the top, and the film quality was awful, fuzzy and grainy and bland and not in an artistic way at all. And I know that we were supposed to think that Carol was not just a crazy maniac with a gun shooting innocent people with this weird religious psychosis going on, but... well, she doesn't really convince me otherwise. In fact, I ended up really disliking her crazy character. And what was up with the souls in space? I understand this is a fantasy movie, but come on.<br /><br />I will say, the angel at the end was freaking creepy. It was the creepiest thing in the whole movie, WAY more creepy than the Darth Maul lava-face demon. I give them props for that scene, it was good. But not good enough to actually see the movie. And the opening credits were great, but don't be fooled! I would've rather they used whatever money went into those credits to make the movie better.<br /><br />Bah. I wish I hadn't bought this for even the $2 that I paid for it, I could have bought a candy bar instead. :/ | 1 |
Great film from the late 1970's. Says much about corporate corruption at the expense of the common person, so that the powerful can gain gain huge profits and disregard the environment and safety of others.<br /><br />Nearly 30 years later this film is compelling about the power of certain corporate entities that since the films release have gained ten fold in their ability to control; It shows the need for regulation of the public against powerful business interests whose primary goal is profit.<br /><br />Jack Lemmon is brilliant- while Jane Fonda and Micheal Douglas are as equally compelling in their roles. The frivolous 70s where damned for much, this film redeems the decade.<br /><br />A film that becomes better after each watching. | 0 |
Overall the film is OK. I think it's better than Sepet and much better than Gubra in term of its story, its sentimental value.<br /><br />There are a few scenes that makes me touched. Yes I agree that the boy (Mukhsin) did his acting very good. Brilliant. I can say that his acting is almost natural.<br /><br />However, the song 'Ne Me Quitte Pas' by Nina Simone really ''menaikkan' my 'bulu' 'roma' '.<br /><br />I love the song. Both the song. 'Ne Me Quitte Pas' and 'Hujan'. I just downloaded the song. Beautiful.<br /><br />And salute to Yasmin. The movie's ending credit makes me touched again. We can see how Yasmin really appreciated her parents in an unique way.<br /><br />I think the movie deserves that Grand Prix Of International Jury at Berlin Film Festival.<br /><br />I give 8.5 out of 1o stars. | 0 |
When you're making a thriller about witchcraft, I believe you should do everything you can to help the audience suspend its disbelief in order for the movie to work. Some pictures ('Rosemary's Baby', for example) have accomplished this; others (like 'Necromancy') haven't and the potentially scary material comes across as corny and goofy. This film does have some atmospheric moments, but about half the dialogue is hard to make out (sometimes it's poorly recorded, at other times just incomprehensible) and Orson Welles, who gets top billing, has a role that is so BENEATH him that you have to assume he was desperate for the work. Or maybe he was simply having fun.....(*1/2) | 1 |
Being from the Philadelphia suburbs and extremely interested in local history, this film provides an excellent vintage view of Philadelphia in the 1940s. There are scenes of downtown, a train station that no longer exists, 30th Street Station--which still does exist, as well as scenes from the Northeast part of the city. Good shots of the old row-homes as they appeared then. The movie gets a bit 'chatty' at times - causing the viewer to briefly lose interest...but the overall storyline is solid and very moving. Anyone who enjoyed this movie should also try to see the film 'Bright Victory', also with local footage of the Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, PA - and scenes from downtown Phoenixville. The Army Hospital has since become a college campus. Neither of these films are out on any format and I can't imagine why. I have them both on VHS from home recording, as shown on TCM in recent years. I highly recommend them to any other history buffs out there from my area! | 0 |
Is this supposed to be serious? I hope not. This is one of the most pathetically hilarious movies I've ever seen. Given that I picked it up for a buck on the 'Bad movies' shelf, it sure lives up to its spot in the shop. What can I say, the gore effects are spattered (pun-intended) all over the place, some looking quite real, some looking like a teddy bear that's had an accident with a bottle of tomato sauce. The music is some of the most horrible I've heard, the acting is one of the most amusing elements... must I continue? Don't bother unless you've seen every other pathetic horror movie in the shop and this is all that's left. | 1 |
I watched this cooking show for a few times before I wanted to pull my hair out. Just one question.....Who CAN'T cook a slapped together plain meal in 30 minutes when everything you need is at hand, already bagged, sometimes pre-chopped and you have very little else to do except chop a few greens. Also, almost every cooking show on TV is 30 minutes and most of these chefs do all of their prep work (except for Sandra Lee), during their show. Oh and yep....they do full meals too.<br /><br />Love the comment by the guy who hated the 'EVOO' comment. Add 'DE-LISH' to my list of stupid tag words. <br /><br />Then you have the obvious....a Loud, gregarious woman who is truly her own best audience. She laughs at her own lame comments, mugs too many times for the camera because she wants to convince us that she's as good as the thinks. <br /><br />NO she ain't 'the cutest thing.' She's a 40-something year old woman who isn't DE-LISH. | 1 |
saw this movie and totally loved it the characters are great . it is definitely my kind of movie you do not get bored in this movie i love independent films they are so much more rewarding. my husband and i really enjoyed Jay's style. if you are an open minded person who loves thought provoking films and loves conversation after it's over you will love this film. it is definitely thought provoking.the film definitely will step on some toes but who cares those people will probably not go to see this movie. it is amazing to see the characters evolve . Jay Floyd has really captured both sides of the table. Applause applause Jay i hope you are working on another movie. | 0 |
This early film from director Bob Clark ('Porky's', 'Black Christmas', 'A Christmas Story') didn't really pump my nads like I expected. In fact, it straight up annoyed me. It's about a theater troupe who sail to a burial island, consisting of dead criminals, where they plan to conjure some evil forces and resurrect some corpses... The leader of their group, a conceited black-magic enthusiast and possible homosexual, attempts to summon Satan's help with the re-animation of an exhumed body, which fails so they take the corpse to the nearby, deserted caretaker's house and play with it... Nothing interesting happens until the last fifteen minutes or so when the undead finally spring from their graves and go after the desecrater's. The make-up effects are okay, the gore is VERY minimal (PG rating), and the extremely irritating characters are focused on way to much, which really got on my nerves. I guess having group of terrible actors bickering for an hour was suppose to equal some 'comedic' status, yet I found no humor in it, whatsoever. The entire concept is just ridiculous - how these kids are willing to dig up and monkey around with a dead body for as long as they did. The characters are stereotypical and bland and the movie is just plain boring... Don't waste your time with it... | 1 |
1991 saw the release of the two best sequels of all time: TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY and BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY. Out of the two, I've always liked BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY a bit better. TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY is the better made, but there's just nothing like Bill and Ted. Besides Chris Farley and David Spade in TOMMY BOY, it's hard to think of a greater comedic duo than Bill and Ted. They are one of a kind.<br /><br />Seemingly influenced by National Lampoon's O.C. and Stiggs, Bill and Ted were created by Ed Solomon and Chris Matheson, two incredibly talented writers who invented the duo while performing at a local theater in L.A. back in the 1980s. The two quickly began writing a screenplay about two and before long BILL & TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE was born. The film, shot in 1987 and released in 1989, became a big box office success and an instant cult classic. It wasn't long before work began on the sequel. Stephen Herek, the director of 'EXCELLENT ADVENTURE' wasn't keen on working on the sequel since he considered it to be too mean-spirited and unlike the first one so Peter Hewitt, making his feature film debut, was brought in to direct the sequel. There couldn't have been a better director for the job. BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY is marvelously directed. It's filled with its own unique style and energy that can't be matched.<br /><br />What makes 'BOGUS JOURNEY' one of the best sequels ever is that it while it is darker than the original, it is just as fun. It doesn't change the characters like most sequels do. Bill and Ted are the same lovable characters that they were in the first film. This is because it was written by the original writers. Most sequels are not written by the same writers as the first one, but since 'BOGUS JOURNEY' had the same screenwriters, it ended up being just as good as 'EXCELLENT ADVENTURE' if not even better. Just like the first one, 'BOGUS JOURNEY' is absolutely hilarious, well written, fun, and above all, original. It's filled with spectacular special effects and fantastic comedic performances from Alex Winter, Keanu Reeves, and William Sadler. It's an unforgettable 'journey'. 10/10 | 0 |
A great suspenseful thriller the acting is first rate and the plot keeps you guessing. This well performed and directed movie is based on a true story and well worth while Joe Penny is cast extremely well and Ann Gillian is convincing as the concernened and terrified sister. Joe again prove he's acting ability is amazing and the ending well done. It,s worth watching I hope they repeat it soon on any channel, I will definitely record it. For Penny and Gillian fans it's worth your time. Rent it if you can better still try to buy it I going to. Perfect early nineties thriller watch this<br /><br />movie it's great. | 0 |
Elfriede Jelinek, not quite a household name yet, is a winner of the Nobel prize for literature. Her novel spawned a film that won second prize at Cannes and top prizes for the male and female leads. Am I a dinosaur in matters of aesthetic appreciation or has art become so debased that anything goes?<br /><br />'Gobble, gobble' is the favoured orthographic representation in Britain of the bubbling noise made by a turkey. In the film world a turkey is a monumental flop as measured by box office receipts or critical reception. 'Gobble, gobble' and The Piano Teacher are perfect partners.<br /><br />The embarrassing awfulness of this widely praised film cannot be overstated. It begins very badly, as if made to annoy the viewer. Credits interrupt inconsequential scenes for more than 11 minutes. We are introduced to Professor Erika Kohut, apparently the alter ego of the accoladed authoress, a stony professor of piano. She lives with her husky and domineering mum. Dad is an institutionalised madman who dies unseen during what passes for the action.<br /><br />Reviewing The Piano Teacher is difficult, beyond registering its unpleasantness. What we see in the film (and might read in the book, for all I know) is a tawdry, exploitative, nonsensical tale of an emotional pendulum that swings hither and thither without moving on.<br /><br />Erika, whose name is minimally used, is initially shown as a person with intense musical sensitivity but otherwise totally repressed. Not quite, because there's a handbags at two paces scene with her gravelly-voiced maman early on that ends with profuse apologies. If a reviewer has to (yawn) extract a leitmotif (why not use a pretentious word when a simpler one would do), Elrika's violently alternating moods would be it.<br /><br />A young hunk, Walter, studying to become a 'low voltage' engineer, whatever that is, and playing ice hockey in his few leisure moments, is also a talented pianist. He encounters Elrika at an old-fashioned recital in a luxury apartment in what may or may not be Paris. In the glib fashion of so much art, he immediately falls in love and starts to 'cherchez la femme'.<br /><br />Repressed Erika has a liking for hardcore pornography, shown briefly but graphically for a few seconds while she sniffs a tissue taken from the waste basket in the private booth where she watches.<br /><br />Walter performs a brilliant audition and is grudgingly accepted as a private student by Erika, whose teaching style is characterised by remoteness, hostility, discouragement and humiliation.<br /><br />He soon declares his love and before long pursues Erika into the Ladies where they engage in mild hanky panky and incomplete oral sex. Erika retains control over her lovesick swain. She promises to send him a letter of instruction for further pleasurable exchanges.<br /><br />In the meantime, chillingly jealous because of Walter's kindness to a nervous student who is literally having the shits before a rehearsal for some future concert, Erika fills the student's coat pocket with broken glass, causing severe lacerations to those delicate piano-playing hands.<br /><br />The next big scene (by-passing the genital self-mutilation, etc) has Walter turning up at the apartment Erika shares with her mother. Erika want to be humiliated, bound, slapped, etc. Sensible Walter is, for the moment, repulsed and marches off into the night.<br /><br />At this point there's still nearly an hour to go. The viewer can only fear the worst. Erika tracks down Walter to the skating rink where he does his ice hockey practice. They retire to a back room. Lusty Wally is unable to resist the hands tugging at his trousers. His 'baby gravy' is soon expelled with other stomach contents. Ho hum.<br /><br />Repulsed but hooked, perhaps desirous of revenge for the insult so recently barfed on the floor, Walter returns to Erika's apartment. Can you guess what happens now? It's not very deep or difficult. Yes, he becomes a brute while Erika becomes a victim. One moment he's locking maman in her room and slapping Erika, the next he's kicking her in the face, having sex with her and renewing his declarations of love. <br /><br />Am I being unfair in this summary? Watch the film if you want, but I'd advise you not to.<br /><br />Anyone can see eternity in a grain of sand if they're in the right mood. I could expatiate at the challenging depiction of human relationships conveyed by this film if I wanted. But I 'prefer not to', because this is a cheap and nasty film that appeals to base instincts and says nothing.<br /><br />I'm supposed to say that parentally repressed Erika longs for love, ineffectively seeks it in pornography, inappropriately rejects it when it literally appears, pink and throbbing, under her nose, belatedly realises that she doesn't like being hurt, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />The world has, for reasons not explained, stunted her. She apparently makes a monster out of someone who appeared superficially loving - but surely we all know that any man is potentially a violent rapist, because that's his essential nature however much he tries to tell himself and the world otherwise.<br /><br />At the end, if you have the patience to be there, there's a small twist. Before going to the final scene, where she's due to perform as a substitute for the underwear-soiling student with the lacerated hands, Erika packs a knife in her handbag. For Walter?<br /><br />Yes, you're ahead of me. She stabs herself in a none life-threatening area and leaves. Roll credits.<br /><br />If this earned the second prize at Cannes, just how bad were the rest of the entries? | 1 |
I liked the first The Grudge. It really creeped me out and it had something to it that made me want to see it twice. That something was missing from this sequel. There was no creativity, nothing new or original, nothing that really sticks to your mind. It's people dying because a scary ghost comes out of the shadows and says boo. And most of the time, it wasn't even all that scary.<br /><br />Plot-wise this movie is a dead end. Amber Tamblyn is a good actress, but she was given nothing to do, and Karen's death seemed really unsatisfactory because it came so quickly. I was also disappointed in the Kayako's mother subplot. I was thinking that she might provide some way to fight the Grudge, but she dies in the hands - hair? - of Kayako. That was such a stupid twist. All in all, it's difficult to feel for characters that you know from minute one are going to die. All in the same way. And there's nothing they can do. It doesn't feel like a cruel destiny awaiting them. It's just boring, because you know what's going to happen. If they had anything to fight it with, that would have added suspense, even if they failed. If there was any hope, it would make the scares more justified. Now you're just waiting for them to die.<br /><br />Kayako was really scary in the first movie, but this time we saw her too many times and that took away some of it. I was still scared during some scenes, but I actually got used to the huge eye and blue face. The makers obviously realized this would happen as they added other scary ghosts. Yes, I was scared at the school psychologist scene - even if I knew where it was going as soon as she said 'I've been to the house'. A nice touch. Toshio, however, was not scary at all in this movie. I was much more creeped out by the non-blue Toshio with black eyes and a blank stare that sometimes appeared in the first movie. A blue boy sitting in the corner does nothing for me.<br /><br />Some of the characters seemed really unnecessary - the notorious milk-scene with the girl whose name I can't even remember comes to mind. I wasn't scared, it was just 'Huh?' I'm not sure if the schoolgirls were even really needed. Karen could have brought the grudge to the US with her. It could have killed people related to her life, everyone at the funeral, or something like that. Even so, it would have been dull to watch them all die, but being introduced to so many unrelated people really felt annoying. Hated the 'I won't call you mother' scene. Aubrey's mother issues were equally dull. The little boy was a touching character, though.<br /><br />The Ju-On sequel was much scarier than this one. It had some new twists - dreams and reality blurring much more, for instance - and even if it left me feeling quite down, I was also somehow satisfied. I got to think a bit and be left wondering. This movie only provided cheap scares. | 1 |
I must say that I wasn't impressed at all, probably because I was expecting much more from this movie. Maybe an accent on religion vs science or on the meaning of life, not just a few lines. So, if you expect something to think about after you see this movie, don't. It's more psychological than philosophical. I vote 4 because of the end, it clears up a bit and because I have a great respect for BBC documentaries. There are a couple of very interesting scenes that actually gave some sense. It was a brilliant idea to add it in a movie related to theory of evolution, too bad that this wasn't the main subject. Ah, I just forgot to say that for more than 1 hour, the movie is quite boring and in a way, cruel. | 1 |
These two stars are the only iconic heroes/villains i know that got a good TV series, so let's compare.<br /><br />Freddy - 7 movies Robocop - 3 movies<br /><br />Freddy - 1 TV series, 2 seasons, about 40 episodes Robocop - 1 TV series, 1 season, about 22-23 episodes<br /><br />Freddy - 2 extra films (Freddy Vs Jason, Freddy Vs Ghostbusters) Robocop - 4 extra films (Robocop: Prime Directives: Dark Justice, Meltdown, Crach & Burn, Resurrection)<br /><br />Freddy - 1 upcoming film Robocop - 1 upcoming film<br /><br />Who's had more screen time? Well they've both had 7 movies, 1 TV series, and 1 upcoming film. But Freddy wins it thanks to his 2 extra films (one being a fan film) & 17-18 TV episodes.<br /><br />Since this is a comment for the series, between Freddy's Nightmares - ANOES: The Series & Robocop: The Series I would personally choose Robocop... | 0 |
This has got to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen! There were people leaving the theatre, others were falling asleep (ok, it was a late night show)... This is a no-sense movie, one of those who can make you never want to see an out of mainstream picture again. I would love to watch the making-off of this movie as I am deeply interested on what goes on the minds of the authors of such garbage. Do they laugh when they create all this ridiculous stuff or do they actually think they're doing something interesting? I wonder... The soundtrack is awful apart from some instrumental stuff that reminds you of a previous Bjork album. Even if you're a fan of Bjork's music, stay home. It's the best thing to do. The little, tiny, pieces of nice music are no reason for you to go out and submit yourself to this torture. God!... | 1 |
A beautifully constructed and brilliantly acted comedy. There is not a person in the cast who does not acquit himself (or herself) with hilarious distinction. However, the real star of the film is the unseen director, Frank Oz, who brings all the madcap sensibility and wit to this farce that he brought to Miss Piggy's encounters with Kermit the frog. This is a not -to-be-missed film. | 0 |
Carlo Verdone once managed to combine superb comedy with smart and subtle social analysis and criticism.<br /><br />Then something happened, and he turned into just another dull 'holier-than-thou' director.<br /><br />Il Mio Miglior Nemico can more or less be summarized in one line 'working class = kind and warm, while upper-class = snob and devious. But love wins in the end'.<br /><br />Such a trite clichè for such a smart director.<br /><br />There isn't really too much to talk about in the movie. Every character is a walking stereotype: the self-made-man who forgets his roots but who'll become 'good' again, the scorned wife, the rebellious rich girl who falls for the honest-but-poor guy... Acting is barely average.<br /><br />Severely disappointing under every aspect. | 1 |
What a fine film! Unfortunately, being 1947, the movie script couldn't have followed the book from which it was adapted, but the murder of a homosexual would have been too hot to handle in that era.<br /><br />I thought all of the performances were outstanding, as well as the script, direction, brilliant black and white cinematography, music and film noir atmosphere.<br /><br />I do understand that in 1947 the film couldn't portray racism against blacks or prejudice against homosexuals. (Robert Young's account of prejudice against his grandfather who was Irish and who endured this racism 100 years ago was pretty lame, but the times dictated that the film avoid a further examination of racism.) <br /><br />I do have one observation and one question to ask the viewer: 1. Did you notice that Robert Young didn't aim his gun when he shot and killed Robert Ryan who was running fast in the dark and Young shot from an upper story window into the dark without aiming? 2. If Robert Young's grandfather was killed 100 years ago in 1847 (the film was made in 1947) and Young was 40 years old, the time line would not be logical. If the grandfather had been killed 50 years ago then the time frame would be realistic. | 0 |
This is one of those movies when you are watching it you wonder whether it is documentary or fiction. After the movie, Ramin Bahrani answered many questions and we learned that the movie has a script.<br /><br />Bahrani's camera is silent, he is not judgmental, he almost erases director from the movie by purpose, background is not organized to make the picture pretty, however don't get me wrong; there is a lot of preparation for this movie. Starting on personal level, being the part of environment, being to be ignored when you film.<br /><br />Main character is a 'real' actor in every sense.<br /><br />I would like to thank all crew for this movie, showing us another country within NYC. I strongly suggest it if you like stories of others.<br /><br />Bora Kizilirmak | 0 |
Oh God, Why? I am aghast at the sheer ineptitude of this delicious blathering nonsense..as if all that makes sense. Well, like this film from bottom rung poverty row of 1940s Hollywood, nothing in this door slamming horror - made on three sets - makes much sense...except the horniness of Dr Markoff (jerkoff?) who lusts uncontrollably after some plonky piano-player's daughter who has big melons and a flouncy hairdoo. It is just terrible ...and even has a gorilla and a big dog for pointless added distractions. More Elephantine than Elephant man and that is just at 62 minutes!. ....THE MONSTER MAKER is the sort of film kids in 2005 just howl at with disbelief and wonder what the hell their grandparents saw in their youth that made them the lovable movie kooks they are today. I guess you just had to be there. In 1944 or whenever the hell this mad drivel was shown to impressionable 13 year olds in glorious 3000 seat velvet movie palaces on a wet day. Somehow. It was made for no reason, by botchville crapshooter movie scammers PRC Pictures in the war years by escaped German refugees who knew who to make a film since they got out of Europe as the Nazis advanced on UFA studios...the monster in this film, like the mad scientist is actually a Nazi nightmare. | 1 |
This is a VERY entertaining movie. A few of the reviews that I have read on this forum have been written by people who, apparently, think that the film was an effort at serious drama. IT WAS NOT MADE THAT WAY....It is an extremely enjoyable film, performed in a tongue in cheek manner. All of the actors are obviously having fun while entertaining us. The fight sequences are lively, brisk and, above all, not gratuitous. The so-called 'Green Death', utilized on a couple of occasions, is not, as I read in one review, 'gruesome'. A couple of reviewers were very critical of the martial arts fight between Doc and Seas near the end of the film. Hey, lighten up... Again, I remind one and all that this is a fun film. Each phase of this 'fight' was captioned, which added to the fun aspect. The actors were not trying to emulate Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan. This is NOT one of those martial arts films. Ron Ely looks great in this film and is the perfect choice to play Doc. Another nice touch is the unique manner in which the ultimate fate of the 'bad guy' (Seas) is dealt with. I promise you that if you don't try to take this film very seriously and simply watch it for the entertainment value, you will spend 100 minutes in a most enjoyable manner. | 0 |
Paul Mazursky misfires on this film. The writing, direction, casting, and acting (with the exception of Victorio Gassman) are all off the mark. I remember the reviews from 20+ years ago being mediocre, but I thought it still might be worthwhile to view. With notables such as Susan Sarandon, Raul Julia (who overacts in most of his scenes) and John Cassavetes, I understandably expected much more. The music picked for the film is jarring, the cuts between New York and Greece confusing, and the overall pace all leave much to be desired. Why Paul Mazursky felt the need to update this story, or add his touch to it is puzzling - this retelling of Prospero and his daughter takes very little of import from the play, and adds not much more. The play is not one of Shakespeare's best anyway, and to gut it even further seems not to be a good decision. Unfortunately, there is nothing to recommend in this film. | 1 |
Another in a long line of flicks made by people who think that knowing how to operate a camera is the same as telling a story. Within 15 minutes, the entire premise is laid out in just a few lines, so there is absolutely no mystery, which eliminates a whole facet of the suspense. The only half-way competent actor is killed 10 minutes into the film, so we're left with stupid characters running around doing stupid things. Low budget films can't afford expensive special effects, so the CGI portions are unsurprisingly unimpressive, but were at least a valid attempt. The creature suit is terrible, as seen when it falls to the sidewalk, and the director keeps emphasizing the eyes, which aren't even the red color shown in mirror shots. The dialogue is clumsy and uninspired, with some lines reminiscent of Aliens or Terminator. The last action sequence takes place in a police station, also a rip-off from Terminator, with everyone hiding in the one glass lined office that the Darkwolf doesn't smash into. In the end, the girl calls the hero 'a good Protector', but he gets both his partners, the original Protector, and at least three other civilians, not to mention a dozen cops, all killed without getting a decent shot off, in spite of an arsenal of silver bullets and a submachine gun. But here's the real clincher for bad writing: They could have killed the beast right after the beginning credits when it was holding the stripper while flashing its red eyes. Instead, they took it into custody?!? | 1 |
On March 17, 1974, a man is found dead in the toilets at Manhattan's Penn Station. Although well-known, he cannot be identified because he scratched out the personal information in his passport and his body lays unclaimed at the city's morgue for three days. It turned out to be the body of what many consider one of the greatest American architects of the twentieth century, Louis I. Kahn. He died at the age of 73, on his way from India, where one of his greatest projects, the Institute for Management in Ahmedabad, was nearing completion.<br /><br />One of the most influential post-war American architects, Louis Kahn's architectural legacy includes the house of parliament in Dhaka, Bangladesh, the Kimbell Art Museum in Forth Worth, the Yale Art Gallery, the Salk Institute in California and a kind of mobile 'music boat', designed to give concerts in harbours in various cities around the world.<br /><br />While celebrated as an architect, very little was known about his private life. In addition to his wife Esther, and their daughter, Sue Ann, Kahn was survived by two mistresses, Harriet Pattison and Anne Tyng, and their two children. All three families lived within miles of each other in suburban Philadelphia, but their paths never crossed until the funeral. His son, Nathaniel, the director of this film, was only 11 years old at the time, and had only a few memories of his father's weekly visits at Harriet Patterson, Nathaniel's mother, in Philadelphia. Twenty-five years later, he sets out on a journey to confront his father by visiting Kahn's buildings, talking to relatives and colleagues and visiting the places that played a role in Louis Kahn's life.<br /><br />One of the most moving confrontations is when Nathaniel asks his mother, a landscape architect and mistress of Louis Kahn, why she kept up with playing second fiddle to his wife and never confronted him with this. Tears shed her eyes, but she has no regrets. 'It was worth it.' It's such an intensely sad moment. She's obviously shattered, treated as an outcast at his funeral, which she was forbidden to attend, it's almost as if she led a substitute life. It all feels strangely unreal. Another interview with Edward Bacon, Kahn's architectural nemesis, who was in charge of the rebuilding of his native Philadelpia in the fifties and sixties, almost suffers a stroke on the spot, when he is reminded of Kahn's unsavoury ideas about architecture. His son, Nathaniel, listens uncomfortably when a very senior Bacon literally screams with anger whenever Kahn's name comes up. The final scene is reserved for Kahn's grandest creation, the Capitol in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It took 23 years to complete, a vast and extraordinary building, of which the Bangladeshi are extremely proud. It's one of the very few national symbols with stature in this impoverished nation. Some of the interviews with the locals brought tears in my eyes, especially when they find out they are talking to - God forbid - the architect's own son!<br /><br />The film is as much a personal journey as it is an account of Kahn's grand architectural legacy and is above all about the fruition of the film itself and film-making in general. Perhaps Louis I. Kahn faltered as a father, but these shortcomings in his personal life make for an all the more interesting portrait in this extraordinary film.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 9/10 | 0 |
MY Father the hero is sweet, funny and cute. Gerard Depardiu is awesome as Andre, a divorced father who takes his fourteen year old daughter Nicole(Kathrine Heigl) to the Caribbean for vacation.While there, his daughter meets a guy named Ben(Dalton James. To impress him, she tells him that Andre is her lover and that her father is in jail for armed robbery and her mother is a prostitute and that she ran off with her pimp. Everyone on the island is soon under the impression that Andre's a child molester. Andre is between two relationships. One with Isabelle(Emma Thompson, who makes a cameo in the end of the film) and Diana(Faith Prince from Spin City). My father the Hero has many funny moments. Like when he's at a talent show and everyone tells him to play something french. So he plays 'Thank Heaven for Little Girls' from Gigi. Everyone gets disgusted and leaves. My Father the Hero doesn't deserve a 5.1. I think it deserves a 9.0. | 0 |
He's stocky, sweaty, slightly cross-eyed and restless. He stands in front of us and calls himself a pervert. He claims that we the film viewers perceive the screen as a toilet bowl, and are all secretly wishing for all the s**t to explode from the inside. He's unpredictable and scary. Well
? Come on, you could have guessed by now: he's one of the leading philosophers of our age.<br /><br />Slavoj iek is both a narrator and a subject of Sophie Fiennes' extraordinary new film, A Pervert's Guide to the Cinema. Fiennes illustrates a feature-long lecture by iek, and does so in two ways: by providing exemplary film clips and putting iek on real (or reconstructed) locations from the movies he speaks about. It's always nice to watch neatly captioned scenes from great movies (although Revenge of the Sith got here as well), but the main attraction of A Pervert's Guide
is iek himself. What makes the movie such fun to watch is the unanswerable question one cannot help but ask over and over again: what is more outrageous, iek's views or iek's screen presence? In a documentary by Astra Taylor (iek!, 05), Slovenian philosopher at one point confessed his fear of being silent. Because, he claimed, he feels like he doesn't exist in the first place, the only way to make all other people believe he does is to talk constantly and feverishly. And talk he did, and how. Also A Pervert's Guide
is dominated by his voice delivering perfect English in most crazy way, and making some astonishing points about the cinema.<br /><br />What are those? Well, for example he sees Chaplin's reluctance towards talking picture as a sign of an universal fear of voice itself (kind of alien force taking over the human being think the ventriloquist segment of Dead of Night [45]). He says that the perverse nature of cinema is to teach us to desire certain objects, not to provide us with them. He identifies Groucho Marx as super ego, Chico as ego and Harpo as id. He says a million other interesting things, and all the time we cannot take our eyes off him, so persuasive (and captivating) are his looks. At some point I couldn't help but stare at his thick, scruffy hair and wonder what kind of a brain lays stored underneath. Craving, of course, for more insights.<br /><br />Most notable are iek's readings of Lynch and Hitchcock (which comes as no surprise since he has written about both of them). The cumulative effect of many brilliantly edited clips from their respective work made those parts of iek's lecture memorable and unlike others difficult to argue with, since he seems to really have gotten things right on these two directors. This doesn't go for his reading of Tarkovsky for example, upon whom he relentlessly imposes his own utterly materialistic view of reality, dismissing precisely what's so remarkable in all Tarkovsky (namely strong religious intuitions and images).<br /><br />The question isn't whether iek is inspiring and brilliant, because he is; or whether Fiennes film is worth watching, because it is likewise. The real question is rather: are iek views coherent? One smart observation after another make for an overwhelming intellectual ride, but after the whole thing is over, some doubts remain. For example: while considering Vertigo (58) iek states that what's hidden behind human face is a perfect void, which makes face itself only a facade: something of a deception in its own means. However, when in the final sequence we hear about the ever-shattering finale of City Lights (31) as being a portrait of one human being fully exposed to another, it's hard not to ask: what happened to the whole facade-thing
? Why should we grant Chaplin's face intrinsic value of the real thing and deprive Kim Novak's of this same privilege in two bold strokes
? Or maybe that incoherence might also be read in Lacan's terms? (The name of the notoriously 'unreadable' French psychoanalyst is fundamental to iek's thought.) The film has all the virtues of a splendid two-and-a-half hours lecture: lots of ground are covered, many perspectives employed, even some first-rate wisecracks made (when iek travels on a Melanie Daniels' boat from The Birds [63] and tries to think as she did, he comes up with: 'I want to f**k Mitch!'). But it has also one shortcoming that isn't inherent to two-and-a-half hours lecture as such: it's almost obsessively digressive. iek's yarn about how far are we from the Real is as good as any other psychoanalytic yarn, but after some 80 minutes it becomes quite clear that one of iek's perverse pleasures is to ramble on and on, changing subjects constantly. Overall effect is this of being swept away by a giant, cool, fizzing wave: you're simultaneously taken by surprise, refreshed, in mortal danger and confused no end. As you finish watching, your head is brimming with ideas not of your own and you're already planning on re-watching some films but you also share a sense of having survived a calamity.<br /><br />The ultimate question is: did iek lost it? Or haven't we even came close to the real thing? Once cinephilia becomes punishable by imprisonment, we shall all meet in a one big cell and finally talk to each other (not having any movies around to turn our faces to). I dare you all: who will have enough guts to approach iek and defy him? My guess is that once you look into those eyes in real life, you become a believer. | 0 |
This is a very unusual film in that the star with the top billing doesn't appear literally until half way in. Nevertheless I was engaged by the hook of the Phantom Lady. Curtis, though competent as the falsely accused Scott Henderson, looks a little tough to be be sympathetic towards (perhaps he should have shaved his moustache) and his behavior when he first comes home should have convinced the cops at least to some degree of his innocence. While another commentator had a problem with Franchot Tone as Jack Marlowe I found his portrayal of the character to be impressively complex. He is no stock villain. Superb character actor Elisha Cook Jr. is again in top form as the 'little man with big ambitions.' His drumming in the musical numbers added a welcome touch of eroticism. This movie however is carried by the very capable and comely Ella Raines as the devoted would be lover of Henderson, Carol Richmond. She definitely has talent and her screen presence is in the tradition of Lauren Bacall. This is the first of her work I have seen and I am definitely inclined to see her other roles. The rest of the supporting cast is also more than competent. All in all a very satisfying film noir mystery which when viewed today fully conveys the dark and complex urban world it is intended to. Recommended, 8/10. | 0 |
*Warning: 1 tiny inconsequential spoiler* You're right. This was no Bridges of Madison County. As soon as the lonely woman and Richard Gere checked into the big empty hotel, it was a foregone conclusion something kind of fun would happen. The question is: how will it come about? The answer is some stupid connect-the-dots story not worth sitting through. In one supposed bonding experience, they get drunk and clean out the cupboard of old cans.(That was my spoiler.) And the next day they put them back. LOL It wasn't compelling AT ALL. I'm an old married lady like the one in the movie and MY friendships are more interesting than HER romance with Richard Gere. LOL . . . It did have that advantage. You walk away and go, oh brother . . . even I could have written something more believable than that. I guess my life isn't quite as dull as I thought it was if I can scoff at a romance with Richard Gere. LOL! And that friend inherited that totally contemporary, probably computer-generated mansion, resting half in the ocean, from her GRANDMOTHER who built it AFTER THE CIVIL WAR??? Maybe her grandmother is Oprah and this was WAY after the Civil War? And yes, WHERE WAS THE EMAIL? What alternative universe do these people live in? I never want to see another movie that pretends we don't have email, and facebook,and texting. And OK, maybe these people have a horrible aversion to delivering news over the phone, but don't ask me to believe anyone in this age of instant communication that someone just drops into your life without calling first. | 1 |
Now I recently had the viewing pleasure to watch the hilarious comedy Bachelor Party, one of my new favorite comedies, laughed until it just hurt type of movies. So I naturally wanted to see the sequel, hoping it would have the same laughs, but instead Bachelor Party 2: The Last Temptation is made by the American Pie generation where it's tasteless and defeats the hole purpose of the first film. Yeah, the first film has nudity, but it doesn't show in every single scene. Also the plot is exactly the same from the first, it's not always a complaint with me, but this could have been a little more original. The only thing is that I'm glad that at least no old actors from the original appear in this movie, because it would have been cheesy or really silly looking.<br /><br />Ron and Melinda are engaged, after only 2 months of dating, everyone is against it. Melinda has a rich family, but they're pretty happy with Ron, and Melinda's brother, Todd is scared that Ron will take his job. So they go out on a weekend to Miami for a bachelor party and Todd is going to make sure that he'll trap Ron into a picture that will make Melinda change her mind about the marriage.<br /><br />Bachelor Party 2: The Last Temptation has a couple laughs here and there, but over all fails to deliver what the first film accomplished. These guys, Ron's friends, were more obnoxious than likable, except for Seth, he was kinda funny. The only likable characters other than Seth is Ron and Melinda, everyone else just more or less gets on your nerves. You wanna watch this film? Just watch Girls Gone Wild, it's the same thing only it doesn't try to pretend that it's a film. Stick to the original Bachelor Party, that's the movie that's going to get you in tears of laughter.<br /><br />3/10 | 1 |
This movie is masterly directed by Clive barker, he really knows how to establish a rapport between the audience and the characters. I think there is a sequel missing for this one, Barker should have dedicated to the sequel for this movie instead of doing the boring Lord of illusions, that is one I think was a real garbage. But I also think that because of this and because of the lack of the sequel NBreed has become a dark cult classic of horror films. | 0 |
Tea Leoni plays Nora Wilde, a serious photographer, who is going through a bad divorce. She wants her freedom but it comes at a cost. She wants to legitimate photography but is hired to work for the tabloids as a paparazzi. Her boss is played by the wonderful and divine Holland Taylor. The show was well-written most of the time. TEa's Nora was beginning to develop into quite a memorable character but the network just didn't support comedy and they still don't. Even when they brought in George Wendt from Cheers, they made unnecessary changes in casting and characters. The show was fine in the beginning and the audience was getting used to it but then the network botches it up like a bad plastic surgery. | 0 |
If I was British, I would be embarrassed by this portrayal of incompetence. A protection agent of the Special Branch unable to defend herself against a sick, unarmed and untrained assailant? The Home Office sends a single 'Science Adviser' to investigate a possible Level Four biohazard, and that 'Advisor' doesn't have the sense to wear even a mask and gloves? Totally unprotected London police officers working side by side with technicians in full biohazard suits? The 'Advisor' and his bodyguard bearding the lair of a sociopathic doctor experimenting on human subjects without any backup? Puh-leeze! One wonders whether the producers could not afford to hire any technical advisers or if, for some arcane reason, they consciously decided to portray the principals as hopelessly incompetent. Even my wife, who has no background in either medicine or law enforcement, was rolling her eyes in disbelief. After the first episode, I was discouraged; now that I have seen two episodes, I give up. | 1 |
I went to this movie expecting a concise movie relating the effect the Son of Sam had on the society. I didn't expect Spike Lee to force-feed me more garbage on racial tension, mob-justice, or the inability of the common citizen to make a choice under pressure by peers. Lee has presented an extreme opinion.<br /><br />The entire movie could have been more effective if in a 90-min format with more focus, less tangential sub-plots.<br /><br />Don't even bother renting the video unless you passionately enjoy Spike Lee; in such a case, the theatre is worth it. This is not an escapist movie. | 1 |
A talking parrot isn't a hugely imaginative idea for a new film, but Paulie turns a simple idea into a brilliant, heartwarming film that will delight the whole family. It manages to bridge the gap between sentimental trash and cruel harshness during Marie and Paulie's separation, and all the events in the film lead to a hugely satisfying emotional conclusion. The animal training is well-done - everyone will be affected when Paulie spreads his wings and flies for the first time. Paulie is a great character and should have received way more success, though this film wasn't a highlight of 1998, unlike Saving Private Ryan. This hour and a half will surely be an enjoyable one and one that you will remember. Paulie's story is a moving, sad, happy and interesting one - from the moment he is first seen to the moment he is united with his original owner, you will enjoy following him and watching him learning about friendship and the grim realities of life along the way. Not one to be missed if you have any kind of heart or emotion. 9/10 | 0 |
I watched this movie only because I didn't want to leave my 9 yo and her friend in the theater by themselves. Honestly, I went in expecting to enjoy a good nap -- but found myself entranced by the movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who asks! Roy's mom was on one of my all-time favorite TV shows years ago, playing a mermaid (Maximum Bob). She was really cute in this movie. The three main characters were all excellent young actors. Also enjoyed seeing and hearing Jimmy Buffet. The movie itself was quite beautiful - showcasing some of what makes Florida so great. I'm glad I ended up going to this movie. And to think, I was disappointed that I couldn't take them to see 'Stick It' -- I think this was MUCH better! | 0 |
It's exactly what I expected from it. Relaxing, humorous and entertaining. The acting couple was awesome, as well as the scene selection. I personally recommend this. It's kind of the movie that can be seen by whole family at the same time without anyone feeling uncomfortable or getting bored. This cute movie will make you smile, and laugh too. And the action scenes are tasty. Classics of modern american comedy. And very well done. | 0 |
With part reconstruction and part direct shooting, the directors made a formidably limpid documentary on a coup d'état against President Chavez in Venezuela, organized by a foreign secret service and fully supported by the wealthy Venezuelan minority, the political opposition, the Church (a cynical laughing cardinal) and the US government. It was another chapter in the history of US foreign policy, which Steven Kinzer calls 'Overthrow' or 'sowing democracy American style'. In fact, this foreign backed intervention was not only a coup d'état against President Chavez, but also against the democratic majority which elected him. <br /><br />That this is a brilliant documentary is mightily confirmed by the violent reactions for and against it on Internet. As Saint Augustine said: 'Men love truth when it bathes them in its light; they hate it when it proves them wrong.'<br /><br />This movie is a must see for all those who want to understand the world we live in. | 0 |
Ask yourself where she got the gun? Remember what she was taught about the mark's mindset when the con is over? The gun had blanks and it was provided to her from the very beginning.<br /><br />When the patient comes back at the end she was SUPPOSED to see him drive away in the red convertible and lead her to the gang splitting up her 80 thousand.<br /><br />The patient was in on the con from the beginning.<br /><br />Mantegna does not die in the end - the gun had blanks.<br /><br />There - enough spoilers for you there? This is why people are giving it such high ratings. It's extremely original because of the hidden ending and how it cons MOST of the audience. | 0 |
'Curse of the Forty-Niner' doesn't really deserve a long and detailed review, so I'll just make some random observations about it:<br /><br />- Cool opening credits.<br /><br />- No plot.<br /><br />- Is there anyone who's ever seen a horror film before and can't guess, within the first 20 minutes, who will survive and who will not among this group of walking stereotypes?<br /><br />- Hey, that newcomer (Alexandra Ford) is pretty hot!<br /><br />- Richard Lynch (made-up to look about 100 years old) and John Phillip Law have fun, tongue-in-cheek cameos.<br /><br />- Karen Black has a bigger role, but she's not fun - she's rather embarrassing.<br /><br />- Martin Kove is on-screen for about 40 seconds, but still got his name on the video cover. Did they pay him for this appearance or was it the other way around? <br /><br />- I hate cheap computer-generated effects in horror films.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4. | 1 |
Like A Streetcar Named Desire (also directed by Gadg both on stage and screen) Panic In The Streets depicts a New Orleans in which its major claim to fame - the birthplace of Jazz - doesn't even rate a mention. It was Richard Widmark's seventh film and arguably went a long way to establishing him as the fine actor he really was rather than merely a psychotic killer. Gadg himself appears in an uncredited small role as a morgue attendant but the film is rich in talent beginning with Jack Palance (still being billed as Walter Jack Palance)as the local Mr 'Big' followed side-kick Zero Mostel, Barbara Bel Geddes, Emile Meyer, Tommy Rettig plus the rock-solid ever reliable Paul Douglas as the cop who comes round to doc Widmark's point of view. It's a very rewarding movie more so for being little seen. Catch it if you can. | 0 |
This is a superb movie, suitable for all but the very youngest, though accessibility for younger people was marred (at least in the print which I saw) by the use of some unfortunate choice of English sub-titling! For much of the film it is almost impossible to guess in which time-period it is set - there is no modern technology shown, not even the ubiquitous Chinese bicycle, just a drab, almost monochrome, everyday life, against which is contrasted the dazzling display of the Sezuan Opera and of celebratory fireworks. Even when a group of soldiers refer to their imminent departure for a theatre of war, this could still be any time in the past 150 years.<br /><br />But then we briefly see a motor car - late 30s, early 40s style - and we realise that we are watching a China on the verge of huge upheavals, and that much of the world we are seeing is about to be swept away in the cataclysm of World War 2 and the Communist revolution.<br /><br />Which makes the central character's desire to adhere to old customs and traditions all the more poignant.<br /><br />But the film also raises issues which are of vital importance even today, both within China and in other parts of the world: the inequality between boys and girls, men and women; the trade, for various purposes, in young children; corruption in society; injustice; the importance of friendship.<br /><br />Maybe I'm reading too much into this film; but I don't think so! I also think that it is a scandal that films of this calibre are often not shown in the United Kingdom, whilst dross is passed off as quality material.<br /><br />But don't get me started on that... | 0 |
Recap: According to legend, the Valkyrie Brunhilda defied Odin and was chained to a rock surrounded by an eternal fire. Only a warrior pure in heart can pass through the flames, free Brunhilda and release her from Odin's claim, and have her for himself. Now, war is brewing in the Norse lands, and the King needs an alliance with the Berserkers. The Berserkers are warriors claimed by Odin's valkyries, lusting for war, blood and flesh, and therefore outcasts, but superior in battle. The leader of the Berserkers is a scorned son of the King, Boar, and his price for the alliance is his brother, the future king, Barek. But after the King is victorious in battle, he refuses to give up his only remaining son, breaking his oath to Boar and betray him and kill him. Boar is saved only by Barek's call upon Odin. But this is only the start of the battle between the brothers, and their final battle is about to start now, a millennia later...<br /><br />Comments: I had hopes that this would be a movie based upon some Viking ground, far too little quality movie about Viking has been done. It started out very good too, with detailed longships and armors, nice and fitting sceneries and an OK battle.<br /><br />The foundation in the Aesir myths is thin and seems very corrupted to me. Odin is much more vengeful, spiteful and absent than I remind him from school, and the valkyries has been turned into some vampire-demons. I'm no expert, but that seems outright wrong.<br /><br />But the fatal mistake made by this movie is to move the time-setting from the original time-period to today. If the two brothers had fought it out in the correct time, with some decent battles, this movie would have been much better. Now the setting, suddenly is changed to present day Stockholm. Still, Odin is present and is sending Boar and his berserkers for Brunhilda and Barek which gives silly scenes when armor-clad and painted berserkers swordfights with Barek among the industries. Beautiful mountains and woods have been exchanged for cement. And when allowed to focus upon single fights, instead of massive battles as in the beginning, I quickly saw that the fights and skills of the actors are slow and clumsy.<br /><br />The end result is thin story, sometimes hard to follow and other times just silly, and the only that could save it, the action, is drawn from slow, dull and clumsy swordfights. It draws very little from Aesir myth or Viking tradition. Thus both story and action fails, and the movie is just plain bad.<br /><br />Finally, as a Swede, this movie is a little confusing. Supposedly filmed entirely in South Africa, it still contains some familiar Swedish signs, plates and what seems to be an authentic police car. However, the effort is poor and only goes so far, as to really set it in Sweden. No names are Swedish (perhaps with Anya as the exception), no familiar sceneries are Swedish, they (supposedly) speak a little (ancient?) Norwegian, not Swedish. And uniforms, both police and medical, are clearly not Swedish. If they were not going to even try to do it correctly - and really give the illusion that it is set in Sweden, why bother at all? <br /><br />4/10 | 1 |
I see that someone already thought of a similar analogy, which was similar to the first thing that came to mind after I watched this movie. They said that the ingredients were there but there was no plot. Besides the sexual scenes which bordered on child-porn (which I feel could have been edited out or been presented more suggestively in nature rather than graphically, I would liken this movie to a recipe that's been torn in half. It's kind of like being handed a list of ingredients, with no directions on how to put them together into a finished product. From the start, character development and story development are lacking...unfortunately, many times in this monotonous drivel we are teased with bits of plot and we think 'Ahh-OK...finally we are going to find out something more about WHY this scene is going on...or...WHO this character is...or maybe we are finally going to get to know and appreciate this character more...or understand and get involved more with this inter-character relationship...etc.' But no such luck! On the contrary, many times I was tempted to just turn it off more than once but stuck it out when the carrot was dangled, only to find that whatever mini-plot within whatever mini-plot (and that poorly presented) was just a ruse. Why I stayed with it till the end is a mystery, other than usually IFC has better selections and they gave it 2-1/2 stars (another mystery). It's not that the characters aren't likable to SOME degree, or that you can't identify with them or their humanness at all...it's just that this could have been so much better with just a little more effort. I notice this was shot around Santa Cruz and find myself wondering if it was someone's film school project. I wish I could have given this a better review but honestly it was a frustrating and disappointing waste of an hour and a half. | 1 |
My friend and I picked 'Paperhouse' out of a random pile of movies on our weekly excursion to the Horror section-- neither of us had heard of it, but the blurb on the box was really promising. And the movie didn't disappoint, though I still probably wouldn't call it a horror movie exclusively.<br /><br />11-year old Anna Madden draws a house, and visits it in her dreams. She is definitely asleep when she's seeing the house, but it's so real in a sense that it's almost like a completely separate reality. Which, in view of later events, doesn't seem like a far cry from the truth. Anyhow, she finds she can add to the house, its contents and its surroundings by simply adding to the picture. <br /><br />While this is going on, Anna is getting increasingly more ill with a fever, and besides that is getting totally obsessed with the house and her drawing. On top of that, she and her mother are also dealing with her absent father; he has a job that takes him away for long stretches, though one gets the impression there's actually more to the story than that.<br /><br />OK, so the drawing stuff sounds nice enough-- but frankly there's something really menacing about it. The dreamworld is eerily surreal -- the house, for instance, is just a grey block in the middle of a desolate field. The folks who made the movie did a great job of making us very uncomfortable with this alternate world/ongoing dream...<br /><br />One of the things Anna adds to the house is a boy, Mark, who seems to be the same patient her doctor keeps talking about (I'm not giving that away, you know from the moment he appears that it's the same kid). In reality, Mark can't walk due to an illness; in Anna's drawing-world, he can't walk because she didn't draw him any legs. She blames herself for his real-life illness, and tries to rectify the situation, but... everything starts getting really weird. She even brings her absent father into the drawing, with disastrous results. The bits with the father are really terrifying.<br /><br />I don't want to give anything away, so I'll stop there... There seems to be a lot going on in this film. I'm sure you'll have a ball analyzing this thing do death with your pals after you watch it-- Is it a simple a story as it seems, or are there actually layers of meaning? I don't know, but either way it's quite fascinating. There was a 'Nightmare On Elm Street'-ish quality about it, in that at a certain point reality and dreams intersect. I love things like that.<br /><br />My only complaint is that it feels like it COULD have ended many times, but didn't. I'm satisfied with the ending it had (some of you sensitive types might want to have Kleenex handy!), though it really could have a variety of conclusions. Anyway, it doesn't exactly feel drawn out once it's actually over, but while you're watching and it keeps fading back in, it's a little nerve wracking.<br /><br />Still, 'Paperhouse' is a really GOOD film. It's well done, and acting-- especially Charlotte Burke as Anna-- is top notch. Burke, who has never before or since appeared in a film, is a real gem. I don't know why she never went onto do anything else, but either way she's really convincing and enjoyable to watch.<br /><br />'Paperhouse' isn't exactly a horror movie, it's sort of a fantasy/suspense/something else type of movie, with some definite horroresque moments-- but you can still watch it with your family and not be worried that your little brother or grandmother will get grossed out by blood splashing or something.<br /><br />Give it a chance, you won't regret it! And maybe you should read the book, too... | 0 |
After Life is a Miracle, I did not expect much. It's hard to believe that these films were made by the same man as Do You Remember Dolly Bell, for instance. Zavet is two hours of silly antics with no story. The wild and unbridled humor of Underground seems to have degenerated into pathetic buffoonery here. It appears that Kusturica has been going steadily downhill since he started making life-affirming comedies, beginning with Black Cat, White Cat, which I think was great, but already had some disturbing signs of dementia. I liked his early films so much, and this is why it's especially disappointing to see something like this. Let's hope his next one will be great. | 1 |
At the time of writing this review it would seem that over 50% of IMDb voters had given this film a rating of either a 10 or a 1. I can only surmise then that those giving it a 10 were either cast or crew members. <br /><br />They say that given enough monkeys and enough time and enough typewriters, those monkeys, just by random proddings at the keyboard, would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. However, I seriously doubt that given the same number of monkeys and time, you could find a single one to give this movie a rating of 10.<br /><br />I patiently watched the first half, foolishly assuming that the film would, on some level, develop either the plot or the characters, or maybe make some kind of social comment or provoke barely intellectual thought. Failing that, I was quite prepared to accept action, suspense, comedy, horror or even gratuitous sex as a way of holding my attention. Ultimately, I was disappointed and consequently, much of the second half was viewed at double speed as I searched in vain for some small snippet of cinematic redemption. Sadly, there was none.<br /><br />If 'The Choke', was put up against an episode of Scooby Doo then I'm afraid the cartoon would win hands down in terms of mystery, intrigue and unpredictability. And speaking of cartoon characters, the acting abilities of the various cast members varied between acceptable (at best) and embarrassingly poor with Brooke Bailey's portrayal of the freaky, death obsessed pseudo goth, London, being so bad I almost felt sorry for her.<br /><br />I would have liked to have finished on a positive note but even the soundtrack, a second rate feast of contemporary punk rock, failed even to entertain, let alone serve to enhance a very poor flick. | 1 |
I was given the opportunity to see this 1926 film in a magnificently restored theater that was once part of the extensive Paramount chain of vaudeville houses. This Paramount has a Mighty Wurlitzer' organ also magnificently restored -- that was used to accompany the silent films of the day.<br /><br />We were fortunate enough to have Dennis James, a key figure in the international revival of silent films at the Mighty Wurlitzer playing appropriate music and thematic compositions fitting to the action on the film. The print was a nearly perfect digital copy of the rapidly decaying nitrate negative and the entire experience was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to see a silent film as it was meant to be seen.<br /><br />This was Greta Garbo's first American film. She was only 20 years old but already had 6 Swedish films in her repertoire.<br /><br />It is somewhat ironic that this is a silent film about an opera star; even though the Mighty Wurlitzer added immensely to the mise-en-scene, it was necessary to leave much to the imagination.<br /><br />Modern audiences, for the most part, do not understand silent films
Acting was different then, with expansive gestures and broad facial expressions. Therefore audiences laugh at inappropriate times the acting is seen as hammy' and over-done but it was simply the style of the period.<br /><br />Garbo, with all her subtlety, did much to usher in the new age of acting: she could say more with a half-closed eye and volumes could be read into a downward glance or a simple shrug. She exemplifies the truism that `a picture is worth a thousand words.'<br /><br />Even though this is Garbo's first American film it is pretty obvious the studio knew what they had on their hands: This was MGM filmmaking at its best. The sets and costumes were magnificent. The special effects which by today's standards are pretty feeble were still electrifying and amazing.<br /><br />The script by Vicente Blasco Ibanez (from the novel by Entre Naranjos) would seem to be tailor made for Garbo; it showcases her strengths, magnifies her assets and there is no pesky language problem to deal with: a Swedish actress can play a Spanish temptress with no suspension of disbelief on our part.<br /><br />Her co-star was MGM's answer to Rudolph Valentino: Ricardo Cortez. He does an admirable job and did something that few romantic stars of the day ever would have done in a film: allow himself to look unnactractive, appear foolish and to grow old ungracefully.<br /><br />There are some fairly good character parts that are more than adequately acted especially when you consider the powerhouse that was Garbo. Notable among them are Lucien Littlefield as Cupido' and Martha Mattox as Doña Bernarda Brull.'<br /><br />This is when the extraordinary cinematographer, William H. Daniels, met Garbo they went on to make 20 films together. (He was the cinematographer on 157 films and his career spanned five decades!) He was able to capture her ethereal beauty and it was his photography that was primarily responsible for the moniker by which she became known: The Divine Garbo. Without his magnificent abilities she would not have been the success that she was.<br /><br />Seeing this film is an all-too-rare opportunity: if you ever have the chance, do not miss it. | 0 |
What a terrible sequel. The reason I give this film two stars instead of zero because it's a movie that has violence and gore and critters, yet it is planned out poorly. And this god-awful sequel was done by none other than BUM-BUM-BUM-BUM!!!!!!!!! Mick Garris! The bonehead that brought you the remake of The Shining which nearly got Kubrick to nearly roll in his grave when he discovered it was actually made. Garris is also the man that brought you the sad sequel of THE FLY, THE FLY, which was a wonderful movie, but Garris's movie nearly ruined John Getz career. Anyway, if you really want to see the crappy critters trilogy in order, don't. That's the mistake I made, rent the first one or the third one or better yet DON'T STOOP TO THAT LEVEL AT ALL! This movie sucked so bad that I can't believe it, please avoid this crap. Shame on you, Mick! | 1 |
This film is so ridiculously idiot that you may actually laugh at it. But no, even this is too much for this lost meters of celluloid. I found it as an offer in a magazine and that's why I've seen it. I regret the time I lost to see this. 1 out of 10 (because they don't have a lower grade). | 1 |
A classy film pulled in 2 directions. To its advantage it is directed by Wes Craven. On the downside the TV film budget shows what could have been so much more with a larger budget. It moves along as Susan Lucci draws Robert Urichfamily into her clutches and trying to persuade him into the secret of her health club. His latest invention, a spacesuit which can analyse people or things becomes unexpectedly useful in his new neighbourhood. Anyone seeing this should pay attention to Susan Lucci. Her looks and performance had an unexpected repercussions a few years later. The actor, scientist and parapsychologist Stephen Armourae is a fan of this film and wrote a review of this film. Lucci became subject of a portrait by him followed as the basis for works of a sitter called Catherine. Lucci and Barbara Steele's portrait in 'Black Sunday' were used as references for the Catherine portraits which were immediately withdrawn by Armourae. Probably due to a personal nature between the artist and Catherine. So by seeing both films we can get an insight into another story and the appearance of unknown woman that would make an interesting film. | 0 |
The plot seemed to be interesting, but this film is a great dissapointment. Bad actors, a camera moving like in the hands of an amateur. If there was C-movies, this would be a perfect example. A plus for a nice DVD cover though and a great looking female actor. | 1 |
This was by far one of the worst movies Sandra Bullock has starred in. Ben Affleck should stay behind the camera and continue writing scripts. This is definitely his forte and acting is not. I actually lasted 54 minutes into this movie before I was so bored with it I felt compelled to leave the theater. It's a bore from beginning to, well 54 minutes into the film anyway. The premise of 'Guess what happened to me on the way to the ....' has been done over and over to death. Somehow there just doesn't seem to be anything funny, or romantic about people cheating on each other. Parents should be aware that this may not be a suitable film for your teenage children especially impressionable ones that may view Sandra as a hero. There is a scene where the writers/producers/directors thought it would be nice to show how 'acceptable' it is to smoke a joint .... while driving .... and then have no consequences at all when caught. I'm no prude, and I smoked my share when I was younger but I guarantee you I won't take my teenagers to see it and they're solid A & B students. If you want to see a good Sandra Bullock movie, rent 'The Net' or 'Hope Floats' which I believe are two of her best works. | 1 |
This is simply another bad Chuck Norris movie. Norris plays a cop on the trail of a twisted serial killer of women. He put the guy away three years before, but the guy somehow gets through the bars in the nut house he's in by using what looks like dental floss. Then the killer escapes in a cleaning van and drives it over a 400 foot cliff and survives to spend time around a theater undergoing renovation. Irish Jack O'Halloran is the best thing in this movie, but like in Superman II, he doesn't say a word. Somehow that's supposed to make him more menacing. Ron O'Neal of Super Fly fame and Steve James are wasted playing the city's mayor and Norris' sidekick respectively. The film also contains the idiotic subplot of Norris and his girlfriend having a child out of wedlock; it's so 1980's. When coupling Norris' 'serious' acting turn with over-the-top musical cues signaling every forthcoming scene in predictable fashion, the film becomes a chore to sit through. The build-up while searching for the killer in the theater is interesting enough with Norris crawling through the shadows to discover the hideaway, but the end fight is disappointing after beginning in such a promising way. It's yet another disappointment from Cannon Films, and it plays like a movie made for television. * of 4 stars. | 1 |
I usually enjoy underground movies and antiheroes but this is a bad joke. I wonder how this can be called a movie. All these people are loosers and the filmmaker doesn't succeed in making them interesting at all. They are not funny, not tragic just plain stupid and boring.<br /><br />May be I missed something but I won't watch it again to find out what. Anybody with a camcorder can do better than that...<br /><br />I give it a 1 for the originality. All the rest is crap. | 1 |
No doubt that the indie flick Eddie Monroe is one of the better independent films I've seen in a long time. The highlight for me was the performance of Paul Vario. I first saw Paul, or 'Big Paulie' as he was called in Danny Provenzano's hit indie, 'This Thing Of Ours'. Thankfully, the 'Eddie Monroe' filmmaker(s) did the same and utilized Paul's undeniable skills in a principle (principal?) role. Out came a performance (on camera and voice-over utilization as well) that shows worthy of big-budget studio roles in the very near future. It's refreshing to see a trained actor who is committed to the trade, prove the same to the audience. Keep up the good work Big Paulie and we'll be seeing you in Hollywood real soon! Not bad for a kid from Canarsie, huh? | 0 |
Countenance! Antoine Monot, in a copycat impersonation of Kevin Smith's Silent Bob, keeps asking for it, but writer/director Christian Zübert never listens. Zübert just can't say no to a joke, no matter how cheap. The best thing about this movie is its soundtrack. Of course, Joey Burns of Calexico and the divine Jonathan Richman, understated old-school bard of 'There's something about Mary' fame, would grace any small-town dropout story. In visual allure, Stefan (Lukas Gregorowicz) looks cool enough riding his tan six-series BMW two-door, wearing aviator shades, going nowhere. True, he *accidentally* sleeps with his wild-eyed bohemian kid sister (Marie Zielcke), but then, who wouldn't? Thumbs up also to how he goes black-and-white on a liberal dose of that mysterious substance they call zero-zero, but if you're looking for a slightly more serious rendering of what intoxication can do to you, I suggest you check out 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas'. | 1 |
There is no such a thing as perfect murder.Lieutenant Columbo knows that.Ken Franklin, who is the other half of the writing team of detective stories doesn't know that.He kills his partner Jim Ferris who had plans on going solo.Now Columbo steps into the picture and asks all sorts of questions from Mr. Franklin.And returns for one more question.Columbo: Murder by the Book (1971) is directed by the young Steven Spielberg before his days of fame.Steven Bochco wrote it.Columbo is a fantastic character with his shabby look.It's hard to believe this man could solve any crime.But he could.Each and every one of them! Peter Falk is the one and only person in the world that could portray this character.So no remakes, please.This part is a very good example of how Columbo worked.Jack Cassidy plays the murderer and Martin Milner plays the victim.Rosemary Forsyth plays the victim's wife Joanna Ferris.There's something endearing in the scenes between Columbo and her.How he makes the omelet and everything.Barbara Colby plays Lilly La Sanka.She actually met a tragic fate when she died after a homicide like she does here.I've been a fan of Columbo since childhood and I still enjoy watching them.There was a break for many years that they weren't showing Columbo stories at all but now he's back.Back for one more question. | 0 |
'Der Todesking' is not exactly the type of film that makes you merry
Jörg Buttgereit's second cult monument in a row, which is actually a lot better than the infamous 'Nekromantik', exists of seven short episodes one for each day of the week revolving on unrelated people's suicides. In between these already very disturbing episodes, Buttgereit inserts truly horrifying images of a severely decomposing male corpse. The episodes aren't all equally powerful but, as a wholesome, 'Der Todesking' is ranked quite high on the list of all-time most depressing art-house films. Particularly the episodes on Wednesday, involving a man explaining his sexual frustrations to a total stranger in the park, and the one of Sunday, focusing on a younger man molesting himself to dead, are extremely intense and devastating to observe. The added value of this film, or any other shockumenary like it, is debatable and I'm not even sure whether or not Buttgereit had any type of message to communicate here. There's the vague mentioning of an eerie chain letter that encourages its readers to commit suicide but mostly we remain uninformed about these people's motivations to end their lives so dramatically. Entirely unlike I expected, 'Der Todesking' isn't exploitative or repulsively graphic! On the contrary actually, I never could have hoped Buttgereit would be so subtle and thoughtful regarding the portrayal of pure human misery. The Thursday episode is a perfect example of this, as it stylishly shows different viewpoints of a famous German bridge while the names, ages and occupations of persons who jumped off appear on the screen. The production values are inescapably poor and the editing often lacks professionalism, but this isn't what really counts in this type of cinema. The subject matter is strong and forcing us to contemplate about the less cheerful but also indispensable aspects of life. GREAT use of tragic music, too! | 0 |
I have always been interested in anything about Bigfoot, so when I was browsing around looking for a movie to rent, this one caught my eye. It was the WORST $4.50 I've ever spent and I want my money back! Please don't waste your money on this!! This was one of the cheapest movies I've ever seen. The entire movie was so incredibly boring and I found myself rolling my eyes a lot and I didn't even watch it all the way through. I just got fed up with it. The acting was horrible, the effects were horrible, everything was just really bad and tasteless. It all added up to be a really bad, boring movie and total waste of time and money. I hope that one day they'll make a good movie about Sasquatch, but until then, I'll have to sit through countless cheap duds like this one to find the real masterpiece. | 1 |
Making a movie about a Comic is hard to do. Making a good movie about a Comic is extremely hard to do. Making a good movie about Asterix & Obelix has been done.<br /><br />This movie shows that the french do know how to make an : a) funny , b) hilarious , c) beautiful , d) superb movie. The acting is no less than superb , the sunny feel to the whole movie is perfect .. A MUST see ! This just has to be the funniest thing to come out since we started the new millenium.. 10/10 | 0 |
I don't know why this conduct was ever tolerated in the movie business! This movie (short) is gross (to say the least)! It is a bunch of 5-7 year old children wearing diapers with big bobby pins, acting like adults (and too much so!). However, it is interesting because it is a good example of how 'the good old days' may not have been so good after all! (Thank GOD we have laws against this kind of material now!)<br /><br />{This is one short from the 'Shirley Temple Festival'} | 1 |
This documentary film is based on incomplete considerations of the evidence, in which Brian Flemming, perhaps purposely, fails to mention important evidence to the contrary. Perhaps his most crucial mistake is one of the earliest: His claims concerning the invalidity of Paul's testimony about Jesus Christ disregard key facts, like: **The existence of some formulated creeds within Paul's letters. These creeds suggest that most of the central claims about Jesus were already formulated into statements of faith possibly within a few years of Christ's death and resurrection. **The testimonies of the early Christians can't just be tossed out as mere fantasy. There were indeed many people claiming to be the Messiah during that period, but only ONE of them has remained: Jesus. Why? Because it would have been preposterous for anyone to have actually believed Christ was the messiah, and go on to die for those beliefs, if they knew that he had not been resurrected. **Even if the Gospels are dated more liberally, we are still talking about accounts of Jesus written within the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses that would have pointed out inaccuracies in these Gospels. And there is evidence that the Gospels were written much earlier. <br /><br />What I am saying is that Flemming's documentary is an incredibly biased and self-serving piece of work that hodge podges different arguments and evidence to serve his anti-Christian view. Don't be fooled by poor investigation. | 1 |
Claudine is a movie that is representation of the american system at it's worst. The welfare system was initially set up as a stepping stone for those families who needed that extra hand to get back on their feet.The movie showed an accurate portrayal of how the welfare system breaks down the family unit. In other words if the father or any male figure is in the lives of the women and children their financial support from the system would be jeopardized if not terminated. The struggles of the poor can be seen throughout the world. I would like to see a reproduction of this movie back in the stores for all to rent or buy for their library collection. | 0 |
The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like 'Miner's Massacre' some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and plenty of embarrassing performances give this turkey a 3 for nudity. | 1 |
Hopelessly inept and dull movie in which the characters stand around in rooms or a rocket ship and talk endlessly. You might think things would perk up when they explore Mars but these scenes are filmed through a heavy red/orange filter which makes everything very murky. The Martian landscape/vegetation consists mainly of drawings and the monsters are entirely unconvincing. There are echoes of 'Bride Of The Monster' when the heroine carefully winds the octopus like tentacle of a flesh eating plant around her before weakly thrashing about, the difference being that the Ed Wood film is a hundred times more entertaining. Better wear earplugs when watching otherwise the 'sci-fi' music score, repeated endlessly, will drive you insane. If you find yourself unable to sleep one night just slip this one into the VCR and your insomnia will be cured in no time. | 1 |
This film was a critical and box-office fiasco back in 1957. It was based on a novel which was later turned into a play--which flopped on Broadway. The story is about some navy officers on leave in San Francisco during WWII. They have 4 day's leave which they spend at the Mark Hopkins hotel. The film meanders a lot and none of the characters seem very real. Cary Grant is generally brilliant in comedy and drama--but here he plays a sort of wheeler dealer and he doesn't really pull it off. Tony Curtis or James Garner would have been better choices. Audrey Hepburn was initially set to play opposite Grant, but had other commitments--so Suzy parker stepped in. She had never acted before, but was America's top photographic model at the time. I think that she did a good job, considering all the pressure that she was under. Grant's pairing with Jayne Mansfield in a few brief scenes--did not really work. The Studio was trying to give her some class by acting with Grant--but the character had no substance at all. | 1 |
Having been born and raised in Odessa, and having graduated from the 'other' high school in the late 70's, Odessa High School, I had mixed emotions about this movie. I no longer live in Odessa, but will always be a Texan at heart. I didn't like the way that this town of 80,000 plus was portrayed as a dirt poor small town. If I'm wrong about this, please feel free to correct me, but I believe OHS also plays in the town stadium, and the 'Home of the Permian Panthers' sign that was shown at the stadium used to be at the practice field at Permian. I would have liked to have seen a little acknowledgment about the cross town rivalry of the big game in town every year, OHS vs Permian. I am curious why the outcome of the game was altered though, I think it would have been just as dramatic if the real outcome was portrayed. Overall, the movie was okay, made me a little homesick, remembering the 'good old days' of MOJO. | 1 |
I don't believe this was an acting challenge for Richard Harris. This was an uncomplicated plot, yet interesting. It is a good movie to watch when you don't want to do a lot of thinking, just want to be told a simple story. The Canadian scenery was breathtaking. The beautiful Fall shots alone made the picture worth seeing. | 0 |
Watching this again after a gap of many years and remembering the flop it was upon its original release, I am surprised at how well it has held up. One of the reasons for its failure was that one generation just thought it was over indulgent crap and a younger one was disappointed that it did not show the full hippy glory. Seen now it is clear that Antonioni was already aware of and fascinated by the heady mix of fervent enthusiasm for change and a lack of any clear vision for the future. The lead pair are excellent and it is shameful that they took so much flak for the film's perceived failure. They are ideal and convey perfectly the various contradictions and demonstrate a pure delight in lovemaking. I blame others for the over emphasis on the student revolt sequences at the start but have to say that from there on in this is one of the directors most beautiful looking pictures and he certainly got the very best out of the man made and natural landscapes. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned the highly explosive ending. | 0 |
Second part (actually episode 4-8) of the hit Danish tv-series is slightly inferior to the first one, but has plenty of laughs and scares as well. This time, Udo Kier plays two parts, as the monster baby and his demon-like father. Other standout parts this time are Søren Pilmark´s Doctor Krogshoj, who must face the horrible revenge of Dr. Helmer, and once again, patient Mrs. Drusse tries to solve the mysteries, Miss Marple-style. Ends on a cliffhanger and following the deaths of lead actors Ernst Hugo Järegård (Dr. Helmer) and Kirsten Rolffes (Mrs. Drusse), you wonder how they´re ever going to be able making Part III, but I hope Von Trier will give it a shot. Sadly, Morten Rotne Leffers, the Down´s Syndrome dishwasher #2, died shortly after, as well. Look for Stellan Skarsgård in a cameo. *** | 0 |
This is a known fact, Mr. Seagal cannot smile, he can act, he can kick butt, there are faint smiles, no real smiles no laughing out loud and no real point of watching this confusing movie. We see an over weight Mr. Seagal as Dr. Wesley Maclaren, who is in desperate need of a haircut and his real daughter Ayako made an appearance as his office assistant. Story: Okay so Wesley lives in another darn outback with his sweet daughter Holly. They sit and enjoy their red flower tea and omelettes and on the other end of town some over weight militia leader decides to make the whole town sick by spreading a virus that travels by air and kills in a matter of 2 days thinking he can survive as he had an antidote. Problem, there is no antidote and the one that exists only holds back the virus for a while. The CIA are contacted and even they can't help and only one person isn't ill, Wesley's daughter Holly. So she gets hunted thinking the cure is in her blood. Wesley manages to grab his daughter and take her to her grandfather, who is a native indian. Together with his sister in law Ann they go to a base where there is a hidden lab to find a cure but even the soldiers there are dying slowly and so will others if they don't find a cure in time. And to shorten the moment, neither Ann or Wesley are infected by the virus...hmm. One weak fight scene. Terrible movie and all the men in it are in desperate need of a stair master. | 1 |
Maybe I expected too much of this film, but at the very least a comedy should be funny, and this one has very few amusing moments. It manages to be insulting to homosexuals, heterosexuals, women, the obese, and probably several other groups as well. The scene at graduation where _everyone_ claims to be gay is one of the most distasteful I have ever seen.<br /><br />Tom Selleck and Matt Dillon are ridiculously miscast and Kevin Kline seems bemused most of the time.<br /><br />Other reviewers compare the film to 'Will and Grace', but at least 'Will and Grace' _is_ funny. | 1 |
As one of the few commentators not to have seen the 1st film, I found this to be a very disappointing movie.<br /><br />Yes, it has a funny awkward type of humour if you can bear the (highly) morally dubious premise. However, it fails abysmally in the important areas.<br /><br />There is thin and nonsensical plot line involving Gordon Sinclair's generous friend who may or may not be entwined in a conspiracy to supply dangerous electronics to Third World countries - possibly in free computers ... or possibly not. Vague, long-winded and inconclusive. The lack of any substantial ending is so infuriating and what is present is pompous and wholly illogical. The film feels half-finished.<br /><br />Suspension of disbelief is extremely difficult when witnessing a very attractive female teacher (Maria Doyle Kennedy) can be drawn to Gordon Sinclair's unimpressive character, especially when he fends off her advances. Laughable. It worsens later in the film when he achieves his romantic ambitions then throws it all away for some ideals based on very little evidence of ambiguous value.<br /><br />Not many films leave me feeling cheated, but I felt my time was stolen. | 1 |
While I am a long-time Shatner fan (since we used to watch Trek re-runs over the dinner hour in the early '70s), I cannot think of any possible reason why he wanted to do this film, whether for personal development or business reasons. Did he lose a bet?<br /><br />As a movie fan, I like to appreciate the bad films along with the great ones. But 'Shoot or be Shot' doesn't have any flair or funny bits, unintentional or not.<br /><br />While unrated, there were no objectionable scenes (blink or you'll miss it nudity, cartoonish gunfire 'violence' with the endless bullet gunfights), so one is led to believe that the producers merely wanted to save the fee required to get the MPAA to rate it. This will make its way to cable with barely 10 seconds edited out.<br /><br />Of the eight people that were in the theatre with us, four of them left mid-way, muttering statements like 'This is stupid'.<br /><br />Shatner plays an escaped mental patient who has been denied release because he views himself as a screenwriter. The examination board stamps his request 'INSANE'. He runs into a group of Z-grade moviemakers who 'shoot on video because its 80% cheaper than film' and decides to force them to shoot his script at gunpoint. There are a few minor subplots that develop some of the secondary characters, but for the most part, that is the whole movie.<br /><br />If you want to spend 90 minutes on a Shatner 'art' film, see 'Free Enterprise' instead, it is a much better film. | 1 |
I gave this film 10 not because it is a superbly consistent movie, but for it's pure ability to evoke emotions in its audience. The story of one-woman's-struggle-against-all-odds is an old cliché by now, but very few films have carried it off with so much warmth and sincerity as The Color Purple.<br /><br />It also showed a different side to the African-American experience - showing that after slaves were granted freedom many fell into the ways of the hated 'white man' and were abusive of their own people. I find this an important point as it goes against the portray-white-on-black-violence-and-win-an-Oscar trend.<br /><br />Also the acting performances are superb - especially Oprah who I now have a new found respect for.<br /><br />Well worth watching - but keep some tissue handy. | 0 |
This is just about one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Maybe not a worst movie ever contender, but if you haven't seen that many bad ones, this could easily make your Top Ten Worst List. When you consider what was achieved in 1933 with the original 'King Kong', you've got to ask yourself why anyone would stoop so low as to produce this debacle. Then, taking it one step further and realizing that the quantum leap to 'Star Wars' the following year achieved a new level in sci-fi entertainment, this offering will make you laugh and cry at the same time.<br /><br />Now let me ask you, what would possess the Professor (Peter Cushing) to bring along an umbrella as a prime piece of subterranean research equipment for the ride to the earth's core? OK, so it was useful in fending off the parrot/tyrannosaur (parrotosaurus?) in the early going, but come on. Somehow I don't think this is what Edgar Rice Burrough's had in mind when he wrote his tales of Pellucidar. He probably didn't have Caroline Munro in mind either as Princess Dia, probably the only redeeming factor to this whole escapade.<br /><br />At least there was one bit of pseudo-scientific explanation that I got a kick out of; I'm always looking for one in films like this. That would have to be how the sky at the earth's core was really the underside of the earth's crust, explaining that ethereal pinkish glow. But try as it might, the story just couldn't hook me in a way to find anything at all interesting about Hoojah the Sly One or Jubal the Ugly One, much less those goofy half man, half pterodactyl creatures. To paraphrase the good professor - 'You cannot mesmerize me, I'm paying attention!' | 1 |
I can't remember many details about the show, but i remember how passionate i was about it and how i was determined not to miss any episodes. Unfortunately at the time we had no VCR, so i haven't ever seen the series again. However i can remember strongly how i felt while watching it and how thrilled i was every time it came on. Sam Waterstone was my favorite actor these days (i think i was almost in love) and he remains one of my favorite actors to the day, mostly due to his appearance in the series. I would gladly buy/steal/download this series, i think i would go to great lengths in order to see it again and revisit a childhood long gone... Any ideas? Does anybody knows of a site devoted to the series or has the episodes on tape from their first airing? | 0 |
You have to start worrying when you see that Michael Madsen is leading the Cast of any movie. I wont go through the list of shame that is his movie career.<br /><br />I watched 45 minutes and still was not sure what really was going on. The movie consisted of a love hate relationship between Madsen and Argento, Which basically was Madsen insulting her, threatening violence and generally treating her like dirt. She on the other hand loves him, then shes doesn't, then she does, the she desires him, then she loves him again......whats wrong with you woman !!!! <br /><br />The Script is awful, lousy soundtrack and pointless aggressive and crude sexuality which i believe was added to entice some viewers as the movie has little else to offer. I would have given the movie a 1 but it just about managed a 2 with a little excitement in the last 20 minutes. It did actually answer one question in the final few minutes but i am not going to share that, i will make you suffer for the full movie like i did. | 1 |
I enjoyed a lot watching this movie. It has a great direction, by the already know Bigas Luna, born in Spain. And it is precisely in Spain that the movie takes place, in Cataluña, to be more precise.<br /><br />Luna explores once more the theme of an obcession, in this case the obcession of a young boy for the women's milk. There are some psychological concepts in this story such as the rejection complex that the elder son feels with the birth of his brother. In the movie this is what leads to the obcession of the young boy who suddenly sees all his mother's milk go to the recently born son. So he starts trying to find a breast who is able to feed him. He finds it in a woman recently arrived and from here on the movie is all around this.<br /><br />This movie lives a lot on imagery, more than the story itself, the espectator captures certain moments (unforgettable moments) and certain symbols (the movie deserves a thourough analyses on almost everything that happens because it usually means something...). The surroundings, the landscapes, typical from the region as well as the surreal behaviors of the characters, also symbolic, and the excelent ambiguous soundtrack by Nicola Piovani transport us to another dimension, not parallel to the real world, but which intersects it from times to times... Worth living in that world, worth watching this movie, even though we may eventually and for moments get tired and a bit sick with the excessive obcession, which is perhaps taken beyond the limits...<br /><br />I also enjoyed the performance of the protagonist... 8/10 | 0 |
Let me waste a moment of your time to explain how I approached this film. 1st I dismissed the trailers out of hand because the film appeared to be an uncredited remake of Aliens, which I consider to be one of the weakest films in the Alien series. Stupidly continuing to dismiss the film after I heard positive things about it from people whose opinions I trust, I missed the theatrical run completely. I then became hooked on Farscape, in its 3rd or 4th season at the time, and found Pitch Black on cable one night around bed time - so I said 'oh why not, at least it has Claudia Black in it.' Soon, I recognized Keith David, and began to realize that Vin Diesel, Radha Mitchell and Cole Hauser could all act (why this should surprise me, I do not know). I was captivated. I have now remained captivated for four years. I just watched the film for the 3rd or 4th time, and I still love it.<br /><br />This is not an art film, not an independent, and its not entirely original, but where it fails to break a lot of new ground, it utterly succeeds in providing interesting, realistic characters, hard-driving action in the medium of a compelling but simple plot, and non-stop entertainment; an absolutely beautiful environment with tastefully rendered special effects. Sound to good to be true? Don't take my word for it... see it for yourself.<br /><br />The film also highlighted the charisma of the now somewhat iconoclastic Vin Diesel, introducing the character of Richard Riddick. Diesel would go on to star in the somewhat Riddick-ulous Chronicles thereof (which I also enjoyed, though recognizing its rather huge flaws) and is now something of a legend. Diesel is so charismatic, so big, and so interesting to watch that it is easy to ignore the fact that he is not only a talented actor, but a smart one too. Checking out the DVD version of Pitch Black, with the audio comments on might just blow you away.<br /><br />The film is about the crew of an inter-system transport ship stranded on an unknown planet after a crash-landing in which their captain was killed. The new commander is inexperienced but bright and heroic (Mitchell), but she is caught between two dominant and dangerous personalities - a bounty hunter with secrets (Hauser) and a dangerous criminal who has been surgically altered to see in the dark (Diesel). Is that all? Of course not - the planet is inhabited, and the inhabitants are hungry.<br /><br />As unoriginal and improbable as some of this may be, Pitch Black is beautifully filmed, well told, and very nicely performed. Don't expect to learn anything, and don't expect to have to think a whole lot, but do expect to have fun with this modern sci-fi action classic. | 0 |
I voted 3 for this movie because it looks great as does all of Greenaways output. However it was his usual mix of 'art' sex and pretentious crap.I know lots of people like this film but I grew tired of it VERY quickly. It is definitely not for everyone. The ubiquitous McGregor obviously took the part for crediblity's sake I guess but he really should not have wasted his time. I hate to consign anyone to pseud's corner but please.....!!! On the plus side it IS visually very attractive and I enjoyed the music but could not see it through to the end and I cannot say that for many movies. I usually watch the whole thing but this is unbearable!! | 1 |
This straight to video cheap flick is based on a true story. I don't doubt it. Doesn't mean it's particularly interesting (unless you are one of the main characters who actually lived though this experience). A young woman named Angela buys a great, big old country home really really cheap. Well, as we all know from watching Horror movies, when you buy a big house cheap it usually means it's haunted in some way, shape or form. In fact, the second the house is being handed over to Angela the wise guy kid who lived in the house up to now takes a moment to 'introduce' Angela to one of the ghosts! Nice guy, huh? Angela gets in touch with a psychic and a paranormal expert and tells them that her house is haunted and invites them to come over and see the ghosts for themselves. They come to a party and sure enough there are ghosts walking around, sitting on the couch, hanging in the garage and trying to seduce people in the bathroom. A few friends sleep over the night of the party, see the ghosts and vow never to come back in the house again. (Check out the girl who deadpans 'I'm so scared. I'm so scared.' totally emotionless. If she was so scared why didn't she get up, turn the knob and leave?!) The ghosts don't really do anything menacing aside from show up (And there is no blurriness or aura about them. They look just like regular people). They steal celery from the kitchen, move chairs around a la POLTERGEIST and one bisexual female ghost seduces Angela, who, get this, doesn't seem to mind! This scene plays like the kind of soft-core porn you see on the SPICE channel. (Ummm...not that I'd KNOW! Hahaha). The actresses aren't your typical porn stars though. They should hit the beach and the gym more. When Angela'ss NOT making love to the dead she gets mad at them and stands alone in a room screaming 'Why won't you leave?! This is MY house! Get out!' They don't leave. I couldn't help but think of all the times I've heard psychic Sylvia Brown on TV saying that if you have a ghost in your house you should calmly rationalize with the ghost and say 'Look, you're dead. It's time to cross over to the other side. In other words, get out!' According to Sylvia Brown, as long as your not hostile and nasty about it, they'll leave! This movie looks like it cost about $50 to make. It has a really cheap feel, and bad acting. I could have made this movie with 5 friends and a camcorder. | 1 |
Some of the early talkies survived to become classics. 1929's 'The Squall' is a classic all right, but not in the way it was intended. Melodramatic in story and acting, today it seems ludicrous, particularly the casting of Myrna Loy as Nubi, a seductive gypsy. Imagine Nora Charles breaking up a young couple and driving a young man to steal. Outrageous! However, as many people know, when Loy first came to Hollywood, she did quite a few of these exotic seductress roles.<br /><br />Based on a play, 'The Squall' concerns the aforementioned Gypsy who in the film is now in Hungary (Spain in the play) running away from her cruel master and inviting herself into the home of the Lajos family (Richard Tucker and Alice Joyce), basically by appearing at the door. One by one, Nubi seduces the men of the family and the farm talking her pidgin English ('Nubi not bad! Nubi do nothing wrong!') and dropping hints about nice presents. The son in the family, Paul (Carroll Nye) is engaged to the beautiful Irma (Loretta Young) and can't wait to marry her. He loses interest when he meets Nubi.<br /><br />With the exception of the lovely Alice Joyce, Zasu Pitts as a woman who lives in the household and the stunningly beautiful Loretta Young, the acting is uniformly awful. Loy is stuck with the hallmarks of her character - bad English, whining and hysteria. With her darkened makeup, peasant getup and curly hair, she is not only beautiful but right out of the 1980s - quite modern, though Richard Tucker's putting the back of his hand on his forehead reminds us we're just emerging from the silents.<br /><br />Robert Osborne on TCM commented that this film is one of his secret pleasures. While it is deliciously bad, it's not deliciously bad enough to sit through again. It's just bad - but a great example of how far we've come and, had someone not picked up on Myrna Loy's sense of humor, how limited her wonderful career might have been. | 1 |
Yes, talk about bad sequels. Rick Moranis stars in this awful third sequel to the once-funny-and-entertaining 'Honey I Shrunk the Kids'. The concept basically plays the same way as the first film, but with the adults instead of the kids being shrunk and the inner house instead of the garden as the universe to explore. If you think this sounds interesting, think again. The movie is boring at best, right down an embarrassment at worst.<br /><br />First of all, the continuity of the series has been completely flushed down the toilet. The only remaining actor of the first movie is apparently Rick Moranis. The actress playing his wife has changed, the actors playing the kids have changed, the ones playing the neighbors have changed... you name it. They try to make us believe this is the same family, but the results are puzzling to say the least.<br /><br />Second, the story is a rehash of the first one, with not one bit of originality. All the few jokes (and there's barely any) and the dangerous situations presented in the movie are just copied straight from 'Honey I Shrunk the Kids'.<br /><br />Third problem, the special effects. I'm sure this has been done on a smaller budget, but they are pathetic, way way worse than the ones appearing in the rest of the series. You're supposed to admire in awe these tiny figures exploring the huge domestic area, but you'll probably end up cringing most of the time.<br /><br />Fourth problem, to locate the action inside the house is just boring. Only few things happen, and when they happen, they are not thrilling at all. The first movie was amusing because the kids were dealing with nature, the grass, and the bugs that live in it. In this one, the adults (which come up as rather boring, compared to the kids) deal with dust, a cockroach and a cockroach trap. Disgusting.<br /><br />I don't know why the idea of releasing such a trite sequel to the already moribund series appealed Disney's executives, except maybe because they needed to cash in without spending five minutes thinking about something new. I'm warning you: leave this tasteless cash-in garbage where it should stay: getting dust on the shop's shelves. | 1 |
I and a friend rented this movie. We both found the movie soundtrack and production techniques to be lagging. The movie's plot appeared to drag on throughout with little surprise in the ending. We both agreed that the movie could have been compressed into roughly an hour giving it more suspense and moving plot. | 1 |
'The Bone Snatcher' starts out extremely promising, with the introduction of a new and original type of unseen evil as well as with the use of the sublimely isolated filming location of the African desert. Whilst checking pipelines out in the desert, three miners are attacked and killed by a seemingly unworldly creature that devours their flesh and only leaves a pile of half-eaten bones. The expedition crew sent to rescue them discovers that the monster is a superiorly mutated ant-queen, and pretty soon they find themselves trapped in the uncanny desert as well. Director Jason Wulfsohn sustains a respectable level of tension just until the nature of the monster is identified. Immediately after that, the film rapidly turns into an ordinary creature-feature with all the characters dropping out of the survival-race one by one. The second half of 'The Bone Snatcher' is unendurably boring; with the inevitable love-story clichés as well as a complete absence of gory murder set pieces. The characters all are insufferable stereotypes that act and say exactly what you predict several minutes in advance. There's the rookie who has to prove himself, the female with brain-capacity apart from her hot looks, the obnoxious experienced guy who redeems himself at the end through self-sacrifice and last but not least who could forget the wise black guy who refers to the monster using all kind of voodoo names. Wulfsohn tries too hard to make his monster look like the outer space menaces of 'Alien' and 'Predator'. The ant-creature has infrared-vision and crumbles when shot at, yawn! The movie actually just benefits from its unique setting and the handful of nasty images of decomposed bodies. This could have been a modest gem, but instead it's less than mediocre. Avoid. | 1 |
I'm glad Cage changed his name from Coppolla and got this part on his own. Light-hearted, no deep thought needed, but a cute piece about opposites attracting- though her parents are still hippies.... Captures the voice of the early 80's- the whine of the valley and the funk of the other side. One can see the beginning of Cage's talent. | 0 |
Yes I AM a FF7 fan, but how many people who watch this movie are NOT going to be? And so, I'm reviewing this movie from a FF7 fan perspective, and with no regret. (I would not know how to adequately review the movie for someone who has not played the FF7 game.)<br /><br />Visuals - 10/10 I loved Advent Children. It's a sensory delight - a complete audio-video overload. The visuals were breathtaking: some feats were accomplished that I would simply have not quite thought possible with an animated feature. When the action scenes came about, they were, for lack of a more accurate word, a roller-coaster. With dramatic camera movement sweeping across from range to range, to seamlessly integrated bullet-time effects at the crucial moments, to the sheer level of detail - it's all hard to fault. The animation looks big budget, the style and imagery is awesome, and the effects at times made me forget that I was watching animation rather than live action footage. I could ramble on for hours repeating myself on the fantastic quality of the visuals, but it simply wouldn't do it any justice.<br /><br />Sound - 10/10 The sound was fabulous. The voices for all the characters didn't disappoint (no one sounded silly) and the sound effects were bold and sharp. The music - from the game that (in my opinion) had the best game soundtrack EVER, transfered beautifully to the movie. Most of the memorable themes from the game are present in the movie, albeit often using different instruments to fit in better with what's going on. There was some bolder rock and slight thrash metal music over the really intense action scenes from time to time, but it all fitted in well with the movie's situation at the corresponding time.<br /><br />Story - 7/10 The story and characters would be the main flaws of the movie. Both aspects were simply not up to par with the game - but then again, the game could spend 40+ hours developing these points - the movie only has about 90 minutes. As far as the story goes, the plot wasn't bad or anything, but just not as ambitious as was expected from someone who played the game through. In effect, the plot seemed rather weak in comparison. The game was so extravagant with the intricate plot twists and story progression/development, that the movie never really stood a chance to compete in the same league. Instead, the movie took the more sensible approach - to expand on the action and try to place as many inside-jokes and themes into itself instead of trying to impossibly recreate the massive story factor, which was originally such a driving force in the game. The lack of Materia usage also caused me some controversy - the story of the movie chose to use little (though not ZERO) Materia, and instead lots of supernatural fighting ability and skill. I would hope that if a sequel was made it would incorporate Materia much much more extravagantly and importantly into the film. There were also many plot holes in the movie - all which can be forgiven if you think of Advent Children as a random anime, but seem ridiculous when you realise how it was based on a game that executed plot tremendously well.<br /><br />Characters - 7/10 The characters, whilst all being present in one form or another, don't necessarily shine to their true potential. There simply isn't really enough movie-time to spend with all of them. And so, all of their background stories and abilities are not entirely showcased, and in some cases, barely at all (Red and Cait Sith leave absolutely no real lasting impressions). Even Cloud, who is the focal point of the movie, I feel doesn't use enough of his familiar abilities from the game. The Materia issue is a strong reason for this. With that said, it's a joy to see the cast back in action, even if it's in such a role that doesn't utilise them to their fullest. The new characters were the ones that caused me most of the strife however - the Bad Guy Trio and the kid dude Denzel - there was a huge lack of explanation about any of them. Anyone willing to use their imagination can probably fill in the blanks with something reasonable and be done with it, but objectively speaking the issue is still there to be commented on and is therefore a little disappointing.<br /><br />Value - 10/10 The replay value for this movie is excellent - I personally want to watch it again in a more bigger and louder way - bigger screen, louder volume.<br /><br />Enjoyment - 10/10 Whatever the flaws of the movie, they simply weren't big enough to hinder my enjoyment of it, and I honestly think that will be the same case for most people. I enjoyed Advent Children tremendously, and encourage fellow FF7 fans to go see it. | 0 |
The White Warrior is definitely one of,if not Steve Reeves weakest films. Set in 18th or 19th century Russia (??) Steve plays a cossack warrior who tries to over run a mad man Russian czar by running up a mountain side with his rebel band in a goofy looking Russian white tunic..... For the most part the great Reeves physique is hidden in a goofy, knee length tunic, with an even more sillier looking russian hat.<br /><br />The action is rather minimal, with only a good wrestling scene from the mid waist up that shows off the great Reeves physique. This is an apparent attempt by the producers to move Reeves out of the sword and sandal genre into another historic era, with poor results. The dialogue from the script is hard to understand at various points, and only commentary from the narrator allows the viewer to understand what is really happening from scene to scene. I would image Reeves regretted making this film, but in an attempt to try and get out of his toga and sandals and tribune armor it helped launch him to other historic characters such as Morgan the Pirate and the Thief of Baghdad. | 1 |
Why do I hate this? Let me list the ways:<br /><br />I have nothing against Mary Pickford but a 32 year old woman playing a 12 year old is just stupid.<br /><br />There's a fight scene in which kids are throwing bricks at each other and it's considered funny---and it goes on for 15 minutes <br /><br />Strange how none of the kids are even remotely hurt<br /><br />The title cards contain plenty of racial and ethnic slurs<br /><br />For a 'family' film the fights were WAY too violent (loved it when Pickford was punching it out with a little boy!) and the humor was just stupid <br /><br />Seriously, 40 minutes in I gave up and turned it off. The slurs, racism and little kids throwing bricks at each other got to me. Also there was no plot that I could see. The only thing worth seeing in this film was William Haines who was a top leading man in the silent era.<br /><br />Just painful. Avoid. | 1 |
It's sad when you can see what a movie was attempting to do, and it is quite obvious that it fell far far short of the mark. Film students should take this as a lesson and a warning. Would be graduate has an idea. He wants total control. So he writes, directs, produces, his cinematic masterpiece all by himself. Usually, his concept is far beyond his budget. Usually he writes an overblown script full of every tag line he can come up with. Usually, he is more interested in the grand sweep of the story rather than on the nitty gritty of working with actors on individual scenes. Usually, he ends up with a movie that is feeble in it's attempt to create miracles on a tiny budget. Usually, he ends up with a series of encounters (we cannot do justice by calling them scenes) that feel like they were written by a 12 year old. And usually he ends up with badly acted scenes that fail to grab the viewer. When you look at Judges from this perspective you can immediately tell it's just the usual fare. | 1 |
I am afraid it was a movie that you have to ACTUALLY WATCH to get anything out of it.I t is not a mindless movie like .....'LEATHAL WEAPON PART 58' you know the one where Riggs is really crazy? it is not a movie that is pretty much the same at the end as it is a the beginning. you can run everywhere talk on the phone do what ever and enjoy it in any way.I have noticed in the past that most people that do not like this type of movie are the type that will do most anything but watch a movie and then slam it because .....duh they don't get it or understand it or what happened.<br /><br />DON'T LET YOUR DOGGY TAKE A SHOWER!!! | 0 |
I'm sorry, but I cannot understand what people were smoking when they wrote how great they thought 'Ethan Mao' was. I have seen better acting, character and plot development in pornos! WARNING: I am going to give away a key element to the 'plot'. After holding his family hostage overnight, Ethan lets his vile, evil, hated step-mom go to the bank - ALONE!!! - to retrieve the piece of his late mom's jewellery which he so desperately wants. Guess what? She calls the cops! Wow ... what a twist! I couldn't see that coming at all.<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie was that it was less than 90 minutes.<br /><br />Pure, unadulterated rubbish! | 1 |
Nick Cage is Randall Raines, a retired car thief who is forced out of retirement when he's forced to save his the life of his brother Kip (Giovanni Ribisi) when he screws up on a job, by completing his brothers job of stealing 50 cars in one night. He has to get together his old crew that he can trust to help him pull it off and get his bro out of dutch. But the cops are onto him, so can he pull it off? This was one of the great candidates of a film to re-make as the Original was far from a classic. And if you don't go into it expecting much, and turn the thinking portion of your brain off so you can ignore the plot hole ans just take the movie for what it is. You'll end up enjoying the ride. Watch it on a double-bill with 'The Fast and the Furious' for a night of high-speed hijinks, just don't take the car out for a spin right afterwards.<br /><br />My Grade: B- <br /><br />DVD Extras: 7 minute Jerry Bruckheimer Interview; Bruckheimer Bio/Filmography; Action Overload: Highlight Reel; The Big Chase; '0 To 60' featurette; 'Wild Rides' featurette; Stars On The Move; The Cult 'Painted On The Heart' music video; Theatrical Trailer, and Trailers for 'Shanghai Noon', 'Mission to Mars' and 'Coyote Ugly' | 0 |
I like the time period, I like the attempt, but watching a movie that looks like I'm looking at it through a coke bottle gives me a headache. If I played computer games that were this blurry and out of focus, I would upgrade my computer. Could be that this was the look the director was after, but not so it hurts the eyes and you want to leave after 10 minutes. If I hadn't taken someone with me to this film, I was out of there. Even though it was a series and not a movie per say, Band of Brothers accomplished this. They made it look like WWII footage, with just a touch of graininess, but it was still a pleasure to watch. Movies need real people, with real sets, and real locations; Use CGI when it is appropriate, not for an entire film. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.