review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Simply put: the movie is boring. Cliché upon cliché is confirmed and story lines never come together. It seems as if the director was unsure whether to make a movie or a documentary. The main plot is very thin (a CIA agent is ordered to kill an oil prince, gets caught and then warns the prince (why?)) and therefore some elements were added to make the movie more interesting. So, a kid dies, which results in the 'natural' response of the father: freely advising the person indirectly responsible for his son's death. The lawyer has a drunk 'friend' and keeps him around, why, no one knows. Some kids become suicide terrorists and blow up a ship.<br /><br />All in all, this is one of the worst movies I have seen in quite a while. I was neither entertained nor intellectually challenged. I neither laughed nor cried, I did not gain an understanding nor was I compelled to learn more or take up a cause. It meant nothing to me, which in my eyes is the worst one can say about a movie. | 1 |
If you took a really good jack black movie, added a little jeepers creepers, and then a dash of joyride with a hint of texas chainsaw massacre and house of a 1000 corpses...you would have MONSTER MAN! i went into this movie, not really expecting much at all, but i wound up really enjoying the movie. the whole premise is really cheesy, a monster man in a monster truck chases down people, but it is so funny that the writer/director doesn't expect you to take it seriously. justin urich is a comic gem and should have a very promising career. he is identical to jack black. the only problem with the film is the unbelievable hero role played by eric jungmann. but overall, if you are looking for a really really fun movie that will crack you up until you are rolling in the aisles, and at the same time, scare the crap out of you...check out this film. | 0 |
When Exploiters become evangelist, they still exploit in the name of poverty! <br /><br />My first reaction after seeing the movie is God Bless me that I am not eating fish or any non-vegetarian products! <br /><br />The documentary is about Lake Victoria of Tanzania where numerous varieties of lovely fishes used to live, and one day during 1960s somebody came and injected the mighty fish Perch, who became the exportable commodity for Tanzania to European and Japanese markets. The consequences were severe firstly all local small and big fish were extinct; secondly the plane that came to take the fish could not travel empty because it does not make commercial/ business/ capitalist sense, so it is filled with arms and ammunition (that is what Europe can give this world); thirdly the pilots (as all migrants and traveling population like truck drivers) has to survive their sexual needs by flourishing cheap local African prostitutes for them; fourthly the brokers, dealers, middle men in the chain (mainly Indian origin business people) get richer and Tanzania's poverty remains the same; fifth poverty drives the children to crime, drugs etc.<br /><br />The premise to make this documentary was excellent. But has the Director Hubert Sauper succeeded in making a good documentary? It is a big NO. <br /><br />I say the reasons: Like in India, it requires a higher caste Brahmin to stand up and project to the world, Indian poverty and untouchables; similarly it requires an Austrain born European documentary maker to tell the world the story of Tanzania and its crumbling and ruining economy and poverty. It is the pathetic motive of unaware breeding of that rich class (who have never seen poverty or known poor), who survives, live, earn and fame like pest hanging on to projecting poverty to the world as soon as they see it. There is nothing more but despise by poor people in African and India who see such images of their.<br /><br />The intention and motives of the Hubert seems totally lop-sided. The images, characters, locales, interviews are too grave and murky, dark and disturbing. He uses exaggerated ignorance as a voice to present his case. What we feel in the end is pity and sadness for Africans. We also start considering the Tanzania government and people as villainous. May be some westerners sitting in their air-conditioned rooms would find time to discuss and debate about the pathetic living conditions of Africans, but there would be nothing more than that.<br /><br />The director restrains to show himself even once on the screen so as not to be identified among the Europeans who exploit this poor country.<br /><br />This Director Hubert can only survive being exploiters themselves like today's CNN and BCC media giants. Hubert did not have guts or common sense to talk to any Europeans who eat or companies who import these fish products. A totally lop-sided flimsy effort! But I understand the reasons of the same Hubert just wanted to rake his fame, sitting and smiling with awards in his European comfort.<br /><br />No more words to spare for this pathetic effort. I hesitantly give the documentary a higher rating 3.5 Stars out of 10, just because the theme was correct; but was pathetically exploited and blown away by amateurish ill conceived director made solely for un-intelligent western audiences! (Stars 3.5 out of 10) | 1 |
Mani sir as usual brings out another amazing story with Kannathil Muthamittal. Such an amazing relationship between parents and child is brought out in a beautiful fashion. Mani Sir as usual without much special effects and not much outdoor shoots.(In fact this was the only movie where he went outside India ever..that too just to sri lanka).Mani's class is written all over the movie...and to add to it ARR's music..which is just amazing...Vellai Pookal is one of my most fav songs ever... Maddy,who is what he is in the film industry has impressed a lot too. Starting from alaipayuthey ,to kannathil to ayutha ezuthu to guru.. Mani ratnam has showed to the world what a versatile actor Maddy is. Simran has been really good too. She has showed that she can act too in non-glamorous and character roles. In all an amazing movie. Sad that the tamil public could not appreciate this gr8 movie and it bombed at the box-office.... | 0 |
Not to be confused with Michael Ritchie's nasty 1975 beauty pageant spoof, this 'Smile' is a down-turned example of those good intentions paving the road to hell.<br /><br />The film parallels two stories: an impoverished Chinese father sacrifices his wife and son to raise a facially-deformed orphan named Ling (Yi Ding), and a TV-spawned Malibu family act out 'Gidget Get Birth Control.' Katie (Mika Booram, the third Olsen twin) plays a spoiled, self-absorbed high schooler distanced from reality. Her teacher (Sean Astin) paves the way for a school trip to China aimed at showing students how to work with deformed children.<br /><br />The film uses deformity as a means of suspense by treating Ling like the Frankenstein monster. Kramer continually masks her deformity through hats, hoods and camera placement. This approach exploits the freak show quality inherent in the material. She may be uncomfortable with the way society views her and Kramer's answer is to cover her up until the big reveal. Why disturb your audience with such unpleasantness? We see her face briefly at the end and only minutes before closing-credit snapshots of her after surgery disclose a swan beneath the harelip. It is not good enough to give the girl a reason to live; what is imperative is Ling being equally as hot and popular as Katie.<br /><br />Funding for the film came from a trust established by the late Roy Rogers and Dale Evans. They envisioned a heritage of quality family films. Give me 'Son of Paleface' any day. | 1 |
The movie, which was directed by Alfred Hitchcock, was brilliantly made. It starts with a family of three, a doctor (James Stewart), his wife (Doris Day)- who is a former stage singer, and their young son- my guess is about 10 years old, who are traveling through Morroco for leisure. On the bus, the bump into a French government agent, and they are a little too nice to him. He is killed at the marketplace after finding out the information he sought. He wants to carry this information out to someone, so he goes to the only person he, even slightly, knows: James Stewart. The antagonists kidnap their young boy and say if he tells anything about what the agent told him, his son would be killed. Stewart has to travel to London, because that is where his son is, and where the assasination that the agent told him about would be. The movie is very suspenseful. There are many twists and turns (typical Hitchcock movie). Also, it has just the right amount of comic relief. In addition to all of that, it won an Oscar for Doris Day's performance of 'Que sara, sara.' This movie is very good. It is hard to find a problem about it. I would certainly reccomend it to all Hitchcock fans and all suspense fans. I give this movie an 'A-' only because it is a little bit predictable. | 0 |
I somehow failed for a few years to see this film, although it has been quite successful and generated a lot of discussions in Israel. I am sorry that I did not postpone indefinitely seeing it.<br /><br />The theme of 'Kadosh' is a very real and painful one for those who know the Jewish religious world - the place of women in the orthodox family and society. The basic situation that sits at the premises of the film is possible, the problem is that the way it is brought to screen and the 'solution' that the conflicts described receives in the movie is wrong. Gitai does not seem to have too much sympathy for men in the religious world, but his approach of picking characters that are either fanatic, or unable to express their human feeling makes the whole story seem simplistic. Neither does he a much better service to his women characters, although here at least he shows more sympathy and he also enjoys the participation of two beautiful and gifted actresses in Yael Abecassis and Meital Barda. Overall Gitai's vision is too one-sided, his cinema means are too basic, he focuses on the technical details of the Jewish religious life, which may be interesting for people who do not know them but are really not relevant at all in the context of the whole story. Starting from interesting premises what we get here is a boring film which seems longer than it is, with a very static way of acting, obsessive use of music that plays in the same register not only from a musical but also from an emotional perspective and a very inconclusive if not even confusing ending. What difference between this film and 'Ha Ushpizin' inspired from and describing the very same social landscape and which succeeded to transmit human feelings on the screen. In 'Kadosh' there are both too little cinema and too little human emotions. | 1 |
I felt it necessary to respond to the comments posted on the front page of this film's page because some of it was slightly misinformative.<br /><br />Originally I posted quotes from the original poster, but I wasn't sure if it was proper given that this is the 'comments' index and not a message board (though we used to use 'em that way back before IMDb added the film message boards) so I will edit this to make it unnecessary.<br /><br />Well, first of all you may not be aware of this, but Gene Kelly first became famous for playing 'Pal Joey' on Broadway in the original production. When Vincente Minnelli decided to make a Gershwin 'panorama' film, he wanted Kelly's character to be more sophisticated than the 'goody two shoes' roles he had been playing in most his films (with the exception of 'For Me and My Gal'). Alan Jay Lerner was instructed to construct a new story set in Paris based on the story of 'Pal Joey'. This gave Kelly a chance to play his famous role from Broadway even though Warners had outbid MGM for the rights to 'Pal Joey.' In my opinion, the WB film 'Pal Joey' is a wreck, though Sinatra was suitable for the role, but other problems sunk the film (script changes and poor direction. ===================================================<br /><br />You complain that Kelly's pictures are not well done, even citing your art education to prove the point. But you miss the fact that Kelly's bad art was clearly designed to be bad, and it is necessary for the story/characters. The pictures are so bad, the audience knows that Kelly isn't ready for an exhibition. Even he knows it, though Milo has sort of sugared him up to the point where he almost believes her. But it's important that the audience not be sitting there saying 'but, he's a great artist, if he only had the chance!'. You want the audience to be fully aware of his deficiencies.<br /><br />Then you complain that he sabotages his interest in the show; again you are not understanding the structure of the story. He refuses because he doesn't want to feel like a gigolo, and because he knows he's not really ready for the exhibition. His enthusiasm for the exhibition is certainly not as great as 'Joey's' enthusiasm to 'start a nightclub'. But it serves the same function in the plot. Remember, it's essential in 'Pal Joey' (the play) that Joey gives up his nightclub after he realizes that he doesn't deserve it. Same with the art show. If Kelly's paintings were actually good, it would undermine this whole point. ===================================================<br /><br />Then you complain that Caron and Kelly have no 'chemistry'. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. I agree, the chemistry between them is not as strong as it should be, but for me it was fine. Compare it to even worse 'forced' romances like the one between Cary Grant and Sophia Loren in 'The Pride and the Passion'. ====================================================<br /><br />When you say that the big dance finale has nothing to do with anything else in this film, it just shows that you haven't dug beneath the surface of the film into its symbolism. Many elements in the dance sequence relate to the story and characters, and through the dance the plot is resolved through images and symbolism. It's about finding love, enjoying love, then losing love (he looks around and his love is gone). The movements of the symphony are constructed so that part of each dance scene mirrors a separate phase of Parisian Art and also a separate phase of their relationships. If you didn't' see that, it's not the movie's fault. It's certainly not a 'load of crap'. ================================================== | 0 |
When I was a kid in the 50's and 60's anything connected with Disney was by definition great. What happened? They are able to get any actors and actresses they want, the best of their time. But somehow Disney manages to screw things up in spite of their abundant resources.<br /><br />Disney can afford the best writers, the best producers and directors, but still...they screw things up! This movie is crap. The sad thing is that I suspect Disney in their arrogance does not even know when a movie is good or bad.<br /><br />It is only due to the talent of the actors that I can even give it a 3 of 10. | 1 |
I felt asleep, watching it!!! (and I had tickets for the midnight- premiere) Any questions? The most disturbing scene, as far as I can remember, was the techno-dance-i-dont-know-what-that-was-scene. By the way what an ending!? | 1 |
There are bad movies, movies that are horrible, and then there's a tiny, rarified body of movies that are so horribly bad that, even after seeing them just once, the sheer awfulness makes it impossible to forget them even decades later. This is exactly such a movie, and it's hard to believe that the original film in this series was actually quite good. Let's see, George Kennedy, the cigar chomping 'tough guy' mechanic of the original has somehow been promoted to airline captain, and, after the Concorde comes under missile attack (don't ask), he resorts to stunts like shooting a flare gun out the cockpit window despite (presumably) flying at Mach 2, all the while doing the sort of wild high-G evasive maneuvers that would have ripped the wings off any real airliner, never mind the effect of the passengers! But the absolute worst part of the film, at least to dedicated airplane buffs like myself, is that this atrocity 'starred' one of the coolest, sexiest, and most technologically remarkable planes ever to fly. The Concorde (or, just plain 'Concorde' as its pilots refer to it) deserved far better, this abomination is the equivalent of taking a high class beauty like Audrey Hepburn and putting her in a 'Porky's' sequel. Thankfully, the release of the ever hilarious 'Airplane!' the following year brought the whole 'Airport' franchise to a well deserved halt, as anyone even contemplating a fifth installment would have been laughed to death by studios and movie fans alike. <br /><br />1/10 | 1 |
'FULL HOUSE,' in my opinion, is an absolute ABC classic! I'm not sure if I've never seen every episode, but I still enjoyed it. One of my favorite episodes is where Jesse (John Stamos) and Rebecca (Lori Loughlin) get married. If you want to know how what made it so funny, you'd have to have seen it for yourself. It was a two-parter, so you'd have to have seen both parts. Another one of my favorite episodes is where Jesse, Stephanie (Jodie Sweetin), and Michelle (Mary Kate & Ashley Olsen) get locked in a gas station on Michelle's birthday. You'd also have to have seen it for yourself if you want to know how and why that happened. I have many other ones that I like, too. Everyone always gave a good performance, the production design was spectacular, the costumes were well-designed, and the writing was always very strong. In conclusion, even though it can be seen in syndication now, I strongly recommend you catch it just in case it goes off the air for good. | 0 |
Okay at first this movie seemed pretty good even though it was moving rather quick and even though they only had a $60,000 budget it was good but if you found your sister dead in a lake and found out who might have killed her why would you go chase him around and pull a gun on him with only one bullet and waste it and end up running from him all retarded and get yourself killed? Plus after you found your sister dead in the lake and found a clue and figured out who the killer was why wouldn't you hand that clue over to the police who think you killed her? And at the end of the movie when she acts like her sister who was a waitress and she is talking to the bad guy she should of met him somewhere and recorded him saying she was dead and what happened for her 'proof'. I don't know I was not happy with the ending. This movie could of been so much better if it lasted longer and the acting was better and if the ending did not suck so bad! Do not waste your money on this movie because if you do you will be writing a review on here too and will not be happy. | 1 |
From around the time Europe began fighting World War II, until the war's end, Hollywood (with significant prodding from the government) made tons of movies which were designed to try and get young men to enlist in the Army, by making the life of a serviceman appear 'cool.' This is by far the sloppiest, implying that the life of a soldier is devoid of work, you get the best food, and you get to lie around all day listening to Ann Miller on the radio. I am far too young to have participated in WWII, but I think that there was more to it than that. There is the barest cat's whisker of a plot, and a bunch of musical numbers featuring some of the day's leading acts.<br /><br />I think that by 1943, even the most naive of civvies knew that there was more going on overseas than the wacky hijinks portrayed in this movie. While I am sure that it was meant to be viewed as escapist entertainment, I can't help but wonder if the family and loved ones of men fighting in the war, were amused or repulsed by this trivialization of their loved ones' sacrifice. | 1 |
Set in Japan, Ashura is the story of Demons taking over the earth. The premise is far more complicated, but the arching storyline should not be forgotten. Japan is in turmoil, with Demons occupying human form roaming the lands. Generally speaking Demons look and act like humans, but are evil. The Japanese word they use is not just demons, but rather the classical form of 'ogre' which is a mythological creature of some historic stature. We're talking about creatures that would appear more like gods than simple ugly child-eating monsters.<br /><br />However in human form all that remains is the green eyes and green teeth, which appear when put under any sort of stress. In order to save the world from Demons there are Demon-slayers. Trained and skilled warriors who can spot and defeat most every kind of demon, and who guard the passage-way between the realm of hell and that of the real world. These are the basic premises.<br /><br />The story begins with a festival in a local town. Amid these festivities, 3 men ride in, dressed in all black, seemingly intent on doing harm. The villagers run, excepting those which are demonic in nature, who turn green-eyed and try to kill them. The Demon-Slayers end up killing off the majority of the demons. From here the story gets interesting. The whole essence of the story begins when at the gate to hell a fortune-telling demon appears before the 3 gate-keepers, revealing the arrival of Ashura. With it, comes the end of the reign of man, and begins the reign of demons. Ashura however requires some form of birthing process, the first step of which occurred during the opening battle, but which won't be revealed to you until you see the film. The 3 demon-slayers are a wise old man, a powerful yet unprincipled man, and a skilled and compassionate warrior. Immediately you can see the split between them, the old man wanting to stop the demons, the powerful one wanting to bend them to his increasing ego maniacal wishes and the third looking to stop the second. Along the way he meets a woman who he begins to take fancy to, and believes himself to have a special relationship with. She in turn is a brigand who is good-natured, sought after by authorities. When the two finally meet face to face, he places his hand on her shoulder, and suddenly she is scathed by a mark on her shoulder. Needless to say, the mark is not a good sign. What ensues is a battle for earth, a battle between both good and evil, as it should be, but also between good and good itself.<br /><br />The point for me of this film became something other than what I thought it would. I came in thinking it would either be a fast-paced action style film with demons, or a horror film with macabre evil and foul creatures the likes of which would be seen in Ringu and Ju-on. I was however mistaken in the best possible way. The story it seemed to me is an adaptation of a very old Japanese play, and it plays itself out as such, combining the essentially action driven adrenaline scenes with a great concept, an amazing narrative, and a style which makes you compelled to think rather than just sit wallowing in gore. Many scenes are painted with luxurious dialogue between two characters the likes of which will never be seen in a Hollywood film. It becomes a practically theatrical experience which takes your breath away.<br /><br />The film makes use of some immaculate scenery and camera-work comparable to many great Samurai films of our days, but adding to it a well-thought and classical plot. With great acting, great music, and thoroughly stunning scenes, its a must watch in my book.<br /><br />That being said, it does need the disclaimer that it is not for everyone. Its not cheap thrills horror, its not balls to the wall action. Its a horror style play thats been filmed. It has very much to say and takes the time to do so, flying in the face of the conventional one-liners. Like Japanese plays, the exchanges between the characters can last for many minutes before they come together for a quick yet marvelous battle scene. If you can enjoy such a thing, this is a masterpiece. If your idea of a good film is slasher flicks with little plot and excessive nudity, then you can easily watch something else.<br /><br />Overall, this film to me is a unique and amazing one, which keeps you riveted and amused. it has good writing, good acting, and good direction. It is all in all a solidly great film. | 0 |
What distinguishes some of the 'Lone Star' films (and many others in western and adventure films of the early thirties) was their lack of what we recognize as formulaic story telling. To be sure they had good vs. evil (the basic element of any Western), boy meets girl and some stock characters, such as the old rancher and his beautiful daughter or grand daughter, and sometimes the evil banker or other businessman, but the way the action played out was often different from film to film.<br /><br />'The Lawless Frontier' features Earl Dwire in his big star turn (not) as (for some inexplicable reason) Pandro Zanti, a 'half Apache, half American posing as a Mexican who speaks the language fluently.' His biggest posing as a Mexican seemed to be his outrageous mariachi clothes. The only plot seems to be that he wants to steal Ruby, the granddaughter of 'Old Dusty' (Gabby Hayes). When meeting her for the first time, Dwire gives her a long once over look that puts him in the big leagues with sexual predators. You'd think that because the opening scene shows Zanti killing John (Wayne) Tobin's father off camera, it would play a bigger part in the film. It doesn't. Too much chasing back and forth between heroes and villains.<br /><br />We get many good stunts, though, from Yakima Canutt, including pulling Ruby up on his horse when he rides by, jumping on 'renegades' and knocking them off their horses, a horse leap off a cliff into a lake, and even the same slide down the sluice sequence that was in 'The Lucky Texan' (1934), although this time the Mighty Yak uses a body surfing log instead of straddling a tree bough, and its inclusion is just as illogical this time too, since they are in a desert.<br /><br />The high point is clearly John Wayne's measured and methodical well photographed walk across the desert after the fleeing and stumbling Zanti with those fantastic basalt cliffs of Red Rock Canyon (seen in countless serials, westerns and science fiction 'moon' movies) framed behind him. No final gun duel at fifty paces with the heroine running from the wooden steps of the bar to embrace and kiss the conquering hero in this movie! When John Wayne finally catches up with him, Zanti drinks poisoned water from a waterhole and dies.<br /><br />After a couple too many chase sequences, Zantai's gang is finally captured in Dusty's cabin, emerging one by one from behind a swivel cabinet that apparently leads to a canyon, now blocked off by having been dynamited. No riding off into the sunset or obligatorily kissing the girl: The final shot is Ruby, now Mrs. John Tobin, on the telephone to the now Sheriff John Tobin, 'What would Sheriff Tobin like for dinner?' The film also has poor lighting and editing at the beginning, the pacing is slow, some parts with the sheriff cause it to drag, and the horse chases fill up the film. So despite the different and unusual elements, it comes off as one of the weaker Lone Stars. | 1 |
I happened to catch this film at a screening in Brooklyn - it's difficult to describe the plot; it has a lot of wacky characters, but let's just say I'd have a hard time choosing which one made me laugh the hardest, I wouldn't know where to begin. Even the peripheral roles are well written and well acted.<br /><br />There are numerous small touches that make it unique and very enjoyable, it has a few 'devices' that pop up and add another hilarious layer. It is refreshing to watch; not some recycled stuff I'd seen many times before. If this film could reach a wider audience, I'm certain it would be a real crowd-pleaser, the story is so original and heartfelt.<br /><br />There's a lot here to like, funny back-stories, mishaps and misunderstandings which set up the final act and dramatic conclusion. Cross Eyed is a very funny movie with a ton of heart; it's a touching story with fast paced comedy woven throughout. Definitely worth seeing! | 0 |
What to say about 'Dead End Road'...<br /><br />Lets just say that Edgar Allen Poe would have been so ashamed. The acting, writing, effects, and everything in this movie was just horrendous. That doesn't even do justice! This movie was the biggest piece of garbage I have ever had to sit through. That is also why I stopped it about 20 minutes before the ending because personally I didn't care what happened to the characters. I have seen bad but this was definitely the worst. I got hyped up for this because I am a fan of Poe and this was just bad. Just bad. <br /><br />What upsets me more is that you can't rate films with negative numbers. | 1 |
Top gun without the in-house animosity. Or class. Or money. Or Cruise. An excuse for an upwardly mobile cast of next-big-thing actors to market their ability to lead a matinée this doesn't really have anything anyone can get their teeth into. It's a shame because the opening shot of Charlie Sheen opens out with great promise which is squandered almost straight away with a preposterous wedding set piece. Barking.<br /><br />Dennis Haysbert is a changeable actor for me but in this film he is fine, particularly the action sequences. Michael Biehn is a first-class action hero but not a leading man: Charlie Sheen is, to all intents and purposes, the leading man but never quite an action hero. There's a stunt cast of hundreds who are also mentionworthy. 3/10 | 1 |
Once again the two bickering professors must join together to save the lost world. The five members of the first expedition return (see The Lost World, 1992, for a list of actors). A man seeking oil brings a drilling crew to the plateau. Instead of striking oil they tap an underground volcano which threatens all life in the Lost World. The oil crew clash with the native people and the scientific expedition. Although the situation looks hopeless.... (I'm not going to tell you the ending). | 0 |
This movie is actually so poor in its desperate attempts at being 'feel good' and casual it really made me embarrassed watching it. I can't imagine how the inner circle of Norwegian celebs and press must have felt trying to pretend to like it at the star-packed premiere. Its great media reviews is a sickening example of how ridiculously small and inbred the Norwegian media scene is. Had a foreign film of this quality reached the silver screen it would have gotten the rain of rotten tomatoes it truly deserves.<br /><br />The combination of literally amateur actors, home-made style visual effects, awkward dialogue, painfully idle attempts at working class humour and the overly cozy and meaningless plot, really makes this a movie of rock bottom quality. Stay away. | 1 |
This gem for gore lovers is extremely underrated. It's pure delight and fun! Gratuitous servings of blood, insanity and black humor, which can please even the most demanding lover of the genre. A full exploitation of the almost universal fear of dentists and flawlessly shot. Only for the connoisseurs. | 0 |
'Walking with Dinosaurs' is absolutely brilliant in every regard. Kenneth Branagh narrates in a way that really makes you want to listen. The script for the documentary really sounds as though the researchers and writers had done their homework, it is so insightful and it does get you hooked and never lets go. The music is also brilliant, very dramatic when it needs to be. But the visual effects and scenery are what makes this documentary work so well. The scenery is breathtaking, and the dinosaurs look so real, thanks to the simply astounding effects. This is so informative with such a good concept and attracts not only adults but kids too.<br /><br />In conclusion, this is a must watch. Not only did I love this, but this is quite possibly the best documentary I have ever seen. If anything, it could have done with being longer, other than that this is perfect. 10/10 Bethany Cox | 0 |
Unfortunately for Sarah Silverman this show doesn't compliment her at all.The character isn't even remotely likable and it's not a situation where you think 'oh she's such i b*tch i love her' just 'she's such a b*tch'.This character is just a plain old self righteous, mean, b*tch.Sarah seems to struggle to have to carry this show because she's the only semi funny one in it.The mood, the dialogue it's all so damn boring and dry it's like listening to your grandpa go on and on about the marbles he collected as a kid.<br /><br />The Sarah Silverman Program is so unbelievably boring that i was thinking of changing the channel to watch old repeats of Married With children something that is funny because the characters are so 'immoral' and 'rude'.I'm sorry but i don't find a show packed with dry humour and corny off the wall story lines about some angry, bitter, loser's angry, bitter life with her annoying as hell sister and gay friends who sound like Keanu Reeves with a cold anywhere close to funny.I can't stand this show even though generally i find Sarah Silverman to be that 'I love her cause she's such a b*tch character' like in School Of Rock, and most of her stand up.I think this show is boring with characters who think being mean and saying and doing things for shock value eg. the constant pube, diarrhea and $hit in general for laughs.The Sarah Silverman program attempts to be funny and fails it either needs a laugh track or better writers.Someone compared it to South Park but it's not even close.I've expressed my opinions on The Sarah Silverman Program and won't become an annoying troll meaning you won't see me being a b*tch and constantly posting stuff like 'This show sucks' and 'Why isn't this cancelled yet'.I don't like The Sarah Silverman Program if you do enjoy. | 1 |
The film starts with promise because there is more interaction between Spanky and Buckwheat, but as the film progresses, the two boys have fewer scenes together. This slows the pace considerably. Billie 'Buckwheat' Thomas gives a very strong performance in his early scenes. When he is left behind on the riverboat, his fear and abandonment are palpable and his tears are truly heartbreaking. When he goes from man to man asking for help and is repeatedly rejected the viewer really begins to wonder if this is a comedy or not. Watching a children's birthday party through a picket fence is another moving moment. As another reviewer mentioned, I was also worried about the big dog choking on chicken bones! Once Spanky and Buckwheat are in Marshall Valiant's home, Spanky tends to interact mainly with the adults and the chemistry of the children is essentially lost. <br /><br />The Old South/Huck Finn-type setting really doesn't do much for the plot except allow the children to be out of doors a great deal. Ralph Morgan is the most engaging adult, but then the other roles really don't have much substance to them. Louise Beavers manages some funny moments with a Yankee soldier towards the end. <br /><br />The villains aren't really villainous enough and the lovers not intense enough. Yet, I do think it's worth viewing if you're an Our Gang enthusiast, if for no other reason that the odd curiosity of the whole piece. I give it seven stars because, while not a great movie, it kept me engaged the whole time and curious as to what would happen next. | 0 |
It's interesting how the train of research can flow. I started out looking at an article about Cristo's 'The Gates' in Central Park. The article stated that the Maysles had been Cristo's filmographers for years. Hmmm... Then I got to looking at their body of work. I believe one of them has passed on but the other is still filming Cristo and Jean Claude in their stages of creation. Grey Gardens sounded very interesting. Video Station, in Boulder CO, is the place to look for the obscure or offbeat and of course they had it in stock. DVD and VHS. Edith and Edie are women living in the past, and oh what a glorious past it was. Edith had been well off, born a Bouvier, married well, had several wonderful relationships and became a singer when she was in her forties. Her daughter Edie had been a débutante, a fashion model and had many beaus. She never married and at some point in her thirties had come home to recuperate. She seems to have a nervous disorder of some kind. Worrying too much about things. It is only a shadow of the world they live in though, because Jackie O. came and spruced up the place so her aunt and cousin would not be evicted. It is a 28 room mansion that is worn down and worn out. But, in the film you will notice fresh paint on the walls. If you look carefully at the newspaper clippings you see it was very much a dirty mess. The outfits Edie comes up with a very clever and creative. The viewer gets the impression that Edith likes to go nude, but she doesn't in the movie. Edith was really quite beautiful and you can see the shadow of her beauty still as she sings 'Tea for Two'. Edie too was a beauty in her day and quite attractive at 56. It was a good movie, though not for everyone. When the cat is urinating behind Edith's portait she states, ' at least someone is doing what they want'! | 0 |
Wow this Wrestlemania took place from 3 different cities. This was the very first wrestling pay per view I ever saw and it's a good one indeed! There is a great steel cage match for the main event as Hulk Hogan takes on King Kong Bundy! | 0 |
This is an enjoyable project, that is not a film as the title suggests. Good performance by Nadia Dajani who re-enacts the role of Grace. I follows the re-enactment of what happens to Mike and Grace in New York City. She leaves, but he wants to get in contact with her. This project is his way of trying to getting in touch with her.<br /><br />I saw it on IFC. I have heard that it will be released on DVD as well. I do like this trend of more independent projects. This is an example of a good project.<br /><br />I hope that he finds her.<br /><br />Take a look and be entertained.<br /><br />KirbyEF | 0 |
This movie has a very Broadway feel - the backdrop, the acting, the 'noise'- and yet that's all it has. Some 'sense' of a Broadway without the bang. <br /><br />The movie is slow-paced, the picture disjointed, the singing 'pops up' on you so that you suddenly are reminded it's a musical. <br /><br />Disappointing: Sinatra <br /><br />Intolerable: Sinatra's fiancé---surely, the pitch and the accent of her voice was unnecessary. <br /><br />Tolerable: Mr 'i remember the numbers on my dice' <br /><br />Delight: Brando's understated singing (very biased!)<br /><br />Surprise: how much Jean Simmons looks like Vivien Leigh in her Havana scenes. It's the bone structure! How i would've killed to have seen Miss Leigh in a role challenging Brando again. | 1 |
Oh my God... where to begin? 'Chupacabra Terror' is one of the worst B-Horror movies ever made. This crap makes 'Demon Slayer' look like 'The Exorcist'. Special note: A Horror B-movie needs to have at least one sex scene. Don't expect even a hot girl in this one. With that inexcusable mistake, I should begin with the complete bash.<br /><br />First of all, if you're going to make a Horror monster movie, you should spend big part of the budget in creating a 'cool' monster outfit. The monster in this movie looks like a $10 Halloween costume. There is no way the Chupacabras (yes, this is how it is spelled) looks menacing in the movie. It's an actor in a Halloween outfit please!! it looks so cheap it makes me mad. <br /><br />Second, the gore effects are the spinal cord of any direct to video monster Horror movie. Again, the producers decided not to spend for decent gore effects. The blood looks damn fake! Please take a close look at the guy that gets chopped in two. That's probably the best scene in the movie and it lasts for about ten seconds. The ending is a very poor scene that won't leave you satisfied. <br /><br />The acting is the last thing you should expect to have quality in these kind of movies; but in this movie it's beyond terrible. A cast of nobodies with no acting experience make the fool out of themselves for about 85 minutes. Special mention deserves a blonde guy with curly hair that tries to convince SWAT members that he is sick. The coughing he fakes is beyond laughable. He's probably the worst actor ever in a B-Horror movie, no kidding. Also, Captain Peña delivers a terrible performance in the first ten minutes of the flick. <br /><br />The TRUE story behind the Chupacabras is not even told. All you get to know is that the monster sucks goat's blood. Why bother with this piece of crap? Plesae, do not even watch it even if you have the chance. Not even if it airs on cable. <br /><br />I usually support low budget Horror movies because the people involved in them at least try to do something 'different' than Hollywood but that doesn't means that Horror fans like me should accept this kind of garbage. | 1 |
When I first watched Flatliners, I was amazed. It had all the necessary features of a good movie: the cast was superb, the plot was superb, and in the case of thrillers, there was genuine 'thrills' throughout.<br /><br />Keifer Sutherland offered a marvelous performance as the male lead in the piece, portraying a scientist who believes he can find the answers to life and death by killing himself and then coming back to life, essentially 'stealing' death's secrets away. Kevin Bacon offers an excellent performance as the more morally decent counterpart to Keifer, while Julia Roberts offers her most convincing role. William Baldwin portrays a student who excels in class and, apparently, intercourse. And Oliver Platt, in another outstanding performance, portrays the voice of reason for the group and the most innocent.<br /><br />The story is relatively simple, yet original, and the acting is refreshing-- definitely a stand out film for the genre, and one that has set the standard for measuring other thrillers for me.<br /><br />8/10. | 0 |
A scientist on an island is in deep sorrow about the loss of his son who died of kidney cancer. So he thinks: why not turn my dead son into a hammerhead shark. Well, who wouldn't? It's a little hard to cope with the fact that the hammerhead shark that's killing everybody is constantly being called 'Paul'. Also, William Forsythe's cast as a MacGyver-kick-ass-savingtheday- kinda hero lacks credibility. On the other hand there are a few hot chicks who make you actually look at the screen while shark Paul bites another one to death. As a matter of fact I find bad b-movies quite amusing. But for my taste it would have been a much better movie if it was made for say 1000000 bucks less. Then it might have been fun. | 1 |
This has got to be one of the better post-Astaire musicals made by Columbia. Produced by Arthur Schwartz and directed by vet Charles Vidor, this picture really put Gene Kelly on the map and cemented Rita Hayworth's reputation as cinema's premier female dance partner. She plays a bit of a dual role here since she performs contemporary 1940s numbers with Gene and co-star Phil Silvers, but also puts her in the role of her grandmother, a nightclub performer in the late 19th Centry.<br /><br />The music should also be singled out because this was I believe the last project that the legendary Jerome Kern (most famous today for 'Old Man River' and 'Smoke Gets in Your Eyes') worked on, and his lyricist was the equally legendary Ira Gershwin. They supplied a score that is full of charm and characterization. The music for the historical sequences is especially noteworthy because it's so perfectly styled in the early 20th Century idiom that was Kern's original period. It's a bit like picking up a record from one of your favorite bands from the 1970s and hearing them do a song in the original style of that time.<br /><br />The story is pretty inconsequential, which is fine with me because this film is as close an approximation as you will ever be likely to see of the 1930s/40s golden age of Broadway musical comedy style on film. Even the 1940s war propaganda aspects of the film's music give it extra charm as the talented trio sing 'make way for tomorrow' and even humorously poke fun at America's enemies and use period slang such as referring to 'gremlins'.<br /><br />Probably the most memorable performance in the film is Kelly's dance to the 'Alter-Ego Dance', which found him arguing with and then dancing with himself as a metaphorical image of the battle of the conscience. This prefigures much of his later work and also stands an effective and memorable scene in and of itself.<br /><br />Fans will want to seek this out for various reasons -- Kelly fans will see this as a rare chance to see him outside of the confines of MGM with a different set of co-stars and music superior to his usual MGM material. Hayworth fans will want to see Rita in glorious color at the peak of her fame and ability. And fans of classic Broadway musicals will definitely want to hear Kern's final score and marvel at the quality of Gershwin's lyrics and the compatibility of their styles. This is a definite gem in the crown of Columbia's musical program. | 0 |
Okay, during this past thanksgiving break, whilst having the whole family together everybody decided to go see a movie, and since Fred clause was voted majority, thats what we went and say. <br /><br />To start off the movie had so many plot holes it was pathetic. Simple explanations of why a certain event was happening was void. example; who the heck is trying to 'shut down' Santa clause? Is it some sort of corporation? A little explanation would of been lovely. <br /><br />Second: The movie tossed you flimsy characters that evoked no sympathy from you about their feelings or actions. example: the little elf named Willie and the only tall girl in the elf village. they see each other twice and then they are a couple and i could of cared less because this movie didn't make me care. <br /><br />Third: I suppose this was suppose to be a family film? Its rating was low at just PG. For a family film there were several articles of suggestive conversation. It didn't bother me, but if i were a parent i could see a problem. <br /><br />Through the whole movie Paul Giamatti looked extremely bored with his role, but honestly he was the only one worth watching in the movie. Vaughn had a few funny moments but played the same character he has for the last two movies. mouthy frat boy. (nothing against Vaughn, he's been good in other movies)<br /><br />so this movie gets a 3 out of 10 stars from me, just because somebody had to put in the effort to produce, film and release this flick. <br /><br />In my opinion i would definitely pass on this flick, or if you HAVE to see it save it for a rainy day rental. | 1 |
Mendez and Marichal have provided us with a serious, cogent and painful analysis of the social, spiritual, economic and political crisis that 108 years of colonialism have spawned in Puerto Rico. A beautiful island with the most hospitable people I have met and yet because our nation refuses to faces its imperial responsibilities, Puerto Ricans are allowed to wither and die.<br /><br />The spiritual crisis that the colonial situation of Puerto Rico has created, if undermining families, and the basic institutions that sustain any society. Corruption is rampant to the extent that people are not paying taxes (which has led a fiscal crisis for this nation) and a sense of cynicism and distrust permeate the island's culture.<br /><br />Fortunately, a grant allowed this painful yet powerful film to be produced.<br /><br />A must see . . . | 0 |
An unfunny, unworthy picture which is an undeserving end to Peter Sellers' career. It is a pity this movie was ever made. | 1 |
When you have a disembodied skull, an empty mansion, a schizophrenic wife, a scheming cad and a nutzo gardener, throw in a minister and his wife - what have you got?<br /><br />AIP's answer to insomnia.<br /><br />'The Screaming Skull' gets points for audacity, offering free caskets for anyone who dies of fright from watching the film. Pretty safe bet, when you're lulled into a stupor by people who think they're in a production of 'Suspense for Dummies'.<br /><br />But Peggy Webber was a cutie, anyway. She had a few good moments of acting here and there (especially when trying to communicate with the gardener) and no one else fills a nightgown like she. But that scared face she makes - scary in itself. Whoa.<br /><br />As a whole, though, there is little suspense here and everything is telegraphed like a punch thrown by a mime. You can't be scared by this film, it's impossible. It has its moments, but not enough of them.<br /><br />HOWEVER, thanks to a certain Mike Nelson and his two robot pals, there are several moments of pure joy, especially in the copy THEY got hold of ('The film jumped, and it was really scary!').<br /><br />One star for 'The Screaming Skull', eight and a half for the MST3K version.<br /><br />Talk about a 'Screaming' bore.... | 1 |
This is one of the most brilliant movies that I have seen in recent times. Goes way above even any international movie of any repute. I am really surprised why this has not received the recognition it deserved. Sonali Kulkarni winning the National Award is perhaps the only consoling fact. Renuka Daftardar simply amazes as she speaks volumes through her eyes. There are a few scenes that stand out: When Gauri comes back from the city on Krishna's wedding, she and Krishna meet for the first time in many years. Krishna notices a change in Gauri, but not a single line of dialogue is said. The entire gamut of emotions is conveyed through subtle mannerisms and the eyes. There's another towards the end when Krishna pleads to Abhay Kulkarni to marry Gauri instead. If you are not moved by that scene, you don't have a heart.<br /><br />Watch this movie for sheer movie-making brilliance and acting capabilities. | 0 |
'Maléfique' is an example of how a horror film can be effective with nothing more than a well-executed plot and a lot of heart. Its cast doesn't have recognized names, it doesn't have a big budget and it certainly lacks in the visual effects aspect; but it compensates all that with an intelligent and well-written script, an effective cast and the vision of a director focused more on telling the story than in delivering cheap thrills. Eric Valette may not be a well-know name yet, but with 'Maléfique', his feature length debut, he proves he is at the level of contemporaries like Jeunet, Gans or Aja.<br /><br />The film is the story of four prisoners in a cell, four different men with very different backgrounds but with one single goal: to get out. Carrère (Gérald Laroche) gets imprisoned after being declared guilty of a multi-millionaire fraud; his cell-mates, the violent Marcus (Clovis Cornillac), the intellectual Lassalle (Philippe Laudenbach) and the mentally challenged Pâquerette (Dimitri Rataud), are all convicted for murder and give Carrère a cold welcome. Their personalities will clash as Carrère discovers an ancient book detailing how a former prisoner escaped using black magic.<br /><br />Written by Alexandre Charlo and Franck Magnier, 'Maléfique' is a great mix of dark fantasy and horror in a way very reminiscent of Clive Barker's stories. The movie's strongest point is the way it builds up the characters, they are all have very complex and different personalities and a lot of the tension and suspense comes from their constant clash of personalities. The story's supernatural element is very well-handled and overall gives the film the feeling of reading a Gothic novel. Despite being a movie about four men locked in a room, the movie never gets boring or tiresome and in fact, the isolation of the group increases the feeling of distrust, claustrophobia, and specially, paranoia.<br /><br />Director Eric Valette makes a great use of atmosphere, mood and his cast to give life to the plot. Despite its obvious lack of budget, he has crafted a brilliant film that feels original, fresh and very attractive. His subtle and effective camera-work helps to make the film dynamic despite its single location, and the slow pace the film unfolds is excellent to create the heavy atmosphere of isolation and distrust the movie bases its plot. The very few displays of special effects are very well-done and Valette trades quantity for quality in the few but terrific scenes of gore.<br /><br />The characters are what make this film work, and the cast definitely deserves some of the credit. Gérald Laroche is excellent as Carrère, a man at first sight innocent, but who hides a dark past. Philippe Laudenbach and Dimitri Rataud are very effective too, specially Rataud in his very demanding role. However, is Clovis Cornillac who steal the show with his performance as Marcus, a violent and disturbed man who deep inside only wants to be himself. The characters are superbly developed and the cast makes the most of them.<br /><br />The movie is terrific, but it is not without its share of flaws. Of course, the most notorious one is its the low-budget. Some of the CGI-effects are a bit poor compared to the effective make-up and prosthetics used in other scenes, however, it is never too bad for it. Probably the bad thing about 'Maléfique' is that it seems to lose some steam by the end when it focuses on the supernatural black magic rather than in the characters, not too much of a bad thing but the ending may seem weak from that point of view.<br /><br />Anyways, 'Maléfique' is another one of those great horror films coming out from France lately, and one that deserves to have more recognition. Valette is definitely a talent to follow as this modest (albeit complex) tale of the supernatural is prove enough of his abilities. Personally, this film is a new favorite. 8/10 | 0 |
Footlight Parade is among the best of the 1930's musical comedy extravaganzas. A snappy script and an all-star cast including Jimmy Cagney, the lovely Joan Blondell, Dick Powell, and Ruby Keeler make this film a cut above the rest. Directed and choreographed by the creative genius Busby Berkeley, this film will have you grinning from ear-to-ear from start to finish.<br /><br />Busby, of course, is the undisputed master of the Hollywood musical with 'Gold Diggers of 1933' and '42nd Street' to his credit (as Dance Director). Footlight Parade is graced by hundreds of scantily-clad chorus girls, a Berkeley trademark. The elaborate dance numbers were shot with only one camera and Busby was the first director to film close-ups of the dancers. His obsession with shapely legs and 'rear-view' shots is amply demonstrated here. The overall effect is highly erotic and mesmerizing.<br /><br />Our boy Jimmy Cagney plays Chester Kent, a producer of 'prologues' or short musical stage productions that were performed in movie theaters to entertain the audience before the talkies were shown. He's surrounded by crooked partners, a corporate spy, and a gold-digging girlfriend. Although Cagney had a solid background in vaudeville, this was the first film in which he showed his dancing talents. Joan Blondell is memorable as Cagney's wise-cracking, lovestruck secretary. And Ruby Keeler is adorable, as always.<br /><br />The film climaxes with three outstanding production numbers, 'Honeymoon Hotel', 'The Waterfall', and 'Shanghai Lil', each one a masterpiece and not likely to be duplicated in today's Hollywood where so-called 'special effects' have replaced creative cinematography.<br /><br />Claudia's Bottom Line: Clever and erotic, with some of the best musical production numbers ever put on celluloid. A thoroughly enjoyable Depression era romp. | 0 |
As a physics student, I've become aware of many idiot professors, and other so-called experts, in the field. As I continue with my studies, I learn more and more about real physics experiments going on, and about the people who are doing things right.<br /><br />Then, my friends tell me of this 'physics movie' they want to see. Knowing nothing of it, I'm excited, hoping that the information will be presented well.<br /><br />I've done REAL quantum mechanics; this wasn't it.<br /><br />This movie starts with the basic assumption that anything that occurs to a subatomic particle can, and will, occur to you, if you just open your eyes. Let's think about that, for just a moment.<br /><br />Our bodies are composed of somewhere around 10^30 such subatomic particles. That is a million billion billion billion particles! The more 'mysterious' quantum effects of just two particles can have a 50% probability of cancelling each other out completely. As you add more and more particles into the mix, it becomes almost impossible to have a large net quantum result. To tell us to believe that this is a valid assumption, with no rationality behind it...it's just stupid.<br /><br />My friend, also in physics, and I counted 3 facts during the course of this movie. But they were presented in the most misleading manner I've EVER SEEN.<br /><br />I cannot say as much for the neural portion of the movie, as I have not had any kind of medical training. It seemed as though it might have had a slight bit more truth to it, remembering my days in biology, but I cannot say.<br /><br />At least this film had a redeeming quality: the dancing peptides (or whatever they actually were) scene. Not to ruin the invaluable plot that drives this movie, but the main character goes to a wedding, where she sees all different types of personalities 'driven' by their peptides*, and then the film cuts to the dance floor, where we are spliced between people dancing, sometimes surrounded by CG peptides, and a fully CG scene, filled with dancing peptides. The film, at that point, was trying to tell us how we're 'addicted to emotions,' so we're treated to the full song of that smash hit, 'Addicted to Love.'<br /><br />This scene was redeeming, because anyone who could go through THAT scene, and still take this movie seriously...well, you are the ones that need to 'open your eyes.' | 1 |
I rated this movie as AWFUL (1). After watching the trailer, I thought this movie could be pretty cool. 'Guaranteed to offend...everyone!' the trailer said. Well...it did offend me, because this movie really sucks. It is hardly a comedy, as I laughed about two seconds during the entire movie. And what's with all the gays in this movie? I'm not gay and I don't have a problem with those who are, but what's the point of adding so many gay-scenes in a so called comedy movie, when these scenes are absolutely not funny? I guess the director is a gay man in denial, or something like that.<br /><br />So my advice to you is: if you want to waste good money, go rent a good comedy you've already seen a million times, you'll be better off than watching this Mother Of All Lousy Comedy's. It really is total crap. | 1 |
As shallow as it may sound, I actually delayed my viewing of 'The Barbarians' several times just because the VHS cover (as well as the picture image displayed here on the website) looks so incredibly gay! By now I wish I had watched it earlier because the movie isn't so much gay
. just trashy, cheesy, campy and enormously fun! It's almost unbelievable that Ruggero Deodato, director of 'Cannibal Holocaust' of all people, was the man responsible for this comical cash-in on the contemporary popular Sword & Sandal fantasy flicks, particularly Schwarzenegger's Conan movies. The film opens with a terrific 'once-upon-a-time' type of off-screen narrator, introducing us to the Ragneks. Their founder once traded an entire mountain of pure gold for just one magically powerful ruby that would allow them to travel in freedom and access every country as entertainers. In other words, the Ragneks are a bunch of traveling circus freaks! Their happiness abruptly comes to end when the greedy Kadar kidnaps the Ragneks' beautiful queen Canary and continuously attempts to discover the whereabouts of the ruby. Meanwhile, and as some sort of amusing waste of time, the two orphan twin-brothers Gore and Kutchek are trained to become muscled warriors and they're unwarily prepared to fight each other to the death. Instead of that, however, they escape and develop a plan to free their queen. Actually, the plot isn't half as bad as I initially feared, but still the most fun is provided by the beefcake brothers' on screen chemistry, the crazily inept dialogs and of course the utterly cheesy fantasy-monsters, like a dragon with adorably cute eyes, some kind of werewolf creature and zombies that randomly appear to pop out of the swamp. The soundtrack and make-up effects are great and our almighty director Deodato maintains a terrifically fast pace. The Barbarian Brother's acting capacities are much better than I anticipated, apart from the fact that one of them constantly produces gross belching sounds. The supportive cast is splendid as well. Eva La Rue never looked more beautiful as the witty savage girl Cara, Virginia Bryant is indeed bewitching like Richard Lynch states on several occasions and the lovely Sheeba Alahani makes her first and only appearance on film as a vicious sorceress with a donut-shaped hair style (I kid you not!). Last but not least, 'The Barbarians' stars everybody's favorite Eyes in the Hills creep Michael Berryman as the appropriately named Dirtmaster. I know the displayed picture looks gayer than a promotional campaign for the musical version about the rise and fall of the Village People, but 'The Barbarians' really is a must-see Italian exploitation highlight. | 0 |
'The Cell' is a journey into the mind of a serial killer and I mean this literally. The film is about the journey, about the world it shows during this journey, the destination does not really matter. In my opinion this journey through the mind gives such beautiful images other things do not really matter as long as they are not distracting. In fact, the story is pretty good.<br /><br />We start with Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez) in the mind of a catatonic boy. How this works exactly does not really matter, but it looks a lot like virtual reality. She and other scientist including Henry West (Dylan Baker) and Miriam Kent (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) believe that this method might work. Catherine enters the mind of the boy and speaks with him there, in a world that is completely created by the boy. She hopes she can let him do things that in the end will give results.<br /><br />The real story then. A serial killer named Carl (Vincent D'Onofrio) just dumped the body of one of his victims. FBI Agents Ramsey (Jake Weber) and Novak (Vince Vaughn) are on this case. Another girl (Tara Subkoff) disappears and at that time, after forensic research on the dumped body, Carl can be traced and captured. Two problems occur. 1. Carl just went into a coma; he has been sick for a long time. 2. His house and the house with his last kidnapped victim are not at the same place. In a way this part of the story is pretty standard.<br /><br />Things are about to get interesting again. To find out where the girl is, Catherine has to go into Carl's mind. This is dangerous for a lot of reasons. In short: Carl is unknown territory, schizophrenic and a serial killer. If Catherine starts believing Carl's mind is the real world then her mind can convince her body; she could die in the mind of Carl. A tape of how the last victim was killed, a fate this girl will have in about twenty hours, makes sure Catherine will try to get the location out of Carl's mind.<br /><br />It is the journey through this sick mind that makes this film more than worth watching. Director Tarsem Singh, who did music videos before this, in a way goes back to these music videos. Every room in the imaginative world is another short clip that exists out of beautiful and sometimes haunting images. For me the visual style felt completely new, the way 'Three Kings' had a new visual style one year earlier. If something like that can make you like a film, 'The Cell' will not disappoint. But fans of the thriller and horror genre can like this film anyway. The story itself, without the great fantasy world, is good enough for that. I think you have to be a little open minded, of course events are not (yet) possible in our real world. Still, a very entertaining film with nice ideas that looks terrific. | 0 |
Ok, if you like yer monster moovies sullen, stiff, starchy, and thunderously dull, but with lots of throttling, then head right for 'Lady Frankenstein', a stagy, costumy Italian corpse-walker. Joseph Cotten('Citizen Kane')plays the crusty old Baron himself, and must have really needed to make that condo payment. Sexy Sarah Bay, who has played in cow-ntless European B-films, usually as Rosabla Neri, including 'Hercules Against the Moon Men', plays his ambitious daughter, a surgeon in a ruffled prom dress. Cotten makes an ugly, big-headed monster (cud it really be that much effort to make a nice one??), who immediately throttles Cotten(who took his royalty check & ran), and wanders around throttling everyone in sight. Tania(Bay) decides to switch the brain of her lover(who is old and wrinkly) with the brain of a younger man (who is 'beautiful', but stooopid), in order to make ANOTHER monster to throttle the first monster Cotten made, who is wandering around throttling people. Well, after much exposition, and some throttling, the 2 monsters throttle each other for a bit, Tania stabs the first monster in the back, and then has sex in the flaming ruins of her mansion with the second monster - only to have him throttle her! Doh! There is so much throttling going on that you almoost overlook the fact that the film is about as exciting as a dead carp, and mooves just as quickly. The Alpha Video version I saw for this review was heavily edited, and one wonders cow much nekkid people were chopped out, not that it would have improved the film much. Director von Theurmer previously helmed a variety of grade Z Euro-trash, including 'Jungle Warriors', 'Island of the Dead'(as Mel Wells), and 'The Crucified Girls of San Ramon'. The MooCow says avoid this corpse of a film, and find something that mooves at moore of a full...throttle. <br /><br />;=8) | 1 |
I knew it would be, but I gave it a rent for some laughs and maybe some mindless fun. Anyone whose read a few of my reviews can see that I'm pretty easy to please. I really didn't think I'd end up feeling this negatively towards it.<br /><br />The plot is about an ancient army of dragons lead by a huge serpent that will destroy the world unless some chosen heroes who inherited the responsibility can
become one with
a good dragon
or something
I don't know. It was so stupid, I didn't bother to put much effort into retaining it.<br /><br />It features a really dumb story full of ridiculous moments and goofy concepts. So many of the events just felt totally random and sudden.<br /><br />I assume there was studio interference or something because the biggest problem I have with the movie is the fact that the story seems like it's trying to be so grand and epic, yet everything happens so fast and goes by so quickly. I feel like I've just been hit with a million plot points and action sequences in one big ball. The film is like a punch in the face. It doesn't take much time at all to establish characters or drama. Imagine the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy in 90 minutes
You could have most of the epic battle sequences, but there would be absolutely no buildup and you'd hardly care about the outcome of those battles. That was the case with Dragon Wars
90 minutes of me not giving a crap, waiting for it to be over.<br /><br />Fantastic CGI with some okay directing, but horrible acting, speedy pacing, and dumb story made this very hard to enjoy on any grounds. I probably would have loved it when I was 6. | 1 |
I couldn't relate to this film. I'm surprised that people are lauding it for being so 'realistic'. How many people at your school were victim to incest? How many closet homosexual jocks were there? How many quiet people that you never noticed committed suicide? Hmmm. OK you wouldn't know even if their were. But really these are explosive problems which many us never deal with. And yet there are so many teenagers with subtle problems which could have been explored. But hey, where's the 'entertainment' in that?<br /><br />With regards to the girl who committed suicide - I found this to be exploitative. I actually think MANY people in High School at some stage feel invisible, ignored and unwanted. But what possesses someone to violently commit suicide on just another day of being ignored and unnoticed? The filmmaker decided this girl would suicide to make the film more provocative. And the graphic nature of the suicide to make it even more provocative. I didn't buy it as a real life scenario.<br /><br />And the problems of the other students I didn't fully relate to. Bullying is explored but that's been done to death, we all know it goes on and it truly is a matter of resolve within that person. Closet homosexuality? Pfft, another cliché gets rolled out. Thats the thing really, too many clichés. I guessed the ending at the start. There was a predictable unpredictability if that makes sense. You've got all these characters with explosive problems, and one with apparently none. And I thought, what is the point of this character unless she's the unsuspecting suicide victim? And surely enough..<br /><br />One thing I will say, and it is the saving grace of the film, is that it does NOT glamourise suicide. The suicide is very graphic and heart-breaking to watch. It is a powerful scene (regardless of how contrived it is)and one that dismisses suicide as the easy option. But the film is really not very imaginative and used stereotypes.<br /><br />Not bad but certainly not groundbreaking OR worthy of a 17-minute standing ovation at Cannes??? | 1 |
This is a very dark and intriguing horror type thriller based on the idea of religious murders. The storyline centres on a deranged man who lives in Texas, US who suddenly goes on a killing spree with his two young sons after being instructed by God to redeem the world of bad people.<br /><br />Bill Paxton who directs this movie plays the deranged Father who is known as the Hand of God Killer while Matthew McConaughey plays his finest performances to date as the oldest son, Fenton Meiks. The film revolves around Fenton who decides he can no longer hold the burden of his murderous childhood alone and uses flashbacks to hauntingly tell the story to FBI Agent Wesley Doyle (played by Powers Boothe).<br /><br />I cannot think of many movies that literally keep the viewer chained to their seat from start to finish and this is definitely one of them. Even if you want to stop watching, you wont be able to because of the sheer power of this movie.<br /><br />The directors have filmed this movie very well, and they help to set the plot through the good scenery. The acting in this movie is great but if there is any drawback it is that some parts are very powerful and may disturb some people.<br /><br />Whilst the concept of this film is very dark, the young children help to portray the idea through brilliant acting. This really is a spine tingly movie and it is guaranteed to have you at the edge of your seat throughout. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys horror, disturbing and powerful movies or anyone who just wants to see something different.<br /><br />8/10 | 0 |
Rebar is an astronaut who goes on the world's first space mission to Saturn, but of course this being a horror movie things turn ugly and he returns to earth as the only survivor. Stricken with some bizarre condition that causes him to slowly melt and lose his mind unless he regularly consumes human flesh, he kills what apparently is the only nurse in the hospital and escapes to the neighboring town to stalk more victims.<br /><br />I liked the premise and the monster and gore effects are actually pretty good, but the space scenes are just pasted together out of stock NASA footage and the hospital looks curiously like a warehouse. A very weak script, little character development and overall poor acting keep this one from rising above being anything other than a mediocre slasher flick with the novelty of having a living candle as the killer, and more or less only has its gore effects to hold your interest.<br /><br />4 out of 10, strictly for the most die-hard monster movie fans. | 1 |
I am very impressed by the reviews I've read of this film - generally well-read, thoughtful and informed - obviously by people who like and think hard about films. I couldn't add a thing to the excellent reviewing job that IMDb members have already done. If I may, I'd like to correct a small but widespread misunderstanding that appears in many of the reviews: Mr Baseball was American and behaved in an ugly fashion but he was NOT an Ugly American. The original Ugly American was Homer Atkins, one of the heroes of the eponymous 1958 novel by Burdick and Lederer, and the exact opposite of Mr Baseball. Homer was an archetypal American, and an archetypal engineer - he went to Vietnam to work with people, he respected and liked the people he met, he used appropriate, sustainable technology in cooperation with his hosts, and he was liked and respected by them precisely because he exemplified democratic values and American virtues. His ugliness was purely facial, merely skin-deep; his personality and his humanity were deep and genuine.<br /><br />Mr Baseball exemplifies all the crass, ignorant, insecure boorishness that we Europeans and Americans so often inflict on other cultures; Homer Atkins, the Ugly American, was the other side of our coin, representing our humanity and decency. I believe that the Ugly Americans still far outnumber the Mr Baseballs; they are still our last, best hope. | 0 |
An underrated addition to the Graham Greene cinematic canon - its perceived faults can now be seen as virtues. Director Shumlin, theatrical director, frames his action with an oppressive rigidity appropriate to the material, and the seemingly inept compositions compellingly suggest unease. Both a dark thriller and a story of moral regeneration (for the female character! In a 40s thriller!), the film has an upright hero who turns mad and murderous (and possibly paedophiliac), brilliantly brings the faraway ideologies of the Spanish Civil War into jolting dangerous reality, has one horrific murder, an astonishing insights into class and capitalism, clever theatrical metaphors, a rare approximation of Greene's God, and an ending that is only happy if you know nothing about history. | 0 |
Not having any idea what this film was about, but based on the fact that John Leguizamo was appearing in it, we decided to watch it. Well, it turned out not to be the wisest decision. In fact, as another commentary in this forum puts it, we felt embarrassed for the actors that participated in this movie.<br /><br />While the film is by no means horrible, it doesn't make sense at all. The over the top performance by William Baldwin doesn't help the situation either. John Leguizamo is a multi-talented actor who deserved better. The basic problem it seems to be the film was a project that started with good intentions in making a little comedy and the people in charge ran out of ideas along the way. The result is an uneven film. | 1 |
If you want Scream or anything like the big-studio horror product that we get forced on us these days don't bother. This well-written film kept me up thinking about all it had to say. Importance of myth in our lives to make it make sense, how children interpret the world (and the violence in it), our ransacking of the environment and ignorance of its history and legends.. all here, but not flatly on the surface. You could technically call it a 'monster movie' even though the Wendigo does not take physical form until the end, and then it's even up to you and your beliefs as to what's happening with the legendary spirit/beast. Some standard thriller elements for those looking just for the basics and the film never bores, though in fact the less you see of the creature, the better. Fessenden successfully continues George Romero's tradition of using the genre as parable and as a discussion forum while still keeping us creeped out. | 0 |
BLACK WATER has to be one of the best Australian movies I've seen in many years. My girlfriend and I sat gripping each others hands, jumping in all the right spots. This is as much a crocodile film as OPEN WATER was a shark film. In other words, the creatures are merely part of the dilemma, the trap in which people find themselves through circumstances. How director's Andrew Traucki and David Nerlich wring as much suspense and terror from such a modest situation is amazing to watch unfold. And when I say terror, its not overblown, artificially constructed squirm moments, but more little touches that when you ask yourself 'how would I feel in that situation' lead you to conclude 'scared witless'. Performances were great, the pacing and gorgeous cutaways to other life in the mangroves were excellent and the ending moments of the film felt very right. This is a fitting feature debut for two directors who should rightfully by very proud. Go and watch this very beautifully shot and acted suspenseful film. | 0 |
More of a mystery movie with some gratuitous horror elements thrown in; mediocre overall.<br /><br />It starts with a woman having a nightmare in which her sex partner gets out of bed, goes into the room of her crying child, and kills it. She wakes up. Then, that man is dying in a hospital, spitting up blood. His estranged daughter arrives, and he manages to contact her through her dreams (I think), and he wants her to find out who killed him before his body entirely decomposes in its grave.<br /><br />There's not too much mystery about who did it, or even how; most viewers will have figured that out long before it is revealed. I'm not sure the way he was killed would really have worked.<br /><br />Anyway, the horror elements get in through: a gory autopsy, the recurring dream of the man killing the boy, a nightmare in which a plate of eggs turn into eyes which are then cut, and several shots of the decomposing man both in nightmares and actually in his grave.<br /><br />I was a little surprised to see a dedication in the end by Fulci to Clive Barker! Interesting. | 1 |
We loved the movie. I am a mother to two little men. I love having a movie I can watch with them where men have integrity and character. Moveis where money is not the most important thing. And family's are forever and love means more then words. <br /><br />I do wish we saw more of the Davis family. But over all I loved it left me with the same feeling the others did 'please don't be over'. We both wish actors would not change.The new actors were good replacement tho.<br /><br />My 9 year old son loved this movie too. asked me to go buy them all. He is a movie critic so for him to say this tells me something. Family should all see this move buy it for friends . Help bring back a time of values. We will be Reading the books now that we are hooked. really hope to see more. Be Blessed happy moving | 0 |
...and you can look at that statement in different ways, by the way. First of all, it's a mess because of all the gruesome and extremely violent scenes. Your wildest imagination doesn't even come close to some of the explicitly shown scenes here. Entire parts of this movie are just plain sick, disgusting, offensive, brutal and they bring you close to puking your guts out. Now, I love horror movies and I am very 'pro-violence', but I do think that it has to lead somewhere !! Is that too much to ask ? Cradle of Fear is just a series of utterly sick and twisted thoughts. The 'movie' contains out of four separate chapters connected by a wraparound story. This results in endless showing of torture, murder and sickness only to find out that the victims have something in common. Not very informative, if you ask me. And yet - it has to be said - the basic plot idea surely HAS potential. It's about a cannibalistic hypnotist who made a deal with the devil himself to avenge himself and cause misery and death to everyone who was involved in his trial. Personally, I think that is an interesting topic, so they should have focused on that a little more instead of wanting to create the most disgusting movie ever.<br /><br />Secondly, the whole production of this movie was a mess. They didn't have much of a budget and they spent it all on fake blood and guts...Tons of it !! The acting performances are a joke and some of the worst I've ever seen. Any other special effects besides the make-up looks very amateurish ( Like that attempt to a realistic car crash, for example ). There's no tension or atmosphere to detect anywhere...not even an attempt to build up one.<br /><br />Cradle of Fear is a failure and a missed opportunity to say the least. With the presence of death-metal icon Danni Filth ( from the band Cradle of filth..get the link ? ) this movie is obviously only meant for the eyes of twisted teenagers who try to be controversial. Troubled girls and boys who take pleasure in worrying their parents by watching crap like this. And then people keep complaining that the amount of suicides and juvenile delinquency is increasing...Bah. I can imagine that this movie can cause a lot of damage when you're easily influenced or dispose of an unstable mind. For every self-respecting horror fan, this movie is an insult. | 1 |
...apparently Bernard Cribbins ad libbed nearly all of his lines. If you can sit through the 'Daddy! Oh my daddy' bit without blubbing then you really need to get in touch with your inner child (trust me. I'm a 41 year old bloke). | 0 |
First of all I dunno if I was supposed to use my imagination in this film or the director was trying to save money or low on budget! Here we go....<br /><br />Basically there were so many years and gaps that I don't understand, its like the movie was jumping from 9 years to 20 years to 30 and so much gaps that makes you ask questions how the hell did this happen? and why? I think this is a big flow. Forget the reviews who keeps whining about the history , this movie doesn't have only history facts issues, but also has so many flaws. So most of the people keep saying watch this in cinema you will lose all cinematography like rivers, deserts etc.. thats true they are beautiful thats why I waited for BluRay release 1080p. OK! beautiful scenes but whats the point of that? I turned off the movie after 1 hour and half, I just lost Interest. The movie kept on doing the exact same things jumping in years ( At least Mr. Director put for example, after 2 years after 10 years!) I mean i couldn't watch the movie I lost understanding of whats going on! Anyways i wish i could include spoilers but when u decide to watch this movie, just ask yourself how did this happen? you will know what i mean! Don't watch this movie its a waste of time. | 1 |
There is absolutely nothing in this movie that shows even the tiniest scrap of talent. Nobody in it has ever tried acting before, even the extras in the coffee shop look as if they've been glued in place. Nothing looks rehearsed.The film quality is terrible. Most of the 'action' takes place in narrow corridors or apartments with the cameraman crammed in as an afterthought, swinging some cheapo camera backwards and forwards between 'actors' as they deliver their lines. No tripod and no proper microphone either, there sound quality is terrible. Even 'Manos' fares better than this, at least they had proper equipment. What plot there is simply gets lost in the production mess.<br /><br />Stick to home videos, preferably made by some 5 year kid trying out the video feature on daddy's new camera phone. You will be in for a long search to find a movie more inept than this. | 1 |
We start all of our reviews with the following information. My wife and I have seen nearly 100 movies per year for the past 15 years. Recently, we were honored by receiving lifetime movie passes to any movie any time at no cost! So we can see whatever we want whenever we want. The point of this is that CRITICS count for ZERO. Your local critics or the national critics like Ebert are really no different than you or me. The only difference is that they get to write about the movie and are forced to see hundreds of movies whether they want to or not.Therefore, it is our belief that if you get your monies worth for two hours of enjoyment that is good enough for us! We NEVER EVER listen or read the critics. We only care about our friends and those who we know like the same things as us. Well enough about that. <br /><br />When Meryl Streep the head of the NSC in the movie says 'The United States does not torture' it got a big laugh at this movie. It is of course a lie that the Bush Administration has denied time and again. It is a very good movie and it is scary in what they can do to us as we lose all of our civil rights. They can simply 'snatch' you anywhere and tell know one that they have done it. In this case, they snatch a man who has a name similar to those who killed thousands on 9-11. He is of course just like you or I. And so they take him to a secret location outside of the US to torture and waterboard him. <br /><br />Very frightening. Well acted by Jake and Reese and the entire cast. | 0 |
This is a pretty clever, well-acted version of the 'modern' 30s woman's fairytale romance. In this case, she helps the man she loves become head of the company while serving as his secretary and eventually wins his love from a scheming social butterfly. Interestingly, her business sense is shown as subtly parallel to her homemaking prowess, and the ladies of the office are depicted as the 'powers behind the throne.' Lifted way above the average by Mrs. Astor's intelligent performance. | 0 |
My entire family enjoyed this film, including 2 small children. Great values without sex, violence, drugs, nudity, or profanity. Also no zillion dollar special effects were added to try to misdirect viewers from a poorly written storyline. A simple little family fun movie. We especially like the songs in the movie. But we only got to hear a portion of the songs ... Mostly during the end credits... Would love to buy a sound track CD from this movie. This is my 4th Bill Hillman movie and they all have the same guidelines as mentioned above. With all the movies out there that you don't want your kids to watch, this Hillman fella has a no risk rating. We love his movies. | 0 |
I grew up with scooby(kinda the re-runs of where are you)I hate scrappy, love Daphne, and feel its not complete with out the whole gang. But this is sad, scooby doo is mystery solving comedy-not bad totally spy's jap anime. i like 'whats new', they had to give danger-prone Daphne a makeover sometime :( and try to lose the *sex *drug jokes of many a generation, but this 'get a clue' is flat out crap and should not have the Scooby name attached. They even tried to do some lame punk thing with the theme song. now i'm gonna go watch my DVD of scooby doo where are you to wash the filth of this new series off my eyes | 1 |
Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci are an excellent couple and demonstrate it with their unique charisma featured in this movie.<br /><br />This is the typical 'alternative' or indie movie with a plot that features a rare situation that suddenly becomes really important.<br /><br />Pecker is an average boy who has an old camera and his main hobby is to take photographs of the exotic habitants of the small town where he lives in. Suddenly an alternative artist pays attention to his work and hires him in order to expose his work in some important festivals and more.<br /><br />But Pecker life changes drastically as now fortune and fame seem to infuriate the town's people who are Pecker's main inspiration. Even his sexy girlfriend gets mad because now he does not pays the 'adequate' attention to her.<br /><br />Well this is an Indie movie with an edge but not for everyone. It may seem boring or pretentious for some people but still I think it worths a watch only because it offers something 'different' than Hollywood's typical standards.<br /><br />To describe in a few words: This is the typical Christina Ricci and John Waters movie. That's it.<br /><br />Oh and I almost forgot to mention that the 'Full of Grace' lines are really annoying. Geez. | 0 |
Dumb, meaningless movie should appeal to Southern Rednecks, teenagers with IQ's bordering on retarded and the average Bush supporter. Noble Willingham plays the lead in this simpleminded script for what it is and uses a generous dose of MFers, eff this and eff that and SOBs. The ending which I anticipated to 'Save' this hollow story was the biggest letdown, leaving me hanging and wondering, 'Why'?<br /><br />It's a story of cat & mouse or more like Bully vs. victim.<br /><br />Don't waste your time unless you like hearing the phone ringing every 2 minutes and constant cursing and screaming throughout this 123 minute piece of dumpster droppings. | 1 |
This is a very light headed comedy about a wonderful family that has a son called Pecker because he use to Peck at his Food. Pecker loves to take all kinds of pictures of the people in a small suburb of Baltimore, Md., and manages to get the attention of a group of photo art lovers from New York City. Pecker has a cute sister who goes simply nuts over SUGAR and is actually an ADDICT, taking spoonfuls of sugar from a bag. There are scenes of men showing off the lumps in their jockey's with grinding movements and gals doing pretty much the same. It is rather hard to keep your mind out of the gutter with this film, but who cares, it is only a film to give you a few laughs at a simple picture made in 1998. | 0 |
This documentary was neither professionally nor objectively made. The whole thing played out like a conspiracy theory by IBM to win the match in question just to make some money. Garry Kasparov has an ego problem. He was puffed up before the match and when he lost, he didn't like it. I remember playing chess against computers back in the 80s and it wasn't too difficult to win. As time went on, I started to lose and didn't like it. Today, I simply don't play against computers anymore because they're just too good. Not only that, the games are uninteresting and lack the appeal of human games, where both sides are more likely to err and open the game to exciting possibilities. This documentary keeps showing us images of The Turk which is an ancient chess playing automaton that was really controlled by a human being. From the start until the end we are lead to believe that IBM short of literally hid a human GM in the back of their cupboard-sized computer. I'm a computer scientist and take offense at the notion that just because Garry lost, IBM must have cheated. I know how computers play chess. It's not magic and it's no mystery. They can be trained, have huge amounts of chess knowledge and they most certainly see positions and possibilities in unprecedented detail compared to humans. It's really no surprise that Deep Blue won. Perhaps at the time it was. If it happened today, given the ever-increasing processing power of machines; people would hardly blink. If a machine couldn't at least draw with a GM today, people would think the program was weak. | 1 |
I found this movie on one of my old videos, after 'Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster' (which should INSTANTLY give you an idea of it's tone) and I hadn't seen it in a while so I decided to watch it. I didn't remember much about Rainbow Brite except I used to like the cartoon and that it was cute. Most people feel that way about her. You probably do to.<br /><br />Well, when the movie started, I wondered if it was the right one! It didn't fit the mold of Rainbow Brite as I remembered her. But it turns out she kicks butt! This has to be the strangest animated movie EVER! I can't believe these characters were so popular (the series isn't much different) while being so bizzare. As soon as I watched this movie again, it became one of my favorites.<br /><br />I really don't want to give too much away. Just know that if you see the movie in the video store, rent it and watch it. No questions asked. You will get a kick out of it. Especially the outrageous Princess character. And the robotic horse. And the hypnotized sprites. <br /><br />If you can't tell by know, this is an 80's cartoon that is really an undiscovered 'head' movie in disguise! Have fun! | 0 |
Some may think Imaginary Heroes is a movie exactly like 'Igby Goes Down' but it isn't. In Imaginary Heroes, the director lets us feel for the Travis family and the people around them.<br /><br />The movie itself is great, and the acting is extremely well done. Weaver's and Hirsch's acting is believable and helps make the movie what it is. The actors, director/writer, Dan Harris, has made a movie that many people should see. Don't think this is just another teen movie, it is a movie about a family and their problems.<br /><br />I gave this movie a 10/10 because I believe it isn't the best film, which no film can be, but its the closest it can get to perfect. | 0 |
This film is great - well written and very entertaining. David Duchovny shows, once again, that he is much more than Fox Mulder, and the performances by the old men are funny as can be. Old married folks (like me) will appreciate the connection between two hearts. | 0 |
Now I know why this movie can be bought for so cheap at the video stores. I was curious since it had three big-name stars yet was among the 'B' movies that the video apparently can't even give away! The answer is, it is a film that would attract a very limited audience: an over-50 crowd with very Liberal sensibilities.<br /><br />Who else who watch Robert Redford, Willem Dafoe and Helen Mirren give, essentially, a basic message that 'cheating on your wife is okay so long as you still love her.' That's the nice 'feel-good message' here, particularly at the end at the end of this strange kidnapping story. Who wrote this script.....Bill Clinton?<br /><br />I say 'strange' because the kidnapper is the nicest kidnapper (Dafoe) you've ever seen, except at the end. He unties his hostage (Redford) frequently, which no kidnapper would risk, has casual conversations about family matters, etc. It's all ludicrous! Well, the L.A. Times says it's 'an intelligent thriller.' Ha ha. Well, that confirms what most people know of the L.A. Times. For those of you who believe that, and haven't seen it, I won't spoil it with more of the gigantic holes in this story, particularly at the end. The fact is, it's an insult to anyone with intelligence.<br /><br />Anyway, you can't fool all the people all the time, as critics have yet to figure out. Here is another film they touted that justifiably bombed at the box office and video store. | 1 |
Loved today's show!!! It was a variety and not solely cooking (which would have been great too). Very stimulating and captivating, always keeping the viewer peeking around the corner to see what was coming up next. She is as down to earth and as personable as you get, like one of us which made the show all the more enjoyable. Special guests, who are friends as well made for a nice surprise too. Loved the 'first' theme and that the audience was invited to play along too. I must admit I was shocked to see her come in under her time limits on a few things, but she did it and by golly I'll be writing those recipes down. Saving time in the kitchen means more time with family. Those who haven't tuned in yet, find out what channel and the time, I assure you that you won't be disappointed. | 0 |
Its a good film set in Vienna about a cab driver, Toni (Donald Buka), who steals a passenger's identity when the passenger is shot whilst sitting in the back of his cab. This gives him an identity as he is an illegal immigrant, but he needs to play out the role of the victim until he catches a flight to the U.S. with a ticket in the victim's name. Mrs Manelli (Joan Camden) rumbles him but she is accused of having mental problems by her husband, Claude (Francis Lederer), a concert pianist. As a result, Toni is let off the hook. Claude does not want to part from his wife, but she runs away from him. There are several plot twists and eventually both Toni and Mrs Manelli make a run for it together - they are both trying to escape from their lives in Vienna. There is a tense, exciting build-up to the finale. Are they going to get away.....??...<br /><br />Unfortunately, the picture quality isn't fantastic and there is a line that runs down the middle of the picture for a while. The cast are all very good in their roles, especially Francis Lederer's portrayal of Claude. Also important to the story are Heinth (Manfred Inger) as the cab company owner, Marie (Inge Konradi) as Toni's hometown girlfriend and the inspector (Hermann Erhardt). <br /><br />Its a good film. | 0 |
pretty disappointing. i was expecting more of a horror/thriller -- but this seemed to be more of an episode of dawson's creek but with out the acting. there were some very impressive shots, though -- almost worth seeing. maybe future efforts will improve. | 1 |
Having recently purchased Universal's Marlene Dietrich DVD collection, I was somewhat reluctant to watch 'Golden Earrings.' The idea of a 40-something Marlene Dietrich as a gypsy in a war-time romance seemed unusual, and implausible. I should not have worried. With all the professional talent that went into these old movies, it's hard to miss, really. The movie was a joy to watch; it's a classic.<br /><br />The most interesting thing about the film was Dietrich, who pulls off the gypsy role perfectly. The makeup, lighting, photography, and her performance all add up to make a really startling and memorable character. I had never seen Dietrich play a 'good' woman convincingly before--but she does here! She played a lot of heartless vamps in those great Sternberg films, so it is refreshing to see her in a more down to earth, relaxed role, playing an exotic but very human character.<br /><br />Overall, a very nice romance. The love story is believable, optimistic, and the happy ending is extremely satisfying. | 0 |
Found this film for one dollar ($1.00) and the film was a complete waste of time. Reb Brown,(Mark Hardin), played a military adviser in South America and was successful in capturing the leader of rebel soldiers operating out of the dense jungles. However, Mark joins the opposite side after some horrible tortures were inflicted or women and men. In one scene as Mark is having a drink in a hotel bar, his eyes catch the glimpse of sexy long legs Sandra Spencer (Shannon Tweed),'Dead Sexy',01. Mark and Sandra have the extreme hots for each other and even make passionate love on some very hard rocks, with no time for the comforts of a bed. This is a horrible film and not worth wasting the time to even look at IT. | 1 |
What the heck do people expect in Horror films these days anyway. Does is HAVE to be something grisly like 'SAW' or it's just crap...??? Now, I don't claim to be an all knowing expert, but I'm about 47, I've seen and own literally thousands of films and I honestly think this director really gave this film a good, sincere effort. Believe me, I was getting ready to cringe as soon as the dialog started, ASSUMING it was gonna be awful and I was pleasantly surprised. It's no Mamet script, that's for sure; but COME ON!!! with all the HORRIBLE garbage out there, ESPECIALLY in Horror, I thought this one was WAY closer to the top of the pile than most.<br /><br />The director used a lot of neat, clever camera angles; the soundtrack was excellent and moody, perfect for the atmosphere needed for this kind of film. The editing and timing were very good. And it DIDN'T resort to the tired, worn cliché of excessive 'slasher' violence; for example ***** MINOR SPOILER ***** During an absolutely delightful and fully gratuitous (but tasty..., uh, I mean tasteful) nude shower scene I FULLY expect her to get sliced and diced; but, AMAZINGLY we just get to enjoy her heavenly loveliness and that's it ***** END MINOR SPOILER ***** Also, the tension was built very well, leading up to a nicely ambiguous ending where you are not quite sure what's what. ***** SPOILER ***** Especially where in the scene where the psychiatrist leaves the girl and Pinnochio alone in the office; WE see the doll actually talking to her, but in the video recording we do not. Also, the Mom sees Pinnochio moving about and being quite nasty; so, are BOTH the Mom AND daughter mentally ill...??? Also there is the original 'killer' and what the Mom had surmised about a possible Evil influence. But even with all that, we are STILL not quite sure WHO was doing the killing ***** END SPOILER ***** So, all in all, I believe that it was a good, strong, sincere effort to create some good ol' Early Full Moon type style and with a LOT of restraint on the violence. And with no typical SLEAZE thrown in for no reason (just the lovely, innocent, beautiful shower scene, which I will remember to the end of my days... : ) Compared to the absolute MINDLESS drivel out there, a DEFINITE, strong 8/10!!! | 0 |
Admittedly, when the chance to see this horribly infamous legend of a movie, my expectations were pretty low. They weren't low enough. Scholckmaster Roger Corman somehow came into ownership of the rights to produce the Marvel comic book characters sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, and handed it off to Oley Sassone, whose directorial work has largely been in campy TV series such as 'Hercules' and 'Viper'. With a supposed total budget of 1.5 million dollars, it was produced, shot and briefly released on video and then sent to the wasteland of forgotten film. There it should have remained. However, like a banana peel in a vaudeville act, this 'Fantastic Four' sits out in the ether waiting to cause a pratfall for those rare people unlucky and foolish enough to step on it. <br /><br />If you have ever heard of these comic book characters, you know what to expect. The people who made this were very true to the source material, and that is the only thing for which they deserve any credit in this fiasco. This presents the origins of the heroic group that develop superhuman powers when the shielding on their experimental spacecraft fails to protect them from cosmic radiation. Reed Richards (Alex Hyde-White) develops the ability to stretch his body and becomes 'Mr. Fantastic'. His girlfriend, Sue Storm (Rebecca Staab) can become invisible, and her brother, Johnny (Jay Underwood) can spontaneously cause fire to erupt from his body. Finally, Ben Grimm ('credited' to both Michael Bailey-Smith and Carl Ciafarlio) receives superhuman strength when his skin mutates to a rock-like hyde and is then referred to as The Thing. There is a prologue that sets up a former classmate of Reed's, Victor von Doom (Joseph Culp) to become their enemy, Dr. Doom, who orchestrates the sabotage of the Fantastic Four's space flight as an act of revenge for injuries he blames on Reed. There is the set-up, then the discovery of the powers, the revelation of the villain and ultimately a climactic fight. There are more details to the poorly-written script, but they are negligible.<br /><br />This is a movie that was made simply because the creators (I use that in the technical sense of the word. There isn't a whole lot of creative imagination at work here.) had the legal rights to do so. The plot will be undoubtedly mirrored in the anticipated big-budget release set to be directed by Tim Story in 2005, but tackling a massive special effects project like this without a comparable budget or qualified actors qualifies as an act of cinematic insanity. What special effects exist are mostly hand drawn or simple camera tricks that have existed since the days of the original 'The Great Train Robbery'. When half of the climactic fight reverts to full-on hand animation, you're almost relieved to be watching a cartoon instead of the poor actors who were damned to be in this project. There is very little consistency of style in this mess as well. Most scenes are either shot flat in available light or wild primary colors, and the only dressed sets are the obvious sci-fi pieces. There is camera-work, but it is mostly just keeping the characters centered on the screen and minimal information flowing to the audience. Editing includes leaving in extra lines and using obvious wipes (at one point there is even a transition using the center of a number 4). Editing spins are even used to supplement the poor special effects when The Thing transforms. The one scene where morphing technology was put to use was shocking only because it was such a positive jump up in quality.<br /><br />Limited camera work is not unforgivable. In 'Clerks', only the most basic camera movements are used and there is almost no style. It worked for that film because it was about people whose lives had no style, and it was consistent. Kevin Smith never let his reach exceed his grasp. 'The Blair Witch Project' caused some audiences to suffer motion sickness from the jerky hand-held stuff that put that pseudo-documentary together. When all was said and done, it was an effective work about the terror of getting lost and being consumed by a frightening situation. There is no sense of story or theme here on either a spoken or visual level. With this 'Fantastic Four', you never get more than an accidental laugh at the fact that the film makers and performers seem to be actually trying to rival other comic book movies with this poorly budgeted entry. <br /><br />Any film involves a great deal of time and work. It just so sad that so much of both was poured into a project like this. If you're one of the people who were involved with this, it was most likely done as a stepping stone on the road of a (hopefully improved) film career. Everyone knows about taking jobs to make the most of what appears to be an opportunity. For those who are curious about watching this movie, my advice is to only do so with a group of friends (so you can all point and say 'you watched it, too') who have been forewarned about the experience (so nobody gets hurt from the shock), and maybe you can come up with a drinking game to ease the pain between the accidental laughs.<br /><br />1 out of 10 | 1 |
Farrah Fawcett is superb in this powerful 1986 drama, where she plays Marjorie, a woman who manages to escape the clutches of a would-be rapist. Well done to Farrah for being a Golden Globe 'Best Actress' nominee.<br /><br />When her rapist Joe (terrifically played by James Russo) comes into her home, which she shares with her two roommates (who are conveniently out!), Marjorie has to play along with Joe's frightening demands. It does make for some disturbing and shocking images!<br /><br />When her roommates come home, they are astounded (to say the least) by Marjorie's actions, and a great performance by Alfre Woodard who desperately tries to convince Marjorie to do the right thing and turn him into the police, makes the film even more nail-biting.<br /><br />I do find Diana Scarwid quite irritating, but when Joe finally admits that he came there to kill them all, it makes the film a very emotional piece of drama indeed.<br /><br />Overall, Extremities is a brilliantly thought-out and well-acted movie and I must have watched it hundreds of time by now! Well done to everybody involved. | 0 |
After repeatedly saying how brilliant so many Columbo episodes are, it's time to honour an episode with maximum points. 'Etude In Black' is not 100 percent perfect, but it's certainly more than 90 percent...maybe 96 or 97! <br /><br />Last week I reviewed 'Just Married' and compared it unfavourably to 'Meet The Parents'. Well here's one of the parents, Blythe Danner, in a much earlier role as the wife of famous orchestral conductor Alex Benedict, played by the legend that is John Cassavetes. Alex has been having an affair with Jennifer Wells, a girl in the orchestra (not his first affair, one suspects). She is blackmailing Alex to leave his wife, but as his wife's mother holds the purse strings for the orchestra, Alex doesn't think it'd be such a smart move to destroy his career and marriage overnight. Instead he hatches a plot to sneak out of the concert hall before a performance and murder his young lover while making it look like a suicide.<br /><br />Enter Columbo and guess what? It takes him about two seconds to realise that homicide is more likely than suicide. It doesn't take much longer for Columbo to connect Alex to the victim, and soon he's following him around wherever he goes. Even though Columbo is certain Alex is his man, it actually takes quite a while and a few false leads (none of which Columbo really swallows) before he has the vital piece of evidence.<br /><br />Along the way there are some top-notch extra characters, ranging from the precocious young neighbour of Jennifer Wells and the English mechanic who sounds like he would be more at home on Coronation Street, through to the bedraggled looking brass player who nearly finds himself fitted up for the murder (he had also been seeing Jennifer Wells, the busy girl!). And there's even a brief cameo from Commandant Lassard from the Police Academy films. As with Leslie Nielsen in 'Lady In Waiting', it's impossible to take him seriously (I bet you're thinking of that speech he made at the podium, aren't you?!) <br /><br />But it's Blythe Danner, John Cassavetes and Peter Falk who steal the show here. Blythe is absolutely divine as Mrs Benedict. From the moment she spots Alex dialling Jennifer Wells' number from memory, she feels deeply troubled by exactly what their relationship was. It's a masterful performance as she struggles to trust Alex despite her intuition telling her something is very, very wrong. Columbo doesn't help matters by interrupting her game of tennis to ask her impertinent questions about Alex's relations with members of his orchestra.<br /><br />As for John Cassavetes, well it's a shame he didn't make any repeat appearances as Columbo villains, because he could have been up there with Jack Cassidy and Patrick McGoohan as one of the all-time greats of the show. But this performance is superb! He's another one who falls into the 'highly irritated' category, losing all patience with Columbo rather than befriending him and indulging him. Despite this, when the game is finally up he does grudgingly acknowledge Columbo's genius.<br /><br />Well it's a really, really fantastic show. It loses a couple of very small points for its rather sledgehammer view of classical music, as highlighted by many of the posters here, but none of these have any bearing on the logic of the story or the characterisations. And at least the music is good, dramatic and exciting!<br /><br />Finally, if you haven't come across it, there is an absolutely amazing clip of John Cassavetes and Peter Falk on the Dick Cavett show from the early 70s. I'm totally convinced Steve Coogan watched this clip and based Alan Partridge on it. Everything about the clip resembles Knowing Me Knowing You, from the cringeworthy introduction to the total humiliation of Cavett by his guests. Even the orchestra get in on the act, playing circus music while Falk, Cassavetes and their friend Ben Gazzara fool about and ridicule the host.<br /><br />It might not be strictly relevant to this review, but the Cavett show clip gives a nice insight into the deep friendship and professional relationship between Peter Falk and John Cassavetes. It's clear to see from the quality of 'Etude In Black' just how well the pair worked together! | 0 |
I liked this movie. Many people refer to it as 'Sabrina the Teenage Feminist'. They do that with a lot of movies that Melissa Joan Hart is in. Still, she really surprised me in this movie because she was great in the part of Mary, who fights for justice when her roommate is raped. You could tell that Hart was extremely determined in this movie and it showed. I also liked Lisa Dean Ryan as Mary's roommate. She was very effective in making me feel sorry for her character after she was raped. Josh Hopkins was good as the cocky and egotistical rapist. Lochlyn Munro convincingly played his character. The acting in this movie is better than in most TV movies, in my opinion.<br /><br />The movie was pretty predictable though. Also, I expected more from the ending, it was too abrupt. The delivery could have been better. But the performances and overall plot make up for these problems. | 0 |
I must admit, ashamed though I am, that as an impressionable young teenager this below par horror-chiller was one of my favourite all time films. Nine years after first viewing Stephen King's frightening story however I have now come to my senses, and am able to assess Fritz Kiersch's work more reasonably.<br /><br />Indeed King's tale of a small Nebraskan farming community that is turned upside down by a young demonic preacher boy and his sadistic sidekick is truly disturbing on paper, but it makes for a cheap, average horror show on celluloid. A lot of this outcome can be attributed to the fact that Kiersch almost allows the beginning of the film to become a hacker-slasher show, and then turns the finale into a hocus-pocus special effects nightmare.<br /><br />The cast are reasonable, but they can only portray as much credibility as this rather incredible, over the top movie will allow them, and the soundtrack by Jonathan Elias is spookier than the pictures.<br /><br />A real shame that George Goldsmith's screenplay turned Stephen King's haunting short story into a shocking horror. Isaac, Malachai and all the other 'Children of the Corn' aren't really all that scary.<br /><br />Sunday, August 7, 1994 - Video | 1 |
Pecker is a hilariously funny yet twisted film about a small town in Baltimore whose daily, humdrum routine is broken by Pecker, a young photographer who takes pictures of 'real things.' No pretty models, no gorgeous men, just hard living. This wonderful film pokes fun at the plasticness of the urban art chain. There is one particular scene when a homeless woman who shops at Pecker's mom's thrift shop buys the same exact coat as one of the Whitney art junkies for only 25 cents instead of five hundred dollars. This just goes to show you that no matter what kind of money you have, you might not always have taste. Yet again John Waters sends you into a never-ending spiral of laughter and raw reality. You can have your mainstream Hollywood movies with special affects and mountains of celebrities, but give me a 'Pecker' or a 'Hairspray' (another excellent John Waters film) over a 'Titanic' or a 'Godzilla' anyday!! | 0 |
This movie wants to elaborate that criminals are a product of modern society. Therefore, can thieves, rapists and murderers (the Killer of this movie, Carl Panzram (James Woods), is all three and worse) be held fully accountable for their deeds? An interesting notion, but very difficult to bring to the screen in an intellectually and emotionally satisfying way. And this is where Killer: A Journal of Murder falls very short. Although the film tries to put Panzram's behaviour into perspective, with flashbacks to his violent youth and dysfunctional upbringing, the viewer never gets the idea that Panzram is a victim rather than a culprit. Sure, the system is corrupt, with one mobster occupying the whole sick bay of Leavenworth Prison (where most of the movie takes place), most prison guards are sadistic bullies, and the prison director something like a megalomaniacal despot. But why on earth does new prison guard Henry Lesser (Robert Sean Leonard) take such pity on Panzram? Even after having read his gruesome diaries? The movie offers some explanation: Lesser witnesses Panzram being beaten to a pulp by the most sadistic (and stereotypical) guard, and is impressed by Panzram's intelligence (though it isn't clear why exactly Lesser thinks this man is so smart). Surely this isn't enough to sympathize with a hostile man like Panzram, even though this movie tends to downplay his crimes and highlight his personality? Towards Lesser, Panzram is quite loyal, and the viewer is given the impression that for Lesser this outweighs all of the atrocities he has read about in Panzram's diaries. Does this man Lesser have so little friends that he takes at face value everyone who seems only remotely friendly to him? Perhaps it is Lesser who is a product of modern society, judging on appearance rather than substance.<br /><br />I can advise Monster, starring Charlize Theron and Christina Ricci, as a movie which handles roughly the same themes with far more integrity and scope.<br /><br />BTW: Killer looks as though shot for TV (not so good) | 1 |
Publicity for this film suggests that it is shocking and sensational. Well, we opera lovers see some strange sights in opera houses so we are not shocked by the Duke of Mantua urinating during his reprise of La Donna è Mobile, nor is it sensational to see Gilda sing Caro Nome in the bath. It is just crass and boring. What stands out about this film is its lack of imagination. Director Corina Van Eijk sets the Duke's palace in a seedy swimming pool. In fact, he is not the Duke, he is just a character named Duka, so it's difficult to see why he has lots of hangers-on and his own jester, Rigoletto. Rigoletto lives in a council flat that is furnished with the orange sofa and decorated in the spotted wallpaper that is de rigeur among avant-garde directors.The Duke's, sorry Duka's heavies ride around on motor scooters (Yawn). <br /><br />Concepts imposed on an opera like this can produce unexpected, and unintentional humour. What can we make of the fact that Gilda has a maid, even though she lives in a council flat.? When the call goes out that Monterone is being taken to prison we see him being marched out of the swimming pool by two attendants in pink shorts. One imagines that he is going to be charged with urinating in a public swimming pool.<br /><br />It was common for opera films to be lip-synced 20 years ago but there is just no excuse for it today. A dubbed opera is like soft porn. You don't believe in what is happening because the performers are not making enough effort. The actress in Gilda's role does not seem to have learned her lines properly. She barely moves her lips when she is supposed to be singing. When she sings Caro Nome in the bath she lies back with her legs slightly parted. It is difficult to tell which orifice the sound is supposed to be emanating from. The Duke, later caps this by singing while engaging in cunnilingus with Maddalena, giving a new meaning to the phrase yodelling in the canyon.<br /><br />The ambiance of the sound never seems right with the orchestra sometimes sounding as though it is being played through a transistor radio. Fairly slow, rumpity-tumpity tempi are preferred so that the overall effect is of a karaoke in your local pub.<br /><br />This is a film of a production by Opera Spanga. Spanga is a village in Friesland in the Netherlands. They normally perform in a tent in a field. If I had been watching this performance in a tent in a field in Friesland I would have been fairly indulgent. By filming this production and giving it a worldwide audience, the villagers also hold themselves open to worldwide ridicule. | 1 |
This is my first comment on IMDb website, and the reason I'm writing it is that we're talking about ONE OF THE BEST FILMS EVER! 'Ne goryuy!' will make you laugh and cry at the same time, you will fall in love (if you're not a fan yet!) with Georgian choir singing tradition, and possibly you will accept the hardships of your own existence and just feel good after watching it:) What I like a lot about this film is that actors in the non-leading roles create vivid and memorable characters and are just as interesting and important as the central character. The film is starring Vahtang Kikabidze (who is great), but you will remember every single face around him in the film. You will find yourself quoting their lines, that have become household names for so many Russian-speaking people. A film to live with. Simple, yet deep, you will want to watch it again and again. | 0 |
Frownland is like one of those intensely embarrassing situations where you end up laughing out loud at exactly the wrong time; and just at the moment you realize you shouldn't be laughing, you've already reached the pinnacle of voice resoundness; and as you look around you at the ghostly white faces with their gaping wide-open mouths and glazen eyes, you feel a piercing ache beginning in the pit of your stomach and suddenly rushing up your throat and... well, you get the point.<br /><br />But for all its unpleasantness and punches in the face, Frownland, really is a remarkable piece of work that, after viewing the inarticulate mess of a main character and all his pathetic troubles and mishaps, makes you want to scratch your own eyes out and at the same time, you feel sickenly sorry for him.<br /><br />It would have been a lot easier for me to simply walk out of Ronald Bronstein's film, but for some insane reason, I felt an unwavering determination to stay the course and experience all the grainy irritation the film has to offer. If someone sets you on fire, you typically want to put it out: Stop! Drop! And Roll! But with this film, you want to watch the flame slowly engulf your entire body. You endure the pain--perhaps out of spite, or some unknown masochistic curiosity I can't even begin to attempt to explain.<br /><br />Unfortunately, mainstream cinema will never let this film come to a theater near you. But if you get a chance to catch it, prepare yourself: bring a doggie bag. | 0 |
Here's another of these modern-day ultra-sleaze comedies in which dysfunctional families are supposedly hilarious. Know wonder people once asked, 'What ever happened to Pauly Shore?' Well, Shore didn't disappear, but his career took a nose-dive, that's for sure. Movies like this one, didn't help.<br /><br />In 'Son-In-Law,' Shore plays an incredibly-obnoxious character called 'Crawl,' and yet he's the most likable of the family! His father is a profane idiot; his mother is totally incompetent, his young brother is a sex maniac and his college-age sister is a real snot.<br /><br />Watching an hour and a half of totally-unlikeable people was tough to do. I certainly wouldn't watch this again, or recommend it to anyone but die-hard Shore fans. Adam Sandler took Pauley's shtick and went a lot further with it.<br /><br />The following is an excerpt from the IMDb title page here under 'biography' and it explains why I am not the only one who was disgusted with this movie.<br /><br />'........but his lunacy was dismissed as crude, dumb and, for the most part, unfunny. His film career quickly tanked. This downhill spiral was not helped by the failure of his failed Fox sitcom 'Pauly' (1997) in 1997. Lambasted unmercifully by both critics and media alike, he was soon becoming a running joke and forced to lie low and ride out the storm....' | 1 |
The story idea behind THE LOST MISSILE isn't bad at all, but unfortunately the story does get a bit dull towards the middle and the overuse of stock footage as well as poor special effects sink this film to the sub-par level.<br /><br />The film begins with a missile heading towards the Earth. In a panic because it's about to strike the Earth, the Soviets manage to deflect the object. This isn't necessarily good, however, as this seemingly unmanned craft has a vapor trail that destroys everything in its path AND the ship is now in a low orbit over the planet. In other words, with each pass it makes, a swath of death follows--one that could potentially kill us all!! So, it's up to the good scientists of the US (led by a very young and hardly recognizable Robert Loggia) to formulate and plan to save us--and especially save New York that is in its immediate flight path! Unfortunately, they aren't able to save Ottawa (I've never been there, so I can't say whether or not this is a big loss) but thanks to good old American know-how, they are able to eventually destroy this harbinger of destruction!! <br /><br />So, as you can see, the story idea isn't bad and rather original. But, so many old clips of fighter planes and guys manning radar scopes gets a bit old and it seemed like padding. Overall, a decent but hardly inspired film that extreme fans of the genre may like--all others, see it at your own risk. | 1 |
'North & South' the television mini-series is to the 80's what 'Rich Man, Poor Man' (the first-ever TV mini-series) was to the 70's.<br /><br />It's a fabulous adaptation of the first classic novel in the trilogy from author John Jakes. The story itself covers the two decades leading up to the years of the election of President Abraham Lincoln and the imminent proclamation of the Civil War - North versus South. The intertwining stories evolve around the families of the Hazards (the 'North' in the title) and the Mains and their two central figures of George and Orry who form a friendship whilst embarking on their West Point training in 1842.<br /><br />'North & South' is a wonderful historic timeline and as I have grown older (and wiser!) it very much interests me to learn about the contrasting attitudes to such controversial aspects as 'Slavery' and 'Abolitionists', and how these attitudes originated.<br /><br />The series also portrays some great characterisation development as we get to know about the friends and enemies in George and Orry's lives, and also the women that stole their hearts as young men. This aspect of the story also uncovers a romantic tale that is set to the turbulent backdrop of the American Civil War.<br /><br />'North & South', along with 'Rich Man, Poor Man' is overshadowed by 1977's 'Roots' as the greatest mini-series of all-time. However, it does come a close second/third and also shares the same kind of timeline and themes as 'Roots'. But, don't let this one get away, even if it's just to see the great scenery, costumes, and brilliant all-star cast including Gene Kelly, Johnny Cash, Elizabeth Taylor, James Stewart, Olivia De Havilland, Lesley-Anne Down et al. <br /><br />The series is beautifully crafted and is firmly tied to actual historic events and it's a pity the Emmys and Golden Globes didn't honour a lot more of the actors and actresses for their portrayals. Patrick Swayze and James Read, the two virtual unknown lead actors at the time, turn in compelling performances as Orry Main and George Hazard respectively. However, it's Kirstie Alley's riveting performance as George's 'Abolitionist' sister Virgilia that steals the show many times. Plus, Terri Garber, David Carradine and Philip Casnoff as Elkanah Bent are the delicious villains of the piece you just love to hate.<br /><br />'North & South' Books 1 & 2 are now available on two DVD sets. | 0 |
You don't need to read this review.<br /><br />An earlier review, by pninson of Seattle, has already identified all the main shortcomings of this production. I can only amplify its basic arguments.<br /><br />Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work. This is taken too literally by the director, Ross Devenish, who piles on the gloom and fog too much. When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time. In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen. I watched the whole thing in one day, starting in mid-afternoon. As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.<br /><br />The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow). I am sure this was intensional, but it is overdone. There are numerous shots of people trudging though the muck and gloom of Victorian London that are held longer than is necessary to establish the mood and atmosphere. A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.<br /><br />I don't want to overstate these two problems. You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production. The more important issue is that it doesn't always tell the story very effectively. Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted. For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie. The answer is simple: the book is full of padding. McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements. This would not be possible with Bleak House. <br /><br />This production needs its seven hours. Probably, it needs even longer, because many elements of its convoluted plot are not sufficiently clear, or as well handled, as they need to be. A few random examples will illustrate the problems.<br /><br />The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.<br /><br />Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.<br /><br />It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce. Neither is it clear that they have agreed not to announce their engagement, or why.<br /><br />Ada and Rick's secret marriage is omitted. In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.<br /><br />Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.<br /><br />Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.<br /><br />The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.<br /><br />It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.<br /><br />This is only a selection: there are others. They are not major problems and the main thrust of the story is clear enough. Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points. However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.<br /><br />The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away. Bucket immediately pinpoints Hortense as a suspect, which undermines the suspense of Sergeant George's predicament and the importance of finding Mrs Rouncewell. It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.<br /><br />A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick. His failing finances, his gouging by Vholes and Skimpole, Ada's despair, his declining health and so on, are all put on hold for an entire episode. This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.<br /><br />Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous. His discovery of the new will, that triggers the final phase of the story, is also thrown away. It happens off screen.<br /><br />Despite all of this, it is still a very good production. Many of the performances are outstanding. Individual scenes are beautifully realised. Its accumulating sense of tragedy is very powerful. I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production. In fact, I probably wouldn't be fully aware of its defects if I hadn't seen how Andrew Davies did it better. I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.<br /><br />This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time. Nonetheless, its probable fate is to be viewed mainly as a cross-reference to the near-definitive 2005 version. | 0 |
Apparently the film has a harsh anti-Bush message... If it does (I didn't get it), that's all it is. It's boring and useless, period.<br /><br />It's too serious at times to be a comedy, too slow to be a thriller, not funny, not gripping, not exciting, not film. It's too everything to be the opposite, and vise versa. I was amazed at how bad a film could suck. Don't even think of watching it.<br /><br />I have watched literally hundreds of films, and never have I been so obliged to write a warning on IMDb. Avoid at all costs. You have been warned.<br /><br />Even 'The Making of...' is painfully boring. It's just people talking gibberish with loads of inside jokes infront of a camera, sort of like a home movie. There even is a part where a guy takes you on a tour of the food that was consumed on the set by the film crew. Still, beats the movie I guess... | 1 |
Simon Pegg plays the part of Sidney Young, a young entertainment writer who has begun the beginnings of a career writing for a grassroots magazine that specializes in badmouthing the shallowness and superficiality of the rich and famous. He is making a career out of lampooning celebrities, although he has a desperate wish to be a celebrity himself. The movie is based on the very bizarre career of Toby Young, who also ran a small magazine in Britain called the Modern Review, which offered scathing criticism of pretty much everything imaginable, until he closed the magazine in a hail of verbal bullets with his co-editor, and then went on to a spectacularly failed career as a writer for Vanity Fair, which is pretty much the part of his life told in this movie. <br /><br />He is at first thrilled to go work for a major publication (called Sharp's Magazine in the movie), and despite active nerves he is positively beaming on his first day. He meets the chief editor, Clayton Harding (played by Jeff Bridges), who is hard as nails but who is also exactly the kind of editor he needs to be for a goof-off like Young to keep his job at the magazine. He offers little in the form of immediate acceptance of Young, but he also has what can only be described as a liberal tolerance of Young's off-the-wall antics and inappropriate behavior. <br /><br />Much of the comedy in the movie is derived from Young's misunderstanding of or indifference to the generally accepted code of public behavior and the peculiar etiquette involved in dealing with the rich and famous. But Sidney's reasons for acting in such a weird way and for giving outwardly offensive interviews is because he believes that he loathes the entire celebrity culture and, it would seem, he believes in that age-old saying 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em
and THEN beat 'em.'<br /><br />Complicating matters are two very different women. There is a charming, regular girl at the magazine named Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst) who at first is appalled by Sidney's obvious arrogance and womanizing ways, and a stunning model named Sophie (Megan Fox), who represents the celebrity culture. Needless to say, Sidney's endless attack of superficiality and stardom is a superficial lust for Sophie, the one with the look of a star.<br /><br />Sophie is stunningly beautiful, it's true, but also comes across as having not a single thought rattling around in her head. Alison is a regular girl, not very interesting or attractive, but Dunst's performance makes her a real person. A relationship with her would have all the reality of a Britney Spears marriage, and yet the movie retains some level of believability because, despite how obvious this is, we also feel Sidney's pain in not pursuing her (I felt it, anyway).<br /><br />How To Lose Friends and Alienate People has a pretty interesting premise and is full of honest, satisfactory performances, and although it turns into a bit of your standard romantic comedy by the third act, it has a variety of well-developed and interesting characters. Danny Huston, for example, gives us a great performance as Alison's other love interest, who pays homage to The Big Lebowski (also starring Bridges) with his ever-present White Russian, one of my personal favorite drinks. Buying Absolute and Kahlua here in China costs the equivalent of about $350, but my kitchen is never without them. <br /><br />I am looking forward to the day when Simon Pegg will branch out a little bit, because I love his films but I am completely unsure about his range. He played a serious character in Hot Fuzz, but only serious in relation to the lunacy surrounding him, and ultimately went back to being himself again, which he has pretty much been in Shaun of the Dead, Run, Fat Boy, Run, and now How To Lose Friends. He's a rising star, it will be interesting to see what else he can do. | 0 |
This mess starts off with a real tank running over a car, intercut with images of a toy tank. This is followed by a family driving home from a birthday party without saying anything. The unexplained tank and the untalkative family take up, I swear, over 10 minutes of film. Finally, the family sees a car after it has been in a wreck and decides to report it to the proper authorities, only to find that the citizens of the town are all hiding in their houses, and the cops are hiding in the police station. Interesting? Almost. When the town folk come out due to the family's presence, we learn that both the writer and editor are conspiring to substitute suspense with incomprehensible storytelling techniques in the hopes that the audience's inability to tell what's going on will somehow bring unease upon the audience... and it works! ... but not in the way they thought it would. I was very uneasy with how bad this movie was, but not scared at all. The dialogue is composed of things that make little sense. Not in a fun David Lynch sort of way, but a sort of I-walked-in-during-the-middle-of-a-boring-conversation sort of way. Over the course of the next hour, we learn that the movie-makers try to bore us into being afraid by showing tediously mundane scenes combined with the above-mentioned 'what's going on?' type scenes.<br /><br />The plot involves something along the lines of gentle-looking old folks putting children into a trance through the power of Satan and then bringing them to a party to play with toys, and an even more sinister intention, and it's up to a group of white men (everybody's white in the movie) to grab their guns and save the day, and a tag-a-long eye candy woman who whines at the drop of a hat. They look for the kidnapped children by looking in random places and yelling the kids' names.<br /><br />This is a great horror movie for any person who has never seen a horror movie because that person is frightened by the mere thought of Satanism, Paganism, Wicca, or even Catholicism due to a lifetime diet of brainwashing from the Trinity Broadcast Network. This represents Satanism as elderly folks in Halloween costumes with candles while mingling at a party, in front of an Ankh. Replete with a priest spouting completely made-up nonsense about Satanists, while calling them 'Witches.' The message that anything that isn't Protestantism can be all thrown into the same category for easy condemnation.<br /><br />About 30 minutes of footage is wasted to show mediocre elderly actors awkwardly babbling overwrought pseudo-Satanic gibberish corny enough to make a teen Goth blush, almost always in Olde English, and sometimes in Latin that may or may not be made up words.<br /><br />Highlights include a guy laughing at the idea of little green men for a solid 3 minutes, a family staring out of the windows of their car without talking for 10 minutes while listening to elevator muzak. A priest studying Satanism for 4 minutes with ooh-so-scary drawings of demons to scare the Church Lady crowd. Random shots of dolls. Random shots of children. Paint instead of blood at every chance. Film School level dream sequences. Introduces unimportant characters who do nothing before they exit. Sometimes, they act as if the Nothing that they're doing is a big deal.<br /><br />The directing is sloppy at best. An example of the directing includes a scene at the beginning where a man and woman are kissing and the man pulls away to look lovingly into her eyes and some dark red paint falls on her cheek. Looking up, they see that it's not blood, but droplets from a girl's snowcone. Snowcones are ice and colored / flavored water, and would not have produced droplets of the same texture as paint, not to mention the fact that her snowcone was a bright reddish-orange. Hackneyed writing, certainly, but made even worse by the bad directing. It then cuts to an alternate shot of the man, woman, and girl and shows that she's standing about four feet away from them, so the snowcone wouldn't have dripped on the woman even if she'd held her snowcone out over the woman's face. Way to go, editor! Of course, the acting is blah. The acting by the whole cast could be put on a scale and balanced perfectly between overacting and underacting.<br /><br />The director's most offensive technique is to give the actors no motivation and then go out for lunch as the unblinking eye of the camera leers as the actors make fools of themselves.<br /><br />And, FINALLY, after all that, we get to an ending that would've been great had it been handled by competent people and not Jerry Falwell. | 1 |
I don't understand people. Why is it that this movie is getting an 8.3!!!!!!???? I had high hopes for this movie, but once i was about a half hour into it I just wanted to leave the theater. In the vast majority of the reviews on this site people are saying that this is one of the best action movies they've seen (or of the summer, year, etc.) They say it's an excellent conclusion. WTF!!!!!!!!!?????? What has been concluded (besides the fact that Bourne can ride motorcycles, shoot, and fight better than anyone else he comes across)? What do you learn about Bourne's character in this movie?????????Absolutely f****** nothing!!!!!!! Okay, there's a lot of action, but what's so great about the action in this movie?? I don't like the cinematography and film editing. The shaky camera effect and fast changing shots were used TOO much and they get old fast (I didn't mind them in Supremacy because it was still easy to follow and was not used in excess) and made me quite dizzy. I was quickly wishing I had saved my $$$ for something else.<br /><br />This movie has no plot. All this movie is is a 115 minute chase seen. Bourne, who you learn absolutely nothing about in the entire 115 minutes of the movie, is a perfectionist at everything he attempts. There is absolutely no character development in this movie, you know nothing about anyone, and there is a wide array of new characters that are introduced in this installment. Some people said that this movie has incredible writing and suspense. ???????????!!!!!!!! What writing???? What suspense??? There's no suspense. Bourne is so perfect at doing everything he does, I don't think he has anything to worry about. If this is the best movie of the year 2007 I may just quit watching movies entirely!!!! <br /><br />Many people have also said that Matt Damon's performance in this movie is one of the best (if not the best) of his career. What performance?? How many lines did he have in this movie??? I have some respect for Damon because he has been in movies that I liked and has played different kinds of characters, but a good actor is someone that you can barely recognize from one movie to the next, someone who chooses different types of roles. Not someone who plays the same roles over and over again (which Damon doesn't do, but an example of someone who does is Vin Diesel).<br /><br />Anyways, this movie was a BIG disappointment to me. I do not recommend this movie but I do recommend the first two (Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy) and I most definitely recommend reading the three books (which are much different then the movies). | 1 |
This film has nothing whatever to do with the Sphinx, and the title is just a come-on. The story concerns an imagined true and concealed tomb in the Valley of the Kings, of King Seti I, second pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty, New Kingdom period. It is not a bad yarn, and a great deal of the film is shot on location. Even the scenes in the Winter Palace Hotel lobby in Luxor were really shot there, and not in a studio. The second unit stuff is endless, and they must have been let loose on Egypt for weeks. Frank Langella is very good indeed as a sophisticated Egyptian. He should take it up as a sideline. The film is essentially ruined by one of the world's most irritating actresses, Lesley Anne Down, who plays the lead. She spends the whole film wondering how she looks, are her blue eyes refracting light at the correct angle, do all the fellas lust after her, etc. Having started life as a model at the age of ten, what hope could there be for her? She epitomises everything that is most revolting about female vanity and dim-witted inanity. And to think that this film was directed by Franklin Shaffner, who won an Oscar for 'Patton'! He allows this terrible actress to whimper and simper through the film, hysterical one moment, flirting the next, in a kind of hurricane of idiocy as she reels from one man to another, either screaming or making bedroom eyes, it matters not. She is supposed to be a young Egyptologist. But she has never been to Egypt before! She takes a taxi to Giza and catching her first glimpse of the pyramids, gushes in ecstasy: 'But they're so BIG!!!!' Barf! OK, so that was the script, but she takes to the banality too readily, giving the impression that it is her natural element, which I don't doubt for a minute. Elements of the story are sound. There is, indeed, a serious problem about a black market in antiquities there. True! Well done! The novel by Robin Cook, which I have not seen, may be OK for all I know. It was fun to see the name of Cyril Swern as sound recordist on the film, as I knew him pretty well long ago. Stanley Kubrick's step-daughter Katharina is described as 'draughtswoman'. I wonder what that means? Maybe she did some set work. Anyway, the antiquities in the film are pretty good, actually. And we get to see lots of the Cairo Museum and numerous scenic locations. They actually go inside King Tutankhamun's Tomb! I don't imagine that would be allowed today for a movie. A lot of inappropriate scenes take place in mosques. That would not go down well today, but in 1981 such things were not on the agenda. The music for the film is absolutely appalling, worse than Lesley Anne Down in fact! But there were sound track elements which were surprisingly authentic, one being the cacophony of traffic noise of Cairo, which is accurately rendered in the background, and would make anyone who knows Cairo chuckle nervously. Also, the loudspeaker calls to prayer are there the whole time, another touch of authenticity. Why didn't they get this right? It could have been good. | 1 |
The filmmakers apparently had enough money to be able to afford decent makeup effects, but not enough for a creature that would move around and attack convincingly. We never get a chance to see the 'monster' move from one place to another - whenever that happens (supposedly), the camera focuses on the 'terrified' reactions of the humans that are nearby. And when a man is attacked by it, he simply seems to be holding an inanimate object against himself so that it won't fall to the ground. This is still not the worst 'Alien' rip-off around (the two 'Xtro' films are even worse, for example); it's actually sufficiently entertaining if you've got 68 (!!) minutes to spare. (*1/2) | 1 |
'Hollywood North' is an euphemism from the movie industry as they went to Canada to make movies because of tax breaks and cheaper costs in a civilized city like Toronto, in this case, later in Vancouver. Peter O'Brian, the director, probably saw a lot of the invaders from California that this movie seems to be the right way to deal with the arriving personalities trying to capitalize on the economics that Canada presented.<br /><br />Needless to say, 'Moon Lantern', the successful novel written by a Canadian author is turned into 'Flight to Bogota', which has nothing to do with the original film. A great egotistical has-been, Michael Baytes, who is obsessed with what is happening in Iran, is offered the lead part, which turns to be a disaster.<br /><br />The film seems to be saying that too many cooks have spoiled the broth, which seems to be the case with the ultimate product, which is saved by its producer, Bobby Myers. With the help of Sandy Ryan, who has been around making a documentary of the film being shot in Toronto, parts of the film are transformed into a cohesive movie at last.<br /><br />The filming process is hilarious, and the acting, in general, is good. | 0 |
It starts off pretty well, with the accident and the decision not to return to LA. But everything falls into place too quickly. There is a decent plot twist towards the end, but so many scenes that don't make sense. Randy (played by Brian Austin Green) comes home angry and ready to confront people and he takes the time to put on the club, when he parks his car in front of his house in the middle of nowhere? I don't want to spoil it, for anyone who does decide to see it, but the last 45 minutes are ridiculous. Even the acting, which wasn't bad early on, turns bad towards the end. Don't bother unless you want to see how bad it is. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.