review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
I don't what that other review was talking about. This definitely isn't a bimbo movie, in fact, I don't think there was one decent looking girl in it. No, it's just cheesy, poorly-done, Ed Wood-style science fiction schlock. And it's bad. I can't even begin to tell you how bad it is. I saw it late at night on cable, and I was in shock. The fact that this movie was ever released is an insult to us all. The actors were either friends of the producer or mentally retarded, the special effects are a joke, and the pace is insanely slow. To me though, the music tops it all. A monkey could write a better theme with a toy xylophone. Do not rent this thing, but if you ever see it on cable, watch it. You'll be amazed at how bad a movie can be. | 1 |
I enjoyed this film. It was funny, cute, silly, and entertaining. Had a fine cast and really got hammered by some critics for reasons that I truly don't understand. No, it wasn't 'The Grapes of Wrath' or 'Casablanca' or even 'Moonstruck', but it was an enjoyable film.<br /><br />Julia was excellent playing the psychotic 'man behind the man'. The story is a little silly to be sure, but it this isn't high drama, folks. I happened to see a review of the film, probably the only good one it got and then ran into it one night when looking for a movie. I never heard it was supposed to stink until after I saw it, and I'm glad I saw it. Eventually bought the VHS tape on the bargain pile, and I watch it a couple times a year. | 0 |
I have to say that this film was excellently produced and tops the ratings as a typical sci fi film! I enjoyed it.. its a sci fi film, if you want a thriller watch another channel.. This is what the scifi lovers want. Excellently produced by one of Sci-fi's best producers Scot Vandiver ! OK the special effects weren't excellent, but what a great cast! Some more money could have been used for effects but then again what sci fi has high budgeted effects. Stop complaining and change the channel if you don't like these type of films.. Films like Mission Impossible and Braveheart are great but these aren't Sci fi films.. Sci fi produces excellent films like Sabretooth , Alien Hunters etc .. Well done .. keep them churning out! | 0 |
For Greta Garbo's first talking picture, MGM wisely chose Eugene O'Neill's Pultizer Prize winning 1921 play ANNA Christie. <br /><br />Also wisely, the producers backed Garbo up with not one but two members of the Original Broadway Cast (George Marion as Anna's father, Chris, and James T. Mack as Johnny the Priest - transmuted to 'Johnny the Harp' for films so as not to offend). <br /><br />This little change is interesting. Like too many films accused (by those who want MOVIES to be MOVIES and ignore their origins) of being 'little more than filmed stage plays,' the problem is not the play but the movie makers who wouldn't be more faithful to the property. By diluting a great cinematic stage work so it wouldn't offend anyone, or opening it up because they COULD, too many lose the very qualities which made the piece worth filming in the first place. <br /><br />Fortunately, the respect the studio had for both O'Neill and Garbo allowed ANNA Christie to survive the normally destructive process admirably in Frances Marion's generally sensitive screen adaptation. Wonder of wonders, Marion even allows the POINT of the scene where Garbo's Anna reveals her past on 'the farm' to the man she badly wants to marry and the father who sent her there in tact! What the League of Decency must have thought of that! <br /><br />The source play's greatest problem has always been that Chris's friend Marthy tends to walk away with the first act and then disappears from the last two so that Anna can take stage - the two sides of the genuinely good woman men don't always recognize. <br /><br />The perfectly cast Marie Dressler (who had cut her teeth on the Broadway stage as well before going to Hollywood) is the perfect balance for Garbo's Anna in this area as well and the fast moving film at only 90 minutes, doesn't allow us too much time to miss her - one of the few benefits from atmosphere being shown rather than eloquently described in the original - AND screenwriter Marion is wise enough to stray from O'Neill to bring Dressler back for a touching scene two thirds of the way through the film that will remind many of Julie Laverne's second act appearance in SHOW BOAT. <br /><br />Anna and Marthy's early scene together on screen (16 minutes into the film) taking each other's measure and setting up all the tension of the rest of the story is among the most affecting scenes in the entire piece. Not to be missed. <br /><br />ANNA Christie is great tragic play and a good film drama. It's hard to imagine that a latter day remake, which would almost certainly lose the grit and atmosphere of this 1930 remake (it was first filmed without sound in 1923 - also with George Marion's original Broadway Chris) could improve on this excellent filming. <br /><br />The internal scenes hew closest to the play, but the exteriors shouldn't be missed by anyone with an eye to atmosphere. While the background screen work is not to modern technical standards, the backgrounds give a better glimpse than most films of the era of the actual world in which the screen play is set (especially in the New York harbor).<br /><br />Nearly all Garbo's naturalistic performances of the sound era have held up superbly (only the too often parodied death scene from CAMILLE, 7 years later, will occasionally draw snickers because of the heavy handed direction and the parodies), but this ANNA Christie, together with the variety of her 1932 films, MATA HARI and GRAND HOTEL, and the sublime Lubitsch touch on her 1939 comedy, NINOTCHKA ('Garbo laughs!'), surely stand as her best.<br /><br />O'Neill fans who are taken with this play at the edge of his lauded 'sea plays,' should track down the fine World War II shaped film released in the year before the U.S. entered the conflict, THE LONG VOYAGE HOME (1940). It is almost as skillfully drawn from those sea plays as this one is from ANNA Christie, and features a youngish John Wayne in one of his rare non-Westerns supporting a fine cast of veteran actors showing him the way. | 0 |
The humor in Who's Your Daddy is such poor taste that I actually closed my eyes in certain scenes. Close ups of semen are not funny! Nobody thinks they are. People get nervous when they see something so gross and to hide their nervousness, they laugh. Watching Who's Your Daddy gave me a disgusting nervous feeling. | 1 |
Pretty amusing spoof with great attention to detail re: the look of the 1960s spy films and the way the action was staged back then. The fight sequence in the hotel room was a hoot and the casting was perfect with a Peter Lorre lookalike added to the mix of villains. A big plus: Jean Dujardin is hot and the scene in which he is tied up without a shirt was a highlight. Plus his eyebrows deserve some sort of recognition for doing a great job. <br /><br />Funny aside: the people behind me in the theater kept gasping after every plot twist as if they were watching a 'real' spy thriller.<br /><br />Before the movie started, a trailer for 'Get Smart' was screened. The preview made the movie look embarrassingly bad with lame attempts to incorporate the jokes and gags from the TV series. Looks like a bomb and quite a contrast to the comparatively sublime jokes and gags of OSS 117, though, of course, OSS had its share of misfires. The overall tone of OSS, however, was not an insult to the audience's intelligence, and the material didn't feel as it had been 'dumbed down.' I did get the distinct impression that if I understood the language, I would have caught more of the jokes, and one in particular (the pistol gag) was mishandled in the interpretation for the subtitles. | 0 |
I am an Indian residing in the United States. Why India continues, like a dumb animal, to emulate everything American is beyond me!! The main problems with the movie aren't so much the inane plot and dumb comedy. It is that this movie has a lot of sex, touching, women dressing like strumpets in the streets, and a lot of cursing that doesn't belong anywhere on T.V.<br /><br />To the producers and directors of this movie, I have this message: You continue to weaken our nation's strong family values by making this sort of junk. You continue to let young women think it's okay to have a feminist attitude and have no morals. You continue to make dance songs that belong in the lowest of adult clubs and bars. I am ashamed to be an Indian after seeing movies like this.<br /><br />In 2003, the United States government suggested that the best way to destroy Iran is to 'send miniskirts' there. There is no need to do that for India. We will destroy ourselves with rubbish like this. | 1 |
Uzumaki, is a visually stunning Film, and I don't think anyone is going to be able to argue that. But, unfortunately, the story somewhat falls flat.<br /><br />The film nevertheless is very entertaining. It uses it's wild style to tell a somewhat non-existant story. The film almost works, just based on it's characters and style, but In my opinion, leaves something to be desired. | 0 |
Title: Dracula A.D. 1972 <br /><br />Director: Alan Gibson <br /><br />Cast: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Stephanie Beacham <br /><br />Review: Sometimes movies can be time capsules that transport you back to any given time. In this case...our time capsule is Hammers Dracula A.D. 1972 which transports us back to a time in which Austin Powers would have felt right at home.<br /><br />The story is about these group of kids (were not a gang! were a group!) that love to hang out at a café shop called 'The Cavern'. One day, Johnny Alucard (hmm strange last name...wait...it spells Dracula backwards!) a new member of the group offers the group a new way to get their kicks. He offers them a night of black mass and black magic. To which they also say 'sure why the hell not, it could be fun!'. So in no time flat, the find themselves resurrecting Count Dracula from the ashes.<br /><br />This movie opens up with a swinging party at some rich doofuses home. He knows non of the people at his party, yet there they all are partying the night away in his house. Doing drugs, making out and dancing on top of tables. The filmmakers made sure that this sequence was completely engulfed in whatever young people considered cool at that time. Everyone says words like 'way out' and 'groovy' and they finish many of their sentences saying 'all that jazz'. So yeah, its pretty evident that this is the 70s. To top it all off, there's a band that sounds something like 'Jefferson Airplane'...I mean you'll be drowned in all things 70s. And as I watched this I kept asking myself 'how the heck is Dracula with his black cape and get up going to fit into all this?' And thats exactly what happens. Old Dracula feels out of place amidst all the partying and the rock and roll and drugs. Many of the scenes in the film are great....but sadly the music they decided to add to the proceedings doesn't fit at all and completely takes you out of the mood of things. Something horrifying or scary will be happening on screen and suddenly a bunch of loud trumpets and congos start to beat and your just completely taken out of the horror element. That sucked out the atmosphere right out of this movie for me.<br /><br />But all in all, putting all the distracting 70s music aside (an illness that Satanic Rites of Dracula also suffered) the movie was pretty good. But I will mention this. The story was just a re-hash of what we had seen before in Taste the Blood of Dracula. In fact the story is damn near identical. Lets see...a young lad inherits Draculas ring and ashes...check. He then decides to bring Dracula back to life with the help of some people who know nothing about what they are getting into...check. Black Mass to bring Dracula back in a desecrated church...check. The list of similarities goes on and on. So this movie ain't very original if you ask me.<br /><br />There are a few things that make this movie worth while though. For example the fact that the movie is a time capsule to London in the early seventies makes the film entertaining. I kept giggling and laughing every time someone spoke in 70 jargon. I couldn't believe some of the clothes these people wore and the cars they drove! It made the movie fun for me, but we are here to get spooked, were here to see Drac kill a few virgins and take his revenge on the House of Van Helsing. Did we get any of that? Well yeah. There's a few good sequences squeezed in there to satisfy old school hammer fans. First off, there's the Black Mass sequence which was above all things satanic! They mention the name of many a demon and lots blood is spilled. That sequence was awesome but it was messed up by the music in its most crucial moment. Then there's Draculas actual resurrection which Ill admit was great from a visual standpoint. Some mist comes out of Draculas grave and slowly but surely Christopher Lees silhouette and face emerge from the fog. Cool shot! I loved it! We have a Cushing and Lee face off at the end. And I couldn't help to laugh at one point when Dracula hurls a piece of furniture through the air. I laugh because he has done this in every single film since Horror of Dracula. Its this Hammer tradition where the characters start throwing candle sticks and chairs at each other. And I think to myself, aren't their more exciting things to show then a bad guy throwing a candle stick at our hero. Oh well, anyhows, Draculas demise in this one is very similar to all the other Hammer Draculas before it, vampire gets slaked and then we cut to a series of frames until there's only ashes left.<br /><br />All in all, an unintentionally funny Hammer Dracula film. Its trapped in the 70s and though that makes it a fun watch (and its not as horrible as Satanic Rites of Dracula) it still doesn't gel well with the Dracula universe we had come to expect from Hammer.<br /><br />Rating 3 1/2 out of 5 | 1 |
As a former Kalamazoo resident with a fondness for the town I was looking forward to seeing this movie. But, what a disappointment! Although the acting and the production values aren't bad, the script is awful, the plot is unrealistic, and the theme is disturbing.<br /><br />The main message of this film is that Women are nothing without husbands and children. I can hardly believe how regressive it is in it's view of women. Has the writer been living under a rock? <br /><br />Although I enjoyed seeing my beloved city on the big screen, I wouldn't suggest this movie to anyone. It's terrible. It's an embarrassment to the city it's named after. | 1 |
This film revolves around an Arabian leader (Amir) who dies and wants to live on. So a Dr. Lloyd Trenton is being paid to transplant Amirs brain into a 'willing' participant. But in the Doctors basement his dwarf assistant Dorro (Angelo Rossitto) drains young girls blood for the doctors purposes. So meanwhile Doctor Llyod pays a man to kill the people who assisted Amir into the country (Which is Reed Hadley, Grant Williams, and various unknown bodyguards.). Grant is the only survivor when his car crashes off the road. While this has happened the doctors other assistant Gor is sent out to get a body for amir and hurts him so badly Dr.Llyod cant operate. Meanwhile, Grant finds Amirs 'girlfriend' Regina Carrol and tells her his story. Grant sees the man who drove him off the road and Dorro kills him. Then since Gor failed to get a body D.r Llyod puts Amirs brain into Gors disfigured body. Then Grant and Regina go to the Doctors lab an<br /><br />------------------------SPOILERS------------------------- find out his secret. Soon Amir (Gor) are prancing around killing people and in the muddle of what I think is plot Dr.Llyod has a brain-ray gun which hurts Amir on command. It turns out Dr.Lloyd wants a country in which all scientists can work without law. So then Regina dies. and at the end Amirs new body (I think) say that it shall be a new country blah blah.<br /><br />I still don't get the ending but overall this was a very enjoyable piece of smelly cheese.This film features Grant Williams in his second to last film roll. I recommend it for any fan of Al Adamson or if you like Brains. | 0 |
Angels are a bit of an American obsession, but are often rather boring. They are the messengers of God, and also the arc angels are great warriors (Lucifer being the toughest and best looking until he was kicked out of heaven).<br /><br />So what happens if you don't believe in anything, let alone angels and you are sent to investigate an angel story, only to meet one with wings and less than angelic attitude.<br /><br />Maybe that is what America needs, being a puritan is different from being good. Michael is a rude, obnoxious, womanizing messenger of heaven who will fulfill your wishes, and make you care enough about the world that you will be touched.<br /><br />Funny, but not greatly so, touching but not overly sentimental, intelligent without being clever...it is just a good simple, small comedy. Watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon. | 0 |
I loved this movie. It's a lot of laughs. The acting is good and the writing is really sharp. I'd rather see a hundred movies like this than THREE LORD OF THE RINGS repeating and repeating themselves.<br /><br />It's a low budget affair and seems to be shot on DV but looks good and Jay Mohr and Julianne Nicholson are great together. Why do you have a ten line minimum? I'm not a critic, just a patron.<br /><br />I doubt very much that Quentin Tarantino could write a picture this funny without filling it with masturbatory gratuitous violence. This movie should be seen on more screens than just one. I laughed from beginning to end. > | 0 |
I am a huge horror/splatter fan, I even enjoy horror films some people consider as stupid. I also like gore. The more the merrier as long as it has a point.<br /><br />After reading the other people's reviews on the site I was sure this film was going to be a little gem. But much to my disappointment it proved to be one of the most pointless films I've ever watched.<br /><br />The acting was terrible, the dialogs were stupid, the plot was pointless, the special effects were useless and the editing was probably done by someone who has been dead for the past 2 years. Usually i find that all these characteristics make a great b horror movie . But not in this case.<br /><br />I waisted 11 EUR to get this DVD. <br /><br />Unless you actually enjoy pointless gore ( for example the 'violent sh*t' films) avoid at any cost! | 1 |
This movie was just horrendous. How could anybody like this movie, and for the ones who liked it because of the jokes, they should really take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves if stereotypes are not bad. Ignoring the face of the racial stereotypes, this was just awful. It never had its moments, if it paid homage to 1980's, 'Airplane!', it needs to pay some more. Awful acting, terrible script writing, even for a movie with Mo'Nique or Tom Arnold. This movie was bad from the beginning, but people might have seen the whole thing, by the thought that the plane would crash. One of the worse movies ever, stay away. | 1 |
The obsession of 'signifie' and 'signifiant' is not enough to make a good film. Pascal Bonitzer should have remained in our memory as a brilliant film theorist back in the '60´s. It was not necessary to take the camera. The result is quite frustrating. It´s a pity for his excellent leading actors. | 1 |
Being a former MST3k watcher, even I found this movie unwatchable. The awful attempts at humor-heck the awful attempts at acting. Nobody needs to read a harangue on this piece of junk.<br /><br />I just like how all the positive reviews were clearly written by cast members or family friends. Just click on their other reviews and wow--they are all reviewing Modern Vampires. Give me a couple of bucks and I can make a movie better than this. One of the most incompetent pieces of film-making I've ever seen and that's saying something. Watch at your own risk.<br /><br />Rating: 0/10 | 1 |
Some movies are not for everyone. This accurately describes Igmar Bergaman's movie, Skammen (Shame). At only 18, I still have what I guess you could call a minor form of ADD and well, I watch movies to be entertained. Shame was a movie with a very interesting premise, of trying to convey the effect of war on the common people, it however fell short of accomplishing this for me. I don't know if it was the subtitles, black and white filming, length of the movie, or the fact that it took two hours out of my studying for a huge chemistry test, but I did not enjoy it. I understand it is considered a great movie and very important in the history of cinema, however, I think as my teacher pointed out, not everyone has liked or likes it. I guess I just wish it finished all of its many side plots. Maybe the translation lost something, but I felt there were infinite little off shoots that never met a conclusion. You would meet characters and never see them again, or really understand why they were included in the movie. My overall recommendation for this movie is that it's worth seeing, but only to form your own opinion on it. Whether or not you like or dislike it, it is necessary to respect the point that it is trying to convey. | 1 |
This film just won the best film award at the Cleveland International Film Festival. It's American title apparently is Autumn Spring. The acting is superb. The story takes you into the life of an elderly man who takes what life deals him and spikes it up a little bit. Abetted by his best friend (and partner in not-so-serious crime) he puts people on at every opportunity but still often reveals his heart of gold. His longsuffering wife has come to her wits end and makes a life-changing decision which is heartbreaking to watch. The resolution of the story is beautiful. | 0 |
It all started with True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse get the club to safety. Noble Heart Horse meet Dawn & John & took them to see True Heart Bear. Later, The care meter went down more & True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse check to see if it Dark Heart but they can't go unless the club at care for so they ask Dawn & John to care for the club. After True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse Come back, They send Dawn & John back to camp. Than the club & cousin bears have grown up to get ready to fight Dark Heart. At the end, Dark Heart kidnap all the care bear & the kids (Dawn & John) have to tell Christy that Dark Heart is evil. Than they work to together to save the Care Bears. Later, True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse found out it Dark Heart shadow & return to care land to find that their gone. The Kids (Dawn, John, & Christy) come but they was not powerful to stop Dark Heart. True Heart Bear & Noble Heart Horse come to help Dawn, John, & Christy to free the other care bears but Christy got in the way & was hit by Dark Heart magic. Than Dark Heart saw Christy got hit & stop fighting the care bear in order to help her but he can't because Dark Heart (himself) don't have the power of caring to save Christy. The care bears & the kids help Dark Heart save Christy. Now Dark Heart starting to care & became a real boy to fall in love with Christy. Dark Heart is now a real boy & help out Christy to work out in camp.<br /><br />This is a great move ever & the best Care Bears Movie I ever seeing.<br /><br />I like all the care bears movies & I can't wait to see 'Care Bears: Big Wish Movie (2005)'.<br /><br />Who like this movie? | 0 |
As part of the celebration of the release of Casino Royale, this film with the new Bond starring in it was shown, from director Roger Michell (Notting Hill). I almost turned it off for being a bit boring, but I'm glad I stuck with it. Basically May (Anne Reid) is a single mother of Helen (Anna Wilson-Jones) who hardly sees anyone and has not had a boyfriend in years. Her daughter says that she might want to get married to her new boyfriend, Darren (Daniel Craig, of course). After knowing each other only a few days, May and Darren have a secret affair. And at her age, with a 30-something, and the new Bond?! Anyway, they obviously want to keep it a secret, but May has regrets and wonders if Helen will find out. When she does, Darren gets less hassle than May. In fact, Helen asks her permission to hit her. Also starring Peter Vaughan as Toots, Danira Govich as Au Pair, Harry Michell as Harry, Rosie Michell as Rosie and Johnny English's Oliver Ford Davies as Bruce. Very good! | 0 |
I stole this movie when I was a freshmen in college. I've tried to watch it three times, the second two because friends wanted to see it. 'Sweet, Adam Sandler, I've never heard of this movie, but since he's so funny its gotta be funny.' Wrong! I can't make myself watch this pile of crap after the dream boxing match/insult war, where burning the guy with a good zinger causes your opponent physical pain. You would think that terrible comedy hurting you is ridiculous, but after watching this you'll know its true. This movie isn't worth the price I paid for it. I've watched a ton of Steven segal movies, and I've even watched Crossroads twice... but I still couldn't watch this. | 1 |
The thing about calling 'House of the Dead' the worst movie of all time is that it's really not. There are worse movies out there. I watch alot of Hong Kong ninja movies that are basically the result of an unfinished Japanese police drama having footage of ninjas inserted at the end to create something that could technically be called 'a movie.'<br /><br />House of the Dead is however one of the worst films I've ever seen at the theatres. Walking out half way through, I actually felt I was somewhat dumber for having set through 45 minutes of this piece of garbage. | 1 |
This film is a pure failure. I am a Steve Martin fan, but even he can't save the tired idea and swiss cheese script. Think 'Police Academy 7' and apply it to a military parody. Yuck.<br /><br />I DO NOT feel the other user comments reflected the poor rating this film received (and rightfully deserved!). It is extremely misleading. I have often seen this film marked down to $3.00 in the grocery store and now I certainly know why.<br /><br />If only I could get my 90 minutes back... | 1 |
This movie was one of the most boring horror movies I have seen in a long time (and I have seen a lot). Personally I liked the piercing take on it all that was original but other than that it was pretty unwatchable. I could not stand Dee Snider as an actor nor as a singer. I seemed that he was trying with everything he said to make it a memorable quote, which they weren't. I can get movies for free and I still didn't think it was worth the time to get. | 1 |
This film promises much but delivers little. The basic problem has to do with the inclusion of Charlotte Gainsbourg's character in this film. Immigrants from Sicily did not need a redheaded Anglo in any way--the movie may have needed her, but new citizens certainly did not. In my opinion,the decision to include her destroys the continuity of the film. This is particularly troubling since it seems to demean not only the characters in the movie, but also the history of immigration itself. Immigrants themselves were heroic figures, fully capable of getting along without having to satisfied what I believer to be a veiled image of 'the white man's burden.' I wonder if someone will make a movie of Irish immigrants which will include a Sicilian woman as a major character. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film--acting, production sets, dialogue, artistry, film continuity, plot, and character development--on a scale from high of 10 for excellent, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. Both film continuity and plot rate a low of 1. The continuity as discussed above is further degraded by the surrealistic ending. Does not a film of such important historical significance deserve more than a conclusion which reminds one of Marc Chagall? The plot is simple enough, until it seems to become entangled with too much time in the old country, too little time on the ship, and too much emphasis on the ending. The acting and character development is average since all the characters are fixed throughout the film, and the inclusion of the Anglo-Saxon speaking perfect English almost turns the movie into a satire. Where's Groucho when you need him? The production sets, the dialogue and the artistry are very good, each rating a 10. The sets in Sicily, on the ship, and on Ellis Island are as good as one can find. The dialogue is marvelous, and the ethic singing is superb. I agree with Scorsese that listening to the Sicilian dialect is a pleasure. Note that the immigrants speak of 'America', not the 'United States'--the ideal vs. the political reality. The are many good artistic scenes, with dreams of America, gold coins raining, and giant veggies among the best. The average Left Elbow Index is 5.25, raised to a 7.0 when equated with the IMDb scale. One other notion seems to run through Ellis Island experience: the tribulations of pass immigrants was grueling, later, in 2006, one only had to pay a coyote or boat owner and sneak into the county under the darkness of night, no questions asked! The movie is worth seeing, but it appears that what one sees is problematical. | 0 |
As Roger Corman has said in an interview, low-budget film-making enables film-makers to take chances on offbeat ideas. Well, you'd be hard pressed to find a film that thrives on the offbeat as mightily as George Barry's 'Death Bed: The Bed That Eats'.<br /><br />The film does have a back story to it, and it's an interesting one at that. I'll forgo relaying any sort of details so you can hear them for yourself if you take a chance on watching it. Suffice it to say, the title item of furniture has an insatiable hunger, consuming the unwary with a bubbling yellow foam that dissolves its victims like acid.<br /><br />'Death Bed' is an eerie, haunting little flick that plays out its absurd premise in such a way that it transcends the usual assortment of schlock fare. It occupies its particular dream world in such a way that it was possible for me to take it seriously. It's a truly strange and unconventional horror flick. It dabbles in exploitative ingredients - there's some tasty dollops of female nudity - and yet is also art, albeit art with a completely skewed sensibility.<br /><br />The special effects are not too bad for a film with a microscopic budget, and Barry gives the film a good and atmospheric 'midnight movie' quality. The acting from the cast is as uninspired as one could imagine, although Patrick Spence-Thomas lends a reasonable amount of gravitas as the artist / narrator, and one definite point of interest is seeing one familiar face on hand: future 'Boy Meets World' father William Russ!<br /><br />This film might not have even found the small cult following that it does have were it not for pirated copies making the rounds; this certainly has to rank as one of the instances where such a practice ultimately ended up helping the film - even if the exposure took years to take hold.<br /><br />If you have a taste for truly bizarre obscure items, 'Death Bed' may be just what you've got in mind.<br /><br />7/10 | 0 |
An average TV movie quality, totally formula story of religious fanatic (Ron Perlman, who gives good 'I'm not just the President of 'Psychos R Us,' I'm also a client.') who gets control of a biochemical virus (think the virus from the movie 'The Rock'). Too bad for him that he also gets stuck in a bank building during an earthquake with bank robbers and the government agents trying to stop him (led by the impressively physiqued, mildly entertaining Wolf Larson, backed by Fred Dryer) along with the standard 'in the wrong place at the wrong time' spunky female (the forever bland Erika Eleniak) and 'lived as a wimp but died as a hero at the last minute' male (Brandon Karrer). Has the standard background story to give sympathy to the religious fanatic (wife and son killed in a police raid a few years previous). <br /><br />Basically a decent rainy day movie.<br /><br />Favorite line, spoken by Ron Perlman after he finds the vial of the virus hidden in Erika Eleniak's cleavage: 'A woman and her mystery.'<br /><br />Worth a rent. | 1 |
This movie was amazingly bad. I don't think I've ever seen a movie where every attempt at humor failed as miserably. Let's see...the acting was pathetic, the 'special effects' where horrible, the plot non-existant...that pretty much sums up this movie.<br /><br /> | 1 |
SPOILERS<br /><br />In the words of Jean-Paul Sartre, 'Hell is other people'. In 'The Odd Couple', Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau demonstrate just how accurate this can be. As Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison, Lemmon and Matthau respectively create two good friends who decide to live together. As the two begin to slowly grow more and more frustrated with each other, the laughs come thick and fast, before Felix departs, leaving Oscar a changed and more cleanly individual.<br /><br />Jack Lemmon as Ungar is absolutely superb as the neurotic, cleaning obsessed divorcee coping with life as a single man. Walter Matthau in contrast to Lemmon's character is equally as good as the slobbish sports writer who simply wants to play poker to earn money for his child benefits.<br /><br />Lemmon and Matthau are magnificant in their selected parts, to some degree dependent upon the beautiful script by Neil Simon, and simultaneously because they work well as a team. As two friends who are inherently different in lifestyles, although similar in relationships with ex-wives and children, these two, late, great actors create a partnership which is practically impossible to recreate. So great in fact, that the world screamed out so much for something similar, that two years before Matthau's death and three before Lemmon's, the characters were reunited in an inferior sequel. This idea, whilst following Hollywood's irritating obsession with sequels, might have worked to a certain degree, but at the same time, it could never come close to replicating the genius of this original film.<br /><br />Ultimately it's not really possible to say anything else. With Simon's amazing script, filled with humour and laughter, the creators of this film were already onto a hit. The casting of Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau as Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison though, is the most important part of this film. 'The Odd Couple', with it's traditional soundtrack (which even gained a tribute in 'The Simpsons'), it's excellent script and it's genius leading men, is a tribute to cinema and a feature for history to remember. | 0 |
I saw recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International film Festival and I can't believe that this is Sweden's official submission to the 79th Academy Awards to be considered for best foreign film. Producer Anna Anthony last year also had Sweden's official submission for best foreign film with Zozo. I wasn't personally a fan of Zozo but at least it had some production value to it. This could have been shot as a high school film project. As a short film it may have worked but as a feature film it is as lost as it's characters. This is a story about five twenty something friends who live in a small Swedish town and have no goals or hopes or ambitions for the future and like to live in the past of their long gone childhood. Actually Falkenberg isn't like some remote northern Swedish village. It's a popular summer resort with a population of city and townships of almost 40,000 and lies between two major southern coastal Swedish cities of Götborg and Malmo. The characters are likable enough guys but if they were high school age kids with a bleak or confused attitude about what they plan to do with their lives I would undoubtedly care about them more. They are however long past the point where they should be making plans to deal with adulthood. If they want to stay in Falkenberg forever than certainly there must be some jobs in the tourist or fishing industry instead of just riding bicycles, drinking, smoking pot and occasionally painting a house. Maybe if they hung around with a girl or two in their circle of friends, of which girls are absent from this film altogether which doesn't make sense. Jesper Ganslandt makes his directorial debut and co wrote the film along with the cinematographer, of which I use the term loosely, Fredrik Wenzel. the acting isn't too bad. I would give this a 4.5 out of 10 but despite it's submission for consideration for the Academy Awards I would not recommend it. | 1 |
Rowan Atkinson's creation Mr.Bean has stood the test of time and will be forever etched upon the memory of those who viewed it.<br /><br />Living alone and appearing not to have a job of any description Mr.Bean goes around doing day to day activities in a rather comedic fashion.The mistake prone Mr.Bean induces heartfelt laughter when put even in the most simplest situations.Though he barely spoke any coherent words his jovial actions more than made up for this.<br /><br />Even when driving in his beloved Mini Mr.Bean still manages to cause inadvertent chaos.Not very much is known about his background but his ability to draw tears of laughter from the audience at his funny shenanigans is well known.<br /><br />Before he found fame Nick Hancock can be seen in a couple of the episodes | 0 |
Tobe Hooper has made great movies so I was certain this couldn't be BAD. I didn't read any reviews and tried to watch this unintentionally humorous film. At times this made me laugh, sometimes I almost fell asleep, sometimes made me almost CRY for Hooper.<br /><br />I rated this 3/10 because its 1990 'horror'-movie and many interesting or funny things happened there. Throughout the movie I was thinking something like 'they simply CAN'T add more things in this movie...' .. but they did.<br /><br />Some tell this is some sort of Firestarter clone but truly isn't. It's based on that idea but thats all. This is combination of horror, comedy, weird religion/god things, funny gore, simple effects, drama, horrible acting, unbelievable script..and more.<br /><br />*spoilers* Story is: Government tries to create ultimate weapon using nuclear power or something and fails, during process child is born for 2 test persons. When mom sings to her child after the birth, both husband and wife burns and it is SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION. Government buries whole thing and leaves this child live amongst other people and ... then after x years this kid is grown up and realizes he has been born for a reason and whoa he can burn things with his brains. Then everything goes unbelievable messy nothing really explains anything and .. Well when The Government realizes 'okay now he can set this fire thing to work' they take him to normal hospital where is some nuclear toxic what they are going to use on this man BECAUSE they could kill him, no they can't shoot him no! .. and argh, I guess thats enough to tell, I promise there is 100 more weird things in this movie.<br /><br />Well if you want good laughs watch this one. Gosh. | 1 |
This movie has no heart and no soul; it's an attempt to whomp up a cult film out of the leavings of other, better, directors, principally David Lynch and Tim Burton. Rifkin seems to think that if he overloads on a kind of rotted visual style and fills the street with crud and garbage, he's making a statement. But it's not a statement ABOUT anything -- except the director's shrill shriek of 'HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M AN ARTIST, TOO.' But he doesn't have the imagination of an artist, just a good memory for things that worked -- such as some of the actors trapped in this -- for other directors. All of this would be almost acceptable if this movie was not a turgid, boring chore to sit through. | 1 |
There are some excellent comments and observations on this film. I was pleased to note the comparisons to Fritz Lang's 'M' (forget the 50's abortive remake with lightweight David Wayne). The real villain is not the tortured murderer (extraordinarily fine performance by Jeffery DeMunn), taking out his sexually frustrated anger on his victims-- mostly children. He is the objective. The real villain is the stifling bureaucratic Soviet system, drowning in its own corrupted incompetence. The frustration of an uncompromisingly dedicated man (Rea in his best role since 'The Crying Game'), a facile pragmatist who's willing to use the system to his advantage (Sutherland always successful in this kind of role), a hesitant, frightened but determined psychiatrist (the incomparable Max Sydow), the bumbling, boopous bureaucrat of a prosecutor (brilliant Brit actor John Wood) and the quiet, supporting wife of the driven investigator (delightful supporter, Imelda Staunton). This is one damn fine film. Its darkness and bleakness are supported by the portrayal of a corrupt, incompetent system which works against success. The is no need to dip into gore-laden slice 'n dice sensationalism that has characterized so many recent films. Gore is present-- it's a ghastly story-- but it adds to the depicting of a pathologically twisted human being. The success of the story is precisely that: these were acts perpetrated by a person, a human like you or I. Where you and I choose to vent our frustration by reasonable means, Chikatilo took his anger out on the most innocent and vulnerable of us, our children. The superb premise of this story is made manifest by an equally superb cast of excellent actors. --sadly, I note that our Australian friend didn't like the speech and no doubt would have preferred to hear them speaking in Aussie dialect. Well, too bad. This fine film sure worked for me and everyone else I've talked with who has seen it. | 0 |
The evil bikie gang in this movie were called the Savages, hence the title, but Minor Nuisances would have been a better name for this sorry mob of weak actors trying to look dangerous. Whenever they wanted to kill someone, they generously rode their bikes very slowly so that their intended victim could easily avoid them or push them off their bikes. Their leader had a bad limp, but still thought he could take on the hero and win. As for Karen Black, she didn't seem to know where she was for most of the film. | 1 |
Just what the world needed-another superficial cookie-cutter Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen movie. This movie gives out horrible messages to girls everywhere, complete with stereotypical 'junior high' experience. They make learning anything at all seem completely taboo. I can't stand the fake French accents, or those guys on the mopeds racing around who eventually 'fall' for the twins. Why am I putting everything in parenthesis? Because its all stereotyped. The twins even complain about not having a stereotypical grandfather. They should be happy they even have a grandfather at all. How does this fit the Mary-Kate/Ashley mold? This one has them fixing up a single guy who (gasp!!) ISN'T THEIR FATHER!!!!! Yes, folks, they actually have a mother who appears for all of five seconds. I haven't even sat through thirty minutes of this and I can already tell how it will end up. This movie is so pitiful, it makes Miss USA seem like an academic bowl. Really. | 1 |
'Subspecies,' like many other horror films, gets a raw deal on IMDb. The majority of movie-watchers have a hearty contempt for horror, and when they occasionally rent horror films, they either want to laugh at them or cringe at excessively gory scenes. Unfortunately, 'Subspecies' is not particularly laughable, and not that bloody, so it gets a low rating. That's too bad.<br /><br />Of course, there's plenty to criticize here. The non-actors are flat, the subspecies are a poor special effect, and the nighttime scenes are too brightly lit. But what do you expect? For a straight-to-video horror film, 'Subspecies' boasts decent production values and more integrity than you might anticipate. The film's Romanian setting is virtually unique (I believe it was the first American movie made in that country, post-Communism), and the locations, both interior and exterior, are beautiful. The script has moments of intelligence, especially when it delves into local folklore (all bogus, I'm sure). Somehow, the location filming and smartish script work well together - 'Subspecies' has its own very distinctive world. To risk damning with faint praise...it could be a lot dumber.<br /><br />Fans of the more gruesome aspects of horror will no doubt get a kick out of the blood-drooling vampire villain, Radu. He's pretty effective in this movie - powerful, with a memorable raspy voice - but I like him better in the sequels, when actor Anders Hove gives a more self-parodying, campy performance. A totally sincere Radu is somewhat silly. Other silly aspects include gratuitous nudity and the subspecies themselves, who are clearly only in the movie because producer Charles Band has a fetish for evil little creatures (see also Puppetmaster and Demonic Toys).<br /><br />But I linger too much on the movie's flaws. For what it is - straight-to-video vampire horror - 'Subspecies' is perfectly fine. The sequels boast better production values, more violence, and somewhat more thoughtful story lines, so I recommend them even more highly. Still, this isn't a bad start for the series. | 0 |
When I learned of Sir Alec Guinness' death, this was the first of his many films I thought of re-seeing. What a wonderful droll commentary the film provides even after all these years. And Guinness helps to weave the charm into every frame. His eyes and face are as luminous as that white suit he wears. Both he and the film have to be considered lifetime favorites. | 0 |
This horror movie is really weak...that is if this is the correct movie I am commenting on. Nothing really terrible goes on as a family adopts a cute little German Shepard pup. I had a German Shepard and it is a really good dog. I did not get the idea to get one from this movie though, but rather from the comedy 'K-9'. That is another story all together though. This movie really doesn't have much horror at all as the most horrific scene is at the end and it looks really cheesy. Also, we see a guy almost put his hand into a lawn mower. That is about it. The father suspects something though, as his family seems to be getting rather strange, somewhere he finds out if you hold a mirror to them while they are sleeping you can see if they are possessed. All in all a really weak horror movie even by television standards...television movies that do work are out there as 'This House Possessed' is pretty good and there is another haunted house movie about a woman and these strange creatures that is also rather good. This one is really rather dull. | 1 |
**SPOILERS*** Slow as molasses mummy movie involving this expiation in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt that has to be aborted in order to keep the native population, who are at the time revolting against British rule, from finding out about it.<br /><br />Given the task of getting to this archaeological dig by his superiors British Capt. Storm, Mark Dana, together with a couple of British soldiers and Mrs. Sylvia Quentin, Diane Brewster, the wife of the head man at the dig Robert Quentin, George N. Neise, make their way to the unearthed mummy's tomb. On the way there Capt. Storm Sylvia and his men run into this desert-like princess Simira, Ziva Rodann.<br /><br />Simira seems to be superhuman in her ability to withstand the rigors of desert life, she doesn't drink water or get tired, but also knows just what Capt. Storm & Co. are looking for and warns him and his group to stay as far away from the dig, Pharaoh's Ra Ha Tet tomb, as possible.<br /><br />At Ra Ha Tet's burial chamber Robert Quentin and his crew of archeologist's together with his Egyptin guide Simira's brother Numar, Alvaro Guillot,already opened his tomb before Capt. Storm can get there to stop them. Quentin violated Ra Ha Tet's body by having Dr. Farrady, Guy Prescott, cut his bandages. This action on Robert's and Dr. Farrady's part has Numar faint dead in his tracks. It later turns out that Numar somehow was possessed by Ra Ha Tet's spirit or soul who took over his body and caused him to age, at the rate of 500 years per hour, to become himself a 3,000 year-old mummy.<br /><br />The movie has Numar dressed in what looks like a pair of pajamas slinking around Ra Ha Tet's tomb and it's surroundings attacking and sucking out the blood in order to survive, like a vampire, of anyone man or animal that he comes in contact with. This blood-sucking adventure by Numar, with him later losing his right arm, goes on for some time until the by now crazed Quentin trying to find the entrance, you in fact thought that he already found it, to Ra Ha Tet's tomb get's himself killed is an indoor rock slide.<br /><br />We learn at the end of the movie that Numar, to absolutely no one's surprise, is actually Ra Ha Tet reincarnated into another, some 3,000 years later, person or life. Numar's sister the mysterious and sexy Simira is not only Ra Ha Tet's sister, since him and Numar are really one and the same person, but also the Egyptian Cat Goddess Babesti! Also not that hard to figure out.<br /><br />With Numar/Ra Ha Tet back in his tomb and all the deaths, due the the Pharaoh's Curse, now at an end Capt. Storm Sylvia and whatever is left of his men and the late Robert Quentin's archaeological expedition trek their way back to Cairo and modern, this in 1902, civilization. The survivors of Pharaoh Ra Ha Tet Curse keep what they found, and unearthed, only to themselves since no one would believe them anyway. | 1 |
Good show.<br /><br />The basic background is that humanity is at a crossroads. There is a set of moral dilemmas that are being faced. Mankind has made a number of technological breakthroughs, but is mankind mature enough to deal with the its new toys? There is moral decadence in a virtual world. There are religious fanatics who are willing to kill to get attention. I predict (based on the BSG background) that there will be an issue with Cylons and slavery. In addition to this, there are all the other problems that we humans bring upon ourselves.<br /><br />This show is not BSG -- at least not as far as mankind being on the run from a ruthless problem that was ultimately of their own making. There are not a lot of shoot-em-up or space-based special effects either - at least not in the first few episodes I have seen so far.<br /><br />What it does have are very good stories, characters, and themes. It also has good performances from the actors. They can make a culture which is similar to modern-day society, but alien at the same time be completely believable. Like BSG, this show is about humanity - our strengths, weaknesses, potential, and flaws. It may seem a little odd that a human society on a different set of worlds has neckties, antique cars, and chicken. But those things are really more to create a semi-familiar background than anything else. Anyone who gets stuck on those details is really missing the point. Whether you are from a mafia-style culture or an affluent and high-tech culture, humans and human nature aren't that different 150,000 years ago in a high-tech past than what we see in the world today. Wonder if the writers are trying to tell us something. | 0 |
My favorite movie genre is the western, it's really the only movie genre that is of American origin. And despite Sergio Leone, no one does them quite like Americans.<br /><br />Right at the top of my list of ten favorites westerns is Winchester 73. It was the first pairing and only black and white film of the partnership of director Anthony Mann and actor James Stewart. It was also a landmark film in which Stewart opted for a percentage of the profits instead of a straight salary from Universal. Many such deals followed for players, making them as rich as the moguls who employed them.<br /><br />Anthony Mann up to this point had done mostly B pictures, noir type stuff with no real budgets. Just before Winchester 73 Mann had done a fine western with Robert Taylor, Devil's Doorway, that never gets enough praise. I'm sure James Stewart must have seen it and decided Mann was the person he decided to partner with.<br /><br />In this film Mann also developed a mini stock company the way John Ford was legendary for. Besides Stewart others in the cast like Millard Mitchell, Steve Brodie, Dan Duryea, John McIntire, Jay C. Flippen and Rock Hudson would appear in future Mann films.<br /><br />It's a simple plot, James Stewart is obsessed with finding a man named Dutch Henry Brown and killing him. Why I won't say, but up to this point we had never seen such cold fury out of James Stewart on screen. Anthony Mann reached into Jimmy Stewart's soul and dragged out some demons all of us are afraid we have.<br /><br />The hate is aptly demonstrated in a great moment towards the beginning of the film. After Stewart and sidekick Millard Mitchell are disarmed by Wyatt Earp played by Will Geer because guns aren't carried in Earp's Dodge City. There's a shooting contest for a Winchester rifle in Dodge City and the betting favorite is Dutch Henry Brown, played with menace by Stephen McNally. Stewart, Mitchell and Geer go into the saloon and Stewart and McNally spot each other at the same instant and reach to draw for weapons that aren't there. Look at the closeups of Stewart and McNally, they say more than 10 pages of dialog.<br /><br />Another character Stewart runs into in the film is Waco Johnny Dean played by Dan Duryea who almost steals the film. This may have been Duryea's finest moment on screen. He's a psychopathic outlaw killer who's deadly as a left handed draw even though he sports two six guns. <br /><br />Another person Stewart meets is Shelley Winters who's fiancé is goaded into a showdown by Duryea and killed. Her best scenes are with Duryea who's taken a fancy to her. She plays for time until she can safely get away from him. Guess who she ultimately winds up with?<br /><br />There are some wonderful performances in some small roles, there ain't a sour note in the cast. John McIntire as a shifty Indian trader, Jay C. Flippen as the grizzled army sergeant and Rock Hudson got his first real notice as a young Indian chief. Even John Alexander, best known as 'Theodore Roosevelt' in Arsenic and Old Lace has a brief, but impressive role as the owner of a trading post where both McNally and Stewart stop at different times.<br /><br />Mann and Stewart did eight films together, five of them westerns, and were ready to do a sixth western, Night Passage when they quarreled and Mann walked off the set. The end of a beautiful partnership that produced some quality films. | 0 |
I'm easily entertained. I enjoyed 'Hot Shots' and 'The Naked Gun' and their many sequels, even when most people found them unbearable. I've even managed to enjoy most Pauly Shore movies. There is only one movie that I've seen that I can honestly say was bad...and this was it. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I do remember sitting in the theater thinking, 'This is a dumb movie. Why did I see this?' It's honestly the only movie that I cannot recommend. | 1 |
Firetrap is yet again another bad action film about a guy who- yada yada yada- and happy endings and fire, and burning, and overacting, and bad suspense, and predictable, and ------------------- just don't see.<br /><br />(Dean Cain got stuck playing Superman on Lois and Clark and can't get any good roles anymore. So i don't know if he is a good or bad actor.<br /><br />This isn't good.<br /><br />Why can't anybody stop that bad people who keep making these things? AI swear they just s*** them out on a conveyor belt and hope they are good. They need to make a guy whose job is to just burn the movies that look bad, just have a bucket of carosine next to him and dump the cases in. Then at the end of each day light it and go home. | 1 |
Perhaps this could be the best movie ever made and if it's not it's certainly one of those who are burned onto your pupils as what Brian De Palma delivers here is a great piece of cinematographic artwork. First there is the director's touch of Brian De Palma who proves once again he might be one of the best directors ever, there is the superb performance from Al Pacino who is delivering an immortal hero on the big screen (Tony Montana), there are the many different (violent) scenes that you will never forget (the one with the chainsaw, the one in where Tony is sitting in a bath which is as big as most people's living rooms), there are the many superb one-liners (count how many times the word 'f*ck' is used), there are the superb little details (the Pan American-globe that screams 'The world is yours') or the great discomusic from Giorgio Moroder. Nothing can be named that isn't sublime here and it easily is along with 'The Godfather', 'Good fellas' and 'White heat' one of the best gangstermovies ever made! | 0 |
While it does crack the odd good joke, the humour is generally quite dry with members of the panel frequently pulling faces or resorting to coarse language and waiting on the crowd to applaud lame enough jokes.<br /><br />Unlike what an other comment says I don't think this is the best RTE have ever made, its really dry and sarcastic. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, there are few truly funny intelligent gags that would make you genuinely laugh out loud. People seem to be convinced by the comedians well known names rather than by judging the quality of the gags which aren't really that good. Overall its mediocre with some good laughs to be had but often it can be fairly mediocre. Its not as good as Jasper Carrot or Dave Allens stuff. I find Benny Hill funnier. | 1 |
Comparison with American Graffiti is inevitable so save your money and time by renting that timeless classic. Speaking of timeliness, there was an episode of Cheers where Norm and Cliff competed on who can find the most anachronism in a movie. They would have loved this movie everything from some of the songs and some of the clothing were wrong. There were sly reference such as 'they paved paradise to put up a parking lot'. The filmmakers hoped to elicit some smiles from us but basically made me groan.<br /><br />The characters in this movie are incredibly politically and socially astute for teenagers. Almost as smart as the people who were in their thirties and forties when they wrote the darn movie. Very little of what the characters said were believable. Combine the bad writing and bad acting this movie just totally fail. Although, there were two exceptions Kelli Williams liven things up as the future flower child and, despite what another reviewer said, Rick Shroeder was quite good. Showing that brooding characteristic that would come to full boil in his eventual appearance in 'N.Y.P.D. Blues'. | 1 |
Normally I love finding old (and some not-so-old) westerns I haven't seen, to be the entertainment for the evening. It's such a great way to sit back, relax and escape the politics and world problems for a few hours. But this was not to be the case with this version of The Magnificent Seven. The casting and storyline of this series closely follow the Hollywood formula for politically correct entertainment; good old get-your-mind-right, revisionist history, where the 'bad guys' must all be white, male, Confederate (in this case), and preferably Christian (if it can somehow be worked into the script). It's sad, really. The best movies out there, are now and have always been about simply telling a good story up on the big screen - not about forwarding someone's political ideology. | 1 |
Bathebo, you big dope.<br /><br />This is the WORST piece of crap I've seen in a long time. I have just stumbled onto it on late night TV and it is painful to watch. Really painful. How does something like this get made?? Horrible, horrible, horrible! OOOOOO ..... The toilet is flushing by itself again! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! 1992 doesn't seem like that long ago to me, but watching this makes it seem like 1952. I mean its horrible. Please don't waste your time on the drivel!<br /><br />Scary old black man telling them not to build the pool in the yard. Scary! Scary! How does this stuff get MADE??? | 1 |
This is what happens when you're living in China and the local video store is running thin on English-language titlesyou are blessed with this work of what appears to be, yes, Romanian cinema. Nevertheless, I think that it has real comedic potential.<br /><br />Spoilers technically follow:<br /><br />Though I don't think that it would in fact spoil anyone's viewing pleasure to ask why a film set in a casino has a scene of beach archery, even in flashback. That mystery, and many other conundrums, remain to be exploited by desperate comedians, perhaps when they're stuck in Bucharest.<br /><br />Let me also wonder aloud why perfectly good-looking people allow themselves to abuse themselves on film like this. It's sad. | 1 |
Somewhere, on this site, someone wrote that to get the best version of the works of Jane Austen, one should simply read them. I agree with that. However, we love adaptations of great literature and the current writers' strike brings to mind that without good writers, it's hard for actors to bring their roles to life. The current version of Jane Austen's PERSUASION shows us what happens when you don't have a good foundation in a well-written adaptation. This version does not compare to the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds, which was well acted and kept the essence of the era and the constraints on the characters (with the exception of the bizarre parade & kissing in the street scene in Bath). The 2007 version shows a twitty Anne who seems angst-ridden. The other characters were not very developed which is a crime, considering how Austen could paint such wonderful characters with some carefully chosen understatements. The sequence of events that made sense in the novel were completely tossed about, and Mrs. Smith, Anne's bedridden and impoverished schoolmate is walking around in Bath - - twittering away, as many of the characters seemed to do. The strength of character and the intelligence of Captain Wentworth, which caused Anne to love him in the first place, didn't seem to be written into the Rupert Penry-Jones' Wentworth. Ciaran Hinds had more substance and was able to convey so much more with a look, than P-J was able to do with his poses. All in all, the 2007 version was a disappointment. It seemed to reduce the novel into a hand- wringing, costumed melodrama of debatable worth. If they wanted to bring our modern emotional extravagances into Austen's work, they should have done what they do with adaptations of Shakespeare: adapt it to the present. At least 'Bride & Prejudice' was taken out of the historical & locational settings and was fun to watch, as was 'Clueless'. This wasn't PERSUASION, but they didn't know what else to call it. | 1 |
It's particularly hard for a director to capture film-making without getting precious, inbred, over-dramatic, or all three. Breillat ably demonstrates the instinctive, lizard-brain methods of a female auteur in extracting from two 'cattle' (as Hitchcock called actors) a love-scene of searing intimacy. Her main battle is with her leading man ('an actor is really a woman' she opines), although, naturally, it is the leading lady who will steal the show. I disagree that this is Breillat's first comedy. 'Romance' was at various points hilarious, but I accept that the French sense of humour can be elusive for foreigners; indeed, dozens of IMDb reviewers detected no comedy in Romance. By contrast, Sex Is Comedy raises plenty of laughs, mainly by using an actor's prop that goes back thousands of years to Plautus and the ancient Greeks. We wondered, leaving the theatre, whether Roxane's 'beard' was a wig. A lovely performance from Anne Parillaud as Breillat wrestling with her own script, looking ten years younger than her age. | 0 |
'Everything a great documentary could be'?? Yeah, if one is deaf, dumb, and blind. Everything but meaning, wit, visual style, and interesting subject matter. Aside from that. . .<br /><br />Seriously, volken. This is a movie that is completely inauthentic. An adventure doc with no adventure, a war doc with no feeling for war, a campy send-up with no trace of wit. It means nothing, feels like nothing, and carries the implicit message that absolutely nothing matters. No wonder it has so many IMDb fans! Of course, going in you know a movie starring the great Skip Lipman will have no culture, no intelligence, no wit (other than a corrosive adolescent jokiness), and no recognizable human emotion just adrenaline. 'Darkon' isn't a movie -- it's a panic attack! Avoid. There too many real documentaries and too little time in life to waste it on toilet build-up such as 'Darkon'. | 1 |
:::SPOILER ALERT:::<br /><br />Soooo, Arnie's really a good guy, but after an incident with some fighting in a helicopter and some disobeying of orders, he's sent to jail (or rather some sort of work camp). He escapes, but after a short while he's caught once again. This time ends up in a freakish reality show in which he's supposed to run for a while from a bunch of tough guys with different themes, and eventually die. But we all know Arnie, and we all know that he's tougher than even the toughest of tough guys.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this movie, being an Arnie-fan and all. However, 'The Running Man' contains too many flaws that really annoy the crap out of me. E.g. The reconstruction of Arnie's fight inside the helicopter, where the shocked audience is showed a short summary of the incident, complete with 5-10 different camera angles. This means that the military helicopter in which Arnie flew was equipped with almost 10 cameras filming the crew members, one of which _inside_ the eye of one of the crew members Arnie beats.<br /><br />There are other flaws also, and the plot, which in theory seems to be very interesting and innovative, works for a while, then it sort of creates a pool of stupidness and unrealism in which it drowns.<br /><br />The acting can't really be said to be anything better than sub par, with Arnie in the leading role, doing an average Arnie performance. The rest of the cast get by without being especially good or bad.<br /><br />The special effects are OK, without being impressive.<br /><br />RATING: 3/10 | 1 |
The original 1965 Japanese film 'Gamera' http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0059080/ was essentially an updating of the darker, less kid-oriented Gojira (Godzilla)for 1960s sensibilities. Gamera, of course, is a giant, flying, flame-throwing turtle who literally consumes energy - not quite as big as some versions of Godzilla, but generally similar in most ways. <br /><br />This version of the original film was edited and recut by the notorious Sandy Frank. And just like the Americanized version of Godzilla ('Godzilla King of the Monsters'), 'Gammera the Invincible' gets more than just the spelling wrong. The American scenes are not nearly as ludicrous and annoying as those added to the great Gojira, but don't really add much to the story either because there is little follow up on them. <br /><br />The film starts off promising, there are a few scenes worth of character development, and there are enough personalities to create some tension outside of the main plot. Once Gamera appears, however, the film begins to descend into a fairly run-of-the mill kaiju film.<br /><br />The acting is good enough- even the American add-ons are OK. The directing is pretty good for this period and genre, and the special effects are not bad at all for their time (all miniatures). Some of the sets and backdrops are actually very good. <br /><br />The biggest problem here, of course, is that there is little to nothing original about this film. Gamera, however, develops a much more unique personality in his later films - most of which are worth watching if you are a kaiju fan. | 1 |
In 1979 Lucio Fulci released his film Zombi. However, due to the earlier import of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, which had gone by that name for its Italian release, it was retitled to Zombi 2. (Which also had the bonus of letting the audience think this was a sequel to the second Romero movie). Continuing this theme, the second Zombi film, which would have been called Zombi 2, was then consequently titled Zombi 3. In the UK, the original Zombi film (that is, Zombi 2) was titled 'Zombie Flesh Eaters'. To continue THIS theme, the second Zombi film (Zombi 3) was then titled 'Zombie Flesh Eaters 2' for its UK release. (Are you following all this?) So if Zombie Flesh Eaters was Fulci's Dawn, then is 2 his Day of the Dead? While this is only a flippant observation, this tale of military compounds, helicopters and a plodding narrative certainly does bear a vague thematic resemblance.<br /><br />Some of Fulci's European direction compels in a film like this, but the acting, dubbing and exposition-heavy script are absolutely horrendous. Its ecological message is so forced and overstated it can no longer be considered a subtext, while there's an (unintentionally) hilarious Birds homage. Combining this last element with MOR 80s rock is not a good idea. For some reason I couldn't stop thinking of Time of the Apes (q.v.) the whole time I was watching this. This is obviously not a good thing.<br /><br />While there's nothing here to rival topless scuba-diving, shark wrestling zombies and eyeballs on a splinter, Fulci's misogynistic leanings do get a work out with a hotel cleaner's mouth being ground into a mirror until it gushes blood. His fannish gore predilections also see a hand severing. Both themes are combined when a woman's face is ripped off, first by one zombie, then a zombie foetus that tears out of a pregnant woman's stomach.<br /><br />Production-wise, this is obviously a step up from Zombi, coming five years later. (Nine years in worldwide release terms). But without the original's low-key charm it struggles, while Stefano Mainetti's music is inappropriate and uninspired. Fabio Frizzi's score was one of the best things about the '79 movie. Here zombie attacks are played out to what sounds unnervingly like Bonnie Tyler's 'Holding Out For A Hero'. In the middle of this carnage we get an irksome love interest, and Roger and Kenny, two bland macho types who do everything with acrobatic urgency and constantly state the obvious. ('We're out of ammunition' to a stalling gun is a particular standout). But where it also falls down is in the zombies themselves. Low key or not, Fulci's original had truly magnificent, rotting zombies. Skull faces, worms in eye sockets... they really were something to behold. By contrast, this dull follow-up opts for the more traditional 'men with a bit of paint on their faces' option. <br /><br />The climax rips off too many Romero movies to even be funny, while the use of the DJ is a crass and cheap narrative device. Not containing the same elements of outrage and gratuitous nudity of the first, this is unlikely to have the same cult appeal. <br /><br />It turns out that Fulci actually walked out on the project after reportedly directing just fifteen minutes, the rest filmed by Bruno Mattei. I'm fairly sure that even Fulci would have balked at the ludicrous 'flying zombie head' scene, and so credit to the director for having the good sense to leave. Unfortunately, however, it's his name that's above the film title on releases, so the majority of people will be left with the impression that this is a Fulci film through and through. On that scale then it's a major setback for him, for this movie commits what you imagine Fulci would regard as the worst crime of all: that of being boring. | 1 |
Although this was not without its faults, this drama was a fitting one to be shown around Easter time. It reminded us of our spiritual selves and showed that behind our facades, we often hide our deepest sufferings and experiences. There was so much to enjoy in the drama, not least the rapping teenagers who provided a better musical accompaniment to the drama than the rather poor sound score in the background. The acting was excellent and Timothy Spall was once again superb. The climax was very satisfying, if rather simplistic. Timothy Spall's 'letting go' of his long-dead wife's suicide was credible and mirrored well the feelings of despair that were present in the teenage girl who self-harmed. The resolution between the graffiti boy and the Muslim was gratifying but less believable. A wonderful drama which left myself and my husband felling that the evening had been well spent. Congratulations! | 0 |
This movie is a shameful result of what happens when:<br /><br />A) It is written, directed and produced by an idiot. and/or B) It was rushed in production to satiate the poker/Stu Ungar craze. <br /><br />The story from beginning is uneven. Vidmer spends too much time on Ungar's childhood and not enough on some of the legendary tales -- such as counting cards, his blackjack escapades, the roll of money as id. He also leaves out mentions of other poker greats such as chip reese, brunson etc. The movie is a complete mess from beginning to end. <br /><br />If you want a more complete and accurate account, read the book One of a Kind. If you thought the movie was good, read the book and change your mind. | 1 |
'Opera' (1987) <br /><br />Director: Dario Argento (Deep Red, Suspiria) Screenplay: Dario Argento and Franco Ferrini (The Church, Sleepless, Demons) Photography: Ronnie Taylor (A Chorus Line, Sleepless) Music: Claudio Simonetti (Phenomena, 'Goblin')<br /><br />Story: Betty (Cristina Marsillach) is the Lady Macbeth understudy of a very stylized staging of Verdi's Macbeth opera. Betty's time to shine comes when the diva star breaks her leg before opening night when she is hit by a car running away in a tantrum. The famous curse of Macbeth takes a more sinister and calculating turn when right away the body count begins to rise. It seems Betty gets her first fan via a stalker who ties her up and tapes needles to her eyes to force her to witness the grisly murders of the people around her. Story: 3 of 5<br /><br />Acting: Acting in a lot of these Italian films can sometimes be hard to judge. English, Italian, French, German, Spanish can sometimes all be in the same flick as they usually speak their native languages making dubbing rule of thumb and hard to judge. I usually cut them some slack in the area as a result. Acting: 4 of 5 <br /><br />Direction: Giallo maestro Argento enters again the genre helped pioneer. 'Opera' shows him at the top of his game with an exquisite blend of gore, tension and beauty. Direction: 4 of 5<br /><br />Visual: This has to be one of Argento's best looking films. Gorgeously filmed by Taylor, 'Opera' features some stunning and inventive camera-work that keeps the film running fast and hard and keeps the eye-candy coming. The camera always seems to be in notion whether it is a wonderful shot of the camera going up a spiral staircase or a sequence towards the end of a bird's eye view of said bird circling the crowd at the opera house. Visual: 5 of 5<br /><br />Audio: Frequent Argento collaborator Simonetti (through his various bands Goblin, Demonian and solo effort) compliments the screen action with zeal as his score touches from the classical (Verdi) to metal musings (with a little help from Brian and Roger Eno and Bill Wyman) and lends music muscle to the screen's bloody gristle. The sound design give you all that you need from stabbings to gunshots, fire to screams and masterfully remastered on the Anchor Bay disc in glorious 6.1 for every crunch and caw. Audio: 5 of 5<br /><br />Technical: The editing keeps the film flowing and moving wonderfully. Combined with the camera-work, the editing help keeps the surreal dreamy imagery flowing. The exquisite opera house is one hell of a location and perfect for staging the horror version of Macbeth. One can't end a review of an Argento film without having to comment on the kills. Argento dispatches characters with glee this time around with a brilliant stabbing sequence, crow eye-gouging and the film highlight of a gun blast through a keyhole into the eye and out the back of the head shot that once again sends Argento's ex-wife Daria Nicolodi to the movie morgue. Priceless! Technical: 5 of 5<br /><br />Wrap-up: A nearly flawless giallo that suffers from a slightly unnecessary epilogue in Switzerland that delivers all the visual thrills that Argento fans crave.<br /><br />Overall: 4 of 5 | 0 |
It is a very great film (documentary) about Istanbul and their people and it's music of every kind. Editing and the success of the director is very impressive. I've been interested with Faith Akin since I saw the 'Gegen die Wand' ('Head-On') ('Duvara Karsı') and I admired his work very much but this one has been the most touching one for me so I'm here writing this. It is not just about Turks or something like that, it is a very good biography of a city and how music stay alive in it we can say. There are views of many people and so very variant ideas about even life and love. I liked it very much and I thing anyone and everyone should see it, NOT ONLY but especially the ones anyhow related with Turkey... | 0 |
This is the type of late-night cable flick usually associated with Andrew Stevens or Shannon Tweed. Though unlike most of Tweed and Stevens' T&A fueled vehicles, this is lethally dull!<br /><br />Let's cut to the chase. The real reason for watching this non-thriller is to see Shannon Doherty's breasts. Anyone who states otherwise is a LIAR! However, most of her steamy sex scenes appear to be all smoke and mirrors.<br /><br />Notice that all the shots where her head and chest show at the same time are quick peek-a-boo flashes. The frames where the camera lingers on her nude body, there's little or no face attached or she's behind a dripping, wet shower door.<br /><br />All you boob-watchers out there know what that means - Body double!<br /><br />I must admit though, that the finale where Doherty is bound, blindfolded and menaced with a knife, provided a certain fetishistic thrill.<br /><br />If you find a VHS copy anywhere, buy it! As all involved are probably too embarrassed to ever let this come out on DVD! | 1 |
I really liked this movie...it was cute. I enjoyed it, but if you didn't, that is your fault. Emma Roberts played a good Nancy Drew, even though she isn't quite like the books. The old fashion outfits are weird when you see them in modern times, but she looks good on them. To me, the rich girls didn't have outfits that made them look rich. I mean, it looks like they got all the clothes -blindfolded- at a garage sale and just decided to put it on all together. All of the outfits were tacky, especially when they wore the penny loafers with their regular outfits. I do not want to make the movie look bad, because it definitely wasn't! Just go to the theater and watch it!!! You will enjoy it! | 0 |
Set in a post apocalyptic future, the new highlander is an effeminate little twerp named Quentin MacLeod, who is being mentored by a new Ramirez while his little sister tags along on their quest to thwart an evil immortal overlord. To do so, Quentin must absorb all the knowledge of other immortals before this overlord, Korton, does.<br /><br />In short, this is pure crap, much like the Highlander sequels. Quentin is a fairly stupid character, constantly whining and moaning and bitching in a 'woe is me for I am a reluctant hero' kind of way, and he never catches on to the fact that he's an immortal and can't be killed, at least not easily. Ramirez would have done better to ditch him and thwart Korton himself. | 1 |
I liked some of the characters, but our lead relied too heavily on a charming smile. I didn't care two whits about him. He makes bad choices and I really didn't care since he did not seem to either. He seemed rather unintelligent. There were a couple of moments that provided a chance at some human insight (the scene with the whale was interesting), but these are lost in the general malaise of the film. The love interest was acceptable and the other various characters were mildly interesting, but the plot meanders around too much and left me wanting at many points in the film. In the end, I wondered why I stayed so long.<br /><br />There are some tepidly humorous moments, but ultimately I did not care. I cannot fathom rating the film higher. - 3 of 10 | 1 |
Dumb is right: Tom and Jerry reach their goal of a non-stop air flight to Africa but then worry about mixing in with the natives. They put on 'blackface,' crash the plane, try to survive on an airplane wing floating in the ocean, and then survive the wild animals once they get on land<br /><br />Having read a few reviews before seeing this, I knew what to expect. It was simply these two guys doing their Amos and Andy/Stepin' Fetchit impressions. Offensive to blacks? Of course, but that's the 1930s for you. Some of their lines were funny, some were stupid. The main fault I had with this cartoon was the audio, as it was often not easy to understand what these two guys were saying.<br /><br />In all, a curiosity piece, but don't let the racism stop you from checking it out. At least it gives you an idea of how times have changed....for the better. | 1 |
SPOILERS Sex huh? It's one of the most basic parts of human life. Yet, do we ever take it too seriously? People always want more, even those who get it on a daily basis, and if you are unlucky, there are potential life changing (creating) consequences. Ironically people claim we are all starting to have sex at a younger and younger age (despite Victorians getting married and having children in their early teens), so it must be increasingly difficult for those who get to a point as virgins. In Steve Carell's first big screen lead, he plays a man who has gotten to 40 without managing it. Treating us to countless lude and extreme sex related incidents, not to mention more profanity than an episode of 'Eurotrash', the general plot of the film and it's principle doesn't sound funny. It's a pleasant surprise therefore that for all the inappropriate, failed jokes, there are an incredibly large number of ones which hit the mark and leave the audience in hysterics.<br /><br />Andy Stitzer (Carell) is a nice guy with a good job and a pleasant temperament. At the same time though, he blatantly takes life too seriously and after being invited to a poker game as a necessary fifth member, Andy's friends discover his secret. At the age of 40, Andy is still a virgin. Now, for multiple reasons, but mostly pity, the three men (Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen and Romany Malco) all offer Andy advice with one goal in mind. To put him out of his misery and get him laid.<br /><br />One of the few good things about 'Anchorman', it was only going to be a matter of time before Steve Carell got himself a lead of his own. Impressively, in 'The 40 Year Old Virgin' he doesn't disappoint. Showing the hopeless, shy virgin to perfection, Carell is a revelation as he gradually grows increasingly confident as the advice begins to help.<br /><br />Carell is not alone however in his performance. Rudd, Rogen, Malco and Catherine Keener as the love interest are all superb. Rudd is a personal favourite as the love sick David who falls apart at multiple times and shares the finest scene with Rogen as the two argue over homosexuality.<br /><br />The biggest surprise about this film is not the way that so many of the jokes hit the mark, but actually the clever way that it flips the message on it's head. Obviously designed for conservative America, the film's entire tone evolves from a simple story of sexual conquest into one of safe sex and abstinence. The virgin doesn't need sex to make his life complete, he just needs confidence and true love. A worthy message to preach, and a considerable improvement on the one you expect to see at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />It's weird to see a crude comedy which is consistently funny and well acted, but low and behold, '40 Year Old Virgin' is just that. Throw in a well meaning message too and you're well on the way to a top class comedy. A surprising joy. | 0 |
This film is pure Elvira and shows her at her breast... I mean best! The story (co-written by Cassandra Peterson, Elvira's alter ego) is inspiring and captivating and is brought to life by Elvira's wit and charm. The viewer gets an opportunity to see Elvira in a whole new light as she struggles with the prejudices of the people of Fallwell, Massachusetts (where she has travelled from Los Angeles in order to attend the reading of her Great Aunt Morganna's will) and at the same time tries to help the long-suffering teenagers who have been deprived of fun by the matriarchal Chastity Pariah and the rest of the town council. She also has to deal with her attraction to Bob Redding, the owner of the local cinema, and another woman (Patty) who has her eye on Bob as well but is not nearly as deserving of his love as Elvira. And, later in the movie, she also faces the complications of being descended from ''a major metaphysical celebrity'' and the charges of witchcraft brought against her which mean that she will be burnt at the stake. Elvira manages to be both sexy and vulnerable, streetwise and naive in this film, while cracking risque jokes and delivering off-beat lines with double meanings.<br /><br />This movie is inspiring because it gives out the message of never giving up on yourself and always trying to follow your dreams. In the end Elvira's dreams finally come true, which is the best thing that could happen to this wonderfully unique and determined woman.<br /><br />I've seen this movie countless times and I never ever get tired of it! There are no unnecessary scenes and I found myself captivated throughout the whole movie. A review will not do justice to the actual movie, so I can just tell you to PLEASE watch it because it is one of the best movies ever made! Meanwhile, I wish you ''unpleasant dreams!'' | 0 |
Running out of films to rent, I picked up Freebird. I struggled through the first third of the movie wondering if the rest would be a waste to see. Fortunately, it really warmed up, and I loved the movie quite a bit. The second half of the movie had me grinning and laughing the entire time. Thankfully, although there were bits of CGI included, they were not overdone or prevalent.<br /><br />I would have to say, though - the actors all have heavy European accents, so be warned if you have trouble understanding those voices or their cultural humor.<br /><br />I really loved this movie, and will have to order myself a copy for my own collection. | 0 |
When I first saw 'Race Against Fear' (don't you just love LMN movie titles?), I had to keep scratching my head. Was this meant to be serious? Why couldn't the main character even run like a normal person running, much less like a star runner? How did I know that the coach was evil only 1 minute into the film? All of these questions, and no answers. Then, I just let the inane script and the awful directing just carry me away...it was easier not to resist...then the film became funnier by the minute, and I now rank it among my top ten junk movies from LMN. Some have said here that Ariana Richards is really talented but that the material was flawed - I heartily disagree. Not only can she not convince me that she's an athlete, she's walks wide-eyed through the rest of the story, like she's just landed on earth. Maybe the coach broke out of prison and finished her off...at least I hope so. | 1 |
Rock 'n' Roll High School was one of the best movies ever made! I think the only reason it was so awesome was because of The Ramones! You couldn't have made the same movie and put something like the Sex Pistols, or The Clash in place of The Ramones, it just wouldn't have been the same. dey young, clint howard, Vincent Van Patten, Mary Woronov, Paul Bartel, and the hall monters, just added to the movie. The whole entire movie is about The Ramones...especially Joey! So everybody showed see Rock 'n' Roll High School if your a huge fan of real PUNK. Not the sissy new crap...but the loud, and fast kind. The kind only The Ramones could do. R.I.P (Rest In Peace) Joey Ramone 1951-2001. Dee Dee Ramone 1952-2002! | 0 |
I loved this movie it was a great portrayal of a family who had it's share of ups and down, but in the end they knew that special love they had for each other. I have seen many movies starring Jaclyn Smith, but my god this was one of her best, though it came out 12 years ago. This movie contained an all-star cast, and what I loved the most was that it opened my eyes to see other actors who I haven't seen before. This movie was kind of long in length, but I enjoyed every minute of it. It is a movie that you can sit down with your family and watch, though we would have to cover the kids eyes a few times due to the discretionary love scenes. Overall I rate this movie a 10 out of a 1-10 scale. Lifetime does not air it enough, so if anyone knows what store sells it let me know because this is a must-have. | 0 |
The movie is boring, the characters and scenarios are unrealistic, unbelievable, the action is hilarious. This movie is a big mess. It almost seems like when the action music kicks in, the most impressive stunt is running. Either voice is dubbed over with Mr. McGregor or steven sang too much and it changed his voice. There is way too much dialog in this movie, and extremely bad acting on everyones behalf. The movie is great sleep therapy. The fighting is laughable. The eye shape shift effect on the evil designer drug addict females was decent. The main villain was a joke and his character was poorly developed. The main villain was used to explain the story through interrogation, he would just throw random plots in such as (spoiler) 'CTX (his designer drug)is going to be in the water supply' which is never addressed in the conclusion or even mentioned again in the movie. This movie is highly recommended to pass. | 1 |
I really liked this movie. Number 5, the star robot of the movie gets hit by lightning and some thing happened to his circuits. He act and thinks more like a human.The robot repeats commercials he learns after watching TV. He then applies these sayings to his circumstances. Number 5 is quick witted and funny. The character imitates voices of stars, tries to dance like John Travolta in Staying Alive and a lot of other things. He has a saying for most of his circumstances that he memorized. The actions of the robots is really good. Number 5 wants to drive, cook and please Stefany with all the characteristics of a human. The way the robots move and line up is really hysterical.I am disappointed that the writers could not keep this clean for all viewers. This movie has a surpris ending something you would not expect. I hate movies that have swearing in them even though I like them I give them a lower rating. This movie had swearing words. Jesus Christ was used as swearing word which offends me it is used a least 3 times. G-d D-m, Bull sh_t etc. It could have been a wonderful movie with out all this offensive language. There is no sex in this film, some violence like robots blowing up cars and machines. | 1 |
Mr. Destiny - 3.5/5 Stars<br /><br />'Mr. Destiny's' theme is recycled from many films spanning many different years. Its theme ranges from recent spoofs on such plots (see 'Scrooged'), to the same, more serious and dramatic notion that worked in 'It's a Wonderful Life,' and a century earlier in the story of Scrooge as told by Charles Dickens in 'A Christmas Carol.' 'It involves an ungrateful man being taken on a guided tour of his life, and witnessing how his life could have been (or would have been) first-hand. <br /><br />In most of these types of movies the guardian angel rescues a man from ungratefulness and shows him his life in retrospect, or how it could have been. Should have been. Would have been. In this case we are shown a businessman named Larry (James Belushi). He hates his life. He lives with an unexciting wife (Linda Hamilton) and yearns for a bigger life with bigger meaning. If only he had hit the ball at the state championship in high school years ago. He is convinced his life would have been better. I guess he remembers this seemingly small moment of his life because it made a big impact on his subconscious side, but I doubt a grown man would yearn for one single act from high school. Still, it works in the movie.<br /><br />Anyway, Larry is driving home from work one night, where he is a penpusher along with Jon Lovitz, when his car breaks down. He wanders into a bar looking for a pay phone, and reluctantly decides to tell the bartender (Michael Caine) about the way his life is turning out. This is where we first see him remembering his childhood baseball strike-out.<br /><br />The bartender listens and nods, apparently not worrying about any other customers. This is probably due to the fact that the bar, though old and tattered, seems to have never been occupied by any living humans save these two men. In fact, Larry even makes a comment about never seeing the bar before. This is most likely for a certain reason that the audience is expecting before Larry. <br /><br />So the bartender, who may as well be an angel of God incarnate, just like Clarence, fixes Larry a special drink of his, which ends up putting Larry's life on reverse, showing him what his life would have been like if he had hit the home run all those years before. But Larry has no idea of any change at first, just like Jimmy Stewart didn't realize that Clarence had erased his life until he went into the bar and got kicked out Larry continues to be oblivious to any change until he goes to his home to find the lawn different outside, and a large, wrestler-type man occupying his home.<br /><br />Larry soon finds out his life would indeed have been very different had he hit the home run. Instead of marrying Linda Hamilton he married Rene Russo and moved into a large mansion with children. He finds out that Jon Lovitz is no longer his friend but an employee of his. And the most surprising fact of all is that with his new life, that Larry has always wanted...he finds himself lusting after his old wife, Linda Hamilton; proof that sometimes money and a great-looking yet shallow wife don't make up everything in a man's life, like an intelligent wife and love and true happiness. Just like 'It's a Wonderful Life' showed the audience a man's life is what he makes it, and that every person has an impact on people, 'Mr. Destiny' shows us that material wealth is not the same as spiritual wealth, a lesson taught us over and over again, but never quite so fluffy, forgettable and truly sweet as it is shown us in 'Mr. Destiny.'<br /><br />'Mr. Destiny' is never exceedingly hilarious, but it is a sweet, good-natured comedy that never takes itself too seriously. The problem with all the 'It's a Wonderful Life' retreads out there, like 'The Family Man,' is that they try to be as influential and memorable as 'It's a Wonderful Life' was. But there are only so many times you can single-handedly rip off a famous film, and 'Mr. Destiny' knows this, and plays right to the fact. It doesn't try to be anything it isn't; rather, it is something it didn't try to be, and this is obvious to the audience. <br /><br /> | 0 |
This is a profound and moving work about the creation of art, that which is uniquely human and cannot be produced by nature, the cost of genius and the search for transcendence and what in the end constitutes family, i.e, all of us. I was very much moved by the family discussion that Nathaniel had with his sisters about the shortcomings of their father as it was set in a beautiful home that seemed to radiate warmth that Lou had created. And although Esther seems so cold in her discussion about Lou's inability to make money you can appreciate how she at many points in his life must have been a counter-weight to his impulses. Nathaniel did a great job of showing how all of the people in Lou's life fit in and completed it and became as much a part of his work as his own genius. Yes even, or maybe especially, our failures make us who we are. And of course there are the buildings. I had only known Lou Kahn by name and did not really connect his name to his work, they are evidence of grace. Perhaps someday there will be a building where we will all fit, and it will certainly resemble a Lou Kahn building, perhaps the unbuilt temple in Jerusalem. Perhaps there is salvation | 0 |
A very courageous attempt to bring one of the most intricate books of literature to the screen. The story manages to get most of Conrad's basic messages across and the acting is superb. The liberties taken by the script often deepen the meaning and do seldom distort it. Compliments to writer and director. | 0 |
This film was hard to get a hold of, and when I eventually saw it the disappointment was overwhelming. I mean, this is one of the great stories of the twentieth century: an unknown man takes advantage of the unsuspecting airline industry and GETS AWAY with millions in ransom without hurting anyone or bungling the attempt. With all of this built-in interest, how could anyone make such a lackluster, talk-laden flick of this true-life event. While Williams is always interesting, the screenwriters assumed that the D.B. Cooper persona was stereotypically heroic like a movie star, s what we get is a type-without any engaging details or insights into the mind of a person daring enough and clever enough to have pulled it off. Harrold practically steals the movie with her spunk and pure beauty, but the real letdown was in the handling of the plot and the lame direction. Shame on this film for even existing. | 1 |
First off, this is the worst movie I've ever seen. That may make you want to see it, but it is not bad in a good way. It's boring, implausible, poorly shot, ridiculously scripted, and lacking in cool disaster effects.<br /><br />Worse, it is intensely patriotic without a trace of irony or fun, wallowing in a sense of Japanese uniqueness and victimhood. Everyone abandons the Japanese in their hour of need. Particularly the Koreans. The most noble characters choose seppaku -- going down with their ship as their beloved island sinks. 'Only Japanese would think this way,' says the prime minister.<br /><br />If this movie in any way reflects the Japanese opinion of their place in world opinion, the first thing they should do to rectify the problem is stop making movies like this. | 1 |
Albuquerque is a film that has all the elements of a class A western, except one: the story, that really belongs to a class B or C. That was acceptable at the time the film was made, when people were so thrilled to see a western in color, but nowadays it just looks very primitive. Nonetheless for people who enjoy old westerns, it is entertaining, the original color and sound are very well kept on the DVD that recently came out. Gabby Hayes is a good sidekick, Lon Chaney is mean as always, and Randolph Scott a bit more cheerful than usual. In a film named Albuquerque you would expect to see something that would remind you of the city, but the town that is shown here could be just anywhere. | 0 |
Whenever I hear a movie being touted because it has no sex, violence, bad language, special effects, and so on, my b.s. detector goes off. Usually, a movie like that is sentimental hogwash which panders to people who don't want anything to surprise them, but to affirm how superior they are to us craven folk. So when David Lynch's THE STRAIGHT STORY began getting those kinds of reviews, I was apprehensive, especially since I was not a fan of his other 'uplifting' story, THE ELEPHANT MAN. For all the stunning images and the good acting in that film, it seemed more interested in preaching to us than inspiring us.<br /><br />I needn't have worried. THE STRAIGHT STORY is an honest movie rather than a saccharine one. Most of that is due to the fact that Lynch and writers John Roach and Mary Sweeney tell it straight and simple for the most part. There are a couple of homilies by Straight I could have done without, and the shots of grain being harvested are repeated a little too much, but those are only quibbles. There's no heavy-handed message, no sentimental strings to jerk our emotions, and no condescension towards us and its characters. Instead, they depend on the story to build its own power, and it does, so by the final scene, we are genuinely moved.<br /><br />Of course, casting Richard Farnsworth adds realism to the part. He really is someone who looks like he's lived through a lot but still perseveres, and except for those homilies, the desire he has to get back together with his brother doesn't seem overly sentimental, because you can sense here is someone who's lived too long and seen too much to be driven by anger for long. And he knows his time is running out, so he wants to make some peace, not only with his brother, but with his life. Sissy Spacek also does fine, unmannered work as Straight's daughter. And although I am a city and suburban boy, the Iowa and Wisconsin landscape are beautifully shot, making me want at least to visit some day. | 0 |
Mysterious murders in a European village seem the result of THE VAMPIRE BAT horde plaguing the terrified community.<br /><br />This surprisingly effective little thriller was created by Majestic Pictures, one of Hollywood's Poverty Row studios. The sparse production values and rough editing actually add to its eerie atmosphere and lend it an almost expressionistic quality. Overall, it leaves the viewer the feeling of being caught up in a bad dream, which is appropriate for a thriller of this sort.<br /><br />Even though the eventual explanation for the hideous crimes is quite ludicrous and is not given proper plot development, the film can boast of a good cast. Grave Lionel Atwill gives another one of his typically fine performances, this time as a doctor doing scientific research in an old castle. Beautiful Fay Wray plays his assistant in a role which requires her to do little more than look lovely & alarmed. Dour Melvyn Douglas appears as the perplexed police inspector who also happens to be, conveniently, Miss Wray's boyfriend.<br /><br />Maude Eburne, who could be extremely funny given the right situation, steals most of her scenes as Miss Wray's hypochondriac aunt. Elderly Lionel Belmore plays the village's terrified burgermeister. And little Dwight Frye, who will always be remembered for his weird roles in the FRANKENSTEIN and Dracula films, here is most effective as a bat-loving lunatic. | 0 |
'Scary Movie 2' is a let down to the Scary Movie Franchise. Scary Movie 1, 3 and 4 were all good but this one was kind of boring and not very funny. Luckily they picked their act up after this one and made two more great Scary Movies.<br /><br />This film is about a group of teens who get tricked by their Professor into going to a haunted mansion for a night. Things start to go wrong and then they realize they have to escape.<br /><br />This movie isn't horrible but they could have improved quite a few things. It is a bit of fun and if you liked the other movies in the Scary Movie franchise then give this a watch - but I don't think you will like it nearly as much. | 1 |
After high school Track & Field athelete, Laura Remstead, dies of natural causes during a race (an event that is shown multiple times, in slow-motion none-the-less), an unknown killer is murdering all the people who were on that same aforementioned team close to Graduation Day (hence the name)in this laughably inept slasher flick.It brings absolutely nothing new (or even good) to the slasher table, instead opting to merely unleash the most god-awful song I've heard in quite some time with ' Gangster Rock' being played in a roller-disco party that went on far too long.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Denise Cheshire & Linnea Quigley get topless <br /><br />My Grade: D- | 1 |
I see absolutely nothing funny---even remotely funny---in this stupid movie. An unrealistic, silly, ridiculous idea--just completely ridiculous. Hard to believe that the main character, who seems so articulate, intelligent and imaginative, would not be accepted to any college. Even more difficult to believe is that no one shut the place down. The actors portrayed characters straight out of Characterville. We have seen their lot many a time over in many films. Nothing new here. I found it on late night TV, and since there was really nothing else on, I watched the whole boring, stupid film. What a total waste. Maybe if you are a teenager, you may find it amusing. Films are made for an immature mind, so teens, go for it. The rest, no way. | 1 |
I don't know why some people criticise that show so much.<br /><br />It is a great, funny show - probably not the right material for mainstream prime-time, but still...<br /><br />The family dynamics are funny, and all in all the same you see in most comedy shows. The supporting characters are absolutely hilarious. The plots of the individual episodes and the frequent Siegfried & Roy jibes are only just above average, but ever so often you have sub-plots or one-liners that make you roll on the floor laughing.<br /><br />This show was well worth the 8 Pounds I paid for it.<br /><br />rating: 8/10 | 0 |
This first two seasons of this comedy series were very strange and they weren't very funny and had a drama element where Bill (the mother) was struggling with all the usual problems in life but that element was a bit depressing and didn't mix well with th comedy elements which is probably why it was dropped. After that it soon became one of the funniest comedy series the BBC have ever made! The chemistry between Bill and Ben's character's were very funny and there was always so many brilliant and memorable sketches in each series. The Christmas specials were hilarious and a real treat for Christmas. <br /><br />The show came to a stop when the main actor Gary Olsen playing Bill passed away which was very sad because he was a brilliant actor in films such as Up 'n' Under and a very funny man RIP<br /><br />This underrated show has sadly disappeared from our television screens and doesn't to be repeated that often - Though it does appear on UKTV Gold once in a while but it should be repeated on BBC one or two to show this brilliant Comedy to a new audience | 0 |
Okay like most Steven Seagal fans I know I not going expect a masterpiece every time he makes a film but I do expect the film to at least have some sorter budget. The main problem with the copy I watched was the terrible over dubbing I know that in some films this has to be done and I accept that but when they overdub with a totally different actors voice and keep doing this thru out the film it does take the magic of overdubbing away. Also the sets seem to be built with no care as in one scene the sliding glass top in a top secret lab has a massive crack going thru it. I was truly disappointed with this film and only hope Stevens next project will be more finished off before sending the film out for buying/renting. The story of this film had me wondering if I was watching a sci-fi film or not some parts seemed alien like but they never fully explained what was going on I found it very confusing. | 1 |
BRIEF ENCOUNTER is a ghastly and pointless remake of the 1945 David Lean classic, which was based on Noel Coward's play 'Still Life'. A doctor removes a particle of grit from a woman's eye at a railway station, he is in a miserable relationship, she is happily married social worker of Italian ancestry. They meet by accident on another occasion, form an instant attraction and arrange to meet each other every Wednesday. The pair fall in love, but after spending a few afternoons together they realise that they have no realistic chance of happiness and agree to part. Coward's original one-act play concerned two ordinary people who fall in love. Sophia Loren and Richard Burton, two Super Stars and veterans of Hollywood Epics, are nobody's idea of 'ordinary people'. Loren in particular is miscast - Sophia Loren in full make-up, looking like a million dollars, working as a part-time voluntary social worker at a Citizen Advice Bureau just doesn't ring true. Burton, looking haggard, with dyed hair, too much make-up and wearing platform shoes, doesn't come across as your average General Practitioner. That said, you can't really blame them for having an affair after seeing their spouses. Burton is married to a literary critic who spends her evenings penning poisonous reviews and who treats her husband with total contempt. Loren's husband, Jack Hedley, potters around the house all day and is terminally boring: the most exciting thing he has ever done is nearly have an affair six years previous. Their final scene together will induce nausea, ('You've been a long, long way away', etc.). That great British jobbing actor, John LeMesurier, has a three minute cameo as Burton's friend, and appears to be slightly inebriated, speaking his lines in a barely audible voice. It's a sad and forgettable performance in a dismal, awful rehash of a cinema classic. Avoid at all costs. | 1 |
What an uninteresting hodge-podge. It could have been something more but no imagination seems to have gone into the script or the direction. A man is framed for murder by his wife and her lover. The conspirators do a pretty thorough job of making him look guilty. But the man (Richard Thomas), whose psychiatric records reveal him as 'stable' and 'unimaginative', manages to escape from jail, beat it to the conspirator's beach house, and secretly record a conversation between them in which they reveal their guilt. Then he accidentally drops the tape recorder with all the evidence on it into the sea water but manages to retrieve it. He shows a heck of a lot of creativity and improvisational skill for an unimaginative guy, if you ask me.<br /><br />The tape is now damaged goods but it's enough to break down the wife's lover and he sobs out his confession. Bad people are punished. Good people are saved.<br /><br />The location shooting is impressive. The beach house is nothing more than a wooden exterior thrown up on the grounds of Fort Fisher Battlefield on the Cape Fear peninsula. The house was torn down immediately after the production wrapped.<br /><br />It's a pretty place. Unfortunately it's a little hard to see because someone seems to have shot every scene through a pair of pantyhose stretched over the camera lens. It's all very fuzzy. And for all the natural splendor of the location the viewer never gets a real sense of place, of what the sand feels like, of the texture of the gray bark on the stunted evergreens.<br /><br />The acting is okay but the performers have nothing much to work with. The best performance, as is often the case, is given by Dick Olsen as a sleazy but not unsympathetic defense lawyer. Virginia Madsen radiates infidelity with every beat of her eyelashes. Ted McGinley is within his range as an immoral weakling.<br /><br />The musical score neatly blends the ominous with the mysterious and is effective. If you want to hear the original, from which this was ripped off, rent Hitchcock's 'Vertigo' and listen to Bernard Hermann's suspenseful theme.<br /><br />I can't think of any particular reason to catch this one except utter boredom. | 1 |
As a sci-fi and casual Angelina Jolie fan, I thought this obviously low-budget movie might be worth a look... maybe it had a few scenes or a storyline that would make up for all its other faults. Plus, it might be interesting to watch Angelina as she was embarking on her star-bound career.<br /><br />Oh how wrong I was. One thing I learned -- at 18, Angelina Jolie couldn't act. So, to make her comfortable, the producers cast this entire movie with people who couldn't act. Seeing this, Jack Palance (who can actually act) decided to overact. Watching 10 minutes of this happen is enough to burn your eyes out.<br /><br />To the horrible acting and overacting add a nonsensical script, insipid dialog, bottom-of-the-barrel cinematography... in fact add bottom-of-the-barrel everything.<br /><br />The story features Angelina as a cyborg programmed by her corporate overlords as an assassin. She escapes the corporate HQ with the help of her combat instructor. The corporation sends bounty hunters after them. Stupid stuff happens. The end. I would tell you more but I didn't want to waste my life watching this dreck.<br /><br />I implore you -- this is not worth watching. Its not even worth thinking about watching. Save yourself the pain and move on. | 1 |
Well I must say this is probably the worst film I have seen this year! The jokes were extremely crude (wasn't expecting it from as PG movie)(Rated PG in Canada) and they weren't funny! With this great cast I at least expected some good acting but I didn't even get that. I am a huge Rainn Wilson fan and this is the first time I was extremely disappointed by his performance. Neither Luke Wilosn or Uma Thurman's characters are the least bit likable and i really could have cared less what happened to either of them. I didn't expect this at all as in the past I have really liked other movies by this director (Six Days, Seven Nights for example) This movie was NOT worth the $10 it cost me and i strongly encourage you not to see this movie. I guarantee that you will be like me begging for this movie to be over. | 1 |
This has to be the cheapest film made in 21st century. It is all the way low quality, but at the end it falls below... everything. All the cheap tricks - like flashing and darkness - are used to hide those crappy computer effects.<br /><br />All the actors are below average, especially the main character Anne Fletcher (Simmone Mackinnon). There is a scene, where Anne is asked: 'Why you seem so careless?' The correct answer is, because she can't act. No matter what happens (the world is about to be destroyed, her friend is dying, she is fired), she has the same stupid grin in her face.<br /><br />It is not only the movie, which is B -quality. It is also the back cover description (at least in Finland). The text mentions things like Lorica Gray -vessel, Capital -vessel and main character Garrison Harper and Anna (not Anne) Fletcher. The description sounds like a different movie, both featuring character called Fletcher and sea monsters | 1 |
One of the commentators on the subject of Lil' Pimp (dbborroughs of Glen Cove), got it right when he/she stated that the movie is really bad but I take exception when he/she commented on the animation.<br /><br />The animation wasn't bad because of Macromedia Flash. It was bad animation because it was directed wrong. Flash is just a tool. In the right hands, an artist can create animation as full and fluid as any Disney film and, in the wrong hands, it can look as bad as the stuff on the internet, which is where Lil' Pimp originated and should've stayed there.<br /><br />Studios such as Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney, and Warner Bros., create wonderful animation using Flash (i.e., Puffy Ami Yumi, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Mucha Lucha, etc.).<br /><br />Lil' Pimp was an ill conceived piece of tripe that was made because Revolution Studios bought Media Tripp and Lil' Pimp was one of the properties included. Roth and company thought they'd make a quick buck exploiting a turd like Lil' Pimp and the sham was perpetuated by it's producer, Amy Pell. The reason for this third trimester abortion of an animated film is that none of the executives at Revolution Studios had the pragmatic brains to sideline Mark Brooks and Peter Gilstrap (they really tried their best but were way in over their heads), and hire real writers, directors and at least a semi-competent producer. They did one thing correctly though, they hired some of the best storyboarders, designers, and animators in LA, but as Lil' Pimp demonstrates, one can buy the best sports car on the floor but if you're a moron, you'll wreck it for sure. | 1 |
I noted that the official IMDb review refers to Leland as a sociopath. I believe that this diagnosis is manifestly and profoundly incorrect.<br /><br />This is a movie about sadness, and about the ability of one particular teenage boy to see sadness in daily life, as it lies in wait around every corner, in advance of the unfolding of the lives that it impacts. A sociopath is a person who cannot empathize with others, and who, while understanding the difference between right and wrong, does not care about this difference. A sociopath is a subject who places himself or herself at the center of that subject's universe, with total disregard for the impact that the subject's actions have for those around him or her. One of the defining characteristics of a sociopath is that a true sociopath lacks the ability to feel empathy -- lacks the ability to feel that which others feel, and does not correlate changes in the moods of others as the result of that sociopath's actions with those actions. A sociopath CANNOT feel the pain of others, or understand that the pain of others is the result of the sociopath's own actions. A sociopath is a person who is not completely formed. A vital chunk is missing from the psychological and emotional makeup of a true sociopath, rendering the sociopath immune to 'talking therapy' and other treatment modalities that involve human interaction and the exploration of personal feelings. Sociopathy is devastating, even when the subject is treated and placed in a highly structured environment aimed at containing the damage that the sociopath can do to others. Many sociopaths function more or less normally and never raise a blip on the radar of the criminal justice system, although they tend to leave a trail of emotional debris in their wakes.<br /><br />Leland Fitzgerald is no sociopath. He is a person who is blessed (or cursed) with the ability to foresee what he considers to be the inevitable consequences and outcomes of human interactions. Leland literally sees sadness written into the eyes and faces of people around him, as he slowly assimilates and internalizes the philosophy that life is about loss, and that people slowly succumb to the inevitable and inexorable fact that, for want of a better metaphor, things fall apart. People who fall in love and who kiss and cuddle today turn into 'pathetic' elderly couples. The electricity in the eyes of Leland's 'mother' (a wealthy New York socialite who loves Leland and who invites him into the home that she shares with her family when he arrives in New York City, alone and determined to remain in the city at the age of 12) fades as she explains to him, on the last of his visits to New York City, that she learned that her husband had been cheating on her all the time, that she got a divorce, that having one's heart broken happens to everybody, and that such loss is an inevitable part of growing up. Her eyes still reflect light, but the electricity that once illuminated them is gone. This scene -- this explanation, late is it is in coming -- is crucial to understanding why Leland commits a seemingly savage, senseless crime (killing the retarded younger brother of his ex-girlfriend). Leland knows what lies ahead for this little boy -- a lifetime of unattainable goals, of being taught only words that signify danger, of never knowing the love of another human being, of never feeling such love, and of never connecting with another person. More than any other character in this movie, this little boy personifies everything that Leland sees as being inevitable and horrifying about the world. Leland's act -- killing this little boy -- is, for Leland, an act of mercy, committed because this was the one thing that he COULD do in a world in which actions cannot change outcomes. Whereas a true sociopath knows that actions can and do change outcomes but does not care about the harm inflicted on others by those actions, Leland does care. What most people view as a barbaric and horrifying act is, in Leland's eyes, the only decent thing that he can do to alleviate the suffering of just one person.<br /><br />It would be comforting to be able to present this as an explanation of Leland's actions -- comforting, but incomplete. For in the end, 'blame' for Leland's actions lies elsewhere. As is so often the case, there are no easy explanations and no balm to apply to the outraged soul. Why did Leland not learn something that even the most pessimistic people usually acknowledge -- that sometimes -- just sometimes -- people DO remain in love, and that relationships DO succeed, and that even the saddest lives ARE transformed? For Leland, there is no middle ground, no inner core to which he can retreat and regroup. There is only pain and sadness. One is tempted to blame his arrogant and thoroughly unpleasant father -- the brilliant writer (played by Kevin Spacey) -- for not being there at critical times during Leland's development, but given this man's thuggish nastiness, that may have been a blessing.<br /><br />In the end, this viewer was moved by a tremendous sense of sadness. Why was Leland doomed to view the world through a veil of pessimism and depression? There is a maturity to Leland's character -- present, for example, when he repeatedly insists that nobody was to blame for his girlfriend breaking up with him -- that is both stoic and heartbreaking. Stoic, in that it is absolutely genuine, notwithstanding the heated denunciations of Leland's teacher. But heartbreaking, in that it is born not so much of understanding as of despair. Leland's indifference to his fate is merely a reflection of the utter certainty of his belief that nothing really matters. Nothing that he does can change his fate.<br /><br />This is not sociopathy on display. This is, if anything, its polar opposite...... | 0 |
New York attorney plots to rid himself of his senile mother after meeting an attractive, available woman. Screenwriter Robert Klane, adapting his own novel (the kind of paperback kids would buy for the dirty parts), doesn't seem to have any knowledge of mental illness: to him, it's just an excuse for prurient comedy and scatological jokes. George Segal--who, in the 1960s, starred mostly in war and espionage pictures--had become, by this time, one of America's greatest sad-sack comedians; his nutty reactions and batty responses rival only his mother's inscrutabilities. Segal is paired well with Trish Van Devere, and their moments of connection (though also played for laughs) are really the only sequences one can gravitate towards. Ruth Gordon, lovable as is she, is simply around too much--and more of her amounts to less. This is one of the worst directed and edited films I have ever seen from so-called professionals. Promising scenes which ultimately don't play out for the full effect are haphazardly disconnected from other moments which flail around endlessly, causing the crass, rickety movie to self-destruct long before it's actually over. *1/2 from **** | 1 |
This well conceived and carefully researched documentary outlines the appalling case of the Chagos Islanders, who, it shows, between 1969 and 1971, were forcibly deported en masse from their homeland through the collusion of the British and American governments. Anglo-American policy makers chose to so act due to their perception that the islands would be strategically vital bases for controlling the Indian Ocean through the projection of aerial and naval power. At a time during the Cold War when most newly independent post-colonial states were moving away from the Western orbit, it seems British and American officials rather felt that allowing the islanders to decide the fate of the islands was not a viable option. Instead they chose to effect the wholesale forcible removal of the native population. The film shows that no provision was made for the islanders at the point of their ejection, and that from the dockside in Mauritius where they were left, the displaced Chagossian community fell into three decades of privation, and in these new circumstances, beset by homesickness, they suffered substantially accelerated rates of death.<br /><br />Following the passage of more than three decades, however, in recent months (and years), following the release of many utterly damning papers from Britain's Public Record Office (one rather suspects that there was some mistake, and these papers were not supposed to have ever been made public), resultant legal appeals by the Chagossian community in exile have seen British courts consistently find in favour of the islanders and against the British State. As such, the astonishing and troubling conclusions drawn out in the film can only reasonably be seen as proved. Nevertheless, the governments of Great Britain and the United States have thus far made no commitment to return the islands to what the courts have definitively concluded are the rightful inhabitants. This is a very worthwhile film for anyone to see, but it is an important one for Britons and Americans to watch. To be silent in the face of these facts is to be complicit in a thoroughly ugly crime. | 0 |
I saw this movie literally directly after finishing the book, and maybe that was a neutral idea or a very stupid one. I think it was the latter. First of all, it was inaccurate in many small, yet important details. One of the first things I noticed was, during Winston's day to day life in his work, his conversations, eating in the cafeteria, etc. he feels free to look unhappy and make suggestive glances at people without immense fear. One of the most important parts of the book, was that even in small activities it was virtually impossible to safely show even a hint of his true emotions on his face AT ANY MOMENT. This is also shown in the scenes on the streets of the proletarions. In the book Winston knew that this was a huge risk to wander around there and was skeptical and frightened at every trip. While in the movie, he does it so often and without fear, that you lose the important feeling of heavy surveillance and risk right off the bat.<br /><br />Other minor inaccuracies included Winston hiding his diary in the wall, yes a very small change, but it begs the question, what's the point? There was also the most annoying thing a director can do with a book, and that is morphing characters.<br /><br /> The large inaccuracies were far more disturbing, however. First of all, one of the important pieces of the book is that Big Brother is a government based on an intelligent, yet crude philosophy. In the movie, they skip that and go straight to making you think that the government is run by Hitler with technology. Which is true, in a sense, when directed with its facism, but if that's all you get out of Big Brother, you really missed the point of the book. The terrifying thing about Big Brother is that, in a way, it has some points behind its philosophy. When O'Brien is picking at Winstons mind in the Ministry of Love, he is LISTENING to everything Winston says against Big Brother. The fact that he listens, and advances forward in his philosophy, is in effect what is most creepy and intriguing. In the end, (careful SPOILER ahead) when Winston says he loves Big Brother, the terrifying thing is that you are not sure whether it was souly the beating and torture that caused this, or the actual power behind the philosophy. I am in no way saying that the Big Brother's philosophy has points that appeal to me, but its intelligence and depth is what makes this book incredibly disturbing.<br /><br /> Also, how could anyone feel any connection between Julia and Winston in the film? It was awful, no connection whatsoever.<br /><br /> And where was O'Brien before he gave Winston his address? One of the things that carried the book was Winstons thoughts about O'Brien BEFORE he made contact with him. In the movie, they just jump the gun.<br /><br /> But that about sums up why this movie was a terrible adaption: because its impossible NOT to jump the gun and morph characters in less than two hours. How could anyone think this movie was watchable if it was under two hours? At the very least, the movie demands 3 hours to be able to capture some of the important moods and connections. Anything less is just pointless.<br /><br />If you loved the book, and I mean TRULY adored it, you will not approve of this movie, and chances are, you already knew you wouldn't. Because the book is unfilmable, and this movie just proves how impossible it is cram something decent into a small reel of film.<br /><br />Two stars out of ten | 1 |
This would've been a sure fire classic had they chosen ALMOST ANYBODY ELSE for John Abraham. This guy is an awful actor. Be it comedy, drama, tear-jerkers etc. He stinks. It seemed like at some point Priyadarshan realized this too, and pretty much had him jumping around like a monkey in order to make his solo-scenes a bit funny.<br /><br />He's the only noticeable drawback(there are a couple more annoying tid-bits) of an ABSOLUTELY hilarious movie otherwise. Best comedy to come along in Bollywood since Hungama, IMO. Like Hungama, it's a situational comedy carried on the shoulders of a brilliant screenplay and of course,Akshay Kumar. This is probably his best performance to date. He better be a shoe-in for best comedian at every award function. AK's always been good at comedy, but he takes it to a different level here. The body language, the facial expressions and just the way he delivers every line. It's a genius performance. The packed theater was going nuts for pretty much the entire length of the movie and I don't think I've ever seen such an atmosphere for a Bollywood movie here in USA.<br /><br />Garam Masala doesn't have one 'lead' heroine. It stars 3 incredibly HOT+Beautiful girls who I thought did a fairly good job. Pretty sure they are all making their debuts. Paresh Rawal is solid as usual, although his routine wears itself out after a while. Rajpal Yadav is his typical annoying self(sick of his over-the-top act in every movie). Rimi Sen has nothing to do.<br /><br />Overall, definitely worth a dekho. I'd say it's FUNNIER than No Entry, and that's saying a lot. Could've been even better had they chosen someone a little more competent than John Abraham.<br /><br />8/10 | 0 |
A young woman (Jean Simmons) is convinced by her scheming and dangerous aunt (Sonia Dresdel) and uncle (Barry Jones) that she's losing her mind and in very delicate condition that requires their supervision which turns out to be more like manipulation, as they try to keep her as far away from outside human contact as possible. The only other person she sees is the estate caretaker, a lascivious character played by Maxwell Reed, whose caught the wayward eye of the middle-aged aunt. All of this, the aunt and the caretaker, the butterfly expert uncle who has a serious underside to him, and the susceptible niece in the middle, would have made for a darker and more sinister film. As it is, a frame-up for a murder sends Trevor Howard (a fired government secret service agent who took a job at the estate cataloging butterflies) and Simmons across the countryside escaping police, catching headlines of 'Police Net Closing In' over her front page photo, hopping on buses, and winding up in Liverpool, where they meet some wonderfully cast characters, and finally face down the greedy and murderous aunt and uncle. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.