review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
What can have been on Irene Dunne's mind when she accepted the role in this distasteful account of a woman of negotiable morals? Certainly, the Irene Dunne of the 1940's, whose reputation as a faithful Roman Catholic who publicly abhorred smut, and shunned any film scripts or Hollywood society, that might be even be remotely construed as corrupting public morals--would never have become associated with such a dubious project as this.<br /><br />Perhaps, New York's Cardinal Spellman, in his private audience with her, gave her a good dressing down over this role? That we will likely never know, inasmuch as she never spoke of it in later years, though she did denounce her morally suspect, (though quite successful) 1932 film, 'Back Street' as 'trash'.<br /><br />Certainly by the time she received the distinguished St. Robert Bellarmine Award in 1965 for exemplary public Catholicism, 'Ann Vickers' was no longer recalled by the general public.<br /><br />Suffice it to say that 'Ann Vickers' works neither as entertainment or social commentary.<br /><br />Miss Dunne's role as an adulterous social worker, who sleeps around, (between reforming prisons and writing a best seller on correctional rehabilitation) doesn't dovetail with her temperament or on screen demeanor, and one keeps suspecting that the whole thing is a kind of tongue in cheek gag, (what else can we think when we witness a montage of Miss Dunne's sympathetic beatific gaze superimposed over a shot of a female prisoner being scourged?) By films end, she has renounced careerism in favor of marriage, (to crusty convict Walter Huston no less--and what kind of lunacy would ever conceive of pairing these two romantically?) <br /><br />Irene Dunne completists will no doubt wish to see this curiosity, if only for the chance to hear her promise to rehabilitate a cocaine addict under her charge: 'I'm going to get you off the snow cold turkey' !!! <br /><br />Well, if nothing else such sordid goings on, do present her light years from her usual milieu of operatic trills, furbellowed chiffon and strawberry phosphates--cocaine addiction not being the first subject one associates with the irreproachable Miss Dunne. | 1 |
I got a free pass to a preview of this movie last night and didn't know what to expect. The premise seemed silly and I assumed it would be a lot of shallow make-fun-of-the-virgin humor. What a great surprise. I laughed so hard I cried at some of the jokes. This film is a must see for anyone with an open mind and a slightly twisted sense of humor. OK.....this is not a movie to go to with your grandmother (Jack Palance?) or small children. The language is filthy, the jokes are (very) crude, and the sex talk is about as graphic as you'll find anywhere. What's amazing, however, is that the movie is still a sweet love story. My girlfriend and I both loved it. Steve Carell is terrific, but (like The Office) the supporting cast really makes the film work. All of the characters have their flaws, but they also have depth and likability. Everyone pulls their weight and the chemistry is perfect. I can't wait to get the DVD. I'm sure it will be up there with Office Space for replays and quotable lines. | 0 |
Japanese animators have a unique freedom with animation, which is why they tend to be able to come out with movies like these, movies that ultimately end up on anime-fans hard-drives and college student's floors, but get completely ignored by pretty much anybody outside of its country of origin. Cat Soup is one of those films that, from Western eyes, is supposed to be experienced on drugs or deeply analyzed. Really, it's just a beautifully detailed surrealist journey.<br /><br />There's no real dialog, which makes it easy to pass on to other interested parties uninterested in things like subtitles. A cat and his half-dead (brain-dead?) sister travel through various landscapes of imagination and association. There's a general theme of water, or lack thereof (possibly because of the cat drowning at the beginning? Possibly because of the title?). There's an interesting sort of Genesis take. There's a pig that gets to eat itself. An elephant made of water. And it's gorgeous, compelling, exciting, and fun--provided you don't watch it around druggies who cannot experience anything visually unique without comparing it to an acid trip. Eventually the movie turns itself off, adding another compelling self-reflexive level to the proceedings.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | 0 |
This is one of the most satisfying of the book to TV adaptations. The actress who make us believe that a Borg could be sexy makes us believe that a spy and traitor can have some redeeming qualities.<br /><br />The TV plot line does not follow Cornwell's story exactly but is both exciting and rewarding as a retelling of a darn good yarn. If you have a yen for romance in uniform there is a lot of sexual energy sparking between our man Sharpe and the lying hussy. Made me wish her role was closer to that in the books. But no matter there is enough hero wronged, hero redeemed, hero in rage, hero in flight and hero in battle to keep you clued to your DVD play. | 0 |
For my first taste of Shakespeare on stage, I cannot believe what these people did to a perfectly good play. <br /><br />-Let's start off with the good bit, shall we?-<br /><br />Alan Rickman is alright, although some of his dialog could have been delivered with more feeling. The rest of the actors needed to pull it together. <br /><br />Romeo, Romeo, whyfore art thou not dead yet, Romeo? The actor, while not only completely wooden and deadpan, could not read his lines with any gusto at all. He was completely out of focus, had difficulty even looking Juliet in the face, and absolutely NO grace with the lines that he was given. Whoever cast him deserves to be punished. Juliet is almost passable, but she gives no depth to her character,and seems to be completely out of touch with the play. Mercutio was incredibly creepy and completely out of character for the entirety of his dialog. Benvolio was unfeeling and mercilessly choppy with his lines. <br /><br />I was forced to endure this half-baked production of Romeo and Juliet. The acting was stilted and the costumes were nothing short of distracting. I have seen kindergarten puppet shows with more effort put into them. I only wish that i could give this movie a rating of zero. | 1 |
TIllman Jr.'s drama about the first African American Navy Master Diver (Gooding Jr.), who defies all odds and achieves his goals despite a strict embittered trainer. The screenplay is not bad, a bit extreme at times, but the direction and acting is first-rate, and this film is inspiring and achieves what its supposed to do. I liked DeNiro in the lead, although its not on par with his masterful works (taxi driver, godfather and all the others) it is as good as his other good performances such as in King of Comedy or Angel Heart. DeNiro is always convincing and believable here, very good performance, Gooding Jr. is not bad, definitely one of his better performances. --- IMDb Rating: 6.6, my rating: 9/10 | 0 |
I saw most of the episodes of RMFTM as a teenager on 'Cliffhanger Theater' running after midnight on a local station some years ago, and then again when Mystery Science Theatre riffed on it in the early 90's. Time has not been kind to it. <br /><br />I can certainly make allowances for the special effects, which were quite impressive for a low budget 50's serial (IMO Commando Cody's flying scenes were better than George Reeves/Superman's in his TV show). And I can also make allowances for the ahem, 'acting', and fight choreography -. except for the guy who plays the ruler of the Moon Men. He is incredibly miscast. He looks and acts like the fellow who comes to fix your plumbing, not the despotic ruler of an alien race. Even the corny dialog works all right - everyone rattles off their lines like strings of firecrackers, with no wasted time or pauses for things like 'thought' or 'introspection'. Since everyone does this, the viewer finds it immersive after awhile, and even to my modern sensibilities, it doesn't bother much. <br /><br />What really irritates me is the writing and the plotting. I'm not talking about the sunny weather on the moon, or baking soda powered rocket ships, or a flying suit that has controls labeled 'up/down' and 'fast/slow'. I'm not even bothered by the cheesiness of the resolutions to the cliffhangers that end each chapter. I'm talking about the fact that our supposed heroes are dumber than fence posts and have no cumulative memory. And by the fact that although that the dialog clips along like an express train, the plot goes through the same motions again and again. <br /><br />Dig it: Commando Cody and his pal are the spearhead of a top secret hi tech science lab charged with protecting Earth (or at least the USA) against an insidious alien invasion. But his office has no guards or security checkpoints. They don't even have locks on the front doors. So the bad guys walk RIGHT IN and beat the crap out of the Cody and his staff ...not once (perhaps understandable) but SEVERAL times. They even kidnap his female assistant on the second try. And they never get any smarter. To further prove my point, allow me to point out the way that Cody jumps in his flying suit and flies around getting into trouble and never actually seems to succeed in catching anyone. He does this over and over and over. Cody also flies his ship to the Moon (the woman assistant comes along to cook), stays for about 30 seconds and immediately turns around and comes back. Cody captures one of the Atomic Ray guns...and immediately loses it again to the bad guys because he couldn't be bothered to lock it up. And so on.<br /><br />And you would think that if Cody's efforts were so vital to saving the USA from the Moon Men, that he might ask for a few soldiers with carbines, a few helicopters and a tank or two to back him up, instead of just working with the local police all the time. This was supposed to be a military operation, but they act like it's another episode of 'Gangbusters'. <br /><br />It's all rather hard to stomach. I appreciate that the creators were severely limited in the scope of their story by budget and time constraints...and I appreciate that Cody is actually a reasonably tough hombre (even though he loses half of his fistfights). But I just can't help yelling 'DOOR! LOCK THE DOOOOR!!' when the gangsters simply walk into his lab, or try to blow up the ship and there are NO security measures at the landing site in place...not even a fence (!). <br /><br />Still, it's OK. Of the three Republic serials I've watched, 'Phantom Creeps' had a better plot, and 'Undersea Kingdom' had more atmosphere (hah!) and a better hero than 'Radar Men', but it's an OK time-waster. <br /><br />BTW...why 'Radar' men? They didn't use radar, they used Atomic Ray Guns. Shouldn't the title have been 'Atomic Ray Gun Men From The Moon?' | 1 |
At first,this movie seems so bad that i almost fell in a trance the first time i saw it.It was like a bad dream.A cosmic bore.But i gave it a second chance,then another and another,etc...I finally got addicted to this film,due to it's dreamlike slow pace,wonderful natural sets,bathed in a mellow autumn light and especially the musical score,which is made of some 70's progressive rock and absolute exquisite folk songs by actor/singer/songwriter Derek Lamb(the Troubadour).You should notice the song about hazel wood,silver trout and lady vanishing in the air...,heard in the middle and near the end of the film.There are some carnal scenes in the beginning ,wich allow us to appreciate the natural charms of Elizabeth Suzuki.If that movie had been made by some 'repertoire' directors like Bergman,Lars Von Triers or Jean-Luc Goddard,critics would have rolled on the floor,raving about that movie as if it were a cosmic masterpiece.I personally think this film is one million times superior to any of Fellini's cinematic sh#¤@t!Definitely not for the pretentious. | 0 |
There must have been a sale on this storyline back in the 40's. An epidemic threatens New York (it's always New York) and nobody takes it seriously. Some might say that Richard Widmark and Jack Palance did it better in Panic in the Streets, but I disagree.<br /><br />There is always something about these Poverty Row productions that really touch a nerve. The production values are never that polished and the acting is a little rough around the edges, but that is the very reason I think this movie and those like it are effective. Rough, grainy, edgy. And the cast. All 2nd stringers or A list actors past their prime. No egos here. These folks were happy to get the work. Whit Bissell, Carl Benton Reid, Jim Backus, Arthur Space, Charles Korvin, and the melodious voice of Reed Hadley flowing in the background like crude oil. By the way, I've been in the hospital a couple of times; how come my nurses never looked like Dorothy Malone? In these kind of movies they don't bother much with make-up and hair, but they really managed to turn Evelyn Keyes into a hag. Or maybe they just skipped the make-up and hair altogether. Anyway, it was pretty effective. She plays a lovesick jewel smuggler who picks up a case of Small Pox in Cuba while smuggling jewels back for ultra-villain Charles Korvin (who is boffing her sister in the meantime). You got the Customs Agents looking for her because of the jewels, and the Health Department looking for her because she's about to de-populate New York. No 4th Amendment rights here. Everybody gets hassled.<br /><br />You gotta have the right attitude to enjoy a movie like this. I have a brother who scrutinizes movies to death. If they don't hold up to his Orson Wellian standards, he bombs them unmercifully. They must have the directorial excellence of a David Lean movie, the score of Wolfgang von Korngold, the Sound and Art of Douglas Shearer and Cedric Gibbons respectively. This ain't it.<br /><br />But I have the right attitude, and if you do as well, you'll love this movie. | 0 |
I loved this movie. Not because of the romantic story lines between women, but for the visualization of human strength, despair, and liberation. This film is a must see. Entertaining! Emotional! Captivating! All the characters are very well written and portrayed by some very talented actors. This story is a story of self discovery and sexual awakening. A journey of the mind, body and soul. You find yourself identifying with the characters and at some points, even the storyline. <br /><br />I do have to say that I recommend watching the movie first, then read the book. If you read the book first, you will be slightly disappointed. The screenplay adaption cut out a lot and some things were changed. Some for the better and some for the worst. | 0 |
Princess Victoria (Emily Blunt) is in line for the throne of England. The present King William (Jim Broadbent) is not well and may not live long. However, Vicky's scheming mother, The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richandson) and her aide, John (Mark Strong) want to force Victoria to sign papers declaring them to be the 'regents' until she is older, since she is only 20 years of age. The young lady refuses, despite John slapping her around. It is another sign that Victoria has a strong will and deep love for her country. Yet, when William does pass away, shortly after her 21st birthday, Victoria knows she has a heavy duty before her. First, she must surround herself with the 'right' advisers to govern wisely. She chooses handsome Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) who, although an older man, is mentioned as a suitor for Vicky. Which brings us to the young queen's second major decision. Sooner than not, the young queen should select her future mate, as it will bring stability to her life and to those of the kingdom, for an heir must appear in the coming years. Meanwhile, in Germany, some distant relatives of the British royal family are hatching some plans as well. Handsome Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), of the Saxon-Coburg dynasty, is prodded by his father to court the young English royal. Once he arrives at the palace, he is smitten and the feeling seems to be mutual. But, since he is a minor player on the map of royal match-making, can he succeed in winning her heart? This is a lovely film, made even better by a completely winning performance by Emily Blunt as Victoria. Yes, she is beautiful but it is her intelligent reading of the role that scores mightily. Friend, too, does well, as do the other actors, including Broadbent, Richardson, Bettany, Strong (what a repulsive role!), and the rest. Also, the movie is gorgeously shot, costumed, and set, making it a visual treat in every way. If anything is lacking, it is an extra dose of dazzle, as the film seems a bit too straightforward and prosaic, at times, with a somewhat unimaginative edit. However, this is only a minor, minor point of argument in an overall very successful and gorgeous film. In short, young and old, should make time for Young Victoria. It is a most worthy film among 2009 cinematic offerings. | 0 |
IT SHOULD FIRST BE SAID THAT I HAVE READ THE MANGA AND THEREFORE MY ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE DIFFERENCES.<br /><br />This anime greatly disappointed me because it removed the comedy and high quality action of the manga and OVA. What it left behind was merely a husk of what it could have been. Many of the characters lacked the depth that is seen in the manga. Alucard is not the sympathetic character that secretly wishes for death. Walter's story lacks the betrayal. And the Nazi villains that plot to engulf the world in war are completely absent. Instead, the anime provides the Gary Stu villain Incognito who is defeated against what appear to be all odds.<br /><br />My primary complaint is not that the anime diverges from the manga, but that it does such a poor job. | 1 |
i can't believe how dumb this movie truly is. the storyline (written by keira knightley's mother) is what ruins the movie to the extreme. it is straight out dull, absurd, and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...<br /><br />this movie lagged so bad for most of it, especially at the beginning. the story just kept going on and on about their everyday flirts with each other, often times seeming like a threesome. in this movie, you have an annoying deadbeat couple (the poet and his wife) who are complete total drunks from the start. the wife sleeps around with other men to make ends meet, while the poet is a pervert who thrives on cheap boos and women. the wife, who waaayyyyyy too quickly becomes friends with his former childhood lover (played by keira) suddenly gets jealous, knowing full well that the two were lovers since they were kids. something doesn't seem right here....i mean, come on... get with the program lady! what'd you expect.<br /><br />bottom line is: former lovers meet again with new wife embracing it, then gets jealous, then former woman lover gets married and her husband gets jealous, bombards the crazy drunk couple's home, crazy husband calls police, and they end up going to court for the man's attempted murder charges. that's it summed up in a nutshell...<br /><br />this movie had it's moments such as the quality and good acting by cillian murphy, but other than that, i cannot believe i watched it... i complained about it during the movie and some family members watching it with me fell asleep. i decided to give it a chance and i should have stuck to my first instincts. | 1 |
Forget Jimmy Stewart reliving his life and opt for this smart comedy of errors instead. I suppose only institutionalized sexism explains why this flick and Stanwyck's other great Christmas story, 'Meet John Doe' aren't revered with the same level of love as...well, you know it's name.<br /><br />Stanwyck plays a food writer for a McCall's-type rag who has been lying for years to her pompous publisher about the folksy setting for her recipes. She's an ace b.s. artist until the day Morgan's sailor is pulled from the ocean after 18 days afloat & 6 weeks recuperation in a Navy hospital. Released the last year of WWII, the film is dusted with subtle patriotic gestures and holiday nostalgia but never sinks to sentimentality. Stanwyck is sexy and sassy as always and meets her match in the hunky Morgan with whom it's love at first sight. Unfortunately, she has to play married to Gardiner's prissy architect who actually has been seeking her hand for years at his farm in CT, just to fool her boss.<br /><br />S.Z. Sakall adds a great deal of Hungarian malaprop & double-entendre humor in support as Babs' true source of culinary talent & Una O'Connor is hilarious as Gardiner's obnoxious Irish housekeeper. | 0 |
well, i said it all in the summary, i simpley adore the movie and the cast...i would give each actor an Oscar...great, great movie...i'm 25 now and i watched it 4 times in different periods and i always think i won't cry and i always do, about 2 or 3 times...;) meryl s. was absolutely brilliant, jeremy irons also..just brilliant...i wish the movie received more awards... i really don't know anybody who watched it and didn't loved it... also, glenn close was fantastic... the story was beautiful and sad at the same time... i loved the fact that despite everything clara and esteban loved each other so much, and how blanca was close to her parents... | 0 |
At last, a film to rival 'El Padrino' and 'Darkness Falls' in terms of sheer and utter dullness. This is actually the first film I've ever given 1 out of 10 for on IMDb, and with good reason.<br /><br />For one, the cast is nothing special. That's usually not a problem for me except that the only character that's in anyways interesting or different from all the rest is Grand L. Bush's Harrington. Secondly, the production values a substandard - television sci-fi such as 'Stargate' has more convincing sets, and all of the underwater scenes NOT handled by the SFX teams are filmed on dry sets with 'falling particles' that aren't very convincing. This film is literally 'drydocked'. The worst part though is that this film is BORING. For the first 45 minutes, I felt as if we were going round and round in circles: 'It's a prehistoric shark.' 'Bullsh*t.' 'No really.' 'Bullsh*t.' 'I'm not making this up.' 'Bullsh*t.' 'There it is now!' 'I didn't see anything.' 'Let me guess?' 'Yup. Bullsh*t.' After then it picks up ever so slightly for about twenty minutes or so. Then we're back to the dialog run-around. Dialog is not a bad thing, but that's all this film has. Characters talking. That too, is not a bad thing, except this film isn't very good at it. The dialog is often contrived and clichéd, and is not very interesting to listen to. I don't see any point slandering the special effects; this film has worse qualities.<br /><br />The sets are small and unrealistic. The acting is sub-par. The script - oh Lord, the script - is worse than a garbage of sci-fi television has to dredge up. It makes you wonder where the budget of this film is or was.<br /><br />Yet another awful, awful addition to the 'Megaloadon' (there's about four) series of films. Bring on Steve Alten, please... | 1 |
The interplay between the characters is a moral disaster. You end up disliking most of the characters and you don't particularly like any of them.<br /><br />Even the two main characters played by David and Gwen are so badly written that you really don't care one bit about them. The movie has no plot, no direction and no purpose. The single redeeming quality of the movie was to treat it as a glimpse into the messed up lives of a few losers - and that's hardly stimulating even as an afternoon waste. | 1 |
My son Adam (5 years old) is a big Scooby Doo fan. He like this film a lot. He particularly liked when the Loch Ness monster tried to attack Shaggy and Scooby. The vote score is his choice and reflects his love of the characters.<br /><br />Having seen the 'Vampire Rock' film first, this, not surprisingly, was very similar as they repeat a well worn basic plot in a different setting.<br /><br />Few adults will come across this without having their own memories of the TV cartoon series and even fewer will watch it without children. You either like this or love it. I loved Scooby Doo for half an hour as a kid, I am happy my son loves it, I can just about put up with it now. | 0 |
Based on actual events of 1905, silent film THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN concerns an Imperial Russian ship on which abominable conditions lead to a mutiny. Shocked by conditions on the ship, citizens of the port city Odessa rally to the mutineers' support--and in consequence find themselves at the mercy of Imperial forces, who attack the civilian supporters with savage force.<br /><br />POTEMKIN is a film in which individual characters are much less important than the groups and crowds of which they are members, and it achieves its incredible power by showing the clash of the groups and crowds in a series of extraordinarily visualized and edited sequences. Amazingly, each of these sequences manage to top the previous one, and the film actually builds in power as it moves from the mutiny to the citizen's rally to the massacre on the Odessa steps--the latter of which is among the most famous sequences in all of film history. Filming largely where the real events actually occurred, director Eisenstein's vision is extraordinary as he builds--not only from sequence to sequence but from moment to moment within each sequence--some of the most memorable images ever committed to film.<br /><br />To describe POTEMKIN as a great film is something of an understatement. It is an absolute essential, an absolute necessity to any one seriously interested in cinema as an art form, purely visual cinema at its most brilliant, often imitated, seldom equaled, never bested.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 0 |
In Carmen, Saura once again seeks to establish a dynamic rapport between reality and fiction, between the actual passions of the personalities in a dance company preparing the choreography for the dance portions of the opera Carmen and the scripted passions from the story of the fictional Carmen, the famous fatal mix of a free spirit (read disregard for fidelity) and her ability to drive men mad with desire. Saura used this same vehicle fiction/reality in an earlier black-and-white film, Bodes de Sangre (Blood Wedding). But, whereas the tensions between the dancers rehearsing Blood Wedding showed to advantage how they evolved into the fictional characters of the story to be performed through directing their emotions into their roles, in Carmen, the parallel between the petty, libidinal urges of the dancers of the troop during rehearsals and the spirit forging to do with the mythic Carmen never comes even close to being believable. It remains a gadget, and, for that reason, a bothersome distraction. One really needs to see Blood Wedding next to Carmen to appreciate the comparison. However, it hardly matters, the melodrama Saura tries to impose upon his Carmen, because the Flamenco dancing and guitar music of the rehearsals_ which are 95% of the film _by some of the best known Flamenco dancers and musicians, more than repays the price of entry. A flawed film, and a wonder: perfect for doing a drill in Keats's 'negative capacity', perhaps? | 0 |
This is one of the funniest movies I've seen in ages. I watched for about 20 minutes, slightly puzzled by what was going on. Then I started to laugh and didn't stop 'til long after the movie ended. Such deadpan satire is rare indeed. Christopher Guest has a true eye for the humor inherent in those who have no sense of humor about themselves (about 90% of white heterosexual males, to start with). As in 'Waiting for Guffman' Guest nails middle America's idiotic self-importance to the wall. I can hardly wait for his next film. | 0 |
The title of worse film of all time is one that gets handed out quickly and often. Most of the time it is exaggeration of the fact but I would like to welcome Alone in the Dark to the short list of real candidates: Plan 9 from Outer Space, Battlefield Earth, and the Adventures of Pluto Nash.<br /><br />As I watched the 90 minute bore I found it difficult to even stay awake even while I was trying so hard to laugh at the film. But alas I felt alone in the dark (I was gonna try to avoid the pun but I couldn't resist) as I looked around hoping to see Mike Nelson and his two robot friends. Alas my friends and I had to provide comedy throughout the film.<br /><br />So... about the film itself. Lets talk about the action and effects since that should be the only positive part of the film. The film contains evil creatures that are a cross between the Xenos in Aliens (they even call them Xenos), and the creatures in Pitch Black. The can turn invisible at random (and I assure you it is random) and get hurt by light. Also present are small centipede creatures used to control humans that transform them into something resembling a zombie. All of these are shown with outdated special effects that would have been mediocre in 1997. The action scenes are chaotic and are impossible to follow. People shooting randomly on a blue screen stage or an empty set at monsters who were inserted in post. Light quickly flashes on a dark screen making your pupils burn from overwork while bad rock music blares in the background.<br /><br />And those were the high points. The story revolving around a paranormal investigator (Slater) whose idea of looking tough is wearing a black wife beater Tshirt with a trench-coat and not shaving for 2 days. An archaeologist (Reid) who is rather inept. And a government agent(Dorff) whose lines involve barking order. All three should be ashamed at their performances (not that they have really ever done a good a job before) and the casting director should be ashamed. Reid and Slater are supposed to be lovers in the film I guess. The film contains the single most awkward love scene I have ever seen on film between the two.<br /><br />Then comes the plot. Quiet frankly the parts that make sense are not interesting at all. The rest is illogical at best. The plot holes could contain the collective egos of all three stars. The film begins with text and a voice explaining the back-story. This opening lasts for over a minute and already the viewer knows they are in for something terrible. This opening narration is later repeated adnausem in the awkward dialog in a very clumsy and heavy handed fashion through the rest of the film. And the ending did not make one ounce of sense. Not only did it not make sense in the world of the film, it simply did not make sense.<br /><br />Finally the direction of one Uwe Boll. Disgrace, thats all that can be said. His use of shaking the camera to simulate suspense. His lack of direction with the actors. Just watch Reid in scenes in which she is not center focus of the shot. The complete waste of special effects money for bullet time effects. And finally choosing to use voice over to explain something that should be painfully obvious to the viewers.<br /><br />I payed a $1.50 to see this show at a second run theater. And while the laughs me and my friends provided made it worth every quarter I would advise people to avoid paying any more for this film. Grab about 3 friends and split the rental cost and tear this movie a new one.<br /><br />Shame on you Uwe Boll. Shame on you Tara Reid. Shame on you Christian Slater. Shame on you Stephen Dorff. Shame on anyone who was associated with this film. | 1 |
Throughly enjoy all the musical numbers each time I see this movie. Never seem to tire of it. Fred and Ginger are always a pleasure to watch. Seeing 'Lucy' and Betty Grable before they hit the big time, is fun to watch. | 0 |
I cant help it but i seem to like films that are meant to be scary and are just plain bad. I have personally listed it in my own top 10 worst movies right under creatures of the abyss!. Watch this film and have a laugh just don't expect to see any academy awards for acting. More chance of understanding the film its self. In all honesty though i have seen much worse than this. Plus some maniac cruising round the desert wiping the same people out that just died is that unbelievable that its got to be original. i think its one of those love or hate movies. you can make up your own mind yes its awful but it pulls it off somehow thats why i love it | 1 |
After seeing NAKED CITY and NIGHT AND THE CITY (which is still my favorite Dassin) I was more than excited to watch his 'Masterpiece' (O-Word Criterion) RIFIFI.<br /><br />Now i am a little bit disappointed about the story.<br /><br />So I have at least these five questions in my mind:<br /><br />1. In the final Countdown Louis Grutter shot from the inside a house the main Character Tony le Stéphanois. He couldn't know if he is still alive or not, but he didn't care about it and ran directly after it outside the house (with the money) to reach his car. So of course Tony wasn't dead and shot him. BIG QUESTIONMARK.<br /><br />2. In another important scene the specialist in safes Cesar gave directly after the robbery as a present a diamond ring (which was a part of the robbery) a Woman which was working for Louis Grutter in a night bar. Stupid, because before this character wasn't THAT stupid. And of course Louis knew directly that Tony planned the jewel robbery. SMALL QUESTIONMARK.<br /><br />3.After the Gangsters behind Louis Grutter murder Mario Ferrati and his wife,Tony and his best friend Joe planned a revenge against Louis gang. At the same time they don't care for the security of Joe's wife and his five years old child. Of course Louis gang kidnapped the son. CHEAP and SIMPLE.<br /><br />4. The perfect heist: Of course this is the best 30min. long scene in the whole Plot, without any word spoken in the whole time, but was this a perfect heist?? Comparing with other movies which handle with this theme i could only smile when for example Tony was taken a fire-extinguisher to banned the alarm. Also too SIMPLE.<br /><br />5. The Grutter gang went to the house of Mario, because they knew (however....) the jewels will be there. Then they murder Mario and his Wife. And then? They are not searching for it! NO. They ran directly out of the apartment. And more. They not observing the apartment after it so Tony can go after a while (which was the same day) inside to take the jewels. BIG QUESTIONMARK.<br /><br />Over all: it's a good movie. Because of the brilliant 30min silent heist scene. Because of the very good cut (The end scene in the car through Paris is stunning) . Because of a very good actor called Jean Servais. Because of this Black/White fever you will get while watching it. Because of some other reasons too other user wrote about, but please don't tell me this is a stunning story. | 0 |
The book 'The Railway Children' is a children's book published in 1906 by Edith Nesbit, an early British socialist who had very strong views about the importance of family values for the upbringing of children, and the story it told was presumably intended to be contemporary. Somewhat surprisingly, it seems to retain a significant appeal for today's children a hundred years later.<br /><br />A film adaptation of an Edwardian classic children's story with the principal roles those of the children, does not sound very exciting to most film-goers in this day and age. But a really great performance by Jenny Agutter who (near the start of her long and distinguished acting career) played the part of the oldest girl Roberta (Bobby), combined with remarkable work by the script-writer and director Lionel Jeffries and outstanding photography by Arthur Ibbetson, have made this a film that is still not to be missed, and one which most of its viewers find quite memorable. It is remarkable that this book, set in the year 1905, was filmed five times between 1951 and 2000, (four of them by the BBC for British television), and all of these versions are not only still greatly admired but also very highly regarded (something that user comments on this database will confirm), even though this may seem almost inconceivable for a nostalgic period story designed to appeal primarily to children. Since I have not seen the four BBC TV versions, these comments relate exclusively to the 1970 film version produced for showing in cinemas. Unlike most films of children's books, 'The Railway Children' may appeal more to adults than to children. The structure of family life has changed so much in the last century that many children may feel totally lost by the way in which it is depicted in the film, whereas many older adults may find it has a considerable nostalgic appeal. Perhaps compensating for this, the children featured in the film are full of life and vitality, whilst the adult characters although well rounded tend to mostly be 'stuffed shirts'. The story is a mature one, which deals with love, support and encouragement, it is not only timeless but capable of appealing to all ages. It can fairly be described as sentimental and more than a little idealised, but it is never in any way mawkish, and that rarely justified adjective 'uplifting' fits it like a glove.<br /><br />Spoiler Ahead.<br /><br />The film starts with its upper middle class Edwardian family celebrating Christmas in a comfortable and fairly spacious London home when two unexpected visitors call and take Father (who is a senior government officer) away with them. Mother has to move to a very small cottage alongside the railway in a remote part of Yorkshire and the children gradually build a new life mainly associated with the railway and the few trains that pass. This life proves quite eventful in small ways and the elder daughter Bobby grows up rapidly as she takes over more responsibilities from her mother. At one point she averts an accident to the train when her sharp eyes spot that a landslide has created a natural hazard. Father's story is never given much emphasis, but he is never forgotten and it gradually becomes apparent that he is incarcerated and suspected of treason. Finally these suspicions are cleared up (we are not told how or why) and he reappears unexpectedly at the local station to rejoin his family.<br /><br />For many years this film was not available in any home video format in North America, but Anchor Bay created a DVD from it three years ago, so they clearly recognised that this quite simple film has not yet lost its appeal. For anyone who has not got one already, I would very strongly recommend rushing out to buy a copy of this DVD whilst it is still available - you would be most unlikely to be disappointed unless you have become totally cynical, or your minimum requirements for a film include buckets of blood and/or intense sex scenes. | 0 |
Thankfully I watched this film alone, enabling me to fast-forward through the worst scenes (aka most of the film, actually). OK, some of it is not all bad, with partially good photography (even some of the under water scenes) and at times not too bad directing. But it still doesn't save the incredibly poor script and way worse acting. Additionally, when I don't find the movies 'hottie' to be all that, even the wannabe-sexy love making scenes get dull. Really dull! And for the drama: You know it's always a bad sign when you get to dislike all of the characters so much you really don't care who lives and who dies.<br /><br />If you still haven't gotten tired of the reality series Survivor, you may find something to your liking in this movie. If not, stay well clear! | 1 |
first off, i'm amazed to see that this film has got a rating of 7 on this site. at first i thought it might be industry people logging in to IMDb and jacking up the rating. but after looking on rotten tomatoes and seeing that this film has something like a 76% approval rating, it seems that maybe folks have just been duped again into mistaking pretentious crap for profundity. i mean, this film is simply awful. the acting is simply terrible, but the rest of the film is worse. at least the acting provides some (unintentional) laughs. <br /><br />the plot involves a teenage skateboarding boy who is being questioned along with his friends for a murder that happened by a park where they skate. and that's about it. the rest of the film consists of the aforementioned terrible acting, terrible dialog, slow motion shots of people walking, of people's faces, of people skating, often set to music that does not fit the scene. perhaps that was done to be 'cool' or experimental or hip. or perhaps it was done in hopes that it would fool people into thinking that it is somehow profound, but it does not work. nothing in this film works. it's pretentious garbage. i can't not recommend it enough. | 1 |
I like Steven Seagal but I have not a CLUE what this movie was about. I am not easily lost with movies but I had no idea who was on who's side.<br /><br />Hopefully some of his future movies will be a little better. My wife still thinks he looks good in black jeans, however. :P | 1 |
The odd mixture of comedy and horror sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Had the main male character been a little more interesting, the film would have been as well. A trio of young Americans visit Paris, run into a beautiful werewolf, and the problems confound from there.<br /><br />Numerous logic holes make the possibly intriguing story difficult to take. | 1 |
When I first started watching this anime I never thought that something about making bread could actually be interesting, but thankfully I was mistaken. From the moment I started watching it, anime just pulled into the world of bread making, I was hooked.<br /><br />The biggest advantage of this anime is it's humor, which is very intelligent and very funny, with some recurring gags. But the animation, soundtrack and character development are below average, while these disadvantages aren't seen so much in the first episodes, because of the great job on this anime, it really starts to show in the last 20 episodes, when the reactions and recurring gags just grow old, and aren't as funny as before.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, if this anime had ended with episode 52 I would have given it a 9, but the last episodes just leave a bitter aftertaste, which sadly can't be washed away by the awesome 50 episodes.<br /><br />7/10 | 0 |
Pyare Mohan can be safely included in the blacklist of one of the worst-ever films made by mankind. The film, one of the many handicapped-people flicks that arose after the phenomenal success of Black is makes a mockery of the handicapped fraternity. Vivek Oberoi and Fardeen Khan are mere caricatures of handicapped people. While Black portrayed the poignancy and emotions of a handicapped woman and gave us a glimpse of her world, Pyare Mohan shows two desperado-like monkeys who have no qualms about being handicapped and bash up half of the world to protect their love interests. Anu Malik's music is fair enough. Vivek Oberoi who made a promising start with Saathiya is sadly losing his balls quickly in Hindi cinema. Fardeen Khan was never an acceptable actor and deserves to be banned from the film industry. Amrita Rao and Esha Deol are just pretty damsels in distress having nightmarish times in Thialnd with no one to save them - except for the afore-mentioned desperados. Boman Irani, as the villainous Don Toni, is somewhat acceptable. Avoid the film if possible. | 1 |
This really is the most dreadful film I have ever seen. I simply have no idea how anyone has the audacity to put this on release.<br /><br />The production standards are atrocious. There is no pretence here at cinematography. The camera work, scripting, acting and sound are unbelievably crass. I think there is a plot, but it could have been done in 10 minutes sparing us the time to watch it. The hysterical neurotic girls at the centre of this piece have no credibility whatsoever.<br /><br />I would urge anyone to avoid spending any time or money on this Title. It is truly atrocious.<br /><br />JDD - 14 December 2008 | 1 |
No pun intended. I'm not going to spoil anything about the story, but it's safe to assume that you already know, what kind of character the main actor portrays. And of course being a priest while being 'naughty' exaggerates all that. Plus this is the most erotic movie from Park Chan Wook yet.<br /><br />If you have seen Wook's previous works/movies you know he is very visual (in a good way) and it shows again here. While it strays away from the vengeance theme of his prior movies on the surface, it still has quite some heat hidden underneath. And when that boils, quite a few bad things start to happen. But through all that dark, there also moments of light (fun) to be had too. A very stylistic and though provoking movie, that lives outside the mainstream and does a very good job ... | 0 |
No one is a greater fan of Geroge Macdonald Fraser's Flashman papers than I am.<br /><br />I was surprised to see just now that Richard Lester directed Royal Flash, since I also see he had made the Three/Four Musketeers with Fraser which I though turned out rather well.<br /><br />Not so Royal Flash.<br /><br />I was 12 years old when the film was released and could not have been more enthusiastic since I had read all the Flashman papers published up to that time, and was intoxicated with A Clockwork Orange and Malcolm MacDowel (I still am, but he was never really given a chance after that).<br /><br />What a disappointment (I saw it once again when I was about 20 on television and it seemed even worse).<br /><br />None of the sharp dialogue in the books is transfered to the screen. The comedy of Flashman's character seemed to me to have been mishandled in about the same way one could imagine a group of high school students trying to parody it would do. The dueling and fencing was awful and undramatic.<br /><br />Looking back with more mature eyes, the film failed completer to exploit the possibilities of direct satire of earlier film versions of the Prisoner of Zenda.<br /><br />If you have read the book and not seen the film, I can only say that the film ends with Flashman and Rudi von Starnberg becoming fast friends and playing a game Rudi has just invented: Russian roulette.<br /><br />A pathetic betrayal of everything the books are about.<br /><br />My comments would be more direct if I had seen the film more recently, but I am glad I have not.<br /><br />If by any chance Fraser ever reads this, I can only say I think he is a genius--perhaps the greatest comic novelist of his generation, but, based on my appreciation of that corpus of work, it as hard to believe that he wrote the screenplay of this film, as that he did all those awful Roger Moore James Bond films. | 1 |
Why didn't the producers give that show a chance Of all the junk on TV, why didn't the producers give Six Degrees a chance? Will the series go on video? I would love to see how it ends. Put season one on video and sell it. I was a loyal fan of Six Degrees and waited for it's return. I set my recorder to tape all of the shows. Thank God for that. I just found out that the show was canceled and I'm heart broken. I wish I knew it was going to be canceled, why didn't they tell us? I thought the show was just developing some depth in the characters. The writing was pretty good also. Steven (Campbell Scott) is my all time favorite. I am SO sorry to see it go! | 0 |
This episode of Buffy was one of my personal favorites. Also number three of Joss' personal favorites as well. The episode featured very little dialogue and despite that the good folks at the Emmy's decided it merited a nomination. Unfortunately it didn't win. When Hush first premiered it received about 6 million viewers, which was the highest rated episode of season four. That should tell you something. Even though there was very little talking it managed to intrigue people enough to tune in. Those gentlemen characters (who were played my mimes) were some of the scariest creatures the show has produced (or any network TV show I've seen). Nothing is creepier then a bunch of silver teethed men coming at you with a scalpel while smiling away. I think that despite the lack of dialogue the actors did a fantastic job on the episode. | 0 |
Filmmaker Bryan Forbes, who once displayed a light, sardonic touch with beguiling material such as 'Whistle Down the Wind' and the original 'Stepford Wives', completely bottoms out here. Not only is his direction inept, he also sloppily adapted Sidney Sheldon's early novel; the results are atrocious. Roger Moore plays a psychiatrist framed for the murder of one of his patients; Rod Steiger, chewing the scenery, is a hot-under-the-collar cop (it's easily his most embarrassing performance). The only actor here to exhibit some life is Elliott Gould, who knows a thing or two about enlivening a bum script. Bland, choppy, and produced on the cheap. NO STARS from **** | 1 |
Well! What can one say? Firstly, this adaptation is far too long at 4 hours, for the complexity (or lack of such) of the plot. The actors try really hard to make something of this film but there is too little content for the time available. Swayzee is really NOT a Quatermain character at all. After seeing Sean Connery's interpretation of the great man in 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen', Swayzee really does not make the grade. This chap with the winchester repeating rifle has none of the strength, stature, subtlety, or humour needed for the part, and is upstaged by everyone including the witch doctor, who incidentally seems from my point of view to be more convincing as an actor than the rest of the cast. Some of the vistas are pleasing but there are silly mistakes in the cinematography. For example. When the happy team arrive at the water hole in the middle of the desert, their tracks are visible down to the oasis, just waiting for them to walk in them. Climbing out of the mine leads to an exit (on the next shot) nothing like the exit seen from the passage they have climbed through, et cetera. I was waiting for Doug McClure to appear at any moment. In some ways I wish he had. <br /><br />The leader of the Russians pursuing Quatermain is a shoddily created stereotypical character who just shoots at everything. <br /><br />Swayzee does quite well as the sad father, returned to London, who is unable to obtain the custody of his son. Swayzee should stick to that sort of thing. He is not able to carry the part of a courageous gentleman with a stout heart, experience of life, and sense of fair play.<br /><br />4 out of 10. Barely | 1 |
Chan Wook Park is nothing if not inventive. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK is chock full of amusing little technical flourishes with some ingenious ideas sprinkled in between. Attempting to walk in the footsteps of the likes of Marc Caro and Jeunet (CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, DELICATESSEN), Park embarks on a fanciful, lighthearted tale which is a radical departure from his usual morbid fare. Hardly one to be faulted for his ambition or his vision, it is genuinely unexpected, then, to see all Park's effort add up to so very little.<br /><br />I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK seems astonishingly to subtract from itself as it goes along, with the the end result being a fraction of the sum of its parts. The premise is promising, gags are copious and offbeat humour abounds but it all fails miserably to create any meaningful connection with the audience. The characters are cute and quirky and played with gusto by the cast, but, try as i might, i could not bring myself to care for any.<br /><br />SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE was a misstep, indicating perhaps that Park was overindulging himself a little bit, but it still managed to showcase some of the director's unique flare and in the wake of an impressive filmography, was readily forgiven. None of the assured confidence that commanded JOINT SECURITY AREA or SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE is evident here. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK left me so utterly unengaged i caught myself instinctively fast forwarding from time to time (more regularly as the film progressed). I gave LADY a 5/10, and by that measure, this probably deserves no more than a 3. For old time's sake, i'll be generous: 4/10 | 1 |
I was an extra on this film, in the part shot at the airport in the first 15 minutes or so; I was one of the fleeing (mostly Mexican) Bangladeshi refugees running across the runways at Ryan Field in Tucson. At one point, standing around in our turbans as we waited for another shot, one of my fellow extras turned to me asked me what the move was going to be about. I told him it was going to be a remake of Lost Horizons, only as a musical. There was a long pause, then he replied: 'Man, this movie is gonna suck'. Pretty perceptive of him, I thought. I had a good time and made a bit of money, but even with some interesting personal memories attached to this movie I can't sit through the whole thing. <br /><br />If you ever saw the movie 'The Swarm', you can pretty much get the idea. You get to see a lot of famous and talented people wasted on an an idea that on the face of it is just BAD. The idea seemed to be that if you throw enough money at a movie and hire enough big names, then a good story and good writing aren't necessary. Just turn the big crank, and out comes the product. It's just not worth watching. | 1 |
Anne Brontes epic novel THE TENANT OF WILDFELL HALL should be studied and read throughout schools and libraries and peoples living rooms. Its a fantastic story and tells the 'real' truth on alcoholism and ruined marriages and a mothers fight to keep her son away from her brutal husband. Its so alike todays stories that we see and hear and I believe people can learn a lot from reading this book. Based on possible true experiences that the author had back in the 1840s.<br /><br />Do watch this film, its a great version of the book and very moving indeed. I'm sure Anne herself would have been happy with the way it was produced.<br /><br />Excellent acting and great locations. | 0 |
George Carlin is probably my favorite comedian. I have seen so many of his specials and even had the opportunity to see him perform live. He had a certain cynicism that always appealed to me. His last 2 specials (Life is Worth Losing especially and Complaints and Grievances) have lacked a certain spirit and content. George appeared overweight, old and tired (not to mention coming out of rehab). 'I SAID NOT TO MENTION IT'! Anyway. Life is Worth Losing was especially tragic as he was overweight, disgruntled, coming off of rehab (there we go again...) and extremely unfunny. If there was a way to feel sorry for a comedian without heckling him off stage, George achieved it with Life is Worth Losing. It is as if the New Millennium and Post 9/11 America was trampling George's spirit. The bs had become too large to manage.<br /><br />The comeback is partially successful with It's Bad for Ya! This special is the transmutation completed. George is no longer trying to rekindle his glory days. He is in full acceptance of his age, being old and dealing with the looming prospects of death. He has accepted being a crusty old SOB and is relishing in it. This is better than his previous specials, yet far from Jammin' in New York. It is a little tragic. His observations are not cutting edge anymore and seem more Andy Rooney than Lenny Bruce. George isn't George anymore. He is no longer criticizing us but is the man in the high castle pointing out how things were and how dissimilar modern life is. <br /><br />This is an improvement over the previous two specials, but George does not, as of yet, recoup his old glory (if ever). He has been reduced from critical social and political stinging commentary to mostly personal peeves. When he goes political, he still has something to say. It is heavily derived (especially if you have seen any of his previous work), but it still works somehow, as opposed to his random rantings which lack a certain relevance outside of the baby boom generation. The last 25 minutes is the best this special has to offer.<br /><br />For now I will worship the Sun and pray to Joe Pesci that George can recreate himself as a cutting edge septuagenarian. It's a 50/50 chance. Life seems to have become more tedious for George and his 'art' is now his life. This is a step in the right direction from his previous 2 specials, but is far from his old self. Where does he go from here? He may never recoup but maybe he can further metamorphosing/refine this new ornery old man routine. Heres to hoping for 7 more words you can't say on TV or at least a windmill he can handle. | 0 |
If regarded as an independent feature I can't say it's too bad at all but from where I'm standing this sequel and the original 'Lady and the Tramp' don't agree with each other! They are two completely different movies with different style, different voice personalities, different narratives and about the only thing that they share with each other is the visuals (e.g. the town-house of Jim Dear, Darling, Lady and Tramp) and none of those have changed.<br /><br />If you're seeking any kind of continuity years after the release of the original for those memorable songs like 'Bella Notte' and 'The Siamesse Cats Song' this sequel won't give you any at all! Just about every song has a little pop to it and those good old characters like Jock and Trusty, Jim Dear and Darling and Aunt Sarah and her cats may well be seen but they're seeming to be somehow replaced by new characters, not to mention Peg not appearing at all, whose voices are quite annoying. Even Lady and Tramp don't appear often enough and as for Scamp?! He is so spoilt! And treats his father Tramp with utter disrespect, then runs away with no remorse even after hearing how much he's being missed at home! And they called his shameless getaway an adventure! I'd say Scott Wolf truly brought out the abusive bad boy in Scamp wiping out the typical cute Disney animal. Even the old characters just drive you mad in this; Trusty sounds like Goofy sick in bed, Jock (Jeff-stupid-Bennett) - and his VOICE - sound neither Scottish nor worth hearing! Zap him off as far as possible to free our poor ears from his voice and as for the dumb, feather-brained, EXASPERATING JUNKYARD DOGS!!!!!! Somebody put them down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />'Lady and the Tramp 2' isn't completely bad if you're not already having a tough day but I expect a lot more charm from a sequel to a true classic - Scamp is chavvy, so is his girlfriend Angel and there is a feeble storyline. Still, I think you should try it at least once because, as I say, there are much worse movies around. | 1 |
I saw his movie in Dallas, Texas when it came out in 1986. I remember them giving out prizes for showing up to see the movie. After seeing the movie I can see why. The movie was not bad, nor was it great. The problem with this movie was that it tried to tell a side story. They created a new story, new characters and tried to wrap it around the Masters Saga. My biggest complaint is that the plot is about a second wave of Robotech Masters attacking the Earth. They even used the same scenes from the Master Saga but with different dialogue. As a kid, I loved the movie. But unfortunately I haven't seen it as an adult and can't give a better review. Looking back I was disappointed but now I would love to see the movie and re-evaluate my stance on it. That being said, will someone please release this movie for the whole world to judge? I love Robotech and can't wait for The Shadows Chronicles. | 0 |
I give it 8 out of 10 because it is a cult classic. Also it is directed by legendary sasquatch hunter Robert W Morgan who also plays the part of Jarvis in the film. In listening to recent blogtalkradio show called the AARF show(Robert Morgan is a co-host)he tells that because it has become such a cult classic and does well at movie conventions and such,there are plans to maybe do a sequel to this film. I think he said that two of the original stars have signed on and he hopes to have a few more. Robert is a good man and I hope it does well. He has devoted 50+ years of tireless work as a Sassquatch Researcher(which is also one of my interests)and author. Check out his show on the paranormal and maybe look for Blood Stalkers II sometime in the near future. | 0 |
I saw this movie on videotape with my younger brother a long time ago, despite the fact I was a young boy who's hearing impaired. I didn't have the closed captioning decoder at the time (it was 1986, the year of The Transformers: The Movie), but I could follow the plot and understand what's going on. It wasn't my fault I saw the animated movie intended for girls. My father rented the video to show to my other younger sister.<br /><br />A decade later and I rented the video (for 50 cents) to watch again with the closed captioning turned on. My memories of this movie was utterly destroyed by none other than a WRETCHED SCRIPT. I have seen plenty of poorly written movies (like COOL AS ICE and JASON GOES TO HELL: THE FINAL FRIDAY), but I have never seen (or heard) the dialogues this bad, only inundating with enough inanity to make your head spin from laughing in hysterics and screaming from the pain of enduring the torture of sitting through this movie. Despite good plot and intriguing story concepts, the script has to be ONE OF THE WORST EVER WRITTEN FOR THE SCREEN, BAR NONE! The incompetent Howard R. Cohen should never be working as a screenwriter, professional or otherwise. I can not believe they would even allow the terrible script to produce a movie like this in the first place. Did the Japanese producers read the script, in broken English or translated before they know what they were into? Even crap like G.I. Joe The Movie and My Little Pony The Movie have redeeming values compared to this abomination.<br /><br />If you're a big fan of 80s animation, or just taking a nostalgia trip, BEWARE OF RAINBOW BRITE AND THE STAR STEALER! It does not matter whether you were elated or traumatized by the sloppily animated movie with an atrociously written script, or you have not seen the movie, STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE. The movie should be viewed with the precaution to learn how NOT to write a bad script! | 1 |
I saw this film yesterday on TV. I had just finished reading the book in which the movie was supposedly based. In the opening credits it said 'This is a free adaptation of Eça de Queirós' novel'. I should have turned off my TV at that moment.<br /><br />Vera Sacramento's idea of 'free adaptation' is turning a story about Church's influence over people and the hypocrisy of people claiming morality at the end of the 19th century into a story about sex. In fact, the only thing she adopted from the novel was the sex part, which was only mildly referred in Eça de Queirós' novel. And, of course, the name of some characters.<br /><br />As of the characters, in the novel, Amélia and João Eduardo were victims of church's influence. Amélia was seduced by Father Amaro and all the time she was controlled by him. João Eduardo, her fiancé, was excommungated by the priests, because he dared to criticize them. In this movie, Amélia seduces every one she meets and Father Amaro is just another victim. João Eduardo is a dealer of drugs and illegal weapons.<br /><br />Vera Sacramento has turned a novel which criticized moral costumes of an epoch and turned it into just another movie with lots of (bad) sex. Even worse, her story was completely empty of ideas. Two wasted hours! Eça de Queirós surely did not deserve this. | 1 |
I cannot stand this show! Has there ever been even one redeeming quality, one funny punchline, or one plot line that 'didn't' make the average viewer want to drown himself in a bowl of soggy cornflakes? <br /><br />The voices. Oh, those horrible, wretched voices. Akin to repeatedly dragging a set of fine cutlery across a dusty blackboard, each character is uniquely annoying in his or her aptitude for shrill, nasal vocals. Cosmo sounds like a whining mongrel, Vicky sounds like a stereotypical shrew, and Timmy's dad makes every line sound like a bad impersonation of a game show host (Guy Smiley from 'Sesame Street' comes to mind).<br /><br />The animation is awful; even the producers of 'Yu-Gi-Oh!' laugh at the overwhelmingly bad artwork on this show. Every character has buck teeth, or a square head, or a head three sizes too big for his or her body. And what's with having the characters speak every single line wide-eyed and grinning, as though posing for a photo op with the president? Then, there is the fact that every character on the show is completely moronic. Not since the subtle grace of Amelia Bedelia, Homer Simpson, and Buddy Lembeck of 'Charles in Charge' fame have characters been portrayed as so unrealistically dumb. Usually 'unrealistic' is synonymous with 'unfunny', and that is most definitely the case here. There hasn't been this much slapstick based on cluelessness since 'The Naked Gun 33 1/3'...and at least Leslie Nielson was good at it.<br /><br />Finally, the premise of the show (and it's the same every single episode, so big time spoiler alert here): Timmy wishes for something with his two 'Fairly Oddparents', something goes wrong, there's always some contrived reason why he can't immediately reverse course and wish away the damage, and then everything turns out just fine in the end. Oh, and on a side note, Timmy's parents never believe him when he complains about Vicky, and they continue to employ her at every opportunity. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that a kids' show containing the subtle message that it pretty much does no good whatsoever to tell on an abusive babysitter probably isn't a great idea. <br /><br />If you're writing a paper and want to cite an example of just how far the quality of cartoons has fallen, 'The Fairly Odd Parents' has to be a great place to start. A prime example of television producers throwing together a worthless product aimed at kids with little or no effort simply because they know that someone somewhere will watch it. | 1 |
David Lynch's crude and crudely drawn take on South Park presents us with a nightmare of disturbing clichés about suburban middle class families. The father is a hideous monster with three teeth and a disproportionately large circular mouth-hole from which are uttered the most horrendous guttural noises, the son and mother are permanently horrified, incoherent creatures for whom terror is a way of life. A number of equally absurd characters are introduced throughout the series.<br /><br />Lynch is not famous for his comedies (i.e. On the Air, aspects of Wild at Heart), and I am not particularly fond of comedies in general. However, there were a couple of scenes in Dumbland which made me laugh out loud. There are some clever bits of animated cinematography - where Lynch conveys wide ranges of reaction in his characters through a syntactical arrangement of shots as opposed to facial expressions (which never really vary in Dumbland).<br /><br />I believe Lynch was really trying to give his audience a straight-forward, if disturbing, animated comedy here. Interestingly, he chose to follow in the footsteps of the recent wave of ultra-low-brow humor (i.e. most Will Farrell films) while adding elements of vicious social critique and classic cartoon violence and gross-out humor. While the blend doesn't really work very well here, it is nothing if not Lynchian.<br /><br />Worth seeing by Lynch fans. | 1 |
I've loved all of Cream's work, even as there is such a small and precious catalog of work to take hold. Even when they go for as long as twenty minutes with some of their songs (Spoonful and Toad off of Wheels of Fire are prime examples) still rock the socks off of more than half of any given rock act working today. This power to gel on stage is given one of the most anticipate rock band reunions ever with their Royal Albert Hall shows last year. They may have gotten older, as have their fans, but the energy is still there, with the great arrangements of classic blues songs as well as their own. The renditions of White Room, Badge, Politician, Spoonful, Sunshine of Your Love, not one seems to miss a beat. Clapton's solos have a formation that he sometimes doesn't have when on stage with his solo band. Ginger Baker, enough said. Jack Bruce is sturdy enough with his vocals still with a kind of power that Clapton could never get on his own. Bottom line, if you want to see what were the best shows you wish you had seen last year (well, some may have seen them), it's all on this DVD, with cool special features. | 0 |
I think Cliff Robertson certainly was one of our finest actors. He has a half dozen classics to his credit. He does fine here as the heavy, but the direction is so bad and the pacing so tiresome, it never gets off the mark. The story starts off well although it makes me wonder how he could count on his wife hanging herself. Still he mugs well and carries things along. The death knell is twofold. First of all, if we were to take the amount of time characters spend walking from one room to another or one part of the house to another, it would eat up about a third of the movie. Add to that, Robertson's character sitting up in bed in the blue light, looking confused, that might add another chunk. I agree with those that said a half hour shorter would have made it a pretty decent, though insignificant film. The biggest weakness is just a convoluted plot that, when all is said and done, leaves incredible questions. I'm not putting in spoilers, but when it ends, don't think too much. I can come up with ten what-ifs without raising a sweat. It would have been better if it had remained a ghost story. | 1 |
'La Bête' by Walerian Borowczyk is based on the short story 'Lokis' written by Prosper Merimée.Lucy Broadhurst(Lisabeth Hummel),an American heiress betrothed to the son of an impoverished Marquis,arrives at the family's crumbling château and learns of a mythical ursine beast purported to prowl the nearby forest.It is fabled that a former lady of the house(Sirpa Lane)once engaged in perverse sex with the creature and Lucy finds herself consumed by dreams of the incident. 'The Beast' is an art-house mix of surreal horror,explicit sleaze and porno.There's implied bestiality,assault and perversion in the priesthood,copious fake ejaculate smeared on bared breasts,masturbation with a rose and, most graphic of all,the eponymous beast toying with incredibly big phallus.Still this genuinely erotic film is wonderfully photographed and tasteless.The women here are stunningly beautiful and they are naked most of the time.Overall 'La Bête' is a visual feast.Whether it be from the fetishistic attention to detail,or the visual motifs pregnant with information,Borowczyk's masterpiece should be watched with care and attention.A must-see for fans of European cult cinema. | 0 |
I'm afraid I must disagree with Mr. Radcliffe, as although he is correct in saying this isn't a comedy, it has many other merits. The plot is a little mad at parts, but I believe it it all fits together nicely, creating a satisfying, enjoyable film. The last scene was rather abysmal compared to the rest of the film, but the actual ending of the plot a few scenes previously is very interesting, showing just what someone will do under stressful circumstances.<br /><br />I would recommend this film to fans of thrillers and action movies, but if you're a fan of gangster movies then as long as you don't expect expect something as deep as Goodfellas then you should still find it enjoyable. | 0 |
Ernesto is a man that makes a living out of duping other solid citizens of their hard earned money. Together with Manco, an older man with a lot of experience, he pulls out capers that allow him to make a decent living, but that is not making him a rich man by any means. Enter Federico, an older man who is more experience in the art of deception. Together with the younger Ernesto they prove a winning combination. That only lasts until Pilar, Federico's former love interest, appears in the picture.<br /><br />This Spanish film directed by Miguel Bardem, is light in tone and pleasant to sit through. Other, better made caper films have been made with much clever plots than this one, but the film is easy to take, and at times, it has a lot of funny situations.<br /><br />This viewer will see Federico Luppi in anything, even reading the telephone directory! He is an actor's actor. We have had the privilege of having seen him in the Buenos Aires stage doing excellent work before his international film career. As Federico, he does what he does best. It's impossible to imagine anyone better in his role. Ernesto Alterio, the son of Hector Alterio, is a young actor who promises to have a great career. Victoria Abril makes Pilar fun as she gets involved with these con men. Miguel Alexandre, a veteran actor, is also good as Manco. | 0 |
One of the last films DIRECTED by Lionel Barrymore, 'Ten Cents a Dance' stars Barbara Stanwyck as the dance-hall girl 'Barbara' in her sixth role. Stanwyck looks quite 'plain-jane' in this one, and opens with her getting chewed out by the dance hall manager. Then along comes rich guy Bradley Carlton (Ricardo Cortez) who wants to sweep her off her feet. (Cortez and Stanwyck had made three films together in the 1930s.) Then she meets Eddie, who's very different from the dashing Carlton. The writer, Jo Swerling, had worked on some biggies (Its a Wonderful Life, Guys and Dolls, and Gone with the Wind) so I was surprised that the characters and script in this were so ordinary. The story starts getting more interesting about halfway thru, and is VERY similar to 'The Bride Walks Out' from 1936, ALSO starring Stanwyck.... T.B.W.O. is much more clever, but also more tame, due to on-slaught of the Hays code... | 0 |
This is a fascinating documentary about a 15 year old black lad who is accused of murdering a tourist in Florida and the subsiquent court case that follows. What this film shows is how corrupt the American police system is and how easy it can really be to convict an innocent man and how a senile old fool who thinks one black man looks very much like another and sod it if he rots in jail because i said he was the man who murdered my wife.The star is the defence lawyer who is brilliant at not only his job in court but he also did he what the police should have done all along. Fascinating stuff. 7 out of 10. | 0 |
After having seen the movie the first question arising in my mind was: Is this supposed to be irony or not? After reading a few comments about the character Doc Savage and the comic series, I knew this film was not meant to be ironic. So, the story tells us about an US-American Super-Doc saving a south American republic from evil. Sounds like a typical story. But this one comes in such an unrealistic way that it becomes ridiculous. The mandatory end-fight shows the worst presentation of martial arts I have ever seen. The film might be interesting for low budget movie designers as a bad example. | 1 |
Count Laszlo (Ralph Fiennes) has just been transferred to a hospital in Italy during World War II. He is horrifically burned from an ambush. His nurse Hana (Juliette Binoche) tends to him, body and mind, for she fears, quite rightly, that he may be a very troubled soul. In the course of his care, the Count starts to tell Hana of his recent past. It seems he worked in a government capacity in Africa, where he met a beautiful married lady named Katherine (Kristin Scott Thomas). Although they tried to avoid each other, they fell in love. After a brief affair, Katherine called it quits, leaving the Count desolate. Even so, the two would meet again, under heart-wrenching circumstances. Meanwhile, Hana herself falls for a Sihk man in the British bomb squad. Yet, the war is raging relentlessly. Can love exist when the world is in turmoil? This is a tremendous film, based on an equally fine but complex novel. The plot has many story lines that are woven together beautifully, each of them poignant beyond description. The script itself is elegant and contains many memorable lines. Fiennes is magnificent, both as the burn victim and as the man who thought love was a myth. Scott Thomas is also quite fine as the woman who fights against her passions. As for Binoche, she richly deserved the Oscar that she was presented, as her nurse is a shining example of hope in a hopeless situation. The scenery is utterly gorgeous, as are the costumes, the direction, and the production. If you have missed out on viewing this film, rectify that soon, very soon. The English Patient will remain one of the greatest achievements in film for centuries to come. | 0 |
Nothing revolutionary here; just impeccably elegant, restrained cinema.<br /><br />GARDE A VUE is confined almost exclusively to a drab police station, and mostly to one interrogation room, but director Claude Miller (who made the wonderful film THIS SWEET SICKNESS, among others) intercalates spare glimpses of exterior tableaux as minimalist locale scenography. Miller's restraint, especially early on, is breathtaking, and his exquisite handling of the consequently-pivotal interior mise-en-scene makes for captivating viewing.<br /><br />Lino Ventura is superb as usual, succeeding to legitimize a character that, on paper, is cliche: the laconic, hard-nosed, world-weary homicide detective. Ventura lives the role, making it completely believable, even though the script allows us little access to his inner workings; the film ends at the very moment it appears he will be forced to confront his failure for the first time.<br /><br />Michel Serrault is equal to the task as the suspected child-killer who shrewdly spars with the single-minded flic. The exchanges between the two are more-often-than-not pregnant with tension and the aura of a constantly metamorphosing playing field for a battle of wits. Serrault's character is by turns deplorably haughty and cunning, and pitiable; then later....<br /><br />The 'message' of GARDE A VUE, if one were to search for one, is a condemnation of police methodology and the kind of pressures that make a cop over-zealous to, if necessary, close cases at the expense of justice. For most of its length though the film shines as nothing more than an exemplar of how to turn a potentially soporific set-bound scenario into a suspenseful drama of the utmost cinematic economy.<br /><br /> | 0 |
This movie is so stupid that I want my $2.99 back that I paid for!! First this movie starts off with a bunch of wooden actor geeks with fill in talent like they got picked off the street somewhere because the 'real' actors either did not show up because of the laughable script or they just couldn't get anybody desperate enough to do this movie! The music in this movie is enough to put you to sleep, flute music made for faerie's dancing in the wilderness wouldn't even be good enough for this movie! And the guy dressed up as Satan looks like he's all dressed up in a K-Mart Halloween special costume! There are no dead scenes except a few lame scenes. When I saw what the terrible killers looked like in those bath robes with Nosferatu faces I just laughed! This is what the whole town is supposed to be running away from once a year! This movie is one of the worst demonic movies I have ever seen. Avoid this one! | 1 |
SPOILERS FOLLOW - and I haven't even seen it.<br /><br />Let me guess... the murder is related to the evil property developer wanting to develop the riverside, and Dickens was murdered because he was trying to uncover a similar dastardly plot. If anybody who's seen it could let me know if I'm half right, you'll have saved me the time it might take to watch something worthwhile and the rest of us will know to steer clear of both this film and its enthusiastic reviewers. On the other hand, it *sounds* intriguing; but if it was any good would it *really* be given away with a Sunday rag? And what sort of track record does Foley have anyway?<br /><br />...So, as a public service, I managed to sit through it. It's worse than 'Swept Away'. Really. I've read stories by eight-year-olds with more drama than this. Truly awful. And I was half right. | 1 |
This movie is painful. That's probably the best way to describe it. It's 93 minutes of your life that you will never be able to get back. Well, actually it's more like 86 minutes because there is no way anyone would want to sit through the credits in this stinking pile of dog feces. Immediately you can tell the movie is from the producer of 'Mortal Kombat', due to it's thumping and annoying techno soundtrack. This drains the few laughably enjoyable moments this movie can give you. The rest is drained by the completely uninteresting and annoying characters, the 'Freddie Prinze, Jr. School of Acting' acting abilities of all involved (including the miscast Christopher Lambert), and the non-existant directing. Did I leave anything out? Of course I did. Let's not forget about the suicide-inducing script, with it's unitentionally (??) funny dialogue. Oh, yes, and let us also talk about how they shamed the original poem with this sad and useless futuristic/medieval translation. The costumes and weapons (were those giant pizza cutters I kept seeing?!?!) are just plain stupid, that's the best way I can describe them. And the last culprit of the night is the always awful CGI. When will filmmakers learn that CGI sucks? When will we see the wonderful effects used in the 80's? Probably never, but films like this and 'Star Wars, Episode 1: The Phantom Menace' make us wish that they would bring them back. In closing, avoid this movie like the newest Freddie Prinze, Jr. movie. Then again if you like Freddie Prinze, Jr. movies then you deserve to sit through this horrid excuse for filmmaking. | 1 |
I love Kristen Dunst, especially in Elizabethtown. I guess she's the kind of actress who had better not act before camera, but just be herself. She did that, and she looked so natural in Elizabethtown. In this movie, however, she did try to add in more artificial performance, especially in the first half of the film, so that she looked more like a sober editor. While in the other half, she totally set herself back in her daily track, and I just couldn't tell her to be an editor any way. Therefore, her performance is not enduring in this film. <br /><br />The film,on the whole, is attracting and inspiring. the character of Young is full and reasonable. Anyway, the film tells a big and sophisticated story. <br /><br />The only big defect is that it didn't show a turning point of the hero and heroine's love story. I am totally confused when they kiss at the end of the story, because that is rather unclear for the two persons. | 0 |
A masterful performance by Jamie Foxx is just one of the highlights of 'Ray,' a 2004 film also starring Kerry Washington, Regina King, Curtis Armstrong, Richard Schiff, Sharon Warren, Patrick Bachau, and many others, all giving excellent support to the film.<br /><br />The film has several main focuses: the first is Charles' childhood - the drowning of his brother George which haunted him for years, the glaucoma that blinded him, and the strength taught him by his mother - don't bend, don't break, don't ever be a cripple. She eventually sends him to a special school where Charles' gift of music is discovered. The next focus is Charles' artistic evolution as a Nat King Cole-like singer, to his arrangements of gospel music, his foray into country music, and the unique sound that became Ray Charles. The third focus is Charles' personal life - his marriage to Bea, his many affairs, his heroin addiction and eventual rehabilitation.<br /><br />Because Charles lived a packed 74 years, there's a lot skipped. Though Charles was orphaned while in his teens, the death of his beloved mother, his rock, isn't in the film. While he is shown on the chitlin circuit and refusing to play in segregated clubs, his near-starvation as a musician isn't covered. At one point, he found a jar of jelly and attempted to eat it, but the jar broke. He was that down and out. Bea is shown with him when the State of Georgia, which banned him, adopts 'Georgia on My Mind' as their theme song in 1979 and welcomes Charles back to his native state, yet he and Bea were divorced in 1977 which isn't mentioned. She probably was there, however. Also, she wasn't his only wife - he was married once before he met her; that marriage isn't covered. In the movie, we're told of one illegitimate child - there were 12. It would have been impossible to get all of that and more into a film.<br /><br />What isn't skipped is his glorious music, which seems to go on constantly throughout the film, continually reinforcing his genius and artistry.<br /><br />Charles' story is compelling and holds the audience's interest throughout. Those who scoff at it as a made-for-TV movie don't give it the credit it deserves. Taylor Hackford's direction gives 'Ray' a good pace, and the movie has a lot of atmosphere and evokes the various decades beautifully.<br /><br />As Ray, Jamie Foxx inhabits the character and makes one forget he's a comedian playing a part. Foxx wore prosthetics, did his own piano playing, and spent a great deal of time with Charles preparing for the role. He nails him, but it's not an impersonation - he's a flesh and blood man with hallucinations of standing in water and finding his brother's body; a man full of denial about his addiction, hating the word junkie and believing he's not hooked; and he's in denial about his home life, thinking that his wife doesn't know about his various affairs and illegitimate children (in the movie, child); and a man taken terrible advantage of early in his career because of his blindness who refuses to be walked on later on. He demands to be paid in $1 bills so they can be counted; when he discovers he's a gravy train for a club owner and her partner and was nearly cheated out of a record deal, he makes his own deal and leaves his job.<br /><br />One doesn't so much marvel at Foxx's performance as accept him as Ray from the first time he appears on camera.<br /><br />This is an excellent biography, which, like 'Walk the Line' is punctuated with the fantastic music of the artist. Whether or not you're a Ray Charles fan, 'Ray' is something to experience. | 0 |
Relentless like one of those loud action movies. The entire cast seems to be on speed. I didn't quite get the director's intentions if any. I wonder if she's ever seen a Stanley Donen, Vincent Minnelli or even a George Sidney musical. Structure, please! This is one hell of a mess and I loved Abba. The costumes the unflattering photography - unflattering towards the actors but loving towards the locations) The one thing that makes the whole thing bearable is the sight of Meryl Streep making a fool of herself. No chemistry with her friends (Christine Baranski and Julie Walters) think of Streep with Lily Tomlyn in the Altman film and you'll understand what I was hoping for. I was embarrassed in particular by Pierce Brosnam and Colin Firth. The audience, however, seemed to enjoy it so it probably it's just me. | 1 |
Why do I like DISORGANIZED CRIME so much? Why do I chuckle or laugh out loud any time I think of a dozen or more scenes from this movie? It's kind of hard to explain, but I'll give it a try. First of all, it's very funny indeed - in contrast to what lots of 'official' reviews want you to believe. But then again, that depends entirely on your sense of humour, so there is no sense in arguing about that. Often the humour is in the dialogue, and often it is situational comedy. There is for instance this very hilarious scene in which the 4 gang members have been given a lift in the back of a truck. When the farmer drops them, they just stand there by the road, covered all over with cow s*** or whatever. They are totally unnerved; then, realizing the humour of the scene, they one by one start laughing about themselves, and Ruben Blades (as Carlos), looking (and certainly smelling) terrible, nonchalantly takes out some mouth spray to at least do something about his breath (simply describing the scene here makes me chuckle again!). Which leads to the second point: the acting. Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Phillips, William Russ, Ruben Blades and Corbin Bernsen (okay, the latter overdoes it a bit at times) all fit and play their parts beautifully - in fact, you get the feeling they must have been enjoying themselves too when shooting the film. Thirdly, there is the plot . Jim Kouf, the director and screenwriter, is very laid-back; he takes his time to let the plot unfold and have the individual characters establish themselves. More often than not, there is no real action, and yet you enjoy these 4 very different people - who attempt to rob a bank although their boss (Bernsen) does not seem to turn up - grumble about each other and even-tually, grudgingly, like each other. The movie is a fantastic parody of the typical bank robbery plot - totally impossible with all its twists and coincidences, yet utterly convincing in its love for ironic details. Incidentally, the title of the film is one of the best I have ever come across, because it per-fectly summarizes the plot in a very ironic way. Therefore, take my advice: watch this film, but if you don't chuckle, grin or smile during the first 10 minutes, forget it - it's not your type of film. PS. The only negative thing about this movie is that there seems to be no way to get hold of the screenplay - if you happen to know how, do tell me. | 0 |
Eric Phillips (Don Wilson) is a secret service agent who prevents the assassination of a senator however along the way he finds a conspiracy and has a tracker on his tail. The tracker by the way is bent on terminating Phillips. The most obvious inspiration for this low budget cheeseball action flick, is of course Robocop and while that film had some imagination and real energy, this just has a real life kickboxing champ running away from a robot. The movie isn't so awful as it is just empty and repetitive. The story is written in clichés and the characters are set up to be cut down by the various gunfire. Don Wilson, as usual, is terrible in the lead role.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor) | 1 |
Was this based on a comic-book? A video-game? A drawing by a 3 year-old? <br /><br />There is nothing in this movie to be taken seriously at all; not the characters, not the dialog, not the plot, not the action. Nothing. We have high-tech international terrorists/criminals who bicker like pre-school kids, Stallone's man-of-steel-type resilience towards ice-cold weather, dialog so dumb that it's sometimes almost hilarious, and so on. Even the codename that the bad guys use is dumb ('tango-tango'). A film that entertains through some suspense, good action-sequences, and a nice snowy mountainous setting. Oh, yes: and the unintentional humour.<br /><br />The film opens with some truly bad and unconvincing gay banter between our go-lucky and happy characters who are obviously having a 'swell' time. Then comes a sweat-inducing failed-rescue part, which should make anyone with fear-of-heights problems want to pull their hair out. And then we have some more bad dialog, and after that some more great action. This is the rhythm of the film in a nutshell. <br /><br />Stallone's melodramatic exchange with Turner, when they meet after a long time, is so soapy, so clichéd, so fake, and so bad that it should force a chuckle out of any self-respecting viewer. Soon after this display of awful dialog-writing, we are witnesses to a spectacular and excellently shot hijack of an airplane. The entire action is one big absurdity, but it's mindless fun at its best. Although the rest of the action is exciting and fun, the airplane scenes are truly the highlight of the film. After the landing, our master-criminals seek for a guide and end up with Stallone and Rooker. They send Stallone to fetch the first case of money, but somehow they do everything to make it as difficult as possible for him to reach it; they take most of his clothes off (so he can freeze) and they won't give him the equipment he needs (so he can fall off). DO THESE GANGSTERS WANT THEIR MONEY FETCHED OR NOT??? Very silly. Apparently they don't trust Stallone, but surely they know that they can always black-mail him by using Rooker as a hostage. Nevertheless, our gangsters make Stallone's climb difficult, if for no logical reasons then to at least show us how truly evil they are - lest there be any doubts. And for those who might still doubt how evil the bad guys are, they overact, brag, and snicker in a truly evil manner. Everyone convinced? Good. You'd better be. Otherwise the writers will throw in a mass execution of twenty school children, just to make sure that the evilness of the bad guys is crystal-clear to everyone.<br /><br />The old guy who flies the chopper... How the hell did he fall for the trap? Firstly, he must have been warned by the MTV airhead about the criminals, and secondly, he must have heard Stallone's and Rooker's voices on the walkie-talkies. A whole bunch of idiotic verbal exchanges take place, with Lithgow having the questionable honour of getting most of the silly lines. 'Get off my back!' Lithgow: 'I haven't even started climbing on your back.' Or, Lithgow to Stallone: 'We had a deal, but now we only have each other!' And as for Lithgow's gang of murderers: these guys never seem to want to kill immediately. They are very creative about it; they philosophize, pretend that they are playing football with your body, and so on. <br /><br />Stallone co-wrote this thing. I have no idea what drugs he was on when he did it. I'd hate to think the script is this bad because of a low I.Q. | 0 |
This is the first of these '8 Films To Die For' collection that I've seen and it's certainly not made me want to see any of the rest...although I've heard at least a couple of them are decent. I don't know, this wasn't terrible but it didn't really do much for me. Your basic dysfunctional cannibal family in suburbia kind of thing, mom & dad died, the family sold the farm & moved to San Francisco (?) where they continued to bring home stray food sources whenever possible. The best part of this was the creepy Goth sister, who of course invites a friend over from school that never leaves. Anyway, of course we have a butcher shop in the basement and so on and so on. This family is sort of like the white-bread version of the Sawyer Clan, they're nasty & they do bad things but they ain't go no soul. I see a lot of reviews from people that liked this, and I guess I don't know what I missed, but I found it to be very mediocre & I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, really. 4 out of 10. | 1 |
This film isn't a little bad. It's not even kind of bad. It's horrid. You know you're in trouble when Charo shows up in a film. She must have had the week off from 'Love Boat.' George Kennedy, at least he's a gamer - he's in there trying. Actually, he's all right. And it's good to see Martha Raye. Jimmie Walker's okay. There's slightly better acting than in Airport '75 but what film doesn't have better acting than Airport '75? One thing I liked about this film is that it had more going on than a lot of other disaster films plot-wise. At least they made an attempt at subplots. What really hurts this film is the special effects - ugh! Not too special if you ask me. This is the kind of film that at 2am is truly, truly funny if you've been up having fun with your buddies and you're looking for something to laugh at. | 1 |
I love all his work but this looks like nothing.. sorry.. This looks more like a 'David Lynch copycat'. I think people like it only because 'it's from David Lynch'. | 1 |
Brad Pitt sticks his index finger in Diane Kruger's leg wound and keeps it there until he gets what he wants. Funny, horribly so. The invented yarn takes 'The Dirty Dozen' for a ride and sometimes abandons it to pay tribute to other movies. Lots of fun. Even 'Paris when it sizzles' is mentioned in a delightfully organic piece of dialog. I was thrilled by Christoph Waltzer's character and by his sensational performance. Brad Pitt creates a true original. I love the actor's lack of vanity. There's a quirk in the character that is pure Brad Pitt. Tarantino visits a new universe but. fortunately, his hand. his brain and his heart are visible all over the place. | 0 |
When the word 'presents' finds its way into a title, preceded by a famous name, the work is usually immediately dismissible. For some reason, people who are capable of creating good art don't seem to be able to see it in others. However, I've always been willing to give the second installment of the Demons trilogy a try. For one thing, the soundtracks are absolutely to die for. Most American directors would have sacrificed small animals to line up the kind of talent on the soundtrack of Demons 2. For another, well, two words: Asia Argento. (Of course, she was eleven when this film was made, and a number of years away from her seeming decision that she would style her acting after early Helen Mirren: steamy looks and little clothing.) As well, Lamberto Bava comes from one of Italy's finest dynasties in that odd horror sub genre known as Giallo (he's the son of Mario Bava, who may well have invented the genre in the sixties). And the original Demons is an absolute must-see for fans of eighties B-horror films. So how bad can this be, right? Well, bad. The demons continue their assault on Italian media, as the movie opens in a modern Italian high-rise where many people going about their lives have their televisions on in the background. They're all watching a kind of combination news report/mater video of some investigative reporter types trying to get proof of the events of the first film (which would seem to put the time frame of this one no more than a few days after the first film). Through the usual horror-film extra inability to concentrate, the reporters manage to bring a demon back to life, and he comes through the TV screen to start the plague anew.<br /><br />Yeah. It's that bad. About the only thing good one can say about the film is that the soundtrack (when you're not being buffeted about by the likes of The Smiths, The Cult, Gene Loves Jezebel, etc.) is stunning. It comes from the keyboard of Simon Boswell, who got his start as a part of the Argento Dynasty and has since gone on to score such films as Lord of Illusions and Hackers.<br /><br />Makes a half-decent free rental if you're planning on drinking heavily, but it's certainly nowhere near the fun the original was. Cronenberg's wonderfully funny high-rise-nasty-creature romp, Shivers (aka They Came From Within), is a whole lot better. | 1 |
Like many western Pennsylvania history buffs, I had been really looking forward to this much-heralded PBS program that was produced by Pittsburgh's WQED. However, I must say now that I was somewhat disappointed. On the positive side, I believe that overall this film did a fair job of explaining the main issues and describing the events of the so-called French and Indian War. In particular, its presentation of the Indians' point of view was somewhat new and quite interesting, although it certainly was at time over-emphasized. Also on the positive side, the blend of narrative and action scenes was well done and came across somewhat better than many of these typical documentaries made up of 'experts' interviews and picture stills (a la Ken Burns). On the negative side, many of the battles did have a somewhat 'staged' look and many important aspects of the war were overlooked. Most of all I was very disappointed and frustrated by how little importance was given to Forbes's successful campaign of 1758 against Fort Duquesne as compared to the earlier failures of 1754 by Washington and 1755 by Braddock. In particular, I was somewhat incredulous that there was NO mention of Colonel Henry Bouquet, the Swiss mercenary in the British service who was most responsible for Forbes' success. Finally I could not believe the complete omission of the 1763 Battle of Bushy Run that started as a re-run of Braddock's defeat but ended up as the victory that decided the outcome of Pontiac's War thanks to the wiles of the same Colonel Bouquet who certainly must rank as one of the most successful British commanders of this war. | 1 |
This should be my kind of movie. Even if it sucked, it still should have been right up my alley; hell, I like 'Congo,' and 'Allan Quatermaine' movies. I have a soft spot in my heart for silly alien/demon/adventure movies. Let's go over why I decided to watch this in the first place.<br /><br />1. Horror/Sci-fi almost always intrigues me 2. I'm a big fan of archaeology, and this movie does involve a rare treasure. 3. Super-natural enemies with quality FX. 4. Christian Slater and Dorf I generally enjoy. 5. Tara Reid is hot.<br /><br />So this movie had potential, at least in the cheese-horror section of the video store, but boy did it suck ass. The only redeeming aspects are Slater and Dorf, and not everyone finds them as entertaining as I do...I mean, let's face it, both are melodramatic. But now on to some of the many faults.<br /><br />Tara Reid. Even though the movie as a whole is worse, Reid's performance is truly awful. We're not just talking bad, I'm talking about nominating Tara Reid for worst performance of the year. I don't know if she is capable of acting, but playing the museum curator is simply out of her league...completely. Watching her try to carry the roll of educated scientist wasn't much different than what you get watching the setup in bad porn. I mean this isn't just bad, it is laughably bad. Oh, and for those of you curious, she doesn't get naked, only down to a bra in a silly, totally unnecessary love scene.<br /><br />Even with Reid's performance, perhaps the movie could have worked, but the plot is what dominates, and the plot seems written by a 10 year old. I hadn't realized this was a video game adaptation until AFTER watching the DVD, otherwise I would have appreciated the stupidity in real-time. <br /><br />The storyline jumps back and forth from Slater's childhood at an orphanage where he gets flashbacks of something terrible that happened, he has amnesia, of course. In his adult life Slater was recruited by some Unit 713, a paranormal military force that apparently hunts evil or something. Slater had to leave because he was too rebellious, I guess, you never really know unless it was in one of those voice-overs I zoned out during. The movie starts with Slater hunting artifacts, obtaining his latest piece after some dealings with a 'Chilean mercenary force specializing in selling rare antiquities.' I may have the exact quote wrong, but you get the idea.<br /><br />There is an evil doctor that wants to unleash some hellions on earth (no reason given), experiments on children, super demon/alien-human hybrids, 'photonic' bullets (the demon things can't stand sunlight) and, of course, Slater and Dorf to try to save everyone.<br /><br />Jesus, I can't even being to wade through the clichéd elements. The script badly needed reworking to narrow the focus and provide SOME depth. I mean, why is this evil scientist so damn evil? Oh right, humans are doomed and he is just trying to save the human race. I guess he's infected? How did that happen? Oh right he has one of the evil demon things in a cage and draws its blood to shoot into himself. How the hell did that happen? Why and where did he get the super slugs (oh yes, they use the old sci-fi stand by of parasitic aliens/demons which 'fuse' with the spine of their host)Of course, Slater is, like Blade, half super-slug powered, but his slug 'didn't fully fuse due to an electrical shock,' thank god. Oh, and the people with these 'fused' spines, have no idea they're half-alien/demon and act as good members of the community until some secret signal is given whence they turn killer zombies. Yeah we get zombies.<br /><br />So lots of crap that could be entertaining, but none of it is.<br /><br />Also, the ending is completely stupid as everything turns out to be not that big of a deal to fix in the first place...at least nothing a little dynamite can't handle.<br /><br />Not the very worst thing you'll see, but a truly bad movie. | 1 |
Okay the promos promised a comedy and people(few) went to watch it Being the first release of 2006 is not a bad thing, or for that matter of any year, because the first and last films mostly flop except GHAJINI and some more<br /><br />Okay coming to JAWANI DIWANI<br /><br />Review in short The film is about Emraan Hashmi doing his usual stuff sadly it's annoying this time after repetitions It has an irritating Hrishita Bhatt and a flop Celina Jaitley<br /><br />Cringeworthy dialogues, comedy scenes and badly handled drama and lots of loopholes<br /><br />Direction is bad Emraan Hashmi is annoying here, luckily now he is coming of age But post FOOTPATH and MURDER and some decent work in some more films the actor in him took a backseat and directors focused on his kisses and womaniser image which sadly lost it's touch after repetitions Hrishita and Celina are bad Mahesh is horrible | 1 |
Robot Jox tries hard, but is fundamentally a series of fight scenes strung together -- robot against robot, man against man, man against woman. The premise had potential, but it seems the script wasn't really given the couple of more drafts it needed. Still, it was fairly good, for a science fiction action movie. Part of it was because the script was by Joe Haldeman. For those who aren't familiar with the name, Haldeman wrote the award-winning science fiction novel 'The Forever War.' It's considered one of the very best powered battle armor novels, right up there with Robert Heinlein's 'Starship Troopers' and John Steakley's 'Armor.' And this movie is really more like a giant powered battle armor movie, rather than giant robots. It's closer to what fans would have wanted instead of the travesty that was Paul Verhoeven's 'Starship Troopers,' which bore only a passing resemblance to the novel it was based on.<br /><br />Despite some assumptions, this really isn't based on Homer's 'Iliad.' A couple of names are all they had in common. Achilles having his robot's foot blown off had no parallel in the Iliad, which didn't include Achilles' death. Nor was the ancient Achilles a noble warrior. He was the mightiest, but also vengeful and petty. Even the robot jock killed off in the first scene doesn't fit. He was named Hercules, while the Greek Iliad would have had Herakles.<br /><br />The effects were fairly good for the time and the budget. True, it wasn't comparable to 'Terminator 2' a year later, but that movie cost ten times as much. The stop motion was almost as good as the robotic walkers in 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi.' Better, in fact, than a lot of Ray Harryhausen animation, which is highly regarded, but quite dated.<br /><br />Don't bring high expectations into this and you probably won't be disappointed. It's better than a lot of other low-budget flicks and even some big-budget blockbuster wannabes that have better effects but far worse scripts. | 0 |
I really liked this movie, it was good, and the actors were brilliant! Leon Robinson, who played Richard, and many other classic singers, is very good at his job, when you see him in a musical movie, you know that it is going to be good! I would suggest that people watch this heart warming, sad, and special movie, if they want to know more about Richard! Outstanding! Fresh! | 0 |
This is an extremely silly and little seen film about slavery in the West Indies and it stars Puddy from the 'Seinfeld' show! Patrick Warburton made his film debut in this contrived movie and he's noticeably slimmer here. Oliver Reed got top billing but he's hardly in the film at all. Warburton plays a white slave and its funny to see all the young and horny wives of rich old men bidding on him because they all want to have sex with him. Eartha Kitt plays an owner of a bordello and they're is so much nudity in the film. If its not drunken orgies at the bordello then its the young wives having they're turn with him. Then of course towards the end the slaves revolt and there's the bloody standoff. No real political message like the film 'Burn' but just another contrived plot device to move the story along. Incredibly they made a sequel and Warburton and all the rest of the cast came back! I hope they got paid a lot of dough because this first film is pretty bad. The nudity keeps it watchable and Warburton's lack of any accent make it at times laughable. Very bad film but I got to admit that I want to see the sequel. | 1 |
Spending an hour seeing this brilliant Dan Finnerty and his 'Dan Band' perform their special on Bravo is the most enjoyable hour I've ever spent watching TV. This young man (Dan) is such an incredible talent, as a singer, performer and even dancer. He can go from the cheesiest of ballad pop songs, all of which have only been sung by women, to hip-hop, rock, also songs written for women.. This guy can do anything. I've seen him live at least 11 times, so I was not expecting just how well that his show would adapt to a television or film format, but all reservations went away instantly when the show started because of Dan's overwhelming star quality.Do yourself a favor and watch this, or better yet, buy it. | 0 |
i came across this film on the net by fluke and i was horrified by its content of vivid abuse violence and torture scenes. it was a relief to know it was not real after reading the comments. what dangerously sick animals of a person make something like this and for what purpose goes beyond belief. i was even more shocked to see people appraising the film in the comments section of this site. this is a extremely disturbing film indeed which could change your life forever. the people behind this should be bought to justice asap. today they shown a girl getting raped and butchered on screen tomorrow it could be a child. even its fake or not its very very deathly disturbing,nauseating indeed. | 1 |
It may not be Oscar material, however this was a very funny film. I was always a fan of Eddie (Edmondson) & Richie (Mayall). 'Bottom' & 'Young Ones' were legendary TV series', and it was about time they made a film. Some of the stuff they get up to is brilliant, from the pencil is the rear-end, to the rubber sex-pants, as well was the infamous line that Richie says when he falls and a candle he is carrying goes into his eye. He says to Eddie 'Candle In The Eye, Candle In The Eye', and Eddie been the simpleton that he is, sticks the candle he's carrying into his eye. Can't forget when Eddie is on his motorbike, and he needs to urinate.... It was a great comedy, not to be taken seriously at all, but the film lacked with an ridicilous ending.<br /><br /> Overall, a exellent comedy, full of laughs, and lots of fake green vomit. A 9/10.<br /><br /> | 0 |
This is probably one of those films too many commented but undiscovered... This is probably one masterpiece of Spanish cinema like some Buñuel's masters-piece. '15 days with you' could be the better 'now and them' re-visitation from others films of long-time ago: could be 'Midnight cowboy' but could be also 'Les amants du Pont-Neuf' or a realistic and non-spot-look (but most realistic) 'trainspotting'. This hard story has place to humour, love and obviously dramatic sense. In the new social Spanish cinema this little diamond could be the resurrection of the Italian neo realism mixed whit the best Ken Loach films.<br /><br />Probably the better film I discover in the last 10 years. | 0 |
I loved this episode. It is so great that all 5 of them team up and stop LutherCorp and save the world. I also love this episode because Kyle Gallner (Bart Allen/Impulse) and Justin Hartley (Oliver Queen/Green Arrow) are guest starring in it!!! I just hope that Clark will join the Justice League and we'll get to follow this group of heroes across the globe!! =)It was really exciting and keeps viewers interested because of what will happen next. I think Chloe should also join the team as Watchtower, that would be such a coool thing for her to do besides the Daily Planet because she doesn't have super powers. Also, I want to find out what types of subjects Lex is going to use for 33.1, I wonder what other types of powers other people in the world have!!! | 0 |
Many reviews here explain the story and characters of 'Opening Night' in some detail so I won't do that. I just want to add my comment that I believe the film is a wonderful affirmation of life.<br /><br />At the beginning Myrtle Gordon is remembering how 'easy' it was to act when she was 17, when she had youth and energy and felt she knew the truth. Experience has left her emotionally fragile, wondering what her life has been for and, indeed, if she can even continue living. A tragic accident triggers a personal crisis that almost overwhelms her.<br /><br />Almost - but not quite. At the eleventh hour she rediscovers the power of her art and reasserts herself ('I'm going to bury that bastard,' she says of fellow actor Maurice as she goes on stage). It seems almost sadistic when Myrtle's director prevents people from helping her when she arrives hopelessly drunk for her first performance. He knows, however, that she has to have the guts to make it herself if she is to make it at all.<br /><br />Some critics wonder if this triumph is just a temporary pause on Myrtle's downward path. I believe this is truly her 'opening night' - she opens like a flower to new possibilities of life and action, she sees a way forward. It is tremendously moving.<br /><br />Gena Rowlands is superb. The film is superb. Thank you, Mr Cassavetes, wherever you are. | 0 |
This is one of the worst film adaptations of a musical ever made. The stage version of A Chorus Line is wonderful. This movie misses the mark in almost every way. Even the casting is baffling. Take Audrey Landers as Val. 'Dance 10 Looks 3' is Val's song. Val's story is that she is a great dancer but a 3 in the looks department. Yes, she finds a solution, but ultimately she's a great dancer. What do the brilliant filmmakers do? They hire an actress who can't dance and is famous for looking great. Way to miss the boat.<br /><br />Then there's the choreography. I'm sure Michael Bennett was turning over in his grave. Why didn't they use his choreography? It really can't be improved upon. | 1 |
Hidden Frontier is a fan made show, in the world of Star Trek. The story takes place after Voyager has returned from the Delta-quadrant . It has some characters from the official Star Trek shows, but most of them are original to the show. The show takes place on the star base Deep Space 12 and on several space ships, which gives it opportunities the official shows don't have. The characters have the opportunity of a rising in the hierarchy, which characters in shows with only one ship doesn't have. The show has good computer animation of spaceships, but the acting takes place in front of at green-screen and it gives a green glow around the actors. Not all the actors are equally good, but most do fine. The episodes are character driven and the characters develop over many episodes. That is a bit more like in Babylon 5, than in most official Star Trek shows. Hidden Frontier takes taboos that even the official series has shrunk from using. All in all I enjoyed watching it. | 0 |
Ever heard of a taiwanese horror movie? Or any taiwanese movie? Propably for a reason. This one was a really boring one, even though it has black magic including withered baby bodies and people exploding from the inside with thousands of eels.<br /><br />Having read other peoples thoughts, I was looking forward for some violence and gore, but there's not much at all. Some blood puking and other lame stuff, if you are waiting for graphic gore or any gruesome effects you will be disappointed. They clearly didn't use the eel exploding and other things to their maximum potent.<br /><br />Pretty much nothing good about this movie; a single character that wasn't completely bland and a few OK black magic spells, like the eel one. The plot was confusing and boring. The characters were thin and annoying, including the main character. The horror aspect didn't work at all, the most horrifying thing was an albino girl (not that scary really). This is the worst Asian horror movie I have ever seen. | 1 |
Its a feel-good movie that made me feel good. Some in this genre can be sickly sweet, but this script is restrained. The movie is funny and fun. The acting is great.<br /><br />If this were a musical, I would have left the theater humming the tunes. | 0 |
Saving Grace is a nice movie to watch in a boring afternoon,when you are looking for something different than the regular scripts and wants to have some fun. I mean,the whole idea of this movie and all the marijuana in it is such a craziness! It was the first movie I watched with this theme(drugs/marijuana) that is not really criticizing it,only making jokes about it. Grace Trevethyn is a widow,who lives in a small town in U.K. and has many financial problems because of her dead husband, who committed suicide since he was full of debts. The problem is that Grace, who imagined to have some money saved for her, discovers that she needs to pay all of her husband's pounds in debts to not lose all of her things, specially her house that she loves so much. She never worked before, and is in a tragic situation until Matthew,her gardener who is very found of smoking pot, decides to make a partnership with her in selling marijuana in large scale. | 0 |
Oh My Gosh!!!! This was the first movie Broken Lizard made as a group (although it just recently came to video), and I have never been more disappointed in my entire life!!! I tell you what, if I had seen this movie before I saw Super Troopers (which by the way, is a kick A$$ movie!!!), I never ever would have watched it!! I had read several reviews online, as well as on the cover of the DVD, that raved it as being,'Broken Lizard's funniest movie ever!' Now if they were referring to Super Troopers as being their funniest movie ever, I would agree nonstop, but not this one. Talk about dry. It took the movie a good 45 minutes to even get going, and by then, I was so out of the mood to watch it, that it wasn't even worth it. Maybe you gotta be high for it to really be funny? I dunno. I love these guys, I really do, but that movie is by far the worst one they've made. Club Dread was a pretty good movie, but this one, just wow. I'd highly recommend Super Troopers if you want a good laugh, but if you want more of a romance, drama, with a few funny spots, I'd say go with Puddle Cruiser. Just my opinion though, everyone is entitled to their own! :) | 1 |
The movie is a real show of how unemotional and selfish the upper society has become. It has plenty of characters and each and every character is representing a different category of person. No character is 100% good and moral unlike the heroes of all the typical Indian movies and no character is 100% bad rather all are just different. The movie is a very perfect mixture of emotions, drama and entertainment. For the very first time i liked a movie that has raised some social questions. I would recommend all to see the movie. Madhavi Sharma is a journalist who covers those hip-shaking parties of Bollywood for the Page 3 of the newspaper but this is the story of how she becomes a crime reporter for the newspaper. But this is not all, then it shows how she couldn't survive there and when she helped rescue some innocent children, how brutally her voice is suppressed. Even she is fired from the job. Then she couldn't find a job of crime reporter and has to do Page 3 again. Not only her but a very very large number of characters are interwoven in the movie and all gives different feeling while watching the movie. I would really congratulate the director for making such a great movie. Please do not afford to miss it. | 0 |
Engrossing drama of four men on a canoing weekend down a remote river. They are pacifist Ed (Jon Voight), adventurous, violent Lewis (Burt Reynolds), obnoxious Bobby (Ned Beatty) and nice guy Drew (Ronny Cox). The first 40 minute are great--there's the incredible dueling banjos sequence, interesting interplay among the characters and just stunning widescreen cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond. Then two hillbillies attack Ed and Bobby. One of them rapes Bobby...and the trip becomes a nightmare.<br /><br />Just unbelievable. The scenery is incredibly beautiful yet this horrific violence is taking place. To be truthful, Beatty's rape has never bothered me--I'm very aware it's being faked despite the good acting. This movie also shows how the characters change--Ed has his pacifism tested, Lewis becomes weak, Bobby is violated by one of the people he mocked earlier on and Drew tries to keep himself sane. Direction by John Boorman is also very assured and the sounds of the forest and the river help the mood immensely.<br /><br />The acting is mostly good. Voight is just OK in the lead--he's been better. Beatty is also just OK--but it is his debut film and he has guts for taking such a risky role. Cox is very good especially when things start falling apart. And Reynolds is just superb--one of his best acting jobs EVER! How this wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award escapes me. Also Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward are way too believable as the hillbillies.<br /><br />A powerful film--NOT for children. Try to see an uncut version--the TV version is butchered. Also letter-boxed viewing is essential to capture the breathtaking images. | 0 |
I must admit that I didn't get around to seeing this movie in the theater. As it was released at the beginning of a summer blockbuster season, this cute little film couldn't help but get a bit lost in the shadow of multi-million dollar special effects movies, could it?<br /><br />'Return to Me' has a lovely and simple story at its core, and is extremely well-directed and written by Bonnie Hunt (who has been in a number of major pictures as an actress herself....along with this one!) The charming story is beautifully woven with clever comedy and brought to life with superb performances by veteran as well as younger actors.<br /><br />To those who say that David Duchovny hasn't really had a good shot at breaking out of his 'Fox Mulder' mold, I agree. I've seen his other film work, and is, by far, the best thing he could have done for himself. Minnie Driver is simply beautiful, charming, funny, and lively in her role as Grace.<br /><br />Outside of these two leads, however, you are surrounded by Grace's close-knit family and friends. Jim Belushi is an absolute stitch, Bonnie Hunt is a stable and real-life force. I cannot, however, go without mentioning the talents of Robert Loggia, and the dearly departed Carroll O'Connor. Ironically, I watched this film again on DVD only the day before he passed away. This was his last film, and he gave a performance that an actor of his calibre could certainly be proud to leave as the finale to a great career.<br /><br />Overall, 'Return To Me' turned what would have still been just a fun love story, and grew it into a film that has become one of my favorites! Take the time rent this one.....it's well worth the effort! | 0 |
Gore hounds beware...this is not your movie. This little nail bitter has very little blood and guts. Its basically a version of Open Water that is effective and worthwhile. But what sets it apart is that we actually like the three leads (unlike Open Water) who find themselves up a tree when a crocodile flips their fishing boat and munches up their guide. We don't want any harm to come to any of them. SO when they start getting into dangerous situations...we actually care. <br /><br />Now I like killer animal flicks but I haven't been too impressed with Lake Placid up to Primeval (although I'm still waiting to see Rogue and hoping it is somewhere as good as this one!) but this little bugger did the job and did the job well. It's scares are creative and it only lapses into the run of the mill frantic crying sobbing and arguing for brief stints of realism so I never got annoyed. <br /><br />I remember reading the true story that inspired this where three guys went fishing and two ended up in a tree while their buddy was killed by the crocodile . But the thing that always impacted me that gets left out from the film was that the crocodile didn't eat up the buddy. No. For hours and hours he swam around the tree and shook the dead body still in his mouth at the friends in the tree. Seeming to stay, if you come down here this is what will happen to you. | 0 |
This movie 'Vampires: The Turning' isn't even really worth the 2 out of 10 I'm giving it. The movie, is very predictable from beginning, up to the very end when our hero kills the leader of the Vampire Slayers. The use of music in this movie was even bad, it kept playing as if you were to expect something significant to happen at any second, though it never did. The acting, was B-Rank at best... And the movie was just, dull. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 is because the story, had potential though it ended up unable to deliver. Oh, and did I mention the wardrobe? The wardrobe for this movie was obviously cheap to 'non-existent' because our hero, and his girlfriend (whom he's trying to save throughout the entire movie) wear the same outfits through the entire movie. I'd suggest this film only if your really bored, and don't have a good wall with fresh paint to watch dry. ~Dave, the Horror Cowboy | 1 |
I just have watched Icon on DVD and despite being a great book, the movie is a weak substrate from it. Those responsible for the writing should be banished to Siberia. Why they maul the great story with all kind of C-film subploys which are totally irrelevant to the story is totally beyond me.<br /><br />Yet the filmmakers and cast do there best to make something out of it, but at the end the film was not satisfying at all.<br /><br />Can someone please make a decent movie out of this to show how it is done. I'm sure that the crowds will rally for such a masterpiece novel turned into a book, not into a cheap C-movie. | 1 |
When I went to watch this movie my expectations were really low, but I was pleasantly surprised. <br /><br />I thought I was going to watch a boring teen-flick, BUT in fact the plot is interesting and well executed, the acting was somewhat convincing - especially from Melville who really shows his talent in this movie, and the fight scenes were - for a low budget movie - very well done .<br /><br />I think this movie deserves a broader audience than it has received. It is a movie, which can be seen by the whole family - maybe not the smallest of kids, since it contains some rather rough scenes. A movie about love, and the problems that can occur, when you go against your family traditions. <br /><br />Yes, the movie is very much like 'Bend it like Beckham', but I actually think this movie pulls it off better. | 0 |
As a Czech I am very pleased when I read these comments here. I am absolutely sure that this film is great. And what you maybe don't know is that story was specially written for Mr. Brodský. The man you can see is him and his typical attitude - to live and to resist death. He was one of great actors and we are very lucky that we he has made so many beautiful films during his life. You are lucky you could see at least one of them. Enjoy. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.