review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
This episode introduced the Holodeck to the TNG world. The Jarada have to be contacted and a precise greeting must be delivered or it would greatly insult them. A tired Picard decides to take a trip into the Holodeck and a wonderful adventure begins. The settings are superb and almost movie like. Alas, the Jarada probe sent shortly thereafter damages the holodeck and all it's safety devices stop working. Picard and now guests must outwit the mobsters of gangland 40s America and return to the Jarada rendezvous. Picard greets the Jarada correctly and a new day dawns between Humanity and the Jarada. This gem of a first season episode set the holodeck for many interesting and unusual adventures to be had there | 0 |
Imagine turning out the lights in your remote farmhouse on a cold night, and then going to bed. There's no need to lock the doors. The only sound is the wind whistling through the trees. Sometime after midnight a car with lights off inches up the driveway. Moments later an intruder beams a flashlight into your darkened living room.<br /><br />What makes this image so scary is the setting: a remote farmhouse ... at night. Based on Truman Capote's best-selling book, and with B&W lighting comparable to the best 1940's noir films, 'In Cold Blood' presents a terrifying story, especially in that first Act, as the plot takes place largely at night and on rain drenched country roads. It's the stuff of nightmares. But this is no dream. The events really happened, in 1959.<br /><br />Two con men with heads full of delusions kill an entire Kansas family, looking for a stash of cash that doesn't exist. Director Richard Brooks used the actual locations where the real-life events occurred, even the farmhouse ... and its interior! It makes for a memorable, and haunting, film.<br /><br />Both of the lead actors closely resemble the two real-life killers. Robert Blake is more than convincing as Perry Smith, short and stocky with a bum leg, who dreams of finding Cortez' buried treasure. Scott Wilson is almost as good as Dick Hickock, the smooth-talking con artist with an all-American smile.<br /><br />After their killing spree, the duo head to Mexico. Things go awry there, so they come back to the U.S., stealing cars, hitchhiking, and generally being miserable as they roam from place to place. But it's a fool's life, and the two outlaws soon regret their actions. The film's final twenty minutes are mesmerizing, as the rain falls, the rope tightens, and all we hear is the pounding of a beating heart.<br /><br />Even with its somewhat mundane middle Act, 'In Cold Blood' stages in riveting detail a real-life story that still hypnotizes, nearly half a century later. It's that setting that does it. Do you suppose people in rural Kansas still leave their doors unlocked ... at night? | 0 |
Some people have made a point of dissing this movie because they question the plausibility of black people in the Old West, Asian people in the Old West or women with guns in the Old West period. Get a grip and read a book. There were quite a few Asians (Chinese), there were quite a few blacks (freedmen) and everybody outside of the gentile class had ready access to guns; it is the second amendment you know. And as far as the use of modern language goes, none of those Westerns people have waxed nostalgic about actually used language that was consistent with the era depicted. Americans had different accents, used different inflections, spoke at a very different pace and used plenty of words and phrases that would be unrecognizable today. Don't blame historical inaccuracy for the fact that you just didn't dig it. Be honest. Maybe you're just uncomfortable with what you're seeing. | 1 |
What a great film! I never knew much about Buddy Holly, but was familiar with his lively and fun music. This is a wonderful biography of someone who helped change the music in the 1950's. Although I never cared for Gary Bussey, he was fabulous as Buddy Holly! I don't know how accurate the movie is, but assume at least for the most part it is accurate, which makes the movie all the more interesting. The music throughout the movie just adds the pizazz to this biography. I don't think I would change a thing in this film, it was all good! What a difference in the stars from the 50's to todays music stars. How can you compare someone like Buddy Holly to Justin Timberlake? or any of the other popular singers of this generation? | 0 |
Most predicable movie I've ever seen...extremely boring, I feel like I've seen a hundred movies with the same storyline as this one. Acting is OK at best, there's no action really and there is definitely no thrills. Capable actors with terrible script i think it could have been written better by a 10th grader. Felt like more of a chore to watch because I was hoping that there would be something in this movie that was going to set it apart from all the other garbage but this fit right in on the heap. The whole movie I was waiting for something good to happen but it never came. I never rate movies and I never review movies but this movie was so bad that i had to log in here and post a review to try and save a few poor souls from wasting their time (and/or money) with this movie. I pirated it and wish I never even wasted the hard drive space. If I spent 10 bucks to see this in theaters I would kill myself. | 1 |
When I first saw the trailer for The Comebacks, it looked absolutely horrible and I had no interest in seeing it, but when it came out on DVD today, I figured since there was nothing else that caught my interest, I would rent it and give it a shot. I watched it tonite and it really wasn't that bad. I think it was immature and stupid at times, but there were a few funny moments that made me laugh. I don't really watch many sports movies, so I wonder maybe if I saw more, maybe this movie would make more sense to me, but it's all good, I still didn't mind so much watching The Comebacks. I admit, these 'stupid spoof' movies are lame, but what's the harm in a stupid joke every once in a while? The Comebacks isn't really that bad if you give it a fair chance.<br /><br />Coach Fields is failing in life, family and career both, but when he is offered a chance to bring his career back to life if he can bring a looser football team into the championship. But the team is really really terrible, like beyond terrible. But with a little work and team effort they try to give it their all, even though that might turn into something more sad.<br /><br />The Comebacks over all isn't the worst film I've seen, I think it's good for a couple laughs and giggles. I know that this was stupid, but I couldn't help but laugh when the coach comes in the middle of a fight in the locker room and he's beating the nerd's head against the locker, just him and the nerd in general were so funny together. If you have an open mind and don't take this movie too seriously, I think you'll have a fun time watching it, if you watch it expecting it to be Oscar worthy material, this is not the movie for you.<br /><br />4/10 | 1 |
Good old Jess Franco! The always-reliable choice of director in case you're looking for undemanding sleaze, shameless exploitation and 200% gratuitousness. Jess once again really surpassed himself with this utterly trashy piece of jungle 'adventure'. Let's face it, this film is basically just an excuse to have the ravishingly hot (and underage
) actress Katja Bienert parade around topless. It's actually a rather disturbing thought that an innocent 16-year-old girl had to walk around a film set naked in front of a whole crew and particularly before the gazing eyes of pervert Franco! And it wasn't even the first time, since the duo previously already made 'Linda' together. Anyways, just in case you wondered: YES, 'Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro' does have a plot, albeit a very imbecilic one. During the opening sequences a plane, carrying aboard a wealthy Scottish guy and a girl child, crash amidst an African tribe of vegetarian cannibals. I say vegetarian because they never at one point in the film so much even attempt to consume human flesh. The obnoxious Scot declares himself the Great White Leader and the girl grows up to become the beautiful and scarcely dressed White Goddess. Several years later an expedition reaches the middle of the jungle to get the girl back to civilization and even more importantly - to steal some of the tribe's legendary diamonds. This could have been a compelling and action-packed adventure movie, but Jess Franco obviously couldn't be bothered. Why shoot jungle chase sequences or bloody cannibalistic rites when you can just as easily aim your camera at a hot young chick sitting naked in a tree? Most of the jungle settings simply appear to be filmed in someone's garden and there's a massive amount of clumsily edited National Geographic wildlife footage in order to fill up the gaps in continuity. The back of the DVD describes 'Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro' as an ingenious, feminist and adult orientated version of Tarzan. Yeah right, they just put that sentence there because Katja Bienert's character swings from one tree to another using a a couple of times. | 1 |
What made me track this movie down was the viewing Vampyres, I thought I have to get the other movies this guy (Larroz) has made, I was sorry I tracked this down,it is a weak attempt at an occult/satanic type movie laden with sex and only sex(with ugly actors and actresses, this is an excuse for sleaze. The only redeeming factor was the setting and atmosphere, avoid this one, too much hype surrounds it, not worth the effort of finding it, this refers to the welcome to the grind house edition. I hope he has some other movies which lives up to Vampyres, Oh and the goat scene was very boring, I understand that this is what carries the hype. | 1 |
I enjoy a good, slow-moving drama. Christmas In August, Chungking Express, Virgin Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, The Way Home, Springtime in a Small Town, Hana bi, Eat Drink Man Woman, Dolls, In the Mood for Love, and Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring are all enjoyable films just to name a few. <br /><br />Unfortunately, there is a subset of films within the drama genre that attempt to ride the coattails of good films while providing nothing of interest themselves. These are what I call IAN films 'Incomprehensible Artistic Nonsense.' Tsai Ming-liang is the king of this subgenre, and Vive L'Amour is his 'masterpiece.' In fact, this is the crème de la crème of crap-infested garbage under the guise of 'art.' People walk around in their apartments, drink water, stroll back and forth waiting for pay phones to become vacant, hang posters, staple papers together, go to the bathroom, eat, do pushups, have sex, slap at mosquitoes, etc. I'm not joking when I say that is an accurate synopsis of the entire film, which is the quintessential posterchild for pointless art-house trash. There is no plot, no storyline, no interesting or noteworthy events, no emotion, no meaningful dialogue, and most importantly no drama.<br /><br />The most eventful scene has two people 'banging' on a bed with a person masturbating underneath the mattress ironic that it's also totally tasteless and gratuitous. The relationship of the characters on the bed is practically non-existent. Tsai apparently didn't feel like communicating anything to the viewer regarding these people other than the obvious fact that they like to 'bang.' The person under the bed is just as one-dimensional and uninteresting. He likes to drink water, makeout with melons, and stroke himself. This is Tsai's idea of 'character development.' A truly misguided 'entertainer' indeed.<br /><br />Tsai's true contribution in Vive L'Amour is perhaps the most atrocious scene in art-house film history. He first shows the lead actress walk all the way from one end of a park to the other for 285 consecutive seconds, only to then show her cry hysterically for absolutely no reason whatsoever for another 356 consecutive seconds. The film then abruptly ends. No point. No entertainment. Just pure, concentrated torture inflicted on the viewer. <br /><br />In an effort to beat a dead horse. The underlying theme of loneliness is mishandled so greatly that the only true feeling of this film is that of boredom. In fact, Kiyoshi Kurosawa provides a much better exposition on loneliness in his horror film Kairo. And guess what? It's actually INTERESTING! That film moved as slow as molasses in January, but there are better ways of addressing the concept of loneliness than the utter waste known as Vive L'Amour. Kairo is a perfect example of that.<br /><br />Fans of cinema may thank Tsai Ming-liang for directing this film, as he has provided irrefutable evidence that art-house cinema can be just as poorly made as B-grade, made-for-television horror flicks. Art-house snobs have now officially lost their pedestal of self-righteousness. The quality level of your precious genre now overlaps films like Army of Darkness and gasp! Showgirls. How do you like them apples? | 1 |
Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen! 90 Minutes of excruciating film-making. All the ingredients to make this movie a true work of CRAP. Bad acting, bad directing, bad storytelling, bad makeup, bad dialogue, bad effects, and bad reasoning behind certain actions taken by the characters. It also threw in a terrible naked shot of a dumb blond, and a breast shot of a stupid Asian girl, and both attempts were just scary, since these girls are ugly. Some good horror movies came out of the 80s, but this could never be considered one of them. Kevin Tenney also committed one of the greatest sins in storytelling: he introduced characters at the end of the movie (an Old Man and Old Woman). I would vote for it below a 1 out of 10 but the voting system doesn't work that way apparently. Right from the title sequence I knew it would suck and I would return my DVD but Best Buy doesn't refund DVDs, or consumable products as they call it, or so my receipt says. I have 'The Dunwich Horror' and that was truly god-awful, but I still feel that 'Night of the Demons' (an obvious Evil Dead RIP-OFF) was far worse than 'Dunwich Horror.' This is just like 'The Howling,' how in the hell could sequels get milked out of this anorexic cow??? Save your money and get the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' (just don't get any of its sequels though) or 'The Evil Dead' or 'Dawn of the Dead.' 'Night of the Demons' is a very, very, very bad investment. Every second of it was just maddening, excruciating pain for the audience, because the whole movie all-around was horrible! Do yourself a favor, DON'T SEE IT! You'll be saving some brain cells. | 1 |
Hammer House of Horror: Witching Time is set in rural England on Woodstock farm where stressed musician David Winter (Jon Finch) lives with his actress wife Mary (Prunella Gee) & is currently composing the music for a horror film. One night while looking for his dog Billy David finds a mysterious woman in his barn, calling herself Lucinda Jessop (Patricia Quinn) she claims to be a witch who has transported herself from 300 years in the past to now. Obviously rather sceptical David has a hard time believing her so he locks her in a room in his farmhouse & calls his doctor Charles (Ian McCulloch) to come examine her, however once he arrives & they enter the room Lucinda has disappeared. Charles puts it down to David drinking too much but over the next few day strange & disturbing things begin to happen to David & Mary...<br /><br />Witching Time was episode 1 from the short lived British anthology horror series produced by Hammer studios for TV & originally aired here in the UK during September 1980, the first of two Hammer House of Horror episodes to be directed by Don Leaver (episode 13 The Mark of Satan being the other) I actually rather liked this. As a series Hammer House of Horror dealt with various different themes & were all unconnected to each other except in name & unsurprisingly Watching Time is a sinister & effective little tale about a witch, the script by Anthony Read benefits from it's slight 50 odd minute duration & moves along at a nice pace. The character's are pretty good as is the dialogue, there are some nice scenes here & I liked the way it never quite reveals whether David & Mary are going crazy or not. I think it's a well structured, entertaining & reasonably creepy horror themed TV show that I enjoyed more than I thought I would.<br /><br />Being made for British TV meant the boys at Hammer had a lower budget than usual, if that was even possible, & as such there is no gorgeous period settings here as in their most well know Frankenstein & Dracula films although the contemporary English setting does give it a certain atmosphere that you can relate to a bit more. Another TV based restriction is that the exploitation levels are lower than you might hope for, there's some nudity & gore but not much although I didn't mind too much as the story here is pretty good. It's well made for what it is & Hammer's experience on their feature films probably helped make these look pretty good, the acting is good as well with genre favourite Ian McCulloch making a bit-part appearance.<br /><br />Witching Time is a good start to the Hammer House of Horror series, as a 50 minute piece of British TV it's pretty damned good, now why don't they make show's like this over here anymore? | 0 |
A complete zero out of four. One worst sums up Ajooba: awful. Actually, more words come to mind: ridiculous, third-rate, and terrible. This is one of Amitabh's worst movies ever, he prances around in a cheap leather jacket and equally cheap tinsel foil Zorro-style mask with what appears to be wings on the sides.<br /><br />The movie is set in ancient Persia or Arabia and is characteristically un-historical for an Indian movie. As stated above, a leather jacket from K-Mart with velcro straps did not exist 400 years ago, unless all my history teachers were wrong.<br /><br />Rishi also does his patented cross-dressing in this movie. Far from being funny, it is very embarassing to watch. What could possess the son of the legendary Raj Kapoor to flay the memory of his house like this on screen?<br /><br />On the plus side, if you want a real laugh, go ahead and watch this film. The glaring inconsistencies in the plot and costumes are no match for the awful dialogues and shoddy acting. | 1 |
The movie 'Everything is Illuminated' comes from first-time writer-director Liev Schreiber, adapting Jonathan Safran Foer's first novel. The book was ambitious and sprawling, its magical-realist elements and vivid use of language seemingly impossible to represent on screen. The movie, wisely, attempts less. While the end result is not as wildly original as the novel, it's still an accomplished movie about a strange Eastern European road trip, or, as one of the characters would have it, 'a very rigid search.'<br /><br />That character is Alex (Eugene Hutz), a young Ukrainian man who loves American pop culture but can't seem to get the English language straight. Nevertheless, his grandfather (Russian actor Boris Leskin), who runs a tour company catering to American Jews, convinces him to serve as a translator for Jonathan (Elijah Wood). Jonathan is investigating his family history, and specifically trying to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis. More than one family secret gets revealed during their quest.<br /><br />The movie's Jonathan (not to be confused with the author of the novel) is a semi- kleptomaniacal weirdo who steals his own grandmother's dentures to add to his collection of 'family things'. Wood's quiet, wide-eyed, earnest manner works very well in this role. Hutz makes an impressive debut as the loose-limbed, easygoing Alex. His malapropisms are hilarious, but he is also able to pull off the character's growing self-awareness. The dog Mikki is very funny as the demented Sammy Davis Jr. Jr., and one of the few movie dogs I've ever seen that isn't cloyingly cute and precocious.<br /><br />'Everything is Illuminated' eventually puts the Holocaust on a human scale, asking us to remember it not as a general event, but as millions of specific, small tragedies. Reminiscent of a European movie, it also ponders the effect of past events on present-day young people like Jonathan and Alex. With its original perspective, strong performances and some very striking visuals, 'Everything is Illuminated' is great work for a first-timer, and hopefully Schreiber will continue to direct movies. | 0 |
Bob Clampett's 'The Hep Cat' is a distinctly average cartoon only really notable for the fact that it was the first colour Looney Tune (previously Looney Tunes were all black and white while Merrie Melodies were in colour). The tale of a singing, dancing cat's attempts to woo a lady cat and a dog's attempts to catch the cat, 'The Hep Cat' lacks the trademark energy and pace of most Clampett shorts. To be fair, Clampett doesn't have a great deal to work with. Warren Foster's script is embarrassingly thin and, while he has spun straw into gold with other cartoons, Clampett doesn't manage it with 'The Hep Cat'. It's often said of Clampett that you can't mistake his cartoons for anyone else's and it's generally true but 'The Hep Cat' is an exception. There's flashes of Clampett genius, such as the chase scene in which the cat stops to ask the dog 'Hey, are you following me'. When the dog confirms that he is, the cat simply says 'Oh' and the chase immediately resumes. Unfortunately, there's very little of such brilliance on show here. Knowing who directed it, 'The Hep Cat' is a bitter disappointment. We all have off days and this was clearly one of Clampett's! | 1 |
The production values for this film make it fall short of Hollywood blockbuster status, and the script makes it fall short of cult status. What is left is a tired formulaic attempt at the disaster movie genre that will disappear with the ebb tide.<br /><br />A decent cast, are either miss cast, or cannot be bothered.The beautiful Joanne Whalley is unable to bring any gravitas to the role of Police Commissioner Nash who wears the most irritating matching waist clincher above her skirt.<br /><br />Jessalyn Gilseg plays the heavyweight part of Director of the Thames Barrier with all the conviction of a fairground candy floss. Her Canadian nationality and accent were presumably drafted in to appeal to a transatlantic audience. It, and she, fails.Her initial appearance in a tight fitting pink jogging suit as she arrives at work is risible.<br /><br />The part of the 'Siren old git who was right' is played by Tom Courtenay as though he is acting in his sleep, and the various plot twists that are designed to energise his son, played by Robert Carlyle, struggle to get any response from him.<br /><br />Nigel Planer looks determined to commit ritual hari kari for his failings as Met Office Director, or for his acting, or both, and only David Suchet emerges with some credit for his role as Deputy PM.<br /><br />There was enough in the story, and the cast and the effects to have produced a decent effort. Alas that did not happen. | 1 |
An enjoyable Batman animated film. Not on par with 'Return of the Joker' or 'Mask of the Phantasm', but solid nonetheless. I liked how the movie kept you guessing as to who Batwoman was. There was nice twist. Nice action sequences. I've always been of the opinion that the Batman cartoons are better then any of the pitiful Batman live action film sequels. The trend continues here.<br /><br />7.5 out of 10 | 0 |
Otherwise it is one of the worst movies I've ever seen - and I mean ever. My wife and I were both bored out of our minds within 10 minutes. Not to mention being boring, it is entirely unbelievable. Women (non-lesbian) don't bathe together - nor do they 'accidentally' kiss. Brothers and sisters don't live together well into their 30s and run around swing dancing together and engaging in footraces in central park. Men don't find out their wife and sister romantically kissed the night before the wedding and then never discuss it with said wife. Absolutely ridiculous.<br /><br />Heather Graham is possibly the worst actress in films today. She smiles when she should be crying and vice versa. The only movie she has ever been good in is Boogie Nights - and that is because she wasn't acting.<br /><br />I cannot stress enough how bad this movie was. | 1 |
I got to know ÆON back in the early 90s via television and I loved it...<br /><br />What did you like about it ? The cranky drawing style ? The flawless artistic action involved ? The absurd and deadpan communication between the characters ? The whole layout of the surrounding future world ? No matter what you loved about it...<br /><br />The Aeon Flux film of late 2005 has nothing of that.<br /><br />Karyn Kusama, the so called 'director' of the film, was hopelessly over-strained with transporting the original content to a new film. If you 're not familiar with the original series, you won't understand anything during for the first 60minutes of the film.The story is inscrutable and the vapid characters do not develop during the film.<br /><br />Kusama's attempt to improve the storyline by implementing some rather weak explanatory conversations between the main characters is not only a lame attempt to cover up her flaws as a storyteller , it's simply unworthy of the original ÆON concept.<br /><br />Charlize Theron might be an attractive woman, but she can't impersonate the ÆON character. Although she was attached to strings doing action scenes, her lack of talent for physical motion simply ruins the action sequences in the film. The result is a tremendous amount of hectic picture cuts to cover up the sheer lameness of her physique.<br /><br />Forget about all the rest, it's not worth talking about...<br /><br />I give 1point for Ms.Theron showing her boobs and 1point for the nice architectural photography in the film. That's it. | 1 |
This movie features a gorgeous brunette named Danielle Petty. She has stunning green eyes, and is in the first few scenes and the last scene. She is the only thing about this movie that is not repulsive. She may not have a future as an actress, because this kind of movie is the kind of offensive disaster that kills careers.<br /><br />The movie itself has absolutely nothing to recommend it. It is not a good horror film, or a good fake journalistic report, or remotely well done. There is no skill apparent in it's production. It is like a bad student film. The story's horrific elements do not make you sick, it is the fact that it is so poorly done that makes you sick. I would give this movie ZERO stars if I could. | 1 |
A genuinely odd, surreal jumble of visual ideas which probably looked extremely puzzling on the printed page; just what drew Robert Redford to the project, one may never know. Sidney J. Furie directs this knockabout journey of an egotistical motorcycle racer taking a milquetoast juvenile under his wing; the kid looks up to this anti-hero, and eventually begins to ape his amorality. Disjointed and off-putting--though for some, the sight of Redford disrobing, about to disrobe, or having been disrobed might be enough to warrant attention. Lauren Hutton gets naked too, however all the sexy flashes are just teasers for the prurient-minded; there simply is no story. Perhaps Furie was making an esoteric comment about feckless wheelers and their flock circa 1970. If true, then this pre-Blank Generation approach backfired, as the film was not a success. *1/2 from **** | 1 |
First of all,the whole idea of remaking a classic such as 'Psycho' is nothing short of ludicrous.A lot of time and effort was wasted here.I am sure they are smart enough to know that they could not improve on the original,so they must have had a tribute to Alfred Hitchcock on their minds.However,the idea that began as a well intentioned tribute, results in being a slap in the face to the horror master.This movie is poorly produced,poorly acted,and unnecessary to begin with.The original classic stands well on it's own,even after 40 years.The event of Hitch returning from the grave and coming after the people responsible for this piece of trash is unlikely,but if I were them,I would sleep with one eye open just in case.Don't waste your time. | 1 |
I am partly a fan of Miyazaki's work. I say 'partly' because most of his films fall into two categories: brilliant, and boring. Sadly this film falls into the later category.<br /><br />This film suffers from the same fundamental problems as Miyazaki's recent film 'Howl's Moving Castle'. An intriguing premise is set up, but then immediately reduced to little more than a backdrop for some unfathomable events that only serve to confuse the plot rather than explain it.<br /><br />The first third of the film reveals the post-apocalyptic world the story is set in, and actually looks like an very interesting story is about to unfold. From then on things go down hill. The middle part of the film is mostly made up of thinly-veiled eco-propaganda, and the ending is heavily marred by the reliance on the kind of impenetrable spiritualism which ruins a large number of Japanese animated films.<br /><br />Overall the film feels as though someone ripped out every other page from the script before passing it on the the animators. What is left is something which is visually stunning (although sadly the version I saw was an Nth-generation copy, with poor colour - which gives rise to the common myth that Nausicaa shows her bare bottom when flying), but which makes little sense and ultimately left me confused. | 1 |
Rourke does his usual bit part,as a sinister,rancorous,Neanderthalian,ferocious,evil jerk,in the same mold as in 'Picture Claire','Out in Fifty','Get Carter','Double Team' and the rest of the garbage he happens to be in.<br /><br />He has very few lines.<br /><br />Of course,all this is just junk,undervaluing Rourke,abasing him,and doesn't matter for his characterization as an actor.Still ,after seeing 'A Prayer ...','Johnny Handsome','Barfly','9 1/2 Weeks','Year of the Dragon',etc.,etc.,for many years I considered Rourke an outstanding,smart,intelligent man.I think he has changed since.<br /><br />He looks callous,calcined.<br /><br />'He went about with gloomy looks;/Despair inhabited his breast/And made the man a perfect pest.'(Belloc,'The Example').<br /><br />I had absolutely no other reason to watch this dull movie except that Rourke was in. | 1 |
If you like bad movies, this one's a real treat. Kaufman & Peters stagger around in robot costumes, escape slavery only to wander aimlessly, and find true robot love. I believe this is the first movie that ever made me consider walking out. I should note I was 12, and could be entertained by shiny objects. | 1 |
**Possible Spoilers**<br /><br />This straight-to-video mess combines a gun-toting heroine, grade-Z effects, nazis, a mummy and endless lesbian footage and it's still boring; the video's 45 minute running time only SEEMS like Eternity.The only good part is one of the blooper outtakes, wherein the bad guys force a 400-pound Egyptologist into a chair--and one villain's foot almost gets crushed under a chair leg. Take this snoozer back to the video store and watch televised golf, bowling or tennis instead. | 1 |
Comedy Central has had success with original programming using professional comics. The Chapelle Show, Mind of Mencia, The Daily Show and the hugely popular Colbert Report all star professional comics and all are, or in the case of Chapelle Show, were, solid shows. Given that Sarah Silverman is one of the best female comics in the business, I was expecting good stuff when I tuned in.<br /><br />I was so disappointed.<br /><br />There were some mildly funny sequences, but given that the star is the caliber of Silverman, the show could have been much better. It was just the pilot, and hopefully next week's show will be better. If not, get her some help in the form of better writers for the show. | 1 |
I think Andrew Davies did an admirable job of taking a magnificent book which emulated the pace and styling of a Victorian novel and turning it into a moving and entertaining film. I'm glad I read (twice) the book first which is usually the case for me. I know that one must view a novel and a film as different media and judge them accordingly. But, still, it's often hard to read the original material after a film gives away the best parts.<br /><br />I realize that Davies is a very good adapter, but I wish the producers had chosen a woman to write the screenplay. Davies, as he admits in the commentary that accompanies the film on DVD, wanted particularly to emphasis the more scatological bits in the book. I certainly enjoyed those, on film as in the book. But Davies missed a half-dozen moments that are so excruciatingly, painfully tender which he could have incorporated if his sensibility were more feminine. <br /><br />I also would take issue with his use of the book's primary symbol, the rose.<br /><br />As the screenplay was plotted by Davies, the denouement was inevitable and appropriate. But I really think that author Waters' final nod to the rose symbol was much more interesting. And I preferred way the novel let Nan 'come of age' than the way Davies chose.<br /><br />One quick comment about the four actors who essay the primary roles. They are all wonderfully talented -- well, except for the singing and dancing, perhaps -- and, moreover, their physical presences are so much what the mind's eye sees when reading the novel before seeing the film. I thought they were all terrific.<br /><br />I recommend that any lesbian and anyone who loves good fiction, add BOTH the book and the DVD of TIPPING THE VELVET to their bookshelves. | 0 |
This two-character drama is extremely well-acted and has a valid message and some TRULY shocking moments (shocking not because they are graphic, but because you're not prepared for them when they come). But eventually it does become oppressive, just like the somewhat similar 'A Pure Formality' did. Still, Alan Rickman should have gotten an Oscar nomination for his multi-dimensional performance, no doubt about it. (**1/2) | 0 |
In this peculiar movie, the themes of the end of days and Satan versus Jesus are treated in a new fashion. Jesus doesn't want to open the two last seals, and Satan is thwarted in his attempt to get another soul into hell... Armageddon, Armageddon and Jehosaphat turns out to be a - company!, and the book of life is a little hard to open.<br /><br />What's memorable about this movie are the slanted image, out-of-focus shots and light effects, which are effective, but sometimes irritating. And of course, Donovan is great as a disillusioned Jesus trying to come to terms with what the world and its people have become! So, do see it if you get the opportunity! | 0 |
CCCC is the first good film in Bollywood of 2001. When I first saw the trailer of the film I thought It would be a nice family movie. I was right. Salman Khan has given is strongest performance ever. My family weren't too keen on him but after seeing this film my family are very impressed with him. Rani and Preity are wonderful. The film is going to be a huge hit because of the three main stars. <br /><br />It's about Raj (Salman Khan) and Priya meeting and falling in love. They get married and go to Switzerland for their honeymoon. When they come back Raj and Priya find out that Priya is pregnant. Raj's family are full of joy when they find out especially Raj's dada (Amrish Puri). Raj and his family are playing cricket one day and Priya has an accident which causes Priya to have a miscarriage. Raj has a very close family friend who is a doctor, Balraj Chopra (Prem Chopra). He tells Raj and Priya that she can no longer have anymore kids. Raj and Priya keep this quiet from the family. Raj and Priya decide to go for surrogacy. Surrogacy to them is that they will find a girl and Raj and that girl will have a baby together and then hand the baby over to Raj and Priya. Raj finds a girl. Her name is Madhubala (Preity Zinta). She is a dancer and a prostitute. Raj tells her the situation and bribes her with money and she agrees. Raj changes Madhubala completley. Raj tells Priya that he has found a girl. Madhubala and Priya meet and become friends. They go to Switzerland to do this so no one finds out. Priya spends the night in a church and Raj and Madhubala are all alone and they spend the night together. The doctor confirms that Madhubala is pregnant and they are all happy. Raj tells his family that Priya is pregnant. They are happy again. Madhubala comes to love Raj and she wants him. What happens next? Watch CCCC to find out. <br /><br />The one thing I didn't like about the film is their idea of surrogacy. They should have done it the proper way in the film but it didn't ruin the film. It was still excellent.<br /><br />The songs of the film are great. My favourites are 'Chori Chori Chupke Chupke', Dekhne Walon Ne', 'Deewana Hai Yeh Mann' and 'Mehndi'. The song 'Mehndi' is very colourful. In that song it shows the ghod bharai taking place and it is very colourful. The film deserves 10/10! | 0 |
I've always found the dilettante Man Ray and his artistic efforts to be deeply pretentious, and I've never understood why his work attracts so much attention. Apart from his Rayographs (which he invented by accident, and which are merely direct-contact photo prints), his one real contribution to culture seems to be that he was the first photographer to depict female nudity in a manner that was accepted as art rather than as porn. But surely this had to happen eventually, and there's no real reason why Ray deserves the credit. The critical reaction to Man Ray reminds me of the story about the Emperor's New Clothes.<br /><br />'L'Étoile de merde' ... whoops, 'de mer' ... features a lot of blurry photography and a recurring visual theme of a starfish, which is never explained. Starfishes have the fascinating ability to regenerate lost limbs -- and even to regenerate entire duplicate bodies -- but, if that has anything to do with this movie's theme, Ray neglects to say so. I was much more impressed by this movie's title cards, which (in French) manage to include rhymes, a pun ('Si belle, Cybele') and some portmanteaux.<br /><br />As so often in Ray's work, there is indeed a beautiful young woman seen in this movie. Unfortunately, the photography is (largely) so blurred that we have little opportunity to appreciate her. I'll rate this mess one point out of 10. | 1 |
Some describe CALIGULIA as 'the' most controversial film of its era. While this is debatable, it is certainly one of the most embarrassing: virtually every big name associated with the film made an effort to distance themselves from it. Author Gore Vidal actually sued (with mixed results) to have his name removed from the film, and when the stars saw the film their reactions varied from loudly voiced disgust to strategic silence. What they wanted, of course, was for it to go away.<br /><br />For a while it looked like it might. CALIGULA was a major box-office and critical flop (producer Guccione had to rent theatres in order to get it screened at all), and although the film was released on VHS to the home market so many censorship issues were raised that it was re-edited, and the edited version was the only one widely available for more than a decade. But now CALIGULIA is on DVD, available in both edited 'R' and original 'Unrated' versions. And no doubt John Gielgud is glad he didn't live to see it happen.<br /><br />The only way to describe CALIGULIA is to say it is something like DEEP THROAT meets David Lynch's DUNE by way of Fellini having an off day. Vidal's script fell into the hands of Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione, who used Vidal's reputation to bankroll the project and lure the big name stars--and then threw out most of Vidal's script and brought in soft-porn director Tinto Brass. Then, when Guccione felt Brass' work wasn't explicit enough, he and Giancarlo Lui photographed hardcore material on the sly.<br /><br />Viewers watching the edited version may wonder what all the fuss is about, but those viewing the original cut will quickly realize that it leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination. There is a tremendous amount of nudity, and that remains in the edited version, but the original comes complete with XXX scenes: there is very explicit gay, lesbian, and straight sex, kinky sex, and a grand orgy complete with dancing Roman guards thrown in for good measure. The film is also incredibly violent and bloody, with rape, torture, and mutilation the order of the day. In one particularly disturbing scene, a man is slowly stabbed to death, a woman urinates on his corpse, and his genitals are cut off and thrown to the dogs.<br /><br />In a documentary that accompanies the DVD release, Guccione states he wanted the film to reflect the reality of pagan Rome. If so, he missed the mark. We know very little about Caligula--and what little we know is questionable at best. That aside, orgies and casual sex were not a commonplace of Roman society, where adultery was an offense punishable by death. And certainly ancient Rome NEVER looked like the strange, slightly Oriental, oddly space-age sets and costumes offered by the designers.<br /><br />On the plus side, those sets and costumes are often fantastically beautiful, and although the cinematography is commonplace it at least does them justice; the score is also very, very good. The most successful member of the cast is Helen Mirren, who manages to engage our interests and sympathies as the Empress Caesonia; Gielgud and O'Toole also escape in reasonably good form. The same cannot be said for McDowell, but in justice to him he doesn't have much to work with.<br /><br />The movie does possess a dark fascination, but ultimately it is an oddity, more interesting for its design and flat-out weirdness than for content. Some of the bodies on display (including McDowell's and Mirren's) are extremely beautiful, and some of the sex scenes work very well as pornography... but then again, some of them are so distasteful they might drive you to abstinence, and the bloody and grotesque nature of the film undercuts its eroticism. If you're up to it, it is worth seeing once, but once is likely to be enough.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 1 |
This time around, Blackadder is no longer royal(or even particularly close to being any such thing)... instead, rather a butler to the Prince Regent, portrayed by Hugh Laurie(who replaces Tim McInnerny, who presence is sorely missed, and that hole is never filled... his character had an innocent charm... while he was a bumbling and complete moron, we can't help but care for him, which isn't at all true of his replacement) as being intolerably daft(which he apparently was, according to the Trivia page), not to mention loud-mouthed and utterly non-threatening. Edmund can now do just about what he pleases, and does so. Why is he so frustrated and angry(honestly, it gets depressing at times)? Yes, his master is a buffoon, they always are. He doesn't seem to lack money, nor is he in any danger. In the second series, the Queen was mischievous and childish, and would cut off someone's head - or marry them - on a whim. Here there is simply never enough at stake for any of the conflict to be exciting and interesting. There is still commentary and even a little satire. Too often, it seems as if they thought that the history was funny enough on its own, so they merely restate it, not bothering to actually turn the facts into jokes or gags. And I can't tell you how many of them I figured out before they were done, literally more than a minute away. It's not usually a positive when you know the punchline before it is delivered. Baldrick doesn't change from last season... he's still rather pathetic and stupid, leading to 'silly' humor. Frankly, the amount goes through the roof. Don't get me started on the gross-out stuff. The sarcastic, verbal wit can still be great, though much less of it is than before. I'd say about half of the episodes were rather amusing and downright funny, while the other three didn't really get me into them at all. I was disappointed in how predictable some of the plots and developments thereof were... I could see many of such coming a mile away. Some of the material tries way too hard to be funny and winds up coming across as incredibly forced. This continues with the tradition started by 'II' of letting the plans work out occasionally. The theme is the worst of the bunch, the credits sequences the least creative. All in all, this is, by far, my least favorite of the four. I recommend it to fans of the franchise and of British comedy in general. 7/10 | 0 |
Herbet Clutter, wife Bonnie, and their teenage children Kenyon and Nancy were much liked and respected in their tiny town of Holcomb, Kansas--but in the early hours of 14 November 1959 all four were brutally murdered. Rather unexpectedly, the crime made an impression on author Truman Capote, who rushed to the scene and followed the course of the case to its conclusion. The result was the book IN COLD BLOOD. Controversial, shocking, and exceptionally well-written, it became an international best seller and it remains a touchstone for crime writers to this day.<br /><br />The 1967 film version of Capote's work is almost as remarkable as the book itself. Filmed in black and white in many of the real-life locations, it has a slightly documentary quality, icy and detached--and the overall cast is exceptional. This is the film on which Robert Blake's reputation as an actor rests, and deservedly so. As killer Perry Smith, Blake traps you between a profound distaste and the shock of unexpected sympathy; it is a masterful performance from start to finish. As Richard Hickock, Scott Wilson is no less fine.<br /><br />Like Capote's book, the film opens with Smith and Hickock as they travel to Kansas and brings them to the Clutter home--only to suddenly flash past the crime to detail the investigation that finally resulted in their arrest and conviction. The centerpiece of the film has always been the moment at which we at last see what occurred in the Clutter home; actually filmed in the Clutter house itself, it is a spinechilling sequence, horrific and deeply disturbing.<br /><br />Director and writer Richard Brooks guides the film with a very powerful sense of deliberation, erring only in the sense that he allows the film to become slightly preachy. Given the overall power of the film, however, this becomes a trivial annoyance. Strong stuff--and recommended.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 0 |
One question: Why? First off, the premise is not funny or engaging at all. They use taped interviews, and take the audio to animate ite with animals speaking the parts. First off, the interviews aren't funny or entertaining to begin with, and even if they were, I am sure they would be a lot more entertaining being viewed as they are originally, without being turned into cartoons. How does that add any hilarity to it? I turned on CBS's Monday night sitcom line-up, (which has become a regular way for me to relax after stressful Monday workdays) and found this on. Of course, the sitcom line-up would be reruns anyway, being summer, but seeing those episodes over again would have been more entertaining. I tried to give 'CC' a chance. I really did. When it started, I figured, well, maybe it will be funny. Nope. And then it kept going. It was a long half hour.<br /><br />And I can almost see if there was a purpose, if the interviews were shown in their entirety, and had points to them. But no, it was just one-line clips, cut and pasted together really quick. It was like a horrible dreadful version of Cartoon Network's 'Robot Chicken.' I wasn't a fan of CBS' now-cancelled sitcom 'The Class.' WHile that was on, it was one half-hour of the line-up I would struggle through. But if it came down to me deciding a whole season of that or three more episodes of 'Creatures'....let's just say I'd take the 'Class.' Considering it's been a couple hours since it aired, and I come on here to see I am the first to comment...I guess that's a good sign that nobody watched it, and that it won't last much longer. Cartoon roadkill. | 1 |
I don't think this movie was rated correctly. I took my copy and blacked out the PG rating and wrote down R. I would NOT recommend this for anyone under 17 or 18, whatever the R limit is.<br /><br />Why? It contains a scene in the jungle with several topless Indian women. I don't know about you, but that's not something for little children to be watching. True, it might be the traditional 'clothing style' of the African (?) Indians, but... I think partial nudity should give a movie an R rating.<br /><br />I haven't seen the movie recently, but I guess otherwise, it was alright. | 1 |
I was disappointed with the recent (2000) American remake of this English mini-series. Though it followed the plot line very closely, it seemed to leave the heart and soul of the original out. Not to mention adding shallow preachy heavy-handed 'messages'... So my advice is to skip the modern remake and stick with the original. It's much longer, but gripping and totally well done. Interesting, complex and textured, without the preachy self-righteousness... and it's beautifully shot, as well.<br /><br />I find it galling that these heartless remakes of great overseas films get so much Hollywood fanfare at the Oscars. (Though I did like Benicio Del Torro getting some deserved praise...) | 0 |
I'll keep this one quite short. I believe that this is an extraordinary movie. I see other reviewers who have commented to the effect that it's badly written, poorly shot, has a terrible soundtrack and, worse, that it's not real in its portrayal of life. OK, so it may not be quite believable for its whole length, but this movie carries a message of hope which some others seemed to have missed. Hope that it isn't too late to save people from the terrible things that go on in so many lives. Gangland violence is real, right? Is it right, no! This movie carries an important social message which the cynics may dislike but which nonetheless is to be praised, rather than denigrated. I have watched this movie with great enjoyment at least eight times, each time with equal enjoyment and each time with the feeling that maybe the world could be made better and is not beyond saving (well not until 2008 anyway). 9 out of 10 from me for this one. It's very nearly perfect in my view. JMV | 0 |
I would like to make it very clear that I am not at all religious. I am an atheist but I could see that Richard Dorkins was contradicting himself over and over again. I would also like to make it known that I am not the sort of person that argues against something with philosophy all the time, but I feel that when comparing science and religion we must be philosophical and be willing to question the belief in main stream science as well as questioning religious beliefs.<br /><br />I wonder if Richard Dorkins ever spends any time to think philosophically about belief, anyone who thinks long and hard enough about science and religion will realise that science is indeed a religion in itself. Yes there is a fundamental difference between the way that scientific beliefs are held when compared with other religions, but at it's roots, it's faith in a particular human instinct.<br /><br />Throughout this series, Richard insists that science methods are the only right way of thinking and that it makes sense to believe in something only if the evidence for it is strong enough. If you dig deep enough into how science functions you'll realise that it is just as irrational as religion and that it comes down to faith in the end, faith in the evidence, faith in our sanity, faith in our senses but more than anything else faith in our instinct to follow patterns of recurrence.<br /><br />This is not easy to explain but think about how the laws of physics were decided, it was because they were and still are the most common patterns of recurrence that we are aware of. I think that human beings have an instinct that makes them believe that the longer something remains in a certain state or place of existence the more we just assume out of blind FAITH that it is more likely to stay like it. For example, we don't expect that gravity will suddenly work in reverse tomorrow, by this I mean pushing matter away as supposed to attracting it. But the only reason why we don't expect this sudden change is because we have known for so long that it has always attracted as far as we are aware. However that doesn't mean that it couldn't do exactly the reverse tomorrow or even right now. It doesn't matter how long something may stay in a certain state or change, there is no rational reason to make assumptions about it but we do out of instinct. I would ask you to consider what is a long and short amount of time? There is no such thing, I don't know exactly how long it took for these supposed wise men to decide that everything must be made out of matter, Sound, Light, etc but lets give them what they would consider to be an edge way! Lets say far longer than it really was 12,00000000000 years! Is that a long period of time? 99999999999999999 years makes 12,00000000000 years seem like an incredibly short period of time. For all we know there could be an extreme amount of change in the so called laws of science within the next trillion years. It's all about comparison, only when we compare things can we say 'that is long' or that is short. It's the same with big and small, wide and thin, heavy and light, strong and weak and others.<br /><br />I doubt that any scientist could tell me why they think that trusting this instinct makes sense. I certainly don't see why it should, but that doesn't mean that we as humanity should necessarily stop using it. With this in mind, the most hypocritical comment that Richard Dorkins made was when he said that faith is irrational, 'a process of non thinking' he said. If what we have in this instinct that I've been describing and this instinct that we all possess on some level isn't faith then I don't know what the hell it is. Other times when he is being hypocritical is when he talks about the religions being bronze age, 'bronze age myths' he says. I would like to point out that no matter how much scientific methods have been changed over the years due to experience, experiments and evaluating, the pure rules of science are getting older and older all the time! They could even be described as the holy bible of science. He was going on about how he is sick of the different religions being stubborn ' I am right, he is wrong' but looking back on how rude he was to the various interviewees, he seems to be just as stubborn him self. To be fair to him, at least he doesn't try to bomb religious communities. I appreciate his hatred for certain religious beliefs that generate war, but I don't respect his arrogance in his own beliefs.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, Richard has the right to believe in science if that is his way. I am scientifically minded as well, but I don't think he has the right to go up to religious leaders having unfriendly arguments, trying to force his opinion on to them and virtually describing them as stupid. Despite all his education, experience and discoveries he seems to fail to have the wisdom to properly question his very own system of belief. I have read what he says in defence of this argument that open minded atheists such as my self put forward, What he states suggests to me that he is totally missing the point.<br /><br />Finally the title of the documentary, Root Of All Evil. This states that religion is the root of all evil, it isn't true. There are causes of evil that have nothing to do with religion.<br /><br />All round the documentary series was frustrating, narrow minded, hypocritical and flat-out rubbish. | 1 |
The plot has already been described by other reviewers, so I will simply add that my reason for wanting to see this film was to see Gabrielle Drake in all her undoubted glory.<br /><br />Miss Drake has to be one of the sexiest, prettiest examples of 'posh totty' to have been committed to celluloid. Of her era and ilk, only the equally exquisite Jane Asher comes close. What was it about actresses with musical brothers? (Nick Drake and Peter Asher) For those who like me have admired Gabrielle, her scenes in this movie will not disappoint. She has a magnificent figure and none of it is left to the imagination here.<br /><br />As a whole, the movie is very poor and being of its time, very cheaply made. The song that covers the opening credits seems to go on forever and is appalling. | 1 |
Breaker! Breaker! has Chuck Norris as a truck driver and a karate master, talk about juggling two disparate careers. He gives a load he can't deliver to his younger brother Michael Augenstein and then when the young man doesn't show up, Chuck goes looking for him.<br /><br />What young Augenstein has got himself into is a speed-trap run by Judge George Murdock who comes from the Roy Bean school of jurisprudence. Of course Norris deals with matters in the usual Chuck Norris way and when he gets in trouble, the call goes out over the CB for all the truckers to come and help their good buddy. This speed-trap known as Texas City has a bad reputation and the drivers are only too happy to help a pal.<br /><br />Chuck's of course quite a bit younger and with no facial hair in this one. He's got the tight lipped look of a man who realizes the Academy won't be looking at this gobbler. George Murdock is overacting outrageously as the Judge Roy Bean wannabe.<br /><br />This one is strictly for the fans of Chuck Norris. | 1 |
This flick is a waste of time.I expect from an action movie to have more than 2 explosions and some shooting.Van Damme's acting is awful. He never was much of an actor, but here it is worse.He was definitely better in his earlier movies. His screenplay part for the whole movie was probably not more than one page of stupid nonsense one liners.The whole dialog in the film is a disaster, same as the plot.The title 'The Shepherd' makes no sense. Why didn't they just call it 'Border patrol'? The fighting scenes could have been better, but either they weren't able to afford it, or the fighting choreographer was suffering from lack of ideas.This is a cheap low type of action cinema. | 1 |
A major moneymaker for RKO Radio, Bombardier stars Pat O'Brien and Randolph Scott as trainers at a school for bomber pilots. O'Brien and Scott argue over teaching methods, while their students vie for the affections of Anne Shirley. O'Brien's methods prove sound during a bombing raid over Tokyo. Scott and his crew are captured and tortured by the Japanese, but the mortally wounded Scott manages to set fire to a gas truck, providing a perfect target for his fellow bombardiers. Stylistically, Bombardier is one of the most schizophrenic of war films, with moments of subtle poignancy (the death of trainee Eddie Albert) alternating with scenes of ludicrous 'Yellow Peril' melodrama (the Japanese literally hiss through their teeth as they torture the helpless Americans). Though it can't help but seem dated today, Bombardier remains an entertaining propaganda effort (the film is sometimes erroneously listed as the debut of Robert Ryan, who'd actually been appearing before the cameras since 1940.<br /><br />Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this film, please contact me at: [email protected] | 0 |
When my now college age daughter was in preschool, this miniseries appeared on A&E from 8-9 each morning. My neighbor and I made a pact that we wouldn't miss a minute of Jane Eyre and our kids were late for preschool every morning for the whole week. Good choice.<br /><br />I'd forgotten how much I loved this movie until I got out my old VHS copy recently. Timothy Dalton is very handsome, but still perfect as Rochester. The dark, craggy face, the imperious demeanor tempered with humor and tenderness were straight from the pages of the book. Although Dalton eats a little scenery, I couldn't sit through an adaptation starring wimpy William Hurt or grumpy Ciaran Hinds. The magic here is that women love Dalton and get caught up in the romance.<br /><br />I would love to know what's become of Zelah Clarke. She is dead on as Jane, quiet, formal, saying volumes with but a look. The sparkle in her eyes gives viewers a glimpse of the strength and spirited nature that helped Jane survive the mistreatment she endured in youth. Criticism of her performance as 'wooden' is misplaced. A servant in a proper English household would have maintained just such a demeanor, but she speaks passionately when overcome with emotion. Unlike many other screen Janes, she appears plain enough to be Jane yet pretty enough to allow the audience to buy Rochester's attraction to her.<br /><br />Bronte's dialog is a large part of why the book endures the script keeps much of it intact. Dalton and Clarke capture the interplay between Jane and Rochester with wit and quiet intensity. Although Jane appears as plain and sweet as vanilla custard, she refuses to be cowed by the dark, blustery Rochester. The two leads play off each other beautifully. <br /><br />This is the most perfect adaptation of the best romance novel ever. | 0 |
... but the keyword here is 'usually.' I have been known to adore movies EVERYONE thinks are dumb. But in the world of B-rated movies, THIS one is Z-rated. Absolutely ridiculous. The thing I respect about most of my favorite B-rated movies are that they don't take themselves too seriously. The makers of movies like that sort-of treat the movie lightly, even if it's a heavy topic. I get the impression, however, that the producers of this movie took themselves way to seriously, like they were putting together a 10-star classic, complete with poor attempts at poignant lines and dumb camera shots. Nevertheless, despite all this, I STILL gave it 4 out of 10 stars, as I am biased towards movies like this. If you're a B-rated fan, however, I would try too hard to find this one. | 1 |
'Japan takes the best from around the world and makes it their own', while that may be true, it applies to all except for one thing, that being,.....Major league baseball....but not to worry, 'Mr Baseball' is there to try and change all that. But just who will change whom, is the part of the movie that really makes it rock! Tom Selleck is one of my favorite actors and really shines-on in his comedic roles. The storyline may be true to life, however the subplot is dead-on. The Japanese people are a gentle, respectful people with ways and traditions very different than those of Western Society. All of these elements and obstacles combine to make for one truly enjoyable, funny film. It's definitely worth the watch! | 0 |
This movie was suspenseful and fun to view. As I am a fan of these type of movies, I did enjoy this. The premise is kind of scary but the fact that I didn't rate this a 10 was because the movie was a little over the top in some areas.<br /><br />SPOILERS:<br /><br />Cmon:NOBODY could identify this girl? I understand the concept of isolating oneself but I find it hard to believe that SOMEBODY-ANYBODY wouldn't have been able to ID this girl as Angela Bennet. That was over the top and so was the scene where she WALKED over to somebody's desk and started typing. This was overall a really good movie, suspenseful and keeps your interest. Dennis Miller was great as Allen, REALLY believable, Bullock was good as the lonely reserved computer worker the bad guys all underestimated.<br /><br />I think the PREMISE of the movie was really different-and scary. In today's times who knows what could happen? But some of the over the top scenes prevented this movie from being a 10. 8 of 10. | 0 |
I know Anime. I've been into it long before it became a national phenomenon; i loved Ranma before most people knew what Dragonball Z even was. And just so you know I'm not bragging about my, let me say this: out of all the animes I've seen, Castle in the Sky is by far one of the best. It's obvious people say Spirited Away is the best, but I really disagree. Most people only know that movie because it one an Acedmy Award; this isn't an exaggeration - I've shown Princess Mononoke and Castle in the Sky to people who'd only ever seen Spirited Away, and they agree that the latter two are the superior of the three. Personally, I'd never thought that anything could compare to Princess Mononoke, until I finally saw Castle in the Sky. I still think that the prior is the better of the two, but Castle in the Sky is easily on par with it; in many ways, Castle has major elements that Mononoke was missing. In either case, if you've only seen Spirited Away, and think that that is Miyazaki's best film, be prepared to have your earth shaken. | 0 |
Jimmy Stewart was a real life pilot, WWII flier and a one-star general in the Air Force and therefore a natural for how real pilots react when they fly. When you see the faithful recreation of the actual plane, you begin to understand the real-life bravery and courage of Lucky Lindy when he flew the Atlantic solo in 1927! | 0 |
I'm not from USA I'm from central Europe and i think the show is amazingly good. It can be easily compared with married with..children. My title says that it isn't show for conservative public. I mean i'm not so liberal but it may be slight difference between European conservatism and us cons. Anyway, show is starting to be very popular in our area and it's very bad that it contains only two seasons. Last episode opens many continuous and funny moments. Anyway I and many peoples would be glad if that would continue playing. The last thing i'm thrilled about this is some moral education very nice packed into humorous scenes. I mean i have seen many comedies that has over two and even more minutes of very sad in tragic scenes that absolutely don't fit into comedy. War doesn't contain something like that and is made for laughing. It's like The Simpsons and married whose also don't have any sad or even unfunny moments. I'm apologizing for my awful knowledge of English but I still hope that You will understand what I meant. | 0 |
Good historical drama which is very educational and also very entertaining to people who like history.Very good acting and script.Not as sensual and sexy as it is sometimes marketed,be prepared to peek into the pioneer spirit and human ability to adjust.Very touching as well for the spiritually mature. Not for people who do not like to think...... | 0 |
Stay FAR AWAY from this film. The fact that you're reading reviews tells me you may have already been tainted by the awfulness it carrys. This is a truely horrid movie... so let's get down to the problems. Writing and Direction: It wouldnt surprise me if these were handled by a group of overactive gradeschoolers that watched 'scream' and 'I know what you did last summer' a few too many times. GIANT GAPING plot holes abound; while I can't congratulate them for this movie, its nice knowing they're finally potty trained. Actors(or lack thereof): Only the finest for this film... the finest extras ever to grace a screen, now starring in their speaking role debut! As a disclaimer, I have to note that I am capable of watching and enjoying just about anything. I recognize a good movie when I see it, but I can still giggle and smirk during Bubble Boy (yes folks, its true); so when I say to avoid something, you KNOW I'm not kidding. | 1 |
This has got to be one of the worst fillums I've ever seen and I've seen a few. It is slow, boring, amateurish - not even consistent within its own simplistic reading of the plot. The actors do not act. I can't blame them - they have been given a script of such utter banality all they can do is trudge through it with a pain behind their eyes which has nothing to do with the evil goings on in SummersIsle.<br /><br />There is not one moment in this film that rings true - not an honest line nor a single instant where one is moved. The Nicholas Cage character is so badly drawn that one feels not a smidgeon of compassion for him through all his tribulations. I have no doubt that I was seeing a suffering man up there but it was Nicholas Cage fully aware of the fact that he was in the worst movie of his entire career. | 1 |
One of the more lucid statements against the death penalty ever filmed, quite a frontal attack against the most disgusting way of doing justice. The final sequence, with that parallel between the crimes that the convicted Poncelet committed and his own execution are just superb.<br /><br />No, what about the work of Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon? It leaves you breathless, they're two giants and their performances achieve the highest levels of emotion.<br /><br />Tim Robbins put clear that he's not only a good actor, he's a nice director as well.<br /><br />*My rate: 9/10 | 0 |
I think Phillip Kaufman read the cliff's Notes version of the Kundera novel and then set about making this film. Okay, of course it won't have the punch of the original. Kundera's novels are great because of his manipulation of the narrative concept, his ability to step in and out of stories he constructs. This film does not even try! The one dream sequence of Tereza's, so vital to the atmosphere of the book, is reworked and makes no sense whatsoever. Also, and this is perhaps a lesser point, Daniel Day-Lewis looks a lot like Ben Stiller in this (I know it's not really a valid complaint, but hey). A perfect example of the Hollywood-izing of otherwise fine literature. | 1 |
A boring movie about a miserable loser...that's Factotum in a nutshell. Matt Dillon plays Henry Chinaski, alter ego of author Charles Bukowski upon whose novel the film is based. As we meet Chinaski he may be a writer but he's certainly not a successful one. He floats through life, getting fired from one menial job after another and not caring a bit. The fact that he's always drunk may have something to do with his not caring. He meets a woman, Jan, played by Lili Taylor and a relationship ensues. Chinaski moves into Jan's apartment and now instead of getting drunk by himself he can get drunk with somebody else. Good times. Eventually he's had enough of this relationship so Chinaski strikes out on his own. Unfortunately he still can't hold down a job so soon enough he's broke. At this point Marisa Tomei shows up and for some reason her character, Laura, decides to rescue this miserable drunken loser whom she doesn't even know. We soon meet some of Laura's acquaintances and the film veers off into a sort of bizarro world with this rather eclectic bunch. Soon enough Tomei and friends are out of the picture and once again we're left with Chinaski and his drinking and his miserable little life. There's some more time spent with Jan but mostly there's just time spent being a drunk, unemployable loser. And then the movie's over and not a moment too soon. 94 minutes of absolute monotony and it seems infinitely longer as the movie drags on. Nothing happens. Nothing ever happens. If you want to spend an hour and a half of your life watching Matt Dillon drink then this is the movie for you. If you're looking for a compelling story, well developed characters or any entertainment value whatsoever then you've come to the wrong place. Dillon's performance actually isn't bad at all. Too bad the movie which surrounds him is in fact rather bad. | 1 |
Ascension is actually a step up in terms of what the original movie was in story and in special effects. Jason Scott Lee Is good as a vampire hunter looking for the count himself (if you remember him, he was from the movie Dragon, The Bruce Lee Story.') Jason London is funny as Luke, the kid who helps the woman he loves from a far steal Dracula's body from the slab. Diane Neal Is good as the woman who steals Dracula's body in order to finds a cure for her dying boyfriend, And Stephen Billington is great as Dracula himself. Giving a better performance than Gerard Butler did the count in the original film. Roy Scheider rounds out the rest of the cast in this movie, and he does a decent job as the mentor of Jason Scott Lee's character. This is the second sequel in the trilogy, and they are off to a good start. It's up in the air whether the last film will close the series out on a good note. | 1 |
<br /><br />Heather Graham is not just a pretty face,she is also an extremely talented actress. She adds a unique flavour to the movie. Overall,it's an intelligent and yet compassionate look at love,marriage and relationships.I thoroughly enjoyed it! | 0 |
Here is a favorite Tom & Jerry cartoon perfect for Halloween. I know it dosen't have much creepiness, but has the 'trick' as in 'Trick or Treat,' as Jerry did to Tom with the window blind and the vacuum-cleaner with a collared-shirt hanging on it to make it like a ghost; but still like to put it on my list of Halloween cartoons. In this short, Tom was listening to the 'Witching Hour,' a ghost-story program on the radio, and being frightened by the horror story being told. Halfway into the story, the dramatics (hair standing on end, heart leaping into throat, icy chills on spine) begin happening to Tom . . . literally. And Jerry has been observing the whole thing and laughing to himself, thought he highen Tom fears by scaring him.<br /><br />I love the ending, it was a little funny. And you know, This short is the first of four cartoons in which Tom attacks Mammy Two Shoes; the others being The Lonesome Mouse, A Mouse in the House and Nit-Witty Kitty. And also This short is the first of twenty-five cartoons where Tom speaks. The others are The Lonesome Mouse, The Zoot Cat, The Million Dollar Cat, The Bodyguard, Mouse Trouble, The Mouse Comes to Dinner, Quiet Please!, Trap Happy, Solid Serenade, Mouse Cleaning, Texas Tom, Mucho Mouse, and The Cat Above and the Mouse Below directed by Chuck Jones. | 0 |
The 80's is largely considered the decade in which horror decided to have fun. Sometimes, there were some definite brains behind it all ('Evil Dead II', 'Night of the Creeps' and 'Return of the Living Dead' for example) and then there were those movies that were mindless but had a definite low rent charm and were perfect for a night with beer and friends. Movies like 'Pieces' and 'Blood Diner' stacked rental shelves in the 80's and 90's, offering little in intelligence or craftsmanship but plenty in dumb entertainment. Kevin Tenney's 1988 movie 'Night of the Demons' is a part of this tradition-stupid, poorly acted and not an original bone in it's body, but dammit if you don't have a good time.<br /><br />The plot is so simplistic it just had to come from the 80's: a group of dumb teens played by a bunch of actors in their mid to late 20's decide to go to a party at Hull House thrown by Angela (Mimi Kinkade) and Suzanne (Scream Queen legend Linnea Quigley.) Well, Angela and co. decide to throw a séance. This turns out to be as Will Arnett's 'Arrested Development' character Gob would call it, a 'Huge Mistake,' because a demonic force soon possesses Angela, and starts to get to the others as well.<br /><br />Take 'The Evil Dead', 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' and your average dumb dead teen flick, throw them in a blender, and 'Night of the Demons' is what you get. The movie is anything but original, and really, it's not a good movie. The whole thing is insanely derivative, the acting is terrible, the jokes often fall flat, the characters are annoying (especially the character of Stooge) and the plot holes are numerous. That out of the way, it's still a lot of fun. So why? <br /><br />Well for one thing, the make up and gore effects are top notch, with some really memorable moments (especially a nasty and just plane odd bit with a tube of lipstick) that really stick out. It also rarely if ever takes itself too seriously, yet with the exception of some terrible puns, plays it straight and never wastes the audiences time with winking self awareness. Plus, there's a definite energy and enthusiasm to the whole enterprise that's almost impossible to resist. Yeah, it's nothing special, but it knows that, and it couldn't be more proud of that fact. It's a goofy party horror movie, and it never pretends to be anything more.<br /><br />It might not be a classic, but 'Night of the Demons' is a good example of horror junk food done right. It might not be too memorable or original, but sometimes you don't want a fancy beer. Sometimes you want a Budweiser. | 0 |
Really started the 80s trend of disgusting violence masquerading as a 'horror film'. I was the target audience for this repellent piece of trash and I was disgusted then as now.<br /><br />Oh, where do we start. Let's see, the setup: You can bring people back to live IF they died a violent death. So that laughably weak premise is the excuse to butcher people in horrible ways, because, well, that's needed to bring them back to life! This might have worked if played over the top for black laughs a la Re-Animator or something. But no, it's played straight. There is a whole terrified family in a wagon that gets hunted down, one of the few scenes at least where their demise is off screen. However, just about everything else is on screen. There is actually a scene where a young girl walking along is beaten and killed by zombie townspeople, who are all filming it and grinning with several cameras. Then, there is a closeup of her face as the filmmakers lovingly--and time consumingly--reveal in time-lapse photography her beaten face being carved down to a skull and rebuilt to look 'normal' again. This done, of course, by a slumming Jack Albertson as the mortician behind it all. He likes to drive around in a ambulance/hearse playing old Tommy Dorcey tunes, I guess that is supposed to be cute.<br /><br />In the end, of course, even the Sheriff is undead and the doctor offers kindly to fix his rotting hands. Not clear why the Sheriff is not out with the other townspeople killing children with glee and slicing their faces off, sticking needles in burn-victims eyes, etc.<br /><br />I wonder, really wonder, what people see in a geek show like this to give it any kind of rating at all. It's not scary, the twists are laughable, and overall it's kind of sick. It's not even well enough done to 'see it on a dare' or enjoy on a level you might watch a bad HG Lewis film. It's just God-awful trash, made for people who get off on this type of pointless gore, and made by people slumming for a paycheck.<br /><br />Sad that Albertson was even involved. | 1 |
A meteor drops from the sky and reawakens a plesiosaur that long ago used to terrorize the area around Crater Lake . As the monster eats the locals they try and find away of killing the monster.<br /><br />Recent attempts at sending up old horror and science fiction films like Lost Skeleton of Cadavra and Alien Trespass are kind of rendered moot when you have films like Crater Lake Monster available for screening. It's the sort of film that those films spoof and send up only this is the real deal. Its everything those films try to be only with out the tongue in cheek and its so much more fun because of it. This is a real drive-in sort of film that had the unfortunate luck of coming just as Star Wars changed the way we look at special effects. The monster, a mix of stop motion and a life size head, is a charmingly quaint little beast. The filmmakers spoil the audience with frequent shots of the monster and its mayhem. Sure its clear that its all fake, but isn't movies about suspension of disbelief? Actually I think its about really cool monsters, which this has.<br /><br />I like this movie in a low budget drive in sort of a way. If you want a real authentic drive in monster movie look no farther. This would be perfect for a double or triple feature with similar lake monster films (Boggy Creek etc.) | 0 |
Mikio Naruse's examination of the lives of three idling, constantly complaining, single ex-geishas in post-war Japan is a wonderful character piece. They used to be friends in the old days but now their relationship is strained because one of the women has become a successful moneylender and the other two owe her. Although the moneylender is the only one who has become successful in this rebuilding economy, she is the only one of the three that has no children. The other two each have a child whom they depend upon for income, because neither of them work. Complications ensue when the kids decide to get married (though not to each other) and leave home. This leads to the bitter, grumbling old women to become even more bitter and grumbling, getting drunk and bemoaning their rotten children and inconsiderate friend the moneylender. Meanwhile the moneylender is herself unhappy, despite her fortunes. She has no one besides her young deaf maid to keep her company and chance encounters with two former lovers from her geisha days lead nowhere - all they really want is to borrow money from her. The three characters are all neck-deep in the quicksand of their own bored lives and are too weary to struggle much, usually opting instead to resign themselves to the futility of it all or, at the very most, toss complaints back and forth to each other.<br /><br />'Late Chrysanthemums' is very slow-moving and not much actually happens but Naruse, like all great directors, has the ability to do much with very little. I haven't seen much of his work but I suspect that this isn't his best, even though it is very good. The problem, I think, is that it all doesn't seem to amount to much. But the film is full of good points. Although it is cynical, it isn't overly so. Naruse seems to sympathize with his desperate characters, and he paints vivid portraits that make the characters seem even somewhat noble in the squalor of their self-made misery. While the film isn't a must-see, it is important as a fragment of the work of a great little-known (outside of his own country) director, precious little of which is available on video here in the U. S. | 0 |
I am not a footie fan by any means but watched this with a friend as there wasn't anything else on the box at the time.(thank goodness). Not only did we laugh from start to finish but about a week later in the pub, when we started discussing it, we made a right spectacle of ourselves with uncontrollable laughter. Does that sloping pitch actually exist??? I have released my e-mail here so if anyone hears about it's future availability or a repeat on the telly please let me know. Definitely the funniest thing I've seen on television!!! King Leek was good too!! another Tim Healy classic | 0 |
The premise is simple. This movies starts out looking like your average lame chick flick about two attractive young people meeting each other in an airport, then things take a 180 degree turn...<br /><br />I for one, really dislike the kind of mind numbing love story nonsense that pollutes the average movie theater. And it is my humble opinion that Wes Craven, based on his previous meta-horror films (Sceam) does too...<br /><br />Following this logic, it's not surprising to find that Craven sardonically takes his time to built up a nauseatingly sweet 'sependipity love'-story, only to have an AWESOME Cillian Murphy wreck that whole sugar-coated dreamworld... <br /><br />The scope of his character Jackson Ripner (Jack the Ripper, get it? lame, right?) in this film is impressive, he goes from being utterly charming to being a twisted nihilistic sicko, which is a plus in my book. As he proceeds to freak out his victim (Jennifer Garner lookalike Rachel McAdams, who I found pretty annoying by the way), you can't help but sympathize with the guy...<br /><br />This is Wes Craven, embodied in Jackson Ripner, through Cillian Murphy, bashing all brainless chick flicks...<br /><br />Mr. Craven, I salute you.<br /><br />Best quote:<br /><br />Jackson Ripner (after beating the snot out of Rachel McAdams in the airplane toilet): 'Thanks for the quickie!!!' | 0 |
At first, three words: READ THE BOOK! Really guys - this demonstrates the difficulties of genuine rendition of esoteric matters. I loved the book and was utterly disappointed of the film. It was ludicrous, with half a heart and the story bad explained. The novel - in the first place! - wasn't meant to focus on an adventure! That's only the surroundings. In the film, the focus reverses to just that and the message has taken a back seat! Additional, the visual effects to show the energy of all living things and the elucidation of the events at the end were parsimonious! They screwed it up! ... I'll never watch it again! | 1 |
Working at a movie theater as a projectionist, I have the opportunity to watch basically every movie that comes out. When I first saw the trailer for 'Black Snake Moan' I laughed and thought, 'Great. Another 'Snakes on a Plane' Samuel L Jackson movie'. But of course, I wanted to see it for the laugh factor. Many people have judged this movie too quickly based on the innuendo in the title, the images on promotional ads and on the fact that Justin Timberlake is in the film. Personally I loved every second of this movie. It tells the story of an older man and young woman who are both going through rough times and are able to reach out to one another. The story is truly touching and sends out a great message about life and how we live. Of course, I do not recommend it for young audiences due to some graphic material, but if you are looking for a great story and genuine acting from Sam Jackson, Christina Ricci and,yes, even Justin Timberlake, I encourage you to see 'Black Snake Moan'. | 0 |
This has the absolute worst performance from Robert Duval who sounds just like William Buckley throughout the entire film. His hammy melodramatic acting takes away from any dramatic interest. I'm not sure if this was deliberate scene stealing or inadvertent but it's the only thing I can recall from a truly forgettable film. This picture should be shown in every amateur acting class of an example of what not to do. Thank God, Duvall went on to bigger and better things and stopped trying to effect a cultured accent. He is a good character actor but that's about it. Klaus is so much better. His performance is muted and noteworthy. | 1 |
I can hardly believe that this inert, turgid and badly staged film is by a filmmaker whose other works I've quite enjoyed. The experience of enduring THE LADY AND THE DUKE (and no other word but 'enduring' will do), left me in a vile mood, a condition relieved only by reading the IMDb user comment by ali-112. For not only has Rohmer attempted (with success) to make us see the world through the genre art of 18th century France but, as ali has pointed out, has shown (at the cost of alienating his audience) the effects of both class consciousness and the revolution it inspired through the eyes of a dislikably elitist woman of her times. The director has accomplished something undeniably difficult, but I question whether it was worth the effort it took for him to do so -- or for us to watch the dull results of his labor. | 1 |
<br /><br />'Lets swap Murders- your wife, my father'- seemingly innocent conversation between two strangers - Bruno Anthony and Guy Haines when they meet over lunch on a train journey. Guy, a solid, respectable tennis player, whose problem is that his wife, the flirtatious Miriam, won't divorce him so he can marry senators daughter Anne, laughs the whole conversation off as a joke. The following week he isn't laughing any more. In a scene of classic Hitchcock suspense, Bruno stalks Miriam through a carnival and strangles her. As he does, her glasses fall off and we see the murder eerily reflected twice through her lenses. Cold hearted and amoral Bruno, his part of the deal completed, approaches an appalled Guy expecting, even pressuring him into 'doing his bit.' Matters are not helped when Anne's precocious and outspoken younger sister turns up suspecting Guy of Miriam's murder. So accused of a murder he didn't commit and expected to commit another, what is Guy going to do? The power of this film is in the presentation of human beings as having a murderous side to their nature - and this Hitchcock does to perfection. | 0 |
This is the most messed up entry on IMDb that I've yet to stumble across. All the previous reviewers act like this is the movie. This is NOT the movie. Rather it's merely a featurette that's an extra on the DVD of the movie 'The One' It also nowhere near being the 90 minutes that it's listed here as. In actuality it's barely over 13 minutes of how cool Jet Li can do martial arts. and his reflections on the movie. So yeah this IMDb entry is quite a bit fubar. Don't listen to any of the other reviews as they are ALL wrong. You can trust me, because I never feed you, dear reader, BS.<br /><br />and that's the truth. i guess u can say that i'm 'the One' Reviewer that matters. | 1 |
Since my third or fourth viewing some time ago, I've abstained from La Maman et la putain while I wait for the DVD. In the meantime, I've read the french screenplay as well as Alain Philippon's monograph on Jean Eustache. The latter ends with a frustrating filmography, eleven films, fiction, doc, and in-between, impossible to see or, in the cases of Mes petites amoureuses and Le Père Noël..., re-see.<br /><br />A few questions that hit me this moment: Polish Véronika's French is plenty colloquial (un maximum d' 'un maximum d''). Even so, does she have an accent? I think I can tell she does. What does the absence of color add, especially at the single spot the fringe of the city is glimpsed? How does this fringe differ from the sleep and journey that separates worlds of The Tempest and The Winter's Tale? Ditto Alphaville. We may imagine the elapsed years since have done it, but does Eustache deliberately circumscribe the film's milieu? Is this an enchanted isle? Is Alexandre's a fairy tale? Alexandre's always choreographing himself, worrying about how or where to stand or walk, what to say when, announcing these decisions to who have to care less than he does what he does. Or is this his way of trying to choreograph others by doing it to himself? How different is he from Vertigo's Scottie? (I say, I think, very.) What's the difference, and is there one, between Eustache's Léaud, and Truffaut's, and Godard's? How different is the present Léaud? Isn't he still doing it, whatever it is, in recent roles, Irma Vep, Le Pornographe, whatever, approaching old age? Once I arrived early for one in a series of mostly Antoine Doinel (Léaud's character) Truffaut films. For a long while, every three or five minutes, down the aisle would come a twenty-something male in scarf, tweedy coat, Léaud hair, with a direction-seeking nose. I have no idea whether this was conscious or unconscious mimicry. I was that age, but have no idea what I myself looked like then. No scarf, at least. I do have a brother, though, who seems to have learned his carriage from Bresson. | 0 |
What I came away with after watching this movie was a guilty conscience. The film itself has a rather intriguing plot line and premise to it, but unfortunately it is a movie that you cannot watch with out being bombarded with pornography. If you plan on viewing this and have a moral problem with the degradation of the marital act for the viewing pleasure of an audience then you are making a big mistake. This is not the type of movie with the token sex scene that you can skip on your DVD player. Near the beginning of the film Baldwin's character is video taping his sexual exploits without the knowledge of his partner. This tape and others like it continue to pop up throughout the movie at unpredictable times. It appears that the film is attempting to make a statement about the dignity of women. Ironically in doing so they made multiple women into prostitutes. I only gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because had they handled Baldwin's promiscuity better it would have been an interesting film. | 1 |
I just saw this on a local independent station in the New York City area. The cast showed promise but when I saw the director, George Cosmotos, I became suspicious. And sure enough, it was every bit as bad, every bit as pointless and stupid as every George Cosmotos movie I ever saw. He's like a stupid man's Michael Bey--with all the awfulness that accolade promises.<br /><br />There's no point to the conspiracy, no burning issues that urge the conspirators on. We are left to ourselves to connect the dots from one bit of graffiti on various walls in the film to the next. Thus, the current budget crisis, the war in Iraq, Islamic extremism, the fate of social security, 47 million Americans without health care, stagnating wages, and the death of the middle class are all subsumed by the sheer terror of graffiti.<br /><br />A truly, stunningly idiotic film. | 1 |
I cannot argue with other comments that the story line focuses more on the romance between the Mary Martin and Allan Jones characters, much in the manner of 'Showboat', than on the life of Victor Herbert. But in the 1930's, would that have been a box office draw? Instead of the Life of VH, perhaps it should have been the Music of VH. There is an abundance of this.<br /><br />For me, the thrill of the movie came near the end of the movie when Susanna Foster sings 'Land of Romance'. It has been over a decade since I caught this movie for a second time at a local 'old movies' theater. At first the audience was stunned; then it burst into spontaneous applause. I remember the shivers running up and down my spine. My trivia memory recalled the information provided to an inquiring public by a local journalist when the movie first came out back in the late 1930's. 'That note hit by Miss Foster was a far F above high C.'<br /><br />She may not have had four octaves a la Yma Sumac but the then teen-ager certainly had a range! | 0 |
Terrific little film that stars Mary Astor as a go-getter who works her way up as a struggling paper company, but when the owner has to sell for health reasons, she comes up with a scheme for the employees to buy the company with a jerk salesman (Robert Ames) as the 'front' even though she is the brains.<br /><br />Of course he becomes a big success and she becomes his executive secretary, basically still running everything and teaching him class. She loves the dope, but he never catches on as he fools around with a string of bimbos. She is chased by a married but separated man, Ricardo Cortez, who isn't free. But when a society gal catches Ames, everything goes to hell.<br /><br />Astor is just wonderful as the too-smart woman who almost makes a huge mistake after she loses her man. Ames is good as the jerk (but what does she see in him?), and Cortez is good but doesn't have much to do. Kitty Kelly is good as the sidekick, Dolores. Charles Sellon is the original owner, Cather Dale Owen is the society babe, and Edna Murphy is funny as Daisy.<br /><br />Worth a look. | 0 |
This film is so different to anything you would have seen before. It's an honest and chilling account of an entire family's battle with a terminal illness. <br /><br />'The Closer She Gets' is shot in a very unique style. Craig Oulette films in a very different way.... using different angles and viewpoints, in what i find is a very eye catching manner (perhaps due to his experience with photographic works). <br /><br />His style gives such a clear picture of not only what the patient herself is facing, but what loved ones close to her also have to deal with. <br /><br />A very sad, but extremely interesting and unique film. One I would definitely suggest watching. | 0 |
The delivery of some very humorous rude lines by Pierce Brosnan is alone worth the price of admission. He plays a kind of 'James Bond's psycho twin brother', separated at birth, no doubt. As an intense hit-man, his character is very sexual but even better, very funny. Add the kind-hearted, uber-likable American 'guy next door', Greg Kinnear, to set up contrast. The myriad locations, vivid colors, and quick-witted humor provide great entertainment. Hope Davis is well cast as the 'gem of a wife'. But the focus of the film is on the two fellows, a new 'Odd Couple', and that's the part that works very well. Have a great (probably R-rated) laugh, and look for the places where the story goes a little deeper. | 0 |
One of the worst films of it's genre.<br /><br />The only bright spots were Lee Merriwether showing some of the sparkle she would later bring to the Time Tunnel and Batman.<br /><br />A young Patty Duke also outshone the more established actors.<br /><br /> | 1 |
*****SPOILERS*********<br /><br />This movie was truly awful. This woman deceives her employers right from the start and then selfishly proceeds to tear them apart. At the end you see her making a profession out of the trade she'd learned from the father of her 'pupil'. I put pupil in quotes because the governess never really seems to teach the child anything. She seems to hate her and can't stand being near her. I felt sorry for the little girl who simply wanted to be loved, absent that, it was understandable that she would say and do outrages things just to get attention but the viewer wasn't supposed to sympathize with the little girl, the viewer was supposed to sympathize with the governess who hated her pupil and manipulated and deceived her employers. I just couldn't do it. This was not the story of a self made woman, rather, it was a window into the mind of one who uses others at every opportunity with no other thought for anyone outside of her own family. I couldn't stand the governess! This was a really horrible movie. I only paid one dollar to rent it but even that was too much! | 1 |
That's right. The movie is better than the book. Don't get me wrong, I love the book. But the movie is just so much better. This film has Jack Nicholson and Shelly Duvall at their best. (I haven't seen Scatman Crothers and obviously Danny Lloyd in anything else.) Some of the ideas used in this movie are better than the ones used in the book. But I already talked about those in my comment on the mini series. But, I missed a few. The film is shot at a better location than where the mini series was shot. And the REDRUM scenes are creepier than those in the book. So if you're looking for a great movie, get Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. But count on having nightmares every night for 3 weeks | 0 |
I saw this movie on a fluke.I was standing on 42nd street waiting for a bus to go home and a sister started passing out free tickets for a preview of this movie.I gave it a chance not expecting much.The promotional movie posters I've seen on the subway station walls do not give this film justice at all.<br /><br />The movie is about a young rocker who goes on a journey to learn the craft and art of heavy metal.I'll leave it there.The movie is a heavy comedy and lot's of fun.If your are old enough to remember when Heavy Metal dominated the music scene in the eighties you are going to love this film.Jack Black is an amazingly talented comedian and actor and assuming he really wrote and performed the songs in this film he is also a talented musician.<br /><br />Tenacious D is definitely worth a look! | 0 |
fascinating look at fascist italy and the people who carved out a life under mussolini. street scenes and lifestyle glimpses alone are worth watching. combine this with a masterful plot and premier acting and you get a film that you will want to watch again . .. and maybe again. | 0 |
I like vampire movies, I like B-movies, I love B vampire movies. But this one has nearly nothing going for it. Some of the acting is horrible, especially by 3 of the male leads. The story is not particular interesting. At a relative short 88 minutes it still seems too long and you'll find yourself fast-forwarding quite a bit. There are an awful lot of kung-fu vampire attacks. Sound cool? It isn't when it's done on a low budget. It gets repetitive very quickly. There is some minor blood and gore, nothing to get excited about. There some good wire work where you can see the wires. It has some good landscapes being filmed in Puerto Rico. <br /><br />Not worth the rental | 1 |
I'm not looking for quality; I'm just trying to get through the 74 famous video nasties that were banned in Britain. This one was initially banned and re-released in 2001 with a whole 10 seconds cut.<br /><br />Some college kids spend their Christmas vacation preparing a dorm for renovation. There are some creepy characters lurking about along with the four kids. Which of them is the slasher? The actual killings are not very gory, so this video nastie is not really nasty. There is the requisite flashing of the boobies, but it has nothing to do with the college kids.<br /><br />I had a suspect very quickly and I turned out to be right. Maybe I've seen too many of these. The end twist was clever; I have to give the writers credit for that bit of originality. | 1 |
Oh man, it is amazing how somebody can claim global warming to be a science, well, I guess this elitist nonsense is now replacing the science of eugenics! Al Gore tries to make this issue sound complicated, even though it just needs common sense to see this whole thing is a big hoax by a man with his own moneymaking agenda!<br /><br />How have scientists estimated historical temperatures of this planet? By estimating the sun spot activity. Has nobody ever questioned if this method has been accurate? No, not even Gore himself! So how the heck would it not be accurate to forecast future temperature with sun spot activity if it has been that accurate in the past? According to sun spot activity the temperature today is totally in line with what it should be. How come the temperature in the entire universe has risen (relatively) equal much as on earth? Does our SUVs cause temperature on Jupiter to rise?<br /><br />Use some common sense! You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this can be nothing else than a HOAX. Please research it yourself. What does Al Gore and his elitist friends like Rothschild (banking family that arranged live earth event) to gain from this? Well, the new world bank will be founded on carbon credits, that is tax on everything that gives CO2 omissions, and it is easier to get away with these taxes if the people are lured to think it is to save the world when it is only about money, centralized control and more power to the elitist bankers. Al Gore has even a company that sells carbon credits! Is it not noble to pay voluntarily carbon credits to save the world, especially if it goes into his own company? <br /><br />I do not want you to blindly believe me, please do your own research and use your own common sense and I am sure you will come to the right conclusion! | 1 |
UP AT THE VILLA fooled me into thinking I`d be watching something similar to GOSFORD PARK . The film opens at a ballroom in 1930s Italy which is populated by vulgar Americans and uptight upper class Brits , but in truth UP AT THE VILLA plays out far more like a Merchant -Ivory production which is very bad news because it`s a very slow , and I do mean very slow romantic drama with some of the romance being very unlikely . If you like slow romantic dramas you might like this movie . I didn`t | 1 |
What is the deal with all these ethnic crime groups copying Italian mafia related movies ? We all know the Godfather as in Don Vito Corleone, now we have this Mexican one which is just a strait out Copy. I cant see why other ethnic groups have to Mimic and imitate Italian mobsters, but it sure makes them look silly. They sure seem to be wanabee Italians. I would much prefer to see Mexicans perform there own ideas and like to see there own culture, and the way they do it, instead of copying ideas from The Godfather trilogy. Apart from that the movie was disappointing, seeing mexicans acting and trying to be Italians is not my thing. After watching this, I'm now going to Watch the 'Real' Godfather so this movie can be erased from my memory. | 1 |
I actually flipped to Lifetime channel by mistake, just as this movie was beginning, and ended-up watching it. <br /><br />It certainly deals with a serious issue, probably more prevalent than we realize, in terms of this type of attack of a young woman by an ego-maniacal fellow-student, who feels he's above the system, and, unfortunately, often is.<br /><br />The cast here was believable, and the performances credible. A lot of these Canadian/Lifetime flicks are decidedly 'over-the-top.' However, this is one I might label as 'under-the-top.'<br /><br />While appreciating the fact that it wasn't presented in an overblown fashion, this film somehow seemed like a record being played at a slower speed than proper, the 96 minutes seemed like many more, and it had the effect of looking like a shorter film, looped over-and-over, seemingly going on and on and on and ON - before reaching its inevitable and predictable conclusion.<br /><br />Yet the engaging characters and performances made it better than the average film of this type, despite these criticisms.<br /><br />And while these pictures often 'milk' the climax, this one could have given it a bit more detail and length. | 0 |
Since the 70s, writer/producer/director Charles Band has been responsible for literally hundreds of science-fiction, fantasy and horror B-movies. Some of them are wonderful examples of how to use a tiny budget to maximum effect; many of them are pretty bad. Trancers (1985) was one of those rare gems.<br /><br />A Terminator style tale of time-travel and action, Trancers saw Tim Thomerson playing Jack Deth, a future cop given the task of tracking down bad-guy Whistler, who travels into the past by inhabiting the body of an ancestor. Whistler is capable of controlling other humans with his psychic powers, converting them into obedient zombies (the 'trancers' of the title), and attempts to alter the course of history by killing off the ancestors of the leaders of the future. Jack follows him to 1985, determined to stop him.<br /><br />In this 1991 sequel, Jack is still living in 1985. Having destroyed Whistler, he has settled down and married Leena (Helen Hunt), the young woman who helped him succeed in the first movie. But, for Jack, things don't stay calm for long, and trouble appears in the form of Whistler's brother, E.D. Wardo, who is trying to build a trancer army.<br /><br />Trancers II lacks the charm and simplicity of the original and is a huge disappointment considering how good the original was. The story is difficult to pick up if you haven't seen the first film (or at least not for a long while), and there is loads of unimpressive action and a few poor special effects. Gone is the inventiveness and wit that made Trancers so much fun; instead we get some cheesy one-liners and a script that feels like it was written on-the-fly.<br /><br />About the only reason I can give for recommending this film to fans of the genre is the cast, which boasts many names that will be familiar to followers of sci-fi and horror movies: Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Richard Lynch, Martine Beswicke. Unfortunately, most of them seemed to be having an 'off day' whilst filming Trancers II, and performances are mediocre at best.<br /><br />The Trancers series obviously has its fans; four further sequels have since been churned out. Unless the quality has taken up massive upward swing, I can't imagine them being any good. | 1 |
Imagine Diane from Cheers, the self centered over intellectualizing character, now imagine she was trying to make a film moire movie. This would be it. If you just looked at some of the shots without any sound you would think Hmmm.. this could be a good film. <br /><br />Now if you turn on the sound and listen for anytime at all you quickly realize that the person that made the film knows nothing about films beyond what they read in a book. I was continually thinking is this thing a foreign film, it was that bad.<br /><br />If you don't remember Cheers, then think of Mr. Beans Holiday... remember the DeFoe character that made the horrible movie... well imagine that horrible movie without Mr. Bean saving it. That is what this movie is. I'm not saying anything about what the movie is other than it is an attempt to make a dark moody film about a hit-man going back home.... at least that's about all I could get out of it. | 1 |
Starting on or around 1965 American movies took a turn for the shocking and the iconoclastic which was great for the times -- sort of the seeds that would pave the way for grittier, daring dramas. However, because the very decade that gave birth to these films was so ruled by its own convictions, most all of the films released at this period have dated. CACTUS FLOWER is no exception. Its very title suggests a 'sunny' romantic comedy with occasional lapses into the risqué. This is not to say that it's a bad thing: quite the contrary, films about risqué subject matter have to begin somewhere and America being a culture rooted in specific traditions, themselves laced in deep hypocrisies, shocks itself for the sake of it when seeing an indirect reflection of the mores of the time. Meanwhile, European films address these same situations, walk off looking like a million bucks, and have a longer shelf-life because what we consider scandalous, they shrug off, say 'Next,' and move on. <br /><br />Toni Simmons (Goldie Hawn in her breakout role), a young, very sixties bright young thing, is carrying on with a much-older dentist named Julian Winston (Walter Matthau), who has commitment issues. He can'r marry her: he's already married. Toni decides instead of wilting away she actually wants to meet his wife and 'set things straight.' Into the picture comes his assistant, Stephanie Dickinson (a luminous Ingrid Bergman, returning to American cinema after a twenty-year absence), a woman closer to his age who acts as if she and he had the perfect marriage and household. There is a reason for this: she has harbored quiet emotions for Julian, emotions he is unaware of, even when he asks her to play his wife to ward Toni off from wanting to step their relationship further. And then he steps it up a notch when Toni's blissfully innocent actions veer the action off into the unexpected and he introduces Harvey Greenfield (Jack Weston) as Stephanie's 'lover'. By the way, Harvey is also an older gent who is having an affair with a much younger woman (Eve Bruce) whom he also lies to in one very funny scene.<br /><br />It's funny how the person whom we're looking for is the one who's always been there. What could have been a thankless role for Rick Lenz who plays Igor Sullivan, Toni's next door neighbor, turns into the man who not only sees the true beauty in fellow outcast Stephanie but the one who saves Toni at the start from killing herself. (Not the stuff of comedy, suicide. Then again, this is not your average comedy.) And needless to say is Ingrid Bergman's subtle, poignant portrayal of a woman who's somehow missed her chances at love, who's become prickly, who due to a lie said to another she becomes the real person she was always meant to be. I can't imagine anyone else in this quiet but deep role.<br /><br />Movies like these can be enjoyed at face-value and seen as escapist fun -- a product of its times -- or be viewed for the deep symbolism that, like its title, it carries deep within. It's a tricky film, the same way Hawn's and Bergman's performance are equally tricky because in seeming so simple, devoid of flourish and pose, neither come out and proclaim what they are about. Their acting becomes 'not really acting' but playing real people, warts and all. CACTUS FLOWER is a story that never appears to take itself too seriously, but reveals itself to be deep and very human after all. | 0 |
The story and music (George Gershwin!) are wonderful, as are Levant, Guetary, Foch, and, of course, Kelly. One thing's missing, and that thing is a good leading lady. I'm sorry, Leslie Caron bothers me. Anyway, despite her, the plot moves along nicely with the famous (and deservedly so) Ballet. Oh the colours, the dazzling reds, blues, greens, and yellows. Musn't forget the beiges as well. ; ) I just adore the contrast between the Beaux Arts Ball (completely black and white costumes) and the ever-so-brilliant Ballet.<br /><br />So I suppose what I'm trying to say is this: Please, by all means see it, and enjoy it, because though it isn't the best, it is MARVELOUS. But be sure not to forget that other Gene Kelly musical with the 20 year old girl that was catapulted to stardom just afterward. | 0 |
This movie was pretentious, foppish and just down right not funny. The filming technique reminded me of MTV. I am a fan of Hartley. But what was he thinking of? So much more thought could have gone into this movie, considering the subject matter. This could have been a true theoretical battle over good and evil, but Hartley, it appears used the stand technique of psyching out the viewer. | 1 |
This is the worst movie ever made. The acting, the script, the location, everything! I would have given it a little chance if there were attractive women in the movie, but even they were bad. You would think that a movie with the word 'beach' in it's title would have good-looking women in it. Wouldn't you? | 1 |
A few years ago I added a comment to the IMDB on 'The Real McCoys' TV series. I said then and repeat now it was a charming, funny, and entertaining show, well-acted with wonderful characterizations.<br /><br />I recently saw on DVD four old episodes PLUS the Reunion of 2000 with Richard Crenna, Kathy Nolan, and Tony Martinez. As another writer here mentioned, it is curious that Lydia Reed (Hassie) and Michael Winkelman (Little Luke) weren't refered to, but perhaps they can be tracked down via SAG or AFTRA.<br /><br />The reunion show was well done and gave us many unknown insights into the show. One piece of inside information we did NOT get was whether or not Kathy Nolan regretted quitting the show in an unpleasant contract dispute, which left Luke a 'widow' in it's last year, which wasn't very good. Nolan went on to do a bomb of a comedy called 'Broadside', about women nurses in the Pacific in WW II. Get it? BROADside? No, not funny.<br /><br />Unlike the sleazy, salacious, and violent TRASH on TV now that is so undermining our values, 'The Real McCoys' entertained with decent values and fine human beings. And I thank all involved, including the creator, Irving Pinkus, for having brought it to my family. We never missed it. | 0 |
The Thing has to be one of the all time great movies. Of course it was ground breaking special effects at the time of it's release that impressed me so much, back in 1982 it just blew my mind, I'd never seen anything like that! However, although the effects themselves made the movie more horrific, it was the story itself, the music score , the claustrophobic atmosphere of the Anarctic as well as the interaction and tension between the members of the doomed research station that makes it a classic. <br /><br />Movies don't get any better than this! In the opening scene with the the chopper chasing this husky you just assume that it was some bored scientists from some station letting of some steam. Yet when you see them continue their chase at the US base you then think that the Norwegians are suffering from some form of advanced or extreme strain of cabin fever. Yet this is offset by the menacing opening music score that sets the tempo! You just know that something is not right! At this point it's a mystery until 'the thing' reveals itself. <br /><br />However, the mystery returns because it becomes a sort of Agatha Christie 'who dunnit' ( i.e. ten little Indians movie) sci-fi style as the members don't know which one of their team is really an alien. Suspicion continues to go back and forward between them all as one by one they eventually get knocked off or revealed as the alien. The mistrust between the station crew is absorbing as the movie progresses until the final showdown.<br /><br />After 20 years of advances in computer graphics and film making production the special effects in 'the Thing' don't carry the same weight as it did in 1982, but other than that it holds up very well all round with some great performances by the cast. | 0 |
The 'good news' is that the circus is in town. The 'bad news' is that's right over Bugs Bunny's underground home. He wakes up as his place shakes like an earthquake hit it, when workers pound stakes into the ground and elephants stomp by, etc.<br /><br />To be more specific, the lions' cage is place exactly over Bugs' hole. The lion sniffs food, and by process of elimination, figures out it's a rabbit. Bugs, curious what all the racket is about, winds his way through the tunnel and winds up in the lion's mouth.<br /><br />I'll say for thing for BB: he is totally fearless, at least in this cartoon, and at least for 30 seconds. When he comes to his senses, he runs like crazy and we get a lion-versus-a rabbit battle the rest of the way. Once again, Bugs faces dumb opponent, one he calls 'Nero,' but lion is fierce and Bugs will need all his wits and somewhat-fake bravado to fend off this beast.<br /><br />About half the gags are stupid and the other half funny, but always fast-moving, colorful and good enough to recommend. I mean, it's not everyday you can see a lion on a trapeze, or doing a hula dance! | 0 |
I caught this a few times on TV in the late 1970s. It only played late at night (past midnight).<br /><br />Peter Lorre plays a kind, happy man whose face is disfigured in a fire. He is rejected by his girlfriend and left alone and filled with despair. He turns to a life of crime and eventually becomes very successful. He makes a mask to hide his disfigured features and falls in love with a beautiful girl (Evelyn Keyes)...who is blind! He tries to go straight for her...but he can't escape his life of crime or his hatred of his own scarred face.<br /><br />A no budget B film. Very short (runs only a little over an hour) but well made and superbly acted by Lorre. This has a lot more depth than you would expect from a quickie B picture. Ankers especially takes the thankless 'girl' role and makes her character fresh and appealing. This has sadly disappeared from TV and was never put on video or DVD (as far as I know). TCM did show it recently and it was great to see the movie still holds up.<br /><br />Highly recommended. | 0 |
This is arguably the best film director Haim Bouzaglo made until now. A skilled TV director, well-trained in story-telling and in directing his actors through long epics he tried to catch in this very low-budget film the essence of the very special psychological situation the Israelis live though under the permanent danger of the terror attacks, resulting in 'distorted' lives. Each character trying to live his own life, to watch and control the other, while being himself watched and controlled by other characters and mostly by the continuous pressure, by political and historical forces well beyond his control. Some call this destiny, but destiny has a very concrete representation in this film.<br /><br />There is no explicit political saying in 'Distortion'. Characters never discuss politics, not even at the level of saying 'bastards!' when they hear that a new terror attack happens. Their reaction to events is to localize the attack and to count the victims using the official and media terminology for the dead and the wounded. They do not really live but rather survive on borrowed time happy to have survived one bomb, and waiting for the next one to happen. Personal, social, professional life seems to work someway, but is deeply flawed and influenced by events. The main character played by the director is a playwright whose mid-life personal and creative crisis is amplified by the pressure of the events and by the fact that he is lucky enough to leave a terror attack site minutes before the bomb explodes. He hires a private detective to follow his girlfriend who is a TV investigative reporter whom he suspects is falling in for the subject of her next show - another failed man, former military, whose business and family life dismantles under the events. He starts to write a play that carbon-copies the reality and will bring it to the stage, in theater in film scene that reminds Hamlet as well as 'Synecdoche, New York'. It's not that I would dare suspect Charlie Kaufman looking over the shoulder of Bouzaglo, he certainly needs not that, but the Israeli director screen is brilliant into anticipating the later film (and the first directed by Kaufman). As in the American film actors play real persons and start interacting with them in an reality-meets-stage-meets-reality melange which never lacks logic, at least not artistic logic.<br /><br />Bouzaglo directs his actors with the usual talent, trusts them and allows them the freedom of living through the situations rather then acting them. His style is much more free here than in his TV series, and the 'distortion' effects, although borrowed from American horror movies work pretty well all over. The ending seemed to me a little rhetorical and unsatisfying dramatically, but the shade of the suicidal killer who is haunting the film and the whole situation in a temporal loop will also follow the viewer when remembering later this film. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.