review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
While I totally disagree with one reviewer who described Charley Chase as unfunny, in this film he certainly is. It's a shame, as I suspect the other reviewer must have only seen a few Charley Chase duds and assumed the guy wasn't funny. Films like MIGHTY LIKE A MOOSE and WHAT PRICE GOOFY? are very good Chase films, so he COULD be really funny given good material. Unfortunately, in this film he's given absolutely nothing. Even the inclusion of the usually good Oliver Hardy as a foil isn't any help because the basic premise (boy wants to marry girl but girl's father thinks the boy is a wuss) and the gags are so poor. It's a shame, as I really wanted to love this film but couldn't.<br /><br />By the way, for those used to the look for Charley from the mid-1920s on, you'll be pretty surprised as Chase sports no glasses or mustache--and looks very little like you'd expect. | 1 |
Oh, well I thought it should be a good action, but it was not. Although Jeff Speakman stars there is nothing to watch.Only two fight for almost 1,5 hours, yak.A lot of talking and everything is so artificial that you could not believe it. The plot is clear from the beginning. If you want good action don't rent this movie. | 1 |
I saw this at the theater in the early 1970's. The most memorable and scary scene is when the German army attacks with yellow cross mustard gas for the first time. The Germans and their horses are covered from head to toe (or hoof) with eerie protective suits. The experienced British soldiers don gas masks (only) and once again await the clouds of gas and the German attackers. The gas clouds move ever closer, finally enveloping the British defenders. The Germans move forward slowly menacingly in their scary looking garb. Suddenly a scream from the defenders... This gas is like no other that they have experienced before.... <br /><br />Now you will know why I have remembered this scene for the last 30+ years and still shiver, I think that you will too! | 0 |
Saw this on cable back in the early 90's and loved it. Never saw it again until it showed up on cable again recently. Still find it a great Vietnam movie. Not sure why its not higher rated. I found everything about this film compelling. As a vet (not from Vietnam) I can relate to the situations brought by both Harris and De Niro. I can only imagine this film being more poignant now with our situation in Iraq. I wish this would be offered on cable more often for people to see. The human toll on our soldiers isn't left on the battlefield. Its brought home for the rest of there lives. And this film is one of many that brings that home in a very hard way. Excellent film. | 0 |
Up until the sixth and last episode of the Star Wars saga, which finally ended in 2005, I had always looked at this 1983 entry as my favorite film of the long-running series. The varied action scenes and really different characters (Jabba The Hut, furry woodland creatures, etc.) made this a particularly appealing movie.<br /><br />None of the action ever focused too long in one spot, either. The last half hour exemplifies this the most as the scene switches every few minutes from the woods to the battle among space ships to the individual laser-duel between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.<br /><br />Another nice characteristic this film had that the two previous did not was the absence of in-fighting between two of the stars. Gone was the incessant bickering between Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford. Finally, everyone was on the same page! It was nice to see.<br /><br />In the end, this was simply a wonderful adventure tale, more than anything else. | 0 |
Has some really good music and performances; Kid Creole and the Coconuts, James White and the Blacks, DNA, Tuxedo Moon, the Plastics, Melle Mel, Vincent Gallo, Lydia Lunch...etc, but aside from this there isn't much more to it. The dialog, especially the narration(by Saul Williams), is actually pretty good, but the performances are all pretty bland or outright bad, no matter how many hipsters are thrown in; Debbie Harry and Jean Micheal Basquit(the latter being the leading role) both still don't have enough cultural cred to keep this film from being a novelty item. It goes for the a Jack Kerouac style roving spontaneity, but doesn't have the insight to keep it moving along, which is where the band performances come in. I guess its pretty balanced in that regard between great music and bad acting, and I did enjoy it, but I just expected more. Though it does have a fairy tale ending. | 1 |
i see hundreds of student films- this is tops. james cox is a fantastic director- he moves the camera, tells the story and uses music in a way that is far advanced for his years. no wonder he got a feature from this film.<br /><br /> | 0 |
The old axiom that bored people are boring people is well demonstrated in 'Women in Love.' The script, taken from D. H. Lawrence's novel, contains an endless flow of concepts that are, at best, sophomoric.<br /><br />What a pity so much effort went into so vacuous an exercise; what an empty array of characters given such attention. In spite of high production values, this film comes across as tedious as its personnel.<br /><br />A revisit in 2001 merely confirms a 1969 impression of juvenille minds in adult bodies, dawdling nowhere, and fumbling every step of the way. | 1 |
A concept with potential, and it was fun to see these two holiday icons together, but...<br /><br />Rudolph's glowing nose didn't require the 'explanation' offered in this film - much like The Force in the Star Wars films didn't need the explanation of 'medichlorians in the bloodstream.' But mainly, the film left me cold because of Winterbolt's over-complicated plot to destroy Santa. He's got the power to put suggestions into people's minds, so why does he do things in such a roundabout way? Breaking the magic of Rudolph's nose, framing Rudolph, threatening to melt the Frosty family...The comedically exaggerated plots of Pinky and the Brain and 'Phineas and Ferb's' Dr. Doofenshmirtz (which are done that way on purpose and played for laughs) seem simple and straightforward compared to Winterbolt's, which we're expected to take somewhat seriously.<br /><br />There is a particularly (and amusingly) strange moment when a character throws her two guns at the bad guy, like boomerangs. I understand if they don't want to have guns being shot in a family film, but then why have guns in the first place? | 1 |
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** This is without a doubt the best film Rainer Werner Fassbinder ever made and even with the marvelous script the film is enhanced by a great performance by Hanna Schygulla. Film starts out with Maria (Schygulla) and Hermann Braun (Klaus Lowitsch) just getting married as the bombs continue to fall and Hermann is shipped out towards the waning days of the war and now Maria and her mother and sister must scrape by to survive. Maria decides to get a job as a dancer/prostitute in a club that caters to American GI's and she meets a black Army soldier named Bill (Greg Eagles) and they start to see one another on a steady basis. Maria hears that her husband Hermann has died in the war so she gets very serious with Bill. But one day while getting intimate with Bill they see Hermann at the door. He hasn't died and when he enters the room a scuffle occurs and Maria breaks a bottle over Bill's head and he dies. Hermann takes the blame and he is sentenced to a long term in jail so Maria tells him that she will succeed at something and get him out. The war has ended and Germany must rebuild and one day on a train Maria meets Karl Oswald (Ivan Desny) who is a successful businessman in textiles and she uses her charms to get a job. Maria is determined to do well and climbs the corporate ladder and becomes Karl's mistress. She tells him that she will never marry him but he is in love with her. Hermann gets out of jail but goes to Canada to try and get over everything that Maria has done since he has been locked up.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT*****<br /><br />One day Karl dies and leaves Maria just about everything in his will and Maria buys her own house. Then Hermann finally comes home to his wife and they are both ready to start they're marriage even though they have been married for some time now. But Maria leaves the gas on the stove and the house explodes with both of them still in it.<br /><br />There are so many interesting things in this film that its one of those movies that can be studied and talked about to great lengths. Like in all Fassbinder films the use of color is used in a very interesting way. As the film begins the tones are brown and gray to represent war torn Germany but as Maria starts to become successful they change to bright rich colors like red and white. The rebuilding of Germany with all the sounds of construction are used as only backdrop and the film stays focused on the exploits of Maria. Fassbinder did want the sounds of rebuilding to remind us of what was going on in Germany at that time. Hanna Schygulla was never better and her performance is the key to the success of this film. With a lesser actress this would have been just another interesting film but Schygulla is so strong that her performance elevates this film to an elite status. Schygulla shows Maria as very determined and smart but at the same time she uses her beauty and femininity to get what she wants. She's not embarrassed nor does she feel guilty about this and Fassbinder wanted to show Maria as a woman who practically sells her soul to survive. Schygulla wasn't nominated for an Academy Award but she gave a great performance that will stand the test of time. Fassbinder himself appears in the film as a peddler and his own mother Lilo Pempeit plays Frau Ehmke. I have heard many things about the ending of the film and it has to do with whether Maria purposely left the gas on. Later in the bathroom she is running water over her wrist and she appears to be sad. This is only speculation and if you think I'm wrong please e-mail me. I think she was overly excited by Hermann being home and left it on by accident (Remember her putting on a dress for no reason?). Then when the will is being read to her its at that point that she learns that Hermann and Karl had become friendly without her knowledge and I think she felt that everything she had done was for nothing. Thats the reason for the bathroom scene. So when the house explodes its by accident. But I think the reason for Fassbinder having an ending like that is to show that anyone who would sell their soul has no business living. Fassbinder was fascinated by survivors but he was also incredibly passionate. In his view Maria can't have it both ways. A fascinating film. | 0 |
A bus drops off a nameless man outside a run-down Standard Oil gas station in the middle of nowhere. We never learn where the bus came from, or why he is on it, or who he even is. Why is he the only passenger? Is he a prisoner? Is he the 'bothersome man' referred to in the title of the movie? Has he died and gone to heaven, or hell? Like our man, we don't get a chance to stop and wonder. He is met by a gatekeeper of sorts and shuttled off to a nondescript city. From day one, all the choices are made for him. An apartment has been rented, a job has been found, an office assigned. In fact, his life is not entirely unlike life in the virtual reality of corporate cubicles and suburban condos. Women are heartless, dinner parties are a drag, office jobs suck. But some pieces don't fit the puzzle. Silently efficient, gray-clad goons roam the streets. Are they some sort of paramedics, or the secret police? And why are there no children? Is the story even set in the real world? Whenever we think we might be getting some answers, new mysteries unfold. 'The Bothersome Man' leaves you half relieved that it's over, half wanting more. I hope they make it into a computer game soon. | 0 |
When this film plays on television you might want to save about 90 minutes of your time and change the channel. There's nothing special here that you need to see. Story is about two married couples from Arkansas who go on a trip together to Reno. Couple number one is Lonnie Earl Dodd (Billy Bob Thornton) who is a car dealer and having problems with his marriage. His wife is Darlene (Natasha Richardson) and she has a low self opinion of herself and they haven't been intimate in a long time. Lonnie has been sleeping with Candy (Charlize Theron) who is the wife of his best friend Roy Kirkendall (Patrick Swayze). They all drive to Reno and the four of them stay in one luxurious suite. Roy and Candy have been trying to have a baby and finally Candy discovers that she is pregnant. But Roy phones his doctor in Arkansas and finds out that he's sterile. Candy and Lonnie admit their affair and now the whole trip is in chaos. This film is directed by Jordan Brady and he's made a few other low budget films but this is his first with a cast this impressive. Unfortunately Brady doesn't show much comedic flair but you can't lay all the blame on him. This script is just not funny and one of the glaring problems is that the characters are all written down to a sitcom level. Just because they're all from the south doesn't mean that they have to be naive and idiotic. Thornton's character doesn't have the sophistication to tip the bellboy more than a dollar. And Swayze's character is called stupid and dumb by everyone throughout the film and one of the rare good moments comes when he asks everyone to lay off of him for at least one day. Penelope Cruz pops up as a prostitute and it's a totally worthless and pointless cameo. She barely speaks more than 3 or 4 lines! I think she was fulfilling an obligation to Harvey and Bob Weinstein who are executive producers for this film. The only person who actually isn't to bad is Richardson. We watch her become more confident in herself but this plotline in the film is very obvious and cliche. All of these actors should know better and it's hard to figure that they all read the script and liked it. It's a complete waste of time for these actors but at least they got paid. As for the viewers, your not getting paid so skip this one! | 1 |
This is just Art house rubbish. I sat watching this trash with my Bosnian Friends they found it as boring as i did. For a more interesting and more true account watch the excellent movie Saviour. This is just a snoozefest with people talking in coffee shops.A cure for insomnia. 1 out of 10 | 1 |
This movie is one of the most awful I've ever seen. Not only is the dialogue awful, it never ends. You'll think it's ending, but it's not. How long is it, 140, 160 minutes? I don't even know. I do know that I'll never watch it again. It's like someone took a romantic comedy, took out the comedy, then decided to downplay the romance, leaving us with the pile of crap that managed to make its way to the screen. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself how terrible this film is. | 1 |
I thought it was brilliant! It was great watching the presenter tracking each one of them down. Dwight Schultz still looked the same, he had hardly changed in looks, neither had Dirk Benedict, he still looked just as dishy! I thought that Mr T looked thinner though, but it was still great to see how he looked after all this time. I thought that it took some doing tracking down the other members of the cast, such as the one who played Decker, and the lady who played Amy. It was just a shame that Mr T could'nt make the actual reunion. Also it was a great shame that George Peppard had died, thereby leaving a gap so to speak. I only wish now that I had taped it to keep. Let's hope that they repeat it again. | 0 |
A fey story of a Martian attempt to colonize Earth. (Things must be pretty bad back on Mars.) Two state troopers investigate the scene of a reported UFO crash. Whatever landed is buried under the ice at Tracy's Pond but there are footsteps in the snow leading to a nearby diner.<br /><br />The diner has had no customers since eleven o'clock that morning. Now there are a handful of bus passengers sitting around waiting for permission to cross a structurally weak bridge. The bus driver insists that six passengers were aboard the bus, although he didn't notice who they were. The problem is that there are now SEVEN people waiting for the journey to be resumed. One of them is an alien, but which one? All of them are suspect. There's the crazy old man (Jack Elam), of course, who seems to exercise a sub rosa wit. There's a blustering businessman who must get to Boston (John Hoyt). A young couple on their honeymoon. (Execrable performance by the husband, Ron Kipling.) Except for the couples, nobody has noticed anyone else. And even the couples are suspicious of each other. Bride to newly minted husband: 'I could have sworn you had a mole on your chin.' The story continues in a sprightly but slightly spooky way -- the phone rings for no reason, the lights go on and off, the juke box turns itself on -- and none of it is to be taken seriously.<br /><br />It's a thoroughly enjoyable ensemble play and the climactic revelation is worth a chuckle. There is no discernible 'depth' to it. It's not a moral message about pod people masquerading as normal citizens. It's not a warning of any kind, just a fairy tale that diverts and amuses.<br /><br />I always enjoy it when it's on. It's especially interesting to see John Hoyt as the irritable and impatient businessman, knowing that in 1954 he was the Roman Senator who masterminded the assassination of Julius Caesar in MGM's version of Shakespeare's play. And here he is -- with three arms.<br /><br />Oops. | 0 |
This is not a good film by an standards. It is very poorly written and the acting is just a little above par (some performances are well below par, but Swayze and Grey do a very good job with little to work with).<br /><br />What was good:<br /><br />The dance sequences were choreographed very well and, as stated above, Swayze and Grey were high points.<br /><br />What was bad:<br /><br />The script. The 'bad' guys were simply too evil to be believable. The best villains are the ones who aren't so obviously evil. These guys (the owner's nephew, the waiter who impregnates the girl) do and say NOTHING that would leave me to believe they could be real people (perhaps there are guys like them, but I sure don't want to see a movie about it).<br /><br />Another scene, the first where Grey and Swayze meet when the employees at the resort are 'dancing'. Swayze and Grey dance together and seem to enjoy themselves. The next time they meet, Swayze is hostile towards her. Why? What happened in between to make him dislike her so when they danced well together?<br /><br />And some of those lines, I mean COME ON (I cringed at the end when Swayze muttered the line 'Nobody puts baby in the corner'. How did he EVER do that with a straight face.)<br /><br />Another thing wrong, the setting of the 1960's. Everyone looked and dressed like the 1980's! Who was in charge of the costumes and hairstyles?<br /><br />The music (original music for the film) was laughable (with the exception of 'I Had the Time of My Life' which was a good song).<br /><br />Not the worst film I've ever seen, but DEFINITELY the most over-rated | 1 |
I was one of quite a few extras in this big bomb. I just happened to be in the right place working safety for the race scenes at A.I.R. as it was know as back then.Thank goodness my scene in in the first few minutes of the movie and I don't have to sit through the whole thing. It was more of a big party than a movie set but hey, the pay was good.Attention to detail was not a strong point for this one, but who was going to know.The funny thing was seeing the cars in the track at the really slow speed and then in the movie speeded up to the what was close to normal speed.A lot of the scenes were changed as they were filmed I suppose to shave cost and time.But every one was having such a good time who cared! | 1 |
Mirror. Mirror (1990) is a flat out lame movie. Why did I watch movies like this when I was younger? Who knows? Maybe I was one for punishing myself by watching one terrible movie after another. I don't know, I guess I needed a hobby during my teen years. A teenage outcast (Rainbow Harvest) seeks solace in an old mirror. Soon she learns about the horrific power this antique mirror has and uses it to strike out against those who have wronged her. Movies like these, the power giver has a nasty side effect. This one changes her inside and out if she likes it or not.<br /><br />A mess of a movie that for some reason was restored on d.v.d. a few years back. I don't know why. They should have left it on the shelf and collect dust. People love this movie foe some reason. If you do I would like to know why. Until then I dislike this movie and I have no reason to ever watch it again.<br /><br />Not recommended at all. | 1 |
Serendipity. I thought I was off to a bad start, bringing home the wrong dvd in the case of 'The Intruder'. Rental stores' staff! So I did not want to see this film but I am glad I did. In all probablility my chosen movie would not have been as superb a slice film as this delectable and delicate taste of what independants in both US and Europe can do together. Seven years apart, two heroine sisters embark on fantastic journeys through early 1970's post-student demo / Baader-Meinhof Europe. Sumptuously shot in the Algarve, Portugal; and in Berlin, Paris, and Amsterdam (reminiscent of the feel of the exterior shots in Paul Verhoeven's early masterpiece, 'The Fourth Man'), it's touchingly acted by Brewster , Diaz and especially Christopher Ecclestone.The story unveils itself along an abstracted plot, capturing the ephemeral emotions of these characters as they confront their relationships and see idealised images of each other and themselves shattered. A movie with great refinement and taste. Not for Arnie Commando fans, which is probably why the reviewer upstairs is so wide of the mark in 'his' claims that this is a girly film. Daft criteria. Wrong too. Well worth experimenting with. | 0 |
At the bottom end of the apocalypse movie scale is this piece of pish called 'The Final Executioner'.. at least where I come from. A bloke is trained by an ex-cop to seek vengeance on those that killed his woman and friends in cold blood.. and that's about it. Lots of fake explosions and repetitive shootings ensue. Has one of the weirdest array of costumes I've seen in a film for a while, and a massive fortress which is apparently only run by 7 people. GREAT job on the dubbing too guys(!) Best moment: when our hero loses a swordfight and is about to be skewered through the neck, he just gets out his gun and BANG! Why not do that earlier? It's a mystery. As is why anyone would want to sit through this in the first place. I'm still puzzling over that one myself now.. 2/10 | 1 |
The idea of making a film about the Beatles sounds doomed idea, as no production can catch the idea of the actual historic Beatles. Then it is perhaps best not to try to recreate the past, but to produce an illustration that works best with the other available Beatles material. This is exactly what 'Birth of the Beatles' offers to us, the simple story known to us without any extravaganza.<br /><br />*** SPOILERS here on *** <br /><br />Be warned that not everything is that accurate as some Beatles-graduates might expect. The Beatles are seen performing songs that hardly were even composed by that time. The Beatles perform 'Ask Me Why', 'P.S. I Love You' and even 'Don't Bother Me'. The Beatles-graduates should see that if the Beatles on the film only performed songs that they actually did at Hamburg, the younger viewers might not anymore recognize the Beatles they have learned to know them. Of that original Hamburg repertoire only 'Johnny B. Goode' and Stu Sutcliffe's 'Love Me Tender' are retained.<br /><br />The guys who play the Beatles in this production scarcely look like the originals, but the rest of the film still make good viewing as the film is for the rest fairly accurate. The guy who plays Lennon does it good and the rest of the band are not bad either. Brian Epstein is great and the moment when he sacks Pete Best from the group is probably the most memorable scene in the whole film. Also as a bonus you get to see the original Cavern club in the film. | 0 |
The story concerns a genealogy researcher (Mel Harris) who is hired by her Estee Lauder-like cosmetic queen aunt. Her aunt (by marriage we are left to presume) is trying to track down her long lost family in Europe. All they have to go on is a photo of a young girl standing by an ornate music box. The researcher heads to Europe and conducts her search in places like Milan, Budapest, and Vienna. The scenery is the real thing and is actually shot on location (unlike a Murder, She Wrote where Jessica is supposed to be visiting a far-flung locale and Lansbury never left Burbank). Anyway, she meets a young man who is also searching to solve a family mystery of his own and they team up to track down clues and menace bad guys. The dialogue, particularly the romantic dialogue, is terrible. I watched this because of the scenery but the script was so bad that I stayed on just to see if it would get worse. It did. Acting was also off. I can see why Mel Harris's career never really took off after thirtysomething, but she is adequate (seems too old for her co-star though). But, the supporting players are straight out of the community playhouse. I also lost count of how many times they say 'Budapest' to each other. Yes, it is pronounced Bood-a-phesht. We know, okay? I realized halfway into the film that this had to be one of those Harlequin movies and sure enough it is. Guess that says it all. | 1 |
Fair drama/love story movie that focuses on the lives of blue collar people finding new life thru new love.The acting here is good but the film fails in cinematography,screenplay,directing and editing.The story/script is only average at best.This film will be enjoyed by Fonda and De Niro fans and by people who love middle age love stories where in the coartship is on a more wiser and cautious level.It would also be interesting for people who are interested on the subject matter regarding illiteracy....... | 0 |
I've read the comments on Las Vegas and do agree with some of them, it's not brain surgery TV, but then again I was under the impression that TV was mainly for escapism, especially with what is going on in today's world. Let's face it, a show about Vegas (that isn't a reality based programme) isn't going to one based on reality because to me Vegas is pure fantasy! It's the sort of place where we can go and pretty much do what we want when we want (subject to funds obviously!).<br /><br />Therefore the fact that Las Vegas is pretty, sexy and cliched with characters that reflect all this seems to be on the money in my eyes. If you don't like it, don't watch it, that what we have a million channels for!<br /><br />We're coming up to the third episode here in the UK and I know that I will be making a beeline to watch it again. I just hope it's not cancelled, something that seems to be happening a lot with most of the shows that come to the UK that are half decent! (Firefly and Jake 2.0 anyone?!!).<br /><br />It's harmless, great looking fun and everytime I watch it, I want to go back to the real thing :) | 0 |
I found it very very difficulty to watch this after the initial 5 minutes of the film. I managed to stomach 45-50 minutes before switching it off in disgust and watching Monster House instead (which, by the way, is great fun).<br /><br />The story has massive holes in it. The plot line is hugely over stated and dull, the acting is awful, especially from Justin TImberlake who should really stick to what he is good at (looking daft and singing like a castrato). Morgan Freeman looked incredibly uncomfortable, especially when made to dance around to rock music for no apparent reason half way through the film after him and Timberlake meet. Freeman and Timberlake's characters seem to be supposed to have some sort of father/son relationship of sorts or something, which simply isn't evident at all apart from the fact that; though Freeman's character seems to have nothing but contempt for the ignorant and rather stupid character of Timberlake, he never the less pulls out all the stops to help him uncover a completely ridiculous cover up.<br /><br />It would take some incredible suspension of disbelief to give any credit to the story line, which is simply absurd and blown out of all proportion.<br /><br />Don't watch this film, it is a pure waste of time. | 1 |
If you're in the mood for a really bad porno with no good porn combined with a really bad horror movie, this movie is perfect for you. However, if you breathe air, make sure you spend your time watching anything but this. The acting is crappy. The 'plot' is crappy. They try too hard, and the whole time I was waiting for the one good redeeming scene that might make the movie worth watching. Nope. Stick with the scrambled cable. | 1 |
A great concept gone wrong. Poor acting, even worse writing....After watching the first two episodes I was wondering why it ever made it to season two. The characters are forgettable, the writing is poor, the sets are just OK. The special effects are simply sad - so much better has been made in the same time-frame - where is the money going on this one? The first episode starts out interesting then goes downhill fast - the precept of the whole show is just silly. Now don't get me wrong, I am a huge Sci-Fi fan and 'geek' - but this show simply doesn't cut it. As I said in the beginning, I am truly surprised it made it to season two - so much better has been canceled after only one season (Jake 2.0 for example). This show was just bad. | 1 |
Absolute garbage, worse fight scenes than a 20 year old van damme movie or American ninja etc.<br /><br />Truly dire acting, not a skill in sight in the entire movie its like a cast of wooden sculptures.<br /><br />Watch it just for how truly bad this film is, it may have been acceptable in the 80s but this is a 2006 movie, i don't have much love for this movie as it wasn't born in the 80s.<br /><br />If you like real fight movies then check out tony jaa in ong bak and the protector, those are proper martial arts films.<br /><br />have a laugh and watch this today you may see the unintenional humour at how grim it is. | 1 |
Great drama with all the areas covered EXCEPT for screenlay which was too slow and should have shown more relevant scenes like Pitt's character interviewing the President,or Pitt getting murdered instead of just having it described to us.Scenes like those would have kept the audience awake.Cutting away some useless minutes could have made more room for more heartpounding scenes like those.The dragging of the film kept this one from all time greatness although to see Pitt here makes the film so worth watching.Also,big fans of fising,early 20th century styles and Montana will really like this as well........ | 0 |
007's Goldeneye is one of the best N64 releases ever.<br /><br />Better than this game? Well...Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Star Wars: Episode I-Racer and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are far better and superior games. But I still love Goldeneye.<br /><br />This is the best adaptation from a movie second only to Star Wars adaptations. The story is perfect. It's like you are in the movie itself.<br /><br />The graphics are excellent. The movements are extremely realistic. The enemies' artificial intelligence are the best part in this game. I loved playing the stage in which James and Natalya break from the Janus base as the Goldeneye prepares to burn it. Escaping without sounding an alarm was very difficult. Eluding cameras and controlling your fire are great aspects in the gameplay.<br /><br />It's also the toughest game I've ever played. N64 games are usually very, very easy. Goldeneye is the one exception. I'm still trying to beat the 00 Agent difficult level, but winning the easier levels was already a great victory. I loved when Alec Trevelyan asked: 'For England James?'. I answered: 'No, for ME!' It happened just in the moment I blasted him to death. Just like in the movie. I love accomplishing every objective.<br /><br />The multiplayer gaming is even better. At first I got killed every holy second. Now, I know how to win. I love forcing my playmates by playing at License to Kill.<br /><br />The music and sound are astounding. Super Mario 64 looks like an Atari next to this. The only thing I still wanted to hear was the Goldeneye theme song, that plays at the end of the movie.<br /><br />After Zelda was released, I nearly forgot I still had this game. It's still excellent, even if it's already surpassed. I hope other 007 games are produced.<br /><br />Fantastic job Rareware! Nintendo was very smart to release this game on the N64 exclusively. Magnificent job Nintendo! | 0 |
How unfortunate, to have so many of my 'a' list, and good 'b' list actors agree to do this movie, but they did, and that is what sucked me into watching it. I had never heard of this movie, but there was Cuba Gooding Jr. right on the DVD cover, and James Woods in the background how bad can it be? In a word Very! This movie starts o.k. has some twists and turns, then just lays an egg. The ending was so weak, it was as if the writer got called away and his 4 year old son sat down at the type writer and hacked out the ending. How ironic a for a movie titled 'The end game' to have such a poor one. These are the types of movies that can move 'a' list actors to the 'b' list in hurry. I hope Cuba Gooding JR, and James Woods don't make a habit of this. | 1 |
I, being a fan of Rupert Grint, rented this film a few months ago. I thought it was a very well written movie with a bunch of great actors. It was entertaining, and showed that Rupert Grint could play more than his most well known character of Ron Weasley. His subtle portrayal of Ben and everyone else's great acting made this film very likable.<br /><br />Ben, a very shy boy with a extremely religious and sensitive mother, is looking for a job. He finds one and becomes the, I guess you could call 'assistant' to Evie, a retired actress. At first, it is just a way for him to earn some money. But after a while, he and Evie seem to develop a friendship. Evie helps Ben break out of his shell a little and gets him to have fun and be happy with himself, and in the end they both seem to need each other.<br /><br />Whether you are a fan of Rupert Grint or not, this movie is a really entertaining one with some very cute and moments. I highly recommend it to anybody who wants to see a great movie with great and talented actors. | 0 |
Sappy.<br /><br />I liked how they went to the 'Haaavaad baaa' to quote books at each other to impress the ugliest girl there.<br /><br />Probably the janitor at my school is a genius too but is waiting to land that big construction job.<br /><br />Just because you keep your nose to the grindstone is no reason to try to cut a steak with it. 'Do you like apples?'<br /><br />the guy nods or something.<br /><br />'Well, how'd ya like DEM APPLES!' Wow, that IS genius.<br /><br />Duh, Minnie Driver would give her number to anybody. Robin Williams can't paint and keeps the good books on the top shelf. And there's a professor who always wears a priest scarf for no reason. | 1 |
Still Crazy has been compared to the Spinal Tap since both are comedies about wash-up R&R groups. Actually, here the similarity ends because Still Crazy is much better written and acted out, whereas Spinal Tap script deteriorates from the mildly amusing first 10 min into a drivel that makes Beavis and Butthead to appear sophisticated in comparison. Still Crazy is formulaic but the likability of the characters and the unexpectedly high quality of some musical numbers for me managed to offset the a priori predictability of the movie. People who expect Spinal Tap-like attempt on satire would be disappointed by the light-hearted nature of the movie, but I'd take a successful self-ironic romp of Still Crazy over a pompous but failed shot at satire which is Spinal Tap. | 0 |
After seeing the movie in a class of mine and having a talk with the filmmaker, I found out exactly why the film bombed the way it did. The creators of the movie had no intention to call the film '8MM 2.' Originally, the film was called 'The Velvet Side of Hell' but was changed at the last minute by Sony Pictures to 8MM 2 without letting the filmmakers have any say in the matter. By doing that, it screwed them out of theatrical releases and doomed it to a straight to video release with minimal advertising.<br /><br />Again, this is from the filmmaker's mouths, not mine, so I really can't say what is truth, and what is hype.<br /><br />If you look at the film as 'Velvet Side of Hell,' it isn't THAT bad. It isn't great, but it is not god awful. It would basically just be a B-movie that likes to show boobs. But as a sequel to '8MM,' the film fails terribly. | 1 |
The word in the summary sums it up d'oh ;) Five girls get lost trying to find their way home, when they stop at a store to get directions they hit a parked car breaking one headlight on it, they flea the scene in fair of getting in trouble but suddenly they see one headlight coming up behind them (ooooh).<br /><br />From there out everything is screaming, crying and violence when they try to get away from this crazy person who lost it because of a headlight ;), well the screaming and crying pretty much stays through the entire movie (very annoying) The movie is shot, with a cheap camera trying to make it seem 'real' or 'shocking' I guess, it's just embarrassing and useless though. In lack of anything better to compare it with, 'Blair witch style'.<br /><br />The screaming and crying for pretty much the entire movie with crappy sound was over the top annoying, you literally get a headache :)<br /><br />I'm sorry but this was not scary, only an annoying painful piece of crap movie. | 1 |
In my never-ending quest to see as many quality movies as possible in my lifetime, i stumbled upon this film on cable. I tried Hitchcock three times before this, and never have i felt that the man's work lived up to the praise he had received. I always felt he was good, not great (from what I've seen) This was the best of his films I've seen thusfar. Robert Walker is absolutely chilling, his performance takes the film where Hitchcock wanted it to go. Even an average performance here damages the overall product. My favorite scene was his obsession about getting the lighter from the drain (how exactly does he get his arm down there though?) Bruno is quite a compelling character, but i also loved the performance by Patricia Hitchcock as Barbara. The rest of the Morton family as well as Guy were a bit dry and boring, but she added some flare to the movie, as well as having some of the better lines in the script.<br /><br />Lastly, in any suspense movie, you're going to live and die by your ending. This one holds water, unlike a couple other Hitchcock films I've seen. I truly was unsure of how it would end, which kept me on the edge while i watched and waited. | 0 |
For those who like depressing films with sleazy characters and a sordid storyline, this one is for you! From the bleak New York City atmosphere, which comes across as an extremely grim and almost hopeless place, to two diverse lead characters devoid of much sense of morality, this movie is a real downer. <br /><br />Why it won the Academy Award was because it was so shocking at that time that Hollywood, brand new its freedom to show anything it wanted with all moral codes abandoned, wanted to celebrate that fact. Filmmakers then were like an immature six-year-old with an unlimited expense account at the local candy store. So, Hollywood gave theater viewers (for probably the first time) a dose of rape, prostitution, homosexuality, child nudity, homeless existence and other such wonderful sights and sounds only its twisted brain would think is appealing....and then awarded its work. <br /><br />It also hoped, I'm sure, to shock mainstream audiences. Well, it succeeded on that level. Audiences were stunned at what they say and heard and the Academy, proud of itself for being able to display filth and make money at the same time, couldn't help but bestow honors upon this piece of gilded garbage.<br /><br />Forty years ago, as a very young man, I found this film fascinating, too. However, seeing it again in the 1990s left such a bad taste in my mouth I never watched to view it again. <br /><br />The acting was good, but so what? Acting is good in many films. Nobody ever said Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight couldn't act. Hoffman was particularly good in his younger days in playing wacked-out people. He was kind of like the Johnny Depp of his era, playing guys like 'Ratso Rizzo' in this film and then going to be the 'Rain Man' later on. Yes, 'Ratso' is a character you'll never forget, and 'Joe Buck' (Voight) is one you want to forget, but the story is so sordid, it overwhelms the fine acting.<br /><br />This movie isn't 'art,' and it isn't worthy of its many awards; it only pushed the envelope big-time in 1969 and that's why it is so fondly remembered in the hearts of film people and critics. It's two hours of profanity and ultra-sleazy, religious cheap shots, glorifying weirdos (Andy Warhol even gets in the act - no surprise), and generally despicable people.<br /><br />I did like the catchy song, 'Everybody's Talking'' that helped make Harry Nilsson famous, but even that was bogus because Fred Neil wrote the song and sang it better, before Nilsson did it....and few people have ever heard of Neil (which is their loss). And - as mentioned - the name 'Ratso Rizzo' kind of stays with you!<br /><br />The film is a landmark, but in a negative sense, I fear: this marked it as 'official' that Hollywood had gone down the toilet, and it has remained in the sewer ever since. | 1 |
Go immediately and rent this movie. It will be be on a bottom shelf in your local video store and will be covered in dust. No one will have touched it in years. It may even be a $.50 special! It's worth ten bucks, I swear! Buy it! There aren't very many films than can compare with this - the celluloid version of that goo that forms at the bottom of a trash can after a few years. Yes, I gave it a '1,' but it really deserves much lower. 1-10 scales were not designed with stuff like this in mind. | 1 |
Definitely worth watching.<br /><br />Ten different directors each present a segment based on their favorite opera aria. You don't need to be an opera lover to watch this film. (Although, of course, if you hate opera, you're really going to have a bad time with this!)<br /><br />Not surprisingly the segments range from brilliant to only fair. Most of the fuss seems to be over Godard's contribution -- whether you think he's brilliant or pretentious, his segment won't change your mind.<br /><br />Some of the pieces have a clear narrative; others are more a montage of connected images.<br /><br />None of the pieces is more than 10 minutes or so; if you're not happy with what's on the screen, wait for the next segment, and think about how much culture you're soaking up.<br /><br />Keep your eyes open for performances by Buck Henry, Beverly D'Angelo, Elizabeth Hurley, Briget Fonda, Tilda Swinton, and John Hurt. (The Buck Henry segment alone is worth the price of admission).<br /><br /> | 0 |
This is a pale imitation of the Die Hard franchise that just sucks. The low ambitions of the movie are clearly on display when the terrorists hold the Vice-President hostage and he has to call the White House to beg them to transfer some money. In most movies of this genre the President is kidnapped or held hostage because after all he (or she) is the most powerful person in the country with finger on the nuclear button etc etc. Would most Americans have really been worried if Dick Cheney had been kidnapped? The honest answer is- probably not. Why the terrorists would choose a Stanley Cup final to carry out their operation and why, despite many explosions around them, the audience inside the hockey stadium is oblivious to the situation, are unanswerable questions. Let's just say this film is really hokey, not hockey. Those who liked the film and found it to be exciting should get a life. | 1 |
This is one of the most outstanding horror movies i've ever seen in my life time. Forget the exorcist and all the other hype horror movies out there.John Carpenter as made a tour-de-force horror epic with outstanding special-effects great performances from Kurt Russell and co and a great soundtrack that will haunt you for ever! The greatest thing about this movie after 17 years is it has'nt dated it looks fresh and new and you don't get many movies like this.Back in 1982 this was up against E.T. and of course it failded and was a box-office bomb. Over the years THE THING as made a cult following from video and t.v sales and as many new fans. In the end this movie kicks ass and to me it as never loss it's edge to scare the pants off of you and to me that a horror movie. Long live John Carpenter!! | 0 |
This movie never made it to theaters in our area, so when it became available on DVD I was one of the first to rent it. For once, I should listened to the critics and passed on this one.<br /><br />Despite the excellent line up of actors the movie was very disappointing. I can see now why it went straight to video. <br /><br />I had thought that with Bloom, Ledger, and Rush it could have some value. All have done wonderful work in the past. <br /><br />The movie was slow moving and never pulled me in. I failed to develop much empathy for the characters and had to fight the urge to fast-forward just to get to the end. <br /><br />I do not recommend this film even if you are thinking of renting it for only for 'eye candy' purposes. It won't satisfy even that. | 1 |
Fairly appalling enterprise suggests Welsh to be an infantile artist, helplessly drawn to the violent milieu he knows best, but unable to resist vacuous elaborations rooted in banal fantasy. The first story is a ham-fisted, meaningless trudge with a B-movie sci-fi premise. The second achieves some poignancy, but only via the outrage-inducing surplus of humiliation visited on its central character. The third and most risible seems to aspire to being a dislocated sequel to Child's Play. The direction is consistently clueless - all whirling sound and fury, a slave to the extreme unpleasantness of the environment; suffocating in an ill-chosen music score and in indifferently flashy acting. This is sheer stupidity masquerading as a guerilla sensibility - as arbitrary and hollow as the abstract images that link the three sections. | 1 |
I am a huge Shirley Temple fan. When I saw this movie, it made me appreciate what a talented child Shirley actually was. Ashley Rose Orr made possibly the worst on-screen Shirley. Imagine an 11 year old playing Shirley Temple from the age of 5. That in itself is wrong. But getting her to 'mimick' Shirley's voice? And her singing is woeful. The dancing was good, I'll say that. As previous users have said, there was little dramatic scenes, nothing to make the story interesting. Not even Amelia Earhart... I would have liked to have seen more of the world wide phenomenon that Shirley Temple created. There was too much focus on the Wizard of Oz, when in reality, Shirley was just considered for Dorothy. The film portrays it as though it is the end of the world when she does not get the role. Shirley herself said that she is glad Judy Garland got to play her. For me the star of the show was the lady who played Gertrude Temple. Otherwise, stay away! For great Shirley Temple films, watch Heidi, Poor Little Rich Girl and Little Miss Broadway. | 1 |
Chaplin is a doughboy in his final film of 1918, a doughboy who can not seem to get the marching down straight. He spends time 'over there' in World War One trenches. Several gags stand out: Limburger cheese as a makeshift grenade for one. The cramped quarters of the barracks in the trenches and when Chaplin and his mates are washed out of their bunks by flooding are highlights. Chaplin ends up capturing several German soldiers single-handed, and he spanks the German commander for refusing a cigarette. When asked how he did it, Chaplin replies that he surrounded them. Chaplin hides behind enemy lines as a tree of all things, and those scenes are very very funny. He escapes to a bombed house where he meets up with a French girl played by Edna Purviance. He's tracked down by German soldiers, escapes from them again, and Purviance is arrested for assisting him. Chaplin is able to pull a fast one by bopping a soldier and using the soldier's uniform. He ends up saving Purviance of course and capturing the Kaiser in the process. Along the way, Chaplin employs some sight gags and slapstick in turning back the German soldiers. With this film, Chaplin explored the location possibilities in filming while maintaining the audience's attention for closer to feature length time, something his contract with the Mutual Film Corporation disallowed him. The film also allowed him to poke fun at the enemy, something he would again do to greater effect in The Great Dictator. *** of 4 stars. | 0 |
One should have the right to expect from people who make a film about the Second Coming and the Third Testament, that they had read the other two, or at least knew a little more about them than miracles and Judgement Day. This film contains absolutely nothing of relevance for viewers who are interested in Jesus, religion or philosophy -- there is only the standard British social realism with guttural dialects and plump characters in pubs.<br /><br />Actually, good candidates for a real Third Testament have been published several times - like 'A Course in Miracles' or 'Conversations with God'. They all have thought-provoking new twists and angles for Christian faith and theology.<br /><br />The most interesting information in IMDb's rating is not the number of stars, but how many people who have bothered to vote. In four years, only 387 people have bothered to vote for this film. As usual, the enthusiasts are the most eager. For comparison, have a look at 'Jesus Christ, Superstar' - original version from 1973. | 1 |
Michael Is King. This film contains some of the best stuff Mike has ever done. Smooth Criminal is pure genius. The cameos are wonderful, but as always, the main event is MJ himself. He is the best, hands down. | 0 |
Jingofighter I agree with some of your comments, but I have to disagree on a couple of things. First, this film is nothing like THE CARS THAT ATE Paris. Not IMHO. Nothing like it.<br /><br />I think the film had elements of surrealism, but I think the basic approach of the film maker is not 'surrealist' per se. therefore its not really like CARS Paris, I think more like a weird Euro work, with some scenes bearing the hallmark of 'wierd' not surreal.<br /><br />Secondly, I think the music by Heuzenroeder is brilliant. They used whistling, that old sound from Country and Western records, and its waaayyy better than most Aussie films which usually team the film maker up with a dumb sounding Indy band that the company wants to push.<br /><br />As for the name of the film - I don't know why it's called Modern Love, I was kinda hoping for David Bowie to appear dressed in drag and lipstick... opps I'm starting to show my age. | 0 |
This is one of quite a few cartoons with Bugs Bunny and Marvin the Martian - and a space dog called K-9 is included as well. This Looney Tunes episode is very funny, has reasonably good cartoon animation (Marvin's animation is very well done) and the plot is well done. The end is rather weird, so be prepared for it, it is slightly boring. <br /><br />In this episode, Marvin the Martian has been sent to earth to capture an earth creature and bring it back to Mars. With his trusty dog K-9, Marvin sets out and soon finds the tracks of no other rabbit but Bugs Bunny! He greets them with treats, thinking they are trick or treaters in their costumes. Little does he realise they are preparing themselves to take this rabbit to Mars...<br /><br />I recommend this episode to anyone who likes Bugs Bunny, Marvin the Martian and Looney Tunes in general. As far as the beginning and the middle of the episode are concerned, you are likely to like this. Enjoy 'Hasty Hare'! :-) | 0 |
Greetings again from the darkness. What ever happened to the great Barry Levinson? He directed two of my all-time favorites in 'Avalon' and 'Diner'. He had some fine movies as well ('Rainman'), but always provided something of interest ... until now. I believe the worst thing you can ever say about a comedy is that it is boring. 'Envy' is the definition of boring. Never of big fan of pure slap stick ('Dumb and Dumber'), I was just stunned at how god-awful this movie is. There are maybe 2 chuckles in the whole thing - if you can pay attention that long. The best part of the film is the running gag of the title song by a Redbone sound-alike. If the film had been written as well as the song, it would have been tolerable. Rachel Weisz is a wonderful actress and I realize they all want to do comedy (even Julianne Moore), but the real world exposes one weaknesses. SNL cast member Amy Poehler is her usual over the top in her role as trailer park trash turned princess. The disaster of the film is Jack Black and Ben Stiller. The first work commute together flashes some promise, but after that their chemistry disappears due to the poor script. This script is like most of Jack Black's character's ideas - not a bad thought, but no hope for success. | 1 |
I give this movie a ONE, for it is truly an awful movie. Sound track of the DVD is so bad, it actually hurts my ear. But the vision, no matter how disjointed, does show something really fancy in the Italian society. I will not go into detail what actually was so shocking , but the various incidents are absolutely abnormal. So for the kink value, i give it one.Otherwise, the video, photography, acting of the adults actors /actresses are simply substandard, a practical jock to people who love foreign movies.Roberto, the main character, has full spectrum of emotions but exaggerated to the point of being unbelievable.however, the children in the movie are mostly 3/4 years old, and they are genuine and the movie provides glimpse of the Italian life.. | 1 |
A movie like this makes me appreciate the work that professional actors do. I think movie-goers, in general, are a little too hard on professional actors and are ready to bash them for the most minuscule reasons. Just watch a couple minutes of 'Cheerlader Massacre,' and trust me, you'll change your views. A razzie would be almost a compliment for these no-talent actors. But then again, it's a Jim Wynorski film. Wynorski is a popular director of these ultra low-budget B-movies (having worked with Roger Corman on many an occasion). The problem with this movie is it actually tries to develop a plot. And when you have actors delivering lines like they're reading letters off an eye chart, how am I supposed to care? In Wynorski's 'Bare Wench 2,' he didn't try to develop a plot. He simply tried to make a softcore porn/goofy takeoff on the 'Blair Witch Project.' It was fun and it was titillating. 'Cheerleader Masscare' is no fun. There are a couple obligatory female nude scenes, but they are few and far between. So it's not even worth enjoying on an erotic level. I must say, the worst scene is the one where Nikki Fritz walks across a bridge that's about to collapse. First of all, her character didn't have to walk across that bridge. Second of all, as the bridge starts creaking, rather than try her best to run across, she just stands there and acts helpless. And top it off, we don't actually see the bridge collapse because the filmmakers made this for a budget of 2 dollars!!! Unlike a lot of B-horror films, this one's actually boring. And that's what makes it the worst of all bad movies. One of the few bright spots was Lunk Johnson, who's probably the most natural actor in the film (though certainly no more than halfway decent). He was funny in 'Bare Wench 2,' and had some funny scenes in this movie too. | 1 |
I made sure to see this film because it is a 1950s sci-fi film--one of my favorite genres. Unfortunately, while I was looking forward to either bug-eyed aliens or power-mad conquerers, the aliens in this film were a MAJOR disappointment! First, you only see one very briefly at the beginning (and he looked pretty ordinary) and you also only got a tiny glimpse of a spaceship! Second, the alien was neither the evil conquerer or the benevolent friend of mankind--but a real odd-ball. And finally, the plot itself seemed so dumb, preachy and heavy-handed that it elicited more yawns than thrills.<br /><br />As the film begins, five people from five different parts of the world (Germany, Britain, Russia, China and the USA) are kidnapped by an alien. The alien gives each of them devices by which they CAN destroy all life on the planet if they so choose--because, the alien admits that HIS race of people would love to inhabit the Earth but they themselves won't kill to get it. Then, he returns them all. While it's 100% obvious that no one would WANT to use these devices, the alien then announces on TV the identities of the five without telling that the weapons are THAT powerful! So, all the militarists in the world want to find the five and force them to reveal how the weapons work. Much of the rest of the film consists of some of the five going into hiding and one being tortured to get him to reveal how the device works--as the Soviets want to use it!!! This part of the film just seemed pretty silly. Sure the USSR was an evil and corrupt nation (sorry, but it's fact--especially under Stalin), they never would have thought of using it like they did in the movie! Later, one of the five (the German scientist), somehow figures out that the devices can also be used to kill only all the EVIL people who hate freedom. So, he uses it to wipe out all the evil Commies and presumably others who were anti-freedom and the world then becomes a paradise!! Preachy, silly and full of plot holes--this movie just isn't worth your time, though it is an interesting relic simply for the way it addresses Communism--in particular, the tensions between Nato and the Soviets. | 1 |
GOLD RAIDERS (1951)<br /><br />A dull western/comedy feature with the Three Stooges (including Shemp Howard at this point, who I've always enjoyed as the 'third Stooge') doing their usual schtick, and directed by the normally dependable Edward Bernds, who also did some of their funniest classic shorts -- so one has to wonder, just what went wrong this time? The most probable answer is that what worked pretty good as a 15-minute two-reeler comes up as too much for a 55-minute feature film. Unlike so many of their classic short subjects, GOLD RAIDERS is not worth revisiting.<br /><br />*1/2 of **** | 1 |
Nemesis Game is a mind-bending film filled with riddles, death, mystery, and philosophy. In it's simplest sense the film is about seeking answers and what happens when you've finally found them all. The search for answers leads Sarah Novak down a path that gets darker as it gets more compelling. The final answer seems more dangerous than it is worth, yet Sarah is so close to understanding it all. What would you do if you were offered the ability to finally make sense of the chaos of life?<br /><br />The movie was written and directed by Jesse Warn. While this was Warn's first feature length film, the movie doesn't reflect that at all, but instead shows polish and an artistic approach to telling the story. Carly Pope was powerful in the lead role and showed a depth of complexity that was fascinating to watch. I would definitely love to see more of her work.<br /><br />Being based on riddles, this is a very cerebral movie. It's that's your thing, as it is mine, then I totally recommend seeing Nemesis Game. Rating: 4.5/5 | 0 |
My expectations were quite high for this film. Everyone I know who saw this film at the cinema told me that everyone there stayed through the credits because they were so touched. My expectations could not have been any higher, anything short of wonderful would have disappointed me.<br /><br />I was anything but disappointed by this movie. I loved how it dealt with difficult subjects without going through the usual steps a Hollywood film tends to include. In this film characters worked through problems they had had for decades, they worked through prejudicm, they learned to open up. But it did not come easily, and not just by singing a song or two. It was painful, it took arguments, it took confrontations. It felt like real life.<br /><br />One scene that really stuck out to me was the scene in which Gabriella sings her song. Helen Sjöholm is one of my favorite singers, her voice is lovely, and you could tell that she was not just lip-syncing to a previous recording during filming (which I often find in other movies), she really sang with her whole body and soul. You could feel what Gabriella was feeling in that scene. Had this movie been made in Hollywood her song would most likely have been sung toward the end, and it would have made her husband open his eyes and see the error of his ways, as well as making the other people in the village realise a thing or two. Instead it came halfway through, and it did not bring any solutions. Her husband did not become overwhelmed and realise what he's putting her through, and it didn't seem to make anyone else in the village more open minded. It was beautiful, it was pure and it was touching but it did not magically solve all her problems. That felt real to me, that's probably what would have happened in real life. The whole movie felt like real life to me, nothing neatly wrapped up but everything with a sense of joy and happiness. You rarely find a movie which feels so realistic.<br /><br />There were a few things that bothered me, but hey, no movie is perfect. If you haven't already you should go see 'As it is in Heaven' and be filled with a joy for life, a sense of hope and the feeling that you've been touched on a level movies rarely reach. You will be sad, pained, happy and a dozen other emotions.<br /><br />Someone once said that if every person in the world sang in a choir there would be no more wars. Having seen this film I might have to agree. | 0 |
The combination of amazing special effects and oscar worthy acting makes the Vindicator one of the most important sci-fi films of recent years. For some reason still unknown to me this gem was found in a bargain bin, why some worthless human thought it right to dirty a modern classic by relagating to a bargain bin is beyond me. I have never been so terrified by a man in tin foil and random bursts of fire. Forget Terminator, Robocop, Aliens, and other films that blaintly ripped off this masterpiece, the vindicator is an unstoppable force. | 0 |
When something can be anything you want it to be or mean, it's bound to register with someone as being rather special. But just as the shape of a cloud in the sky may appear to one of us or remind us of a battleship, and to another of his aunt's rear, and yet to another absolutely nothing other than a cloud, this does not make this cloud meaningful except for the viewers' interpretation. Anyone who might find throwing a stuffed giraffe out of a window brilliant, or worthwhile for that matter, without relating it in some context, is possibly merely trying to impress us with his or her intellectuality.<br /><br />Submitting to this movie as the dreams of a madman does quite nicely, especially since there is no standard or expectation for what said dreams would be like, and even if we were mad ourselves, this would hardly give us sane reference points for comparison. A love affair with this movie entails the same risk as seriously interpreting Nostradamus. Whatever real meaning was being conveyed at the time might be buried in the private jokes, musings, or provincial minutiae of its day, and to a select few radical intellectuals at that! I did spot a bit of an agenda even with my limited capacity though.<br /><br />The movie is definitely anti-Fascist and to some extent anti-Italian. I noted that although the years 1929-30 were years of great public works and urban renewal in Italy, any indication of this seemed avoided. Furthermore, (avant-guarde academic spinners take note of this for your next class) the very short cropped haired man with the mustache in the party segment near the end is a caricature of Victor Emmanuel III and his tall female companion none other than Queen Helen, formerly Princess of Montenegro. Without an understanding of potential historical relevance, even the apparent irrelevance is beyond the competence of academic or other intellectual poseurs who would bask in irrelevance to impress us.<br /><br />I gladly add my own paint buckets to the defacement of this cinematic joke. But in an adaptation of the famous mot by the little boy; The movie really has no face (to deface). Paint would help it burn though. | 1 |
In 1974, the teenager Martha Moxley (Maggie Grace) moves to the high-class area of Belle Haven, Greenwich, Connecticut. On the Mischief Night, eve of Halloween, she was murdered in the backyard of her house and her murder remained unsolved. Twenty-two years later, the writer Mark Fuhrman (Christopher Meloni), who is a former LA detective that has fallen in disgrace for perjury in O.J. Simpson trial and moved to Idaho, decides to investigate the case with his partner Stephen Weeks (Andrew Mitchell) with the purpose of writing a book. The locals squirm and do not welcome them, but with the support of the retired detective Steve Carroll (Robert Forster) that was in charge of the investigation in the 70's, they discover the criminal and a net of power and money to cover the murder.<br /><br />'Murder in Greenwich' is a good TV movie, with the true story of a murder of a fifteen years old girl that was committed by a wealthy teenager whose mother was a Kennedy. The powerful and rich family used their influence to cover the murder for more than twenty years. However, a snoopy detective and convicted perjurer in disgrace was able to disclose how the hideous crime was committed. The screenplay shows the investigation of Mark and the last days of Martha in parallel, but there is a lack of the emotion in the dramatization. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): Not Available | 0 |
Whoa. I mean, whoa. I mean, whoa whoa.<br /><br />I saw this movie, waaay back when I was eight, in 1996. Back then, CGI films were a rarity; and good ones even more so. Also, back then we listened to things called CD players. But I digress. I used to like this movie a lot, way back then, and up till viewing it again, I've held reaally fond memories of it. Hey, it's Don Bluth! Anyone who hates 'All Dogs Go to Heaven' is clearly a robot. But, again, I digress.<br /><br />Then, I saw it again. This really isn't one of his best, I can say now, eleven years later. I've seen a lot more films, and I've garnered a little bit more knowledge. Now, sure, the voice acting is good, I'll give 'em that. Story's...okay. I mean, we see it all the time. A LOT. But, it works. The musical numbers are what irk me. This would've been more at home in the eighties, with these kind of musical numbers. In '96, most kids movies had epic numbers, like the Lion King (which came out a year or so previous, but whatever)or stuff like that. You get showtunes here, vaudeville style.<br /><br />The animation kind of hurts, too. At times choppy, and at others completely changing style and format with the change of a shot, it's really hard not to notice.<br /><br />I still like 'All Dogs Go to Heaven, but this could've been waaay better.<br /><br />4/10 | 1 |
'L'appartement' has to be among the best French films I have ever seen (along with 'Hatred', also starring Vincent Cassel, and those great Gerard Dépardieu/Pierre Richard movies). Cassel and Bellucci are amazing in the leading roles. Aside from 'Brotherhood Of The Wolves' and 'Dobermann' I have not yet seen a bad movie with this couple. 'L'appartement' sucks you in from the beginning and the twists and turns keep you thrilled until the very end. Fragment storytelling really hasn't worked this well since 'Pulp Fiction'. Let's just hope there won't be a godawful American remake of this unique romance/mystery-thriller. (EDIT: Guess what! A godawful American remake has been made!)! | 0 |
***BIG SPOILERS!*** 'Flesh Feast' of 1970 is a more than unworthy conclusion to the great Veronica Lake's career. This has the wide reputation of being an awful stinker, and rightly so, I must say. As a huge fan of low-budget Horror/Exploitation, especially from the 70s, I nonetheless chose to watch this, mainly due to the cool camp-looking picture on this site, but after watching it I had to recognize that the picture actually has nothing to do with the film. The picture here on this site is the cover of a DVD collection entitled 'Flesh Feast' containing four films, including Sergio Martino's 'Mountain Of The Cannibal God' and Dal Tenney's 'I Eat Your Skin'. What the collection does not include, however, is this boring turkey. 'Flesh Feast' is not only camp and ridiculous, but mostly quite tedious, which is even more pathetic regarding that the film is only 70 minutes long. Also, don't get fooled by the title, the film is not gory at all. Yet it is watchable, if only for its trashiness and, especially, the extremely stupid, but therefore somewhat entertaining ending. The film follows a ridiculous plot about Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake), an ingenious female scientist who can somehow rebuild youth with the help of flesh-eating maggots (don't ask how). A bunch of criminals (or terrorists, or whatever), who are paid by a radical political group assign the doctor to restore the youth of a 'mysterious' commander. After an endless hour of nonsensical drivel, it turns out that the mysterious commander is actually Hitler himself. It was quite obvious before, but I still had to burst out laughing because the film's finale was so unbelievably silly and unintentionally hilarious... This is a film that is very inadequate as the last film of a great actress and former beauty queen like Veronika Lake. Except for lake, the performances are ridiculously bad, even for a zero-budget production like this. Bad performances, however, are something I can easily forgive in films like this one. What I can not forgive, though, is extreme boredom. The final five minutes make this watchable for hardcore fans of camp stuff, but I would still recommend to skip it. | 1 |
Ugly shot, poorly scripted and amateurishly paced sequel to Joe Dante's 1981 classic. 'The Howling' is one of the two or three ONLY good werewolf-films ever made and yet it got 'rewarded' by a series of obnoxious and unendurable sequels like this one. If it's any consolation, 'Stirba' is a sequel in name only and there's absolutely no connection with the characters or events that were introduced in Dante's film. The plot here revolves on a bloodthirsty cult of Transsylvanian werewolves primarily female ones led by Stirba. Stirba is played by Sybil Danning who transforms from a curvy old lady into a blond super-babe (with impressive bosom) in the blink of an eye and becomes all hairy when sexually aroused. Her arch-enemy is played by a seemly fatigue Christopher Lee. His character Stefan Crosscoe is an occult investigator who travels to Stirba's kingdom, accompanied by an American couple who lost their friend to the werewolf cult. In case you're exclusively looking for filthy gore and gratuitous nudity...this is your film. Even the smallest killing is shown in great detail and we're even treated to exploding eyeballs and the vile image of a dwarf who gets pierced on a pointy fence. However, if you want a little substance or depth, you'll be sorely disappointed. The dialogues are embarrassing and there's absolutely no tension to detect anywhere. The scriptwriters constantly seem to confuse werewolves with vampires (the Transsylvanian setting, garlic, wooden stakes...) and Danning's gorgeous balcony is shamelessly exploited as the film's only gimmick. During the end-credits, a shot in which she rips off her top, is re-edited repeatedly (according to my fellow reviewer Dr. Gore, no less than seventeen times!) which is pretty pathetic and pointless. The music is okay and some of the scenery is rather beautiful. I'm talking about the fierce-looking statues during the opening credits and the dark dungeons of Stirba's castle. The directing by Philippe Mora is a giant mess and as far as I'm concerned his only worthwhile film remains 'The Beast Within', released three years earlier. | 1 |
'Cry Freedom' is a movie about how far people will go to find the truth.<br /><br />The first half is an interesting portrayal of an unlikely friendship between activist Steve Biko and Editor Don Woods (played fanatically by Dezel Washington and Kevin Klein). While the second half deals with Woods looking for answers on Biko's death.<br /><br />Although most people favor the first half of the movie which focuses on the unlikely friendship between Biko and Woods'. I found the second half about Don woods struggle to have Biko's story be heard around the world much more interesting. | 0 |
Well, I was excited at first to download an animated open source movie, only to be ruined by a demo reel. The animation is excellent, the lip syncing is awful, and you keep watching the movie hoping to understand what's going on, only to realize nothing is going on. You feel no emotion for the characters, only pity for the creators for wasting their time. I have seen short films with twice the emotion in half the time! This could of been an excellent short film, if they had just taken the time to hire a real director. I'm sure everyone over at Blender is excited to showcase their software and its rendering capabilities, but sorry guys-story telling is what makes a movie. | 1 |
To 'Bend It Like Beckham' may not mean much to us Americans who know very little about the other football (soccer), but to English sports fans, it is equivalent to 'Hit it Like Bonds' or 'Dunk it Like Jordan.' Any young soccer player dreams of bending a soccer ball around one player and into the net for a goal, much like star player David Beckham does, much like the young Indian girl, Jess (Parminder Nagra), does in the film Bend It Like Beckham. Jess loves to play pick up soccer games, the kind forbidden by her traditionalist mother. However, while playing one day, a passing friend named Jules (Keira Knightley) sees her play and invites her to try out for a traveling, all girls soccer team. After satisfying the coach Joe (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), she makes the team, something she knows her mother would not approve of. The movie is not about disobeying parents, but rather a girl doing what she wants to do, even if that goes against culture, not just the parents. There is humor thrown throughout the movie, especially when Jules' mother thinks she's a lesbian. The movie does resort to a bit of a cliché moment, as the big soccer game is the same day as Jess' sister's wedding, but it does not come off a cheesy, but rather fun and light. The soccer action looks good, so sports fans will enjoy it, and a story about girls growing up in a boy's world, the world of soccer will inspire some in the audience. Bend It Like Beckham is not just about soccer, but rather a girl trying to find herself and please her parents at the same time, something that proves to be rather difficult. | 0 |
Quite simply a well-made, well-written and wonderfully acted movie. Eastwood is classic as grizzled Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan and Rene Russo<br /><br />holds her own as partner (and love interest) Lilly Raines. But the movie's<br /><br />greatness rests on the shoulders of John Malkovich as 'Booth'. He captures<br /><br />this character's rage and hatred, as well as his humanity oddly enough. <br /><br />Personally I think this was his best performance and should have received an<br /><br />Oscar for it (But I loved Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive as well that year). Overall a great movie to see you want to peek into an assassin's mind and be<br /><br />on the edge of your seat the whole way through. Enjoy!! | 0 |
This is easily one of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. It's not scary or any of the other things suggested in the plot outline. This movie is agonizingly slow and I was bored for almost all 98 minutes. While the acting is mediocre at best, the biggest problem is the script, which is poorly written, slow and plodding with no real direction. Occasionally an eerie mood is set only to be broken by some useless line or event. I'm not surprised that the entire cast was sick and throwing up between shots, they did after all have to try and digest a terrible script. As a huge fan of good horror movies, I'm always irritated that something this bad gets made. Save yourself 98 minutes you'll never get back. | 1 |
Steven Seagal's films of late have not exactly been good, but this is by far the worst since The Patriot. The plot makes no sense what so ever; it is never clear in what the relationships between the characters are, who works for who or who is double crossing who. The film is completely disjointed, each scene seems to confuse the story further rather than carry it forward. Even the action sequences are uninspired and hard to follow. Most of the blame must lie at the director's feet for not even understanding the basics of film making, but Seagal does not get off lightly, as one of the producers of this film, he must also share the blame. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned how awful the acting is, even by Seagal standards. Even as straight to video fodder, this is not worth a view even for Seagal fans. Give it a wide berth! | 1 |
It's amazing that this no talent actor Chapa got all these well known stars to appear in this dismal, pathetic, cheesy and overlong film about a low life gangster who looks white but is half Mexican, much of the acting is bad and many of the well known stars in this trashy movie are given a script that seems made up by a 16 year old, i'm sure this movie is the career low point for actors such as Dunaway, Wagner, Keach, Tilly and Busey who i'm sure are very embarrassed that they ever appeared in this turkey of a film. I doubt many people have ever heard of Chapa and after this terrible movie i'm sure he will disappear into oblivion where he belongs. | 1 |
How I got into it: When I started watching this series on Cartoon Network,I have to say that I've never seen anything like this,and it was the best. But when I started collecting the series on VHS,and years later on DVD part of Bandai's Anime Legends collections. It was amazing,and truly worth watching. It had a lot of exploding action that will blow you out of your seat. And of course,the theme songs 'Just Communication',and Rhythm Emotions' were the best.<br /><br />Characters,and Gundams: My favorite characters in the show were:Heero,Duo,Relena,Treize,Lady Und,Noin,and Zechs. My favorite Gundams in the show that I liked the most are the Wing Zero,and Epyon,and of course the Altron,and Deathscythe I,and II.<br /><br />Meaning of the show: What this series also tells us that in real life,wars are very hard and we can sometimes win,or lose. But peace can also be hard to obtain,and I do believe the Gundam pilots are doing the right thing,and are trying to obtain world peace.<br /><br />But however,this show is truly the best of the best. So in closing to this review,after you watch this show,see the Movie Endless Waltz. | 0 |
The books of James Michener taking readers to faraway places with strange sounding names were probably at their most popular in the 1940s and 1950s. His Tales of the South Pacific became a major blockbuster Broadway hit for Rodgers&Hammerstein. South Pacific was directed by Joshua Logan and he was a natural to do the film adaption of another Michener success, Sayonara.<br /><br />It was only a decade before that American films during World War II did not portray the Japanese kindly. I'm sure it wasn't easy for people who fought the Pacific war to change attitudes overnight. That and a general no fraternization policy with occupied peoples in general are at the crux of this story about interracial romance.<br /><br />Sayonara is a relevant film today. The military has always butted in to the personal lives of its personnel in ways no civilian employer could get away with legally. In America at the time Sayonara was made there were still miscegenation laws on the books in many states. Today gays in the military is a big issue. Someone may one day do a Sayonara like film on that issue.<br /><br />Joshua Logan was on familiar ground. South Pacific also had racism as a component of its plot. With a sure hand, Logan assembled a great cast and crafts a beautiful story.<br /><br />Marlon Brando, Patricia Owens, James Garner, Kent Smith some of the occidental players do a fine job. But the picture is stolen by the orientals here. Miko Taka hits the mark beautifully as Brando's love interest. But the real stars are the two that one both Supporting players Oscars, Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki.<br /><br />Buttons is your everyman enlisted man Air Force member. He falls passionately in love with Katsumi played by Miyoshi Umeki. They marry and the military cruelly does everything they can to break them up. They presume to KNOW what's best for Buttons and Umeki. Buttons was a TV comedian and a fair talent, but he never got a part as good as this the rest of his career.<br /><br />And Miyoshi Umeki's Oscar was the first one given to an oriental. It got a great deal of attention because at the time of the Academy Awards, Miyoshi was starring on Broadway in Flower Drum Song. I was privileged to see it on Broadway, it was the first Broadway show I ever saw. I still carry the memory of it.<br /><br />That Oscar symbolized something else too. Our war with Japan was really over and we saw in Sayonara a great nation with a proud tradition and culture.<br /><br />Ricardo Montalban plays Nakamura, a Kabuki Theatre actor. If Sayonara were done today, Logan would never get away with it. But Montalban is fine. <br /><br />Good location photography and a grand story. This film should be revived more often it has a great moral. | 0 |
Having seen just about every movie on record that a child of the eighties could have seen, this ranks at the very, very, very bottom of the heap of bad movies I have ever seen. It's depressing and just plain, painful to watch. Nuff said. | 1 |
'The Luzhin Defence' is a good film with fine central performances, but too much of the novel and not enough of the filmmaker's craft shines through. It felt through most of the film that the characters just helped to push the narrative along. Marlene Gorris could perhaps have examined the psyche of Luzhin, rather than depicting him as a tortured innocent victim torn apart by the cruel motives of others.<br /><br />Adapting literature for the screen is clearly a difficult task, especially a novel written in the early 20th century. This film does not go deeply enough into the relationship between Luzhin and Natalia. Natalia's rift with her mother comes across a churlish disagreement by the mother rather than a dramatic flashpoint in the film. I felt that I was put through Luzhin's torment and eventual tragic end, without being given the pleasure of having his unusual and complex personality unravelled. However, this was a moving and enjoyable film but certainly not a great one. | 0 |
I was told about this film from a friend who saw it late night during the week He told me it was so bad that I had to see it! So I went on an auction site and bought the film. This is probably the worst film I have EVER seen. It makes you laugh when it really shouldn't. Terrible acting and terrible storyline. Plus he looks nothing like Michael Jackson?!<br /><br />I still recommend buying this film as its one of the funniest things you will ever see. Van Peebles is a joke in this film.<br /><br />Robots cant bluff... PSYCHE!<br /><br />I have to say though the special effects are actually amazing... PSYCHE! DVDs were probably even out when this film came out but if I had my way it would be a straight to VHS release yes people it is THAT bad! | 1 |
I'm guessing that we all, no matter if we are fans of cars, luv the sound of a Dodge Challenger as it growls along the road, the noise a 57 Chevy make as it screams with ecstasy when it tears round a corner and, most of all, the blast of sound as a classic vehicle bursts into flames as it explodes. I'm not the biggest car enthusiast by any stretch of the imagination, but any of the above really does rev my engine! There's no denying the importance of transport on cinema. It has even been said that the invention of the train was one of the biggest influences on early cinema (looking out a window almost like a moving picture and the idea of being transported to a different time/space). But the car remains the most popular and most luved, it's even got its own genre: the carsploitation genre. A genre that focuses purely on the beauty of cars. In effect, it's just porn! Car porn! And I'm not talking about that rather nasty documentary on Channel 4 in which men actually had sexual intercourse with cars. Whatever floats your...car, I guess. Moving on... whilst RUNNING ON EMPTY isn't quite as pornographic as VANISHING POINT (Richard C. Sarafian, 1971) for instance, with its close ups of the car in motion, all it's bumps and curves (!), this doesn't mean that the car isn't the main focus of this film. In fact, the cars themselves become characters (more on that later). They're objectified and fetishised as much as the women, in fact, maybe even more. And holy holy, are these cars something! Every car in this film (besides the ones in the background) are simply beautiful works of art, there's no question about it.<br /><br />As I was saying, these incredible cars are, in a way, given characters themselves. You actually start sympathising with the car! SPOILER Most notably during the scene in which the car is being wrecked and burnt SPOILER OVER. This has become almost a convention of the carsploitation genre; the evil 1978 Plymouth Fury from CHRISTINE (John Carpenter, 1983), Satan's custom Lincoln Mark III in THE CAR (Elliot Silverstein, 1977), the nifty little Mini Coopers from THE Italian JOB (Peter Collinson, 1969) to the friendly Volkswagen Beetle in THE LOVE BUG (Robert Stevenson, 1968) and of course each car from DEATH RACE 2000 (Paul Bartel, 1975) and even WACKY RACES (1968-1970) all of which had their own character. Ironically however, this emphasis on the car often over takes (!) the human characters! And this is certainly the case with RUNNING ON EMPTY, in which only one human character (the blind character who drives his car with his hearing rather than sight) has any sort of dimension, the rest are very much stock characters. These are all your stereotypical Australian 1980s teenagers; big hair, annoying accents and none of whom would look out of place in NEIGHBOURS, especially the Kylie Minouge look-a-like. But who gives a damn? It's all about the cars racing and crashing! That's it! If you don't like that you really are watching the wrong genre.<br /><br />The car scenes are certainly the selling point of this film, and the best thing it's got going for it. They are fast; very fast! And we're not talking about the rather annoying technique some films seem to use where they record the car 'speeding' at around 40mph, and then speed it up. Oooh no! Not with this film you don't. These cars are zooming along at top speeds in real time no fancy editing tricks here. So, we've got speed. Check. What about crashes? Check, check, check! Whilst there isn't cars crashing EVERYWHERE a la the incredibly BLUES BROTHERS (John Landis, 1980) , when cars do crash in this film, they certainly crash! It would seem that they use gunpowder or something similar to build the cars as one little hit and KABOOM they're up in flames. It kind of reminded me of THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE (Bo Arne Vibenius, 1974) in that sense.<br /><br />Between these simply awesome scenes (especially the very start and the very end) there are quite a few scenes which slow everything done and, in my opinion, fail to add very much to the film. Note: more exploding cars needed! However there are a couple of exceptions here which are great scenes SPOILER especially the attempted rape scene.<br /><br />So, all in all, this is a man's film! A boy's film! Full of cars vroom vroom vrooming around the outback and a couple of tits thrown in for good measure too. I'd recommend this little film to anyone even if they are keen cyclists (!) it's a great film which you can just switch your brain off, sit back in your leather chair and put on full volume! I'll give it 3.5 luvs out of 5 luvs Bruuuuum! P.S Amazon are selling this for just over £2 it's a real bargain although the DVD lacks any special features whatsoever. | 0 |
~~I was able to see this movie yesterday morning on a early viewing pass~~<br /><br />I am a mom of 2 children, who range from 11 down to 6. So I'm sure plenty of parents can relate to having to see many many 'kids' movies. This was refreshing for me. I haven't read this particular book, so I don't know if it stayed true to the book or not. But it sure took the grossness factor to a high level. This is the story of the 'new' kid in town and it just so happens that there are a group of boys who have formed a club of sorts and love to pick on kids ....sound familiar? Haven't we all suffered this one time or another. He has the little brother who he cant stand and parents that he is embarrassed about. What I enjoyed most of all was seeing how each character was totally different from another they all stood out. The bully (why do they always make the bully a red head? My daughter has red hair! and she is no bully!..lol) is well a great bully, who finds himself being yelled at by his own big brother. It took twists and turns and well you fall in love with all of them and really find yourself routing for all the characters! Even the parents, great connection between father and son. All around enjoyable, sweet,funny, gross etc......Take your kids!!! You will enjoy it as much as they do! | 0 |
I have always liked Spike Lee's movies, but this one was a total waste of 2 1/2 hours. I expected more about Son of Sam and instead got a movie that seemed to have very little to do with the 1977 serial killings. The talking dog was laughable (you know you're in trouble when all the movie patrons burst into laughter inappropriately). The whole movie seemed very disjointed and not very interesting. The sex scenes were totally irrelevent to the plot. I'm not opposed to sex in movies, but it should have some point (unless it's a XXX movie). All in all, we were very disappointed at this Spike Lee effort!! | 1 |
I'm a big horror film buff, particularly of the 1980's subgenres. Name one I've probably seen it. Last year, a new little horror movie that seemed to slip under mainstream radar called 'Saw' was about to hit theaters. I was moderately excited. Having not heard anything about it, I thought it looked quite promising judging by the previews and posters (well, except the back and white ones with the severed hands and feet...those just looked terrible!) I saw the film on opening night. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. This movie was literally mentally and psychically painful to watch. Because it was scary?...NO! Because it was one of the most awful movies I had ever had the displeasure of seeing! First off, the construction of the screenplay and editing was utterly atrocious, even by horror movie standards. Starting off a sequence in an interrogation room with a victim (Shawnee Smith) who recently survived a serial killer's attack, then showing a flashback of what she survived? NOT SCARY! It was impossible to feel any type of tension WHATSOEVER knowing that the aforementioned victim was perfectly alright. Sure, that reverse-bear-trap thing was creepy...but WHY should I feel in the least bit frightened when CLEARLY, you just showed me she survived the ordeal? Unfortunately, the entire film was constructed this way. It starts with two guys in a cellar. Then, they show flashbacks of how they were abducted...NOT SCARY! Why? Because we already know what's gonna happen to them, seeing as how we JUST SAW the result of the attack. THEY'RE FINE! Move on with the story! Even more unfortunately, the actual story was meager at best. I couldn't have cared less for these annoying, pitiful excuses for 'characters' and the acting didn't help. Cary Elwes was solid for the most part and then suddenly towards the end he started crying like a lost infant while straining to keep his American accent in tact (it didn't work the audience I saw this with was in stitches). This drove him to a rash and idiotic decision even the most simple-minded wouldn't attempt. He had other options. Better ones. SMARTER ONES. Even given his intense emotional state (horribly communicated through horrible acting), it was still irrational. I didn't buy it. BAD WRITING ALERT! Furthermore, even when certain sequences were played straight-through and flashback-free, they were painfully predictable. I constantly found my foot tapping impatiently waiting for the dumb sequence to end. This happened for the entire film. I saw every single 'twist' coming. Twenty minutes into the film, I had already called the killer's identity, not to mention his connection to his 'accomplice(s)' as SOON as they appeared on screen. Better acting might've been able to overshadow the awful script. Instead, the actors might as well have had 'RED-HERRING' or 'ACCOMPLICE' tattooed across their foreheads.<br /><br />By the end of the movie, I was utterly outraged I had wasted even a fragment of my life on this film, and the entire theatre was laughing hysterically at the downright horrendous finale. Seriously, you'd think they were watching a Monty Python movie. I would've been laughing too, had I not been so angered at the film's total and utter failure to accomplish ANYTHING it set out to do. When we left, there was (no joke) a line to speak to the manager of the theatre to get their money back (didn't happen). I was absolutely positive the movie was going to be a box-office bomb. The following week, you couldn't have imagined my shock to find out 'Saw' had hit number one at the box office and EVERYONE was talking about it (mostly individuals who found 'Napoleon Dynamite' to be a thought-provoking epic tale and thought 'satire' was some type of rubber). I am so utterly sickened to hear people praise this film that I often feel as though I'm going to vomit. It's entertainment for the most feeble and simple-minded of the human race. Those who find some weird Jigsaw clown-puppet riding on a tricycle threatening (it's a doll knock it over and leave what's so frightening about that?).<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I own every 'Friday the 13th', love my splatter movies, thought 'Napoleon Dynamite' was hilarious, can't get enough of Freddy, Michael, Pinhead, or Leatherface, have a font appreciation for unknown horror gems and rank 'Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers' amongst my Top 10 Favorite Slashers. However, I realize these films aren't the most sophisticated American cinema has to offer I appreciate them for what they are quick, easy fun. 'Saw' is cinematic garbage. The film attempts to be a smart and semi-sophisticated, nasty little thrill ride, and bogs down to an irritating, annoying waste of time, money, energy, and celluloid. Atrocious on all accounts. Every single copy should be incinerated, along with its feeble-minded fans. Shame on all of you.<br /><br />Will I see 'Saw II'? Maybe after I take a double-shot of Liquid Drano before I gouge out my own eyes and impale white-hot shish-kabob brochettes into my ears and colon. My Rating: 0/10. Avoid at all costs. | 1 |
This is the worst movie I have ever seen and believe me I've sen a lot of bad movies. I love cheeesy horror but this was just terrible. There was not one scene in this film where I felt scared. All the actors must have been people that they found at a bus stop 20 minutes prior to shooting. I wish that Blockbutser would have given me my 99 cents back. The acting was terrible. The writing was incredibly bad. Someone had to screen this movie before it was released and had to know that it was terrible. I'd be embarrassed to have my name associated with this monstrosity. Don't rent this movie. If you do, don't return it so no other poor souls will ever make the mistake of renting it. | 1 |
Night of the Demons (1988) was another in a long line of 'teen' horror films that were released on video and pay-t.v. during that mecca of film making the eighties. But unlike most of the crap that was being peddled around, this one was actually a decent watch. A group of bored 'teenagers' decide to party Halloween night away with a pair of bizarre sisters (Mimi Kinkade and Linnea Quigley) at the infamous Hull House. Your usual cast of stereotypical teenagers are invited to the party. But an average teenage bash turns into a night of terror as they try to survive Halloween night when they undead residents of Hull House decide to crash the party. Who'll survive this night of bloodshed and horror?<br /><br />A nice horror film that is best seen in the unrated version. If you watch the R-Rated cut then you'll miss all of the splatter effects and nudity. Stay tune for the amusing epilogue! A gory film that was followed by an equally entertaining sequel. For horror fans only!<br /><br />Highly recommended. | 0 |
'Say Yes' is one of those flicks that you keep hoping is going to get better, but it never does. It's the kind of 'motiveless psychopath decides to menace an innocent couple' crapfest, so beloved of straight to video film-makers. <br /><br />The dialogue is clunky and, in several places, poorly translated. The acting is uniformly poor, especially from the villain of the piece, played by Joong-Hoon Park. He seems to think that by not blinking and trying to talk in a deep voice he is making his character seem threatening, when all it really does is make him seem a bit simple.<br /><br />The plot deserves special mention, as it is idiotic beyond all belief. The 'heroes' don't think it overly strange that their hitchhiker threatens to kill them. The 'heroine' twice manages to miss seeing the villain when he is no more than a foot away from her. The villain gets past a police checkpoint (while wearing a shirt covered in blood, and a bloody head bandage) by showing the cops a burnt corpse in the passenger seat of the car he is driving. The villain is punched, clubbed with a shovel and stuck through with a pitchfork, but never seems to be impeded by these, rather serious, injuries. And don't even get me started on that terrible 'twist' ending. Sheesh.<br /><br />The only plus point in this film, for me, is Sang Mi Chu. Who is very pretty, but really no more than a mediocre actress.<br /><br />Overall, this film comes off like a poorly written, flaccidly acted and shockingly directed attempt to copy 'The Hitcher' and 'Spoorloos', but it fails at every turn due to a lack of talent in everyone involved. | 1 |
Reading web sites on Bette Davis one can find instances where authors claim that there is nothing special about her acting. I even found a site which claimed that Bette Davis' success was probably due to her luck. But Ms Davis films of 1934 tell quite the opposite. The most evident example are two films that she did only few weeks apart: Fog over Frisco and On Human Bondage. Characters she played in these movies, though both being negative, are quite different. Arlene in the former is a beautiful, glamorous and frivolous heiress and much more likable character than Mildred in the latter, which is a pale, uneducated and impudent Cockney waitress. Needless to say that Ms Davis played both characters very authentic and with the same enthusiasm. But even that is not all. The point is that the former role, which would be wished by most actresses of the day, was the one she was forced to play. The latter role, which seemed to most actresses as undesirable, career destroying role, was the one she fought for ferociously for months. And it was the latter role that launched her among the greatest stars. So there is no question that Ms Davis knew from the start what she was doing.<br /><br />The film, which tells about a medical student Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) which falls unhappily in love with Cockney waitress Mildred Rogers (Bette Davis), has a few week points, but many more strong ones. The story is simply too big to be told in mere 83 minutes. For example, it is quite unclear why refined student found any interest in an impudent waitress in the first place. Well, there is one scene in which we are exposed to Ms Davis captivating eyes, but this is when his emotions are already fully evolved. Nevertheless, the integrity of the story is preserved by superior acting from Howard and Davis as well as fantastic Steiner's music which tells tons of emotions even when we do not see characters' faces. In fact the film is amalgamated by Phillip's walking sequences showing him from the back supplemented with shuddering two-tone repetition. Every detail is well thought - Max Steiner wrote a beautiful leitmotif for each women in Phillip's life, which is consistently used through the film. And a beautiful scene in which we see Sally's face in front of calendar is one of the sweetest scenes I've ever seen exactly due to Francis Dee's breathtaking beauty (Ms Dee was by the way considered to be too beautiful to play leading role in Gone with a Wind) as well as Steiner's captivating music. Camera movements between the some scenes is also original and refreshing.<br /><br />But my strongest objection is that events are presented too two-dimensionally, which induce viewer that Mildred is an ultimate slut. The most disgusting characters ought to be men which lure her into relationship, despite well knowing that they will abandon her after taking use of her, but they, curiously, finished portrayed as likable characters. After all, Mildred always - in her own specific, but still a honest way - lets Phillip know that she despises him and had no interest in him. Which he just refuses to hear. It is Phillips masochistic nature connected to his club foot and infantile experiences that is the principal reason of his love problem. He is enslaved to his club foot as much as to Mildred and perhaps has to be free of both to start a normal life. Of course, selfish and impudent Mildred, after discovering voluntary Phillip's bondage to her, did its own share to make his life hell. Even taking into account that she exploded after realizing that the bondage has loosen, it is less than clear why would she burn Phillip's money (Maugham intended different in his novel). After all, she could as well steal it and drunk gallons of champagne.<br /><br />For modern standards the film is a bit outdated, but each subsequent time you watch it, you can reveal new interesting details due to superior acting, fascinating music and original editing, so it does deserve the highest possible mark. | 0 |
I find it difficult to comprehend what makes viewer's feel this is a powerful movie. I would guess that the main intention of this film would be a character study and the effects of racism in a British community. It is therefore all the more disappointing that all the characters are two dimensional and the acting is at the level of a college performing arts course. I'm always sceptical of 'improvisation', another word for being too lazy to write a decent script. I was embarrassed by the performances and sat in an audience who laughed when they surely were supposed to be moved by the story. Racism is a serious issue but I think a subtle approach in cinema works far better than laying it on with trowel. | 1 |
John Van Druten's 'Bell, Book and Candle' is a delightful and unexpected fantasy about a coven of modern-day witches living in New York City; it was obviously an attractive movie property. It had a stellar part for Gillian Holroyd, for her erstwhile book publisher enforced-sweetheart, Shepherd Henderson and her madcap family and circle, including Shep's bewildered fiancée, the hateful Merle Kittredge, against whose chances with Shep Gillian begins her magical spell-casting. It even had Pyewacket, a Siamese cat-familiar with well-timed miaows, Sidney Redlitch, a fake witch expert with atrocious pretensions and bad manners. In short, it seemed to its producer, perhaps, box-office magic. And so it proved to be. So many things were right about its production, it only had one element not perfect; but I found the rest to be amusing, charming and very consistently-entertaining. To begin with, the screenplay by Daniel Taradash kept the best qualities of the fine theatrical play but opened out its scenes to include Greenwich Village and other areas of New York's scene. The technical production was beautiful, with cinematography by the legendary James Wong Howe, a fine score by George Duning, more-than-clever sets by Louis Diage and gowns by Jean Louis. In the attractive cast were Wolfe Barzell, Howard McNear, Janice Rule as Merle, Ernie Kovacs as Redlitch, Jack Lemmon as Gillia's mischievous brother, wonderful comediennes Elsa Lanchester and Hermione Gingold as fellow witches and lovely Kim Novak in one of her most touching parts as Gillian. Jimmy Stewart was the imperfect element in my judgment; he did well with the comedic portions of his part, but he was never convincing as a New York book publisher, and a bit too-old for the part of Henderson anyhow. But director Richard Quine used subtle lighting, pace changes, and unusually-composed shots to indicate the oddness of the witch portions of the film, keeping the other portions very luminous but straightforward in their presentation. The plot's main crisis in the film comes to pass when in reality Gillian falls for Henderson, who does not believe in witches at all. She started out merely to alienate him from his fiancée, her stuck-up college rival. Later, when Henderson tries to walk out, he keeps coming back to her--and realizes he is under a spell, as she has apologetically tried to explain to him. ..Meanwhile, Sidney Redlich has been summoned by witching spell to come to New York to sell his book to Henderson. Of course he knows nothing at all of magic, but is quite puzzled and interested to find out why he had come anywhere at all; but Gillian's brother enlightens him. All comes out right in the end in this romantic satire as Gillian proves her love to Henderson by losing her powers--which is what happens to witches when they truly love a mortal. Of course, he never really wanted to resist her anyhow. The film has sprightly dialogue, charm, and a little 'magic' of its own in the fey charm of the witches and the torments Gillian must undergo in her battle with herself, and to win the man she loves. A lovely ending to this beautifully-photographed and unusual romance makes its amazing realism, though a fantasy, just about complete in my view. Memorably delightful. | 0 |
Usually, I know after the first minute of a movie if I will hate it or adore it... but now, I was wrong.<br /><br />The start was great; the 'this is based on a true story' and blah blah blah thing was funny. After, the cartoons and the description of the guys' life with pictures made me think I had made the right choice.<br /><br />Then, seeing the hilarious fake look of Toronto was cool. Also, the situation and appearance of the house seemed to confirm my first idea.<br /><br />That was maybe the first 10 minutes of the movie... which afterwards looked like an eternity.<br /><br />Maybe that's just me not understanding English Canadian humour (that's possible, English Canadians also do not always understand Quebecois humour), but hey... there was enough stuff in that for a short movie, *nothing* more. Maybe that could be a meaning for the title? Anyway, almost everything was filling, and very few things were even close to funny in my opinion.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, the 'making of' was better than the movie. At least you understand the motivation behind that which made everything bad. The potential of the idea was great; that's why I rented the movie, being interested in the 'annoying people disappearance' thing. But yet, I did not know the whole universe would vanish, and with it even a point to the movie.<br /><br />If you are English Canadian, it seems you could appreciate the local humour, considering the surprising number of people who gave this movie an 8. Otherwise, just think twice before losing your precious time... | 1 |
This movie has everything! It has a good storyline, good acting, great scenery, adventure and some brilliant gags! Chris Farley plays Tommy Callaghanhe mega successful company 'Callaghan Auto Parts' has to go on the road to stop the company going under after Big Tom dies. The trouble is that Tommy knows nothing about break pads and needs the help of Callaghan Auto Parts worker Richard (David Spade). From the moment the two dorks hit the road, the movie is just so much fun. If you love slapstick with a great storyline you'll love this because the gags keep coming thick and fast and the movie will just make you laugh out loud! It was so sad about Farley's untimely death in 1997, but a credit to his genius is 'Tommy Boy'. Get it, chill out and enjoy this brilliant slapstick! | 0 |
I'm not sure if Carpenter is looking to raise questions on abortion, and make the really heavy-handed and obvious point that a woman should be allowed an abortion if Satan is the father, but it drags on and on. Ron Perlman is laughable. The baby is really stupid looking, basically a crab with a baby head mounted on it. You can pretty much see the material on the Satan costume. What a mess. This episode has about five minutes of story and 55 minutes of tedium. Very, very bad. And the ending is just ridiculous. After learning his baby is dead, does the devil destroy the abortion clinic and kill everyone in a huge, bloody, gory, uproar? NO! He just puts his head down and sulks out of the room. Terrible. | 1 |
This has got to be one of my very favorite Twilight Zone episodes, primarily for the portrayal of two lonely souls in a post-apocalyptic environment.<br /><br />The cobweb-strewn shops and rubble-laden streets are eerie in that particular way the Twilight Zone does best.<br /><br />While the parable can be a bit heavy-handed by today's drama standards, it is an excellent one - using the setting to make a statement relevant to the human experience, as well as geopolitics, in a way that is timeless. The entire drama rests solely on the shoulders of Mr. Bronson and Ms. Montgomery, who do not disappoint. (May they both rest in peace.)<br /><br />A true classic. | 0 |
'Creep' is a new horror film that, without a doubt, will please many genre fans simply because it's so down to the point and unscrupulous! It has many genuine shock-moments, a whole lot of repulsive gore-sequences and a rare claustrophobic tension. What it hasn't got is logic and a solid plot but, to tell you the truth, that didn't bother me for one second. When the end-credits start to roll, there are still many unanswered questions to ponder on but director/writer Christopher Smith (in his debut) seemly preferred to fully focus on tension and adrenalin-rushing action instead of long, soporific speeches and theories that could explain the existence of the 'creep' in the London subway. The story revolves on the young and haughty Kate, who leaves her own party in order to go and meet the famous actor George Clooney who's in town to present his new film. She falls asleep in the subway, misses the last train and she finds herself trapped in the underground subway network. Things really get terrifying when she encounters a mad-raving lunatic who lives in the old tunnels and kills/kidnaps people to experiment upon. Even experienced homeless people, security guards or sewer-workers can't rescue her from this ravenous monster! I really dug the creep-character! He's nauseating, hideous and primitive but in a strange way fascinating. Christopher Smith only leaves us clues and hints, and it's merely up to the viewer to guess this vile creature's origin and background. I reckon this isn't very original, and I'm sure many people won't appreciate the lack of content, but I forgive Smith and I think it's better this way than going over the top completely, 'Jeepers Creepers'-style (that particular film started out great as well, but as soon as the Creeper's identity was clear it turned into a very mediocre horror effort). The obvious aspect-to-love is the outrageous gore! There's some severe butchering going on in this film and the make-up, as well as the sound effects, are very convincing. The ominous setting of the abandoned London subway during night is effectively used. There also is some acting-talent present in this film, with Franka Potenta (Run Lola Run) returning to graphic horror nearly five years after the cool German film 'Anatomie'. Creep is terrific entertainment when you're in an undemanding mood and Christopher Smith definitely is a director I'll keep an eye on. Make sure you don't have to take the subway right after watching this film... | 0 |
I wonder why I haven't heard of this movie before. It's truly a magnificent comedy (I'd say farce, but it's too well acted and I'd hate to denigrate it's quality). A comedic character study about the travails of mid-life crises, the inequity for gays who can't have their long-time unions recognized, and the general differences of people who can't fit nicely into society, that pairs Kathy Bates and Rupert Everett to a wonderful effect. Forget Julia Roberts and Rupert; Kathy Bates and Rupert should do another movie together. The anxiety-ridden, acerbic and outrageous daughter-in-law, Maudie (Meredith Eaton), is a truly wonderful character. If you liked the Tales of the City films, you'd like this quirky charmer. | 0 |
Jewel Thief is a rare breed of film - completely noir in its story but nothing noir about the presentation. A young man Vinay, superbly played by a newly face lifted Dev Anand at age 40+, is estranged from his police officer Dad and finds a job in a jeweler's store. Soon random people come up to him and call him Amar. Using just a few pithy moments the presence of a 'doppelganger' is established. Then a woman Shalini (Vyjayantimala) comes forward and claims to be engaged to said doppelganger. She is accompanied by her loving brother (Ashok Kumar) who is so convinced that Vinay is actually Amar he makes him take his shoe off and prove that he is not Aamr, the 6 toed one. The jeweler's super cute daughter Anju (Tanuja) is completely enamored with Vinay. Amidst all this confusion there is a Jewel thief on the loose and he is stealing at will. Slowly we learn from Vinay's encounter with a super hot night club singer (Helen!) that the thief is Amar the doppelganger. Many many good looking women (Anju Mahendru, Faryal) are after the hero. The police force, including Vinay's Dad, are completely befuddled. Vinay is slowly falling for Shalini/Shalu and her brother seems to bless the union. The action moves to Sikkim as that is where Amar's next heist is to occur. The rest is for you to watch - the duplicate, the girls, the men who hang on to Vinay's every word thinking he is their boss Amar, the loving brother sister duo - nothing seems quite right, and it takes the deft story telling (and direction) by Vijay Anand to conclude this tale in a highly entertaining manner. The movie has numerous moments that you will wonder at until they deliciously weave into a grand finale at a dance in a palace in Sikkim.<br /><br />I was not a big Vyjayanthi fan but she is quite competent here, although at her chubbiest. She is able to add to the confusion in the story in a subtle way, but is best when she is sorrowful or dancing. Tanuja is cute as a button and I loved her in this film. I so badly wanted her to get the man. Dev was, well, Dev. If he were not walking like a man with a congenital shoulder defect (one shoulder always lower than the other) I would wonder who they had found to imitate him! Yet his style, charm and charisma were unfailing. In the song Yeh Dil Na Hota Bechara, only Dev could look cool carrying a fishing rod to which a large plastic fish was attached! Ashok Kumar was simply awesome - Dada Moni did not miss a beat the entire movie and turned this into one for the history books.<br /><br />SD Burman spun magic with numbers like Baithe Hain Kya Uske Paas (Helen in a blood red rooster imitation dancing on a bar top), Aasman Ke Neeche, Rula Ke Gaya Sapna Mera, and my personal favorite seductive number Raat Akeli Hai Bujh Gaye Diye.<br /><br />If you are craving a great story, with more twists than a pretzel, wanting to be kept guessing, yet amused and entertained - then go buy or rent Jewel Thief. Better to buy it, then you can go back and see it again with your buddies. This one is a keeper. | 0 |
For three quarters of an hour, the story gradually develops towards a pivotal point of some sort. Although it is overburdened with scenes that just seem to be intended to dull the viewer and lure him away from the actual plot, there is something happening. It is not much and it certainly is not obvious. The combination of palace impressions and story-driving scenes do not add any depth or insight to the whole cast of characters. In fact, they keep them sterile as there is no character development at all. Everybody just remains spinning and centered around their own cliché and role - the cute, kinda headstrong girl; the fighting überwoman, the snobby aristocrat. The male lead does not seem to have any distinction at all, he is a shallow presence, which, actually, doesn't even matter as he is only there because the storyboard required him to - it seemed like he was on vacation and got caught up. When the point comes of turning the corner in terms of what happening, the movie first snaps completely blank for a couple of minutes and then becomes ridiculous. It solves - or better, dissolves - itself with a by-the-book Deus Ex Machina, more clichés and some of the most crude plot devices and choices I have ever seen. It's history, alright. First the movie's a drama though it's supposed to be comedic, and then it turns into a farce. The protagonists do what they are expected to do, and there are no surprises. The first set of somewhat serious antagonists however gets replaced by a couple that literally was just bored. Maybe that was some kind of nod towards the audience.<br /><br />This movie does not get any bonus from me for underlying philosophical meaning (since there is none) nor for its technical realization. The animation and editing is fair and so's the sound mixing; but it is by no means outstanding or even above the average Japanese productions of the late 1980's. In fact, the visual treats seem static, un-inspired and un-original.<br /><br />Worst of all - it totally fails to entertain, even if you don't bother with characters and all that stuff. There's too little going on here, and the rest is corny at best. Get a real Ghibli instead, have a feast with it and keep your fingers off this one. | 1 |
'Hoppity Goes to Town' was the second and last full length animated feature made by Max and Dave Fleischer, who created a parallel universe to Disney. While Disney's films are well remembered today, both of the Fleischer films 'Gulliver's Travels' and this one are forgotten.<br /><br />'Hoppity' is a spellbinding original, not an adaptation like the first picture. That is a major plus, one would think. No, the critics, rarely on the Fleischers' sides to begin with, tore into them for this. Yes, the story is not as tight as 'Gulliver', but how can you hate a film that flaunts itself so joyfully?<br /><br />It is filled with great musical numbers and a very involving story, which would be a crime to reveal. The characters are lovable and charming and there is heart in this film.<br /><br />The Fleischers' really outdid themselves here and never quite did so again. Most of their time would be devoted to one-reelers after this tanked at the box office. It's a shame they didn't continue making features. Who knows? Their next attempt may have become the masterpiece they were aiming for.<br /><br />**** out of 4 stars | 0 |
Very bad film. Very, very, very bad film. It's a rarity, but it defenitly is not worth hunting down. This Italian Jaws rip-off makes little sense most of the time, and no sense the rest. The 'alligator' is not at all convincing, and many of the sub-plots go nowhere. If it's at the local video store, you may want to watch it if you're a fan of monster movies, but it's not worth hunting down. | 1 |
Short Version: Seed isn't worthless. It's just derivative and inferior. And soulless.<br /><br />Long Version: If you have never seen any of the films comprising the vaguely-defined 'psychological horror' genre, this movie will probably melt your face off. Maybe not, but it will give you a good burn. The opening montage of real animal abuse will be sufficient to open your eyes to possibilities of brutality-on-video, and the (only) memorable gore scene later in the film will perhaps be more than you can handle. The climax will play with your emotions in a way that perhaps no other film has.<br /><br />But that's if you don't have much experience with the genre. If you've seen the real thing...'August Underground's Penance,' for example, you will, as I did, find it terribly difficult to stay awake until the end of the film.<br /><br />Other reviewers have compared this to the video nasties of old. I understand this comparison. Like the video nasties, 'Seed' is more violent than a mainstream horror film and less subtle. But the reason the video nasties are still known to us is not only for the above reasons--those that are still popular had something special. Permit me to be ambiguous, I think you will understand: those that have stuck around had 'soul'.<br /><br />Take this quote from Gabriele Crisanti, director of 'Burial Ground,' on an interview on the new-ish DVD: '...we will never have more films like these, because today, technology has surpassed imagination. And technology is cold. So many things will disappear because small films like these won't be produced anymore. Today we have great, exceptional tricks that are very expensive, but they are cold. Today a horror, a terror film of this kind costs more than a million dollars. These films were not so expensive...they are real effects, made with our hands'.<br /><br />Perhaps it is wrong to take the comparison to old school horror so seriously. But Crisanti has hit the nail on the head. Even at their most seemingly exploitational, the best of the video nasties were pursuing a primitive 'truth.' And this is where Boll falls short. It's like he's seen the movies and not understood them. Everything on the checklist is there...BS about 'making a statement about humanity,' an obscene torture scene, etc. But it is, as Crisanti puts it, 'cold.' The gore is all CGI. The whole thing feels like scenes pieced together from other movies of various genres. And the pacing is sooooo slow. Man, so slow.<br /><br />Another interesting note: the one gore scene really reminded me of a video game.<br /><br />Anyway, enough BS. Weak movie. | 1 |
Maybe if you smoked enough weed this would seem funny or would make you nostalgic for how completely unhinged people allowed themselves to be in the early 70's. There's an odd innocence to this movie and the sex is a lot more awkward and playful than the steely pros who do it for the cameras now.<br /><br />The real curio here - and really the only reason to watch this movie - is the appearance of Kristine Debell as Alice. She was a Ford model and it shows. She's got classic, WASP-ish good looks - like a really cute Ivy League sorority girl. So what the hell is she doing in this cheap, cheesy skin flick? From my vantage point she does not appear to be at all on drugs in this movie (which might explain it) and she actually seems incredibly committed to the part. When she sings her first song she really does act like she thinks she's flippin' Julie Andrews or something. I just get the feeling that this girl truly believed this was gonna be her big break or something, instead of the near career killer that it was. Anyway, she is damn cute and you kind of can't believe she would even get naked on screen, much less do a masturbation scene, a couple of oral sex scenes (with men and women) and then do the real deal as a climax to the film (snark). It is also definitely not a body double at all. That is our little Kristine taking one for the team, or for the greater glory of showbiz or something. It's pretty amazing to watch and it is definitely stimulating (ahem) but in a way I kinda wish she hadn't done it. That was a very pretty, talented young girl getting some really bad advice.<br /><br />Anyway, my guess is that Kristine Debell, wherever she is, has long, long since wished this movie would go away. She was very cute and appealing in 'Meatballs.' Almost impossible to believe this is the same girl - but it is. | 1 |
The first thing you meet when you study fascism is ostracism:because this' philosophy ' is a fake one,there's a need to use scapegoats to assess the 'thought'.Ettore Scola's movie,probably his masterpiece, focuses on the outcasts,the scapegoats of the regime.<br /><br />Of the historical event (Hitler and Mussolini's alliance),we will see almost nothing:some military march,some garlands,some scattered voices ..Our two heroes are not invited for the feast of virility. 'Genius is essentially masculine' :this is the golden rule Antonietta (a never better Sophia Loren)embroidered on her cushion;Antonietta ,whose world amounts to her kitchen,whose pride is her offsprings .At the beginning of the movie,she's a victim of this hypermacho world,but she does not realize it.She thinks she should be happy.Gabriel,on the contrary ,is politically aware,he knows about the cancer that is destroying inexorably his country.But as a gay man,he is no longer part of it,he's about to be arrested.<br /><br />Forgetting everything that comes between them,they realize what they have in common and they make love.This is an act of rebellion,particularly for Antonietta ,whose ethic should forbid such a thing.Becoming an adulteress in a land where politics and religion combine to repress women as ever leads her to some kind of political awareness.One of the last shots shows her listening to the news on the radio.<br /><br />Expect the unexpected and maybe a doctrine which denies the human being his intimate personality will see that its days are numbered. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.