review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
I think that Toy Soldiers is an excellent movie. It's one of the only movies that, aside from some well known actors, has an unknown cast that can actually act. In my opinion, the plot is captivating. It keeps your attention without having an outrageous story that couldn't possibly happen in real life. I think that everyone would enjoy this movie. Sean Astin always seems to pick the perfect movies to be in that showcase his talent. He's very underrated and doesn't get the recognition that he deserves. Other movies that he has been in other actors have been in the spotlight but this movie and Rudy really showcase him because he is the main character in both. I hope that he someday gets the accolades he deserves for his acting. If you want to see a great movie you need to check this one out and if you are a Sean Astin fan you will definitely like this movie. | 0 |
When I heard about 'Hammerhead' being released on DVD and finally found it at my local DVD store, I thought 'well, just another cheap monster movie from Nu Image'. Those guys around Boaz Davidson and Avi Lerner produced cheap but very entertaining B - Pictures in the past few months but also some very disappointing movies. So I didn't expect much, especially after having watched the rather disappointing 'Shark Zone' just a few days before. But 'Hammerhead' turned out to be an excellent revival of the 1950s monster movies. We have a mad scientist, a group of people in a dangerous situation, screaming women and damsels in distress, man-eating plants and of course we have the creature, a huge mutant mix between a man and a hammerhead shark. Everything you need for an entertaining monster movie. The only thing missing are graphic sex scenes and nudity which you expect in movies of this kind, but since the movie was made for TV it's understandable why these scenes are missing. And it doesn't matter anyway cause 'Hammerhead' is action and horror entertainment at it's best. There are two reasons why I gave it seven out of ten points, though: First of all, the monster isn't seen very often and the showdown with the destruction of the creature is too fast and poorly done, and secondly, William Forsythe just isn't the right guy for the 'hero' part and for falling in love with gorgeous Hunter Tylo. Other than that, I can highly recommend this movie for any monster movie fan out there. Grab yourselves a cool drink and some popcorn, watch this movie and have fun. Jasper P. Morgan | 0 |
I sat through this turkey because I hadn't seen it before, and because the premise sounded like it had potential. It was mildly entertaining until the hurricane sequence. At the height of the storm, the wind is strong enough to blow windows out of the house, yet the trees in the background are perfectly upright and not a leaf is moving! In fact, when the characters move outside the house, bright sunlight is visible illuminating the treetops. At that point, whatever credence the filmmakers had developed evaporated faster than the highly localized rain in their film. Too bad all hurricanes aren't like this one, it would surely help our homeowners insurance rates here in the Sunshine State. | 1 |
Hmmmmmmm - cheerleader massacre. Let me think - high school girls get sliced up, except the cute one survives. Got it. Next movie.<br /><br />I was actually surprised this one was made in 2003. I really thought they quit making these movies in the 80's. This was truly your run of the mill slasher movie with teenage eye candy, dumb male horn dogs, even dumber male adult, and hot teacher. It continues on the list of dark and stormy night and abandoned cabin in the woods. We have seen it all before.<br /><br />However this one had a few interesting plot twists that places it above the normal me-too slashers, so if you have got a few brain cells to fry and 2 hours to kill - you could do worse. | 1 |
Jealous husband holds car dealership hostage while Williams burdens the viewer with his worn out Mork shtick at every turn. Yawn.<br /><br />Pay channel grist. An uncommonly bad script coupled with a less than convincing Robin Williams as a slick talking, philandering Queens car salesman caught up in a hostage workplace crisis. The laughs aren't there, the message(s) or morals are just all wrong, and the film cant ever decide on whether its a comedy or drama. Pretty good cast all acting pretty badly. When a movie ages so badly so quickly, you got yourself a stinker. Not much else to be said other than maybe, avoid at all costs. Textbook mediocre movies like this are actually more tedious, and less enjoyable than the over the top bombs. | 1 |
I turned this off within the first five minutes. It's very sick and disturbing, the moment I turned this off was when the beautiful white horse was let into the slaughterhouse and it's skull was punctured by a small tubed instrument. This creature was lying on the floor in a state of shock before it died. The narrator said the animal dies instantaneously, it didn't. I don't agree with graphic realism towards animals, insects or any living creature. I was very disappointed as I had just watched 'Eyes Without a face' which was a brilliant movie and this short film was attached, which spoilt my night - as I couldn't hurt a fly, never mind watching this savage documentary.<br /><br />reading other reviews on this page, I had noticed they used words such as aesthetic - this is not art or beauty. I can imagine that the documentary would be very articulate and profound but not aesthetic. | 1 |
I really disliked this movie....mainly because of the main characters! They are both immature, selfish, and self-centered people. They hurt EVERYBODY around them playing their silly game. The visual effects were good but what good are they if there are no characters that you connect with or a story line that is interesting. Am I supposed to be happy when these two psycho people FINALLY consummate their love for each other? <br /><br />After watching this movie I was thinking 'This is supposed be the #1 smash from France?'........<br /><br />*spoiler* <br /><br />As for the end: GOOD RIDDANCE! They both deserve each other! <br /><br /> | 1 |
What can I say about this movie, it really is one of the worst gay themed movies, ever to come out of the UK. I can only imagine the likes of Diana Quick and Georgina Hale, needed the money. What story there is, is such a rambling mess that you loose interest pretty quickly. It's supposed to be based on real life events. Well, all I can say to that one, is that it's an insult to the real life characters. The DVD is out at the moment in the UK. It's available in either the split screen format, which must make it even worse that the full screen version I watch. Gay cinema can be so much better than this, and we deserve more. | 1 |
Yep, Edward G. gives us a retro view of the criminal defense world. First he's an overzealous prosecutor who sends the wrong man to the chair (played passionately, albeit briefly by DeForrest Kelly), then he's so filled with remorse his only solace is the bottle. Throw in a jaded romance, a genuinely rapid descent into penury and no qualms about who he defends, and next thing you know -- Shazam! Black Leg Lawyer (god I love that phrase). He sees the light just in time to save his jaded beloved from the chair. Yawn.<br /><br />But really, the courtroom action is pure melodrama. See him punch out a witness, see him drink poison, see him argue passionately as he clutches a bullet hole in his breast. Be prepared for melodrama.<br /><br />The hoot of the film though, is Jayne Russell. With curves defying the laws of gravity and an IQ approached absolute zero, she is something to see. Even sings a bit. | 1 |
i can't believe people are giving bad reviews about this movie! i wonder why......maybe because of the book..... i have to admit, it really doesn't follow the book... for sure...the book by dean koontz is much better... but the movie is also good as well!!! it has the suspense...the acting are good... especially michael ironside, whom have given a superb acting in this movie!!!<br /><br />come one guyz...give this movie a chance...there are still lot more worse movie than this....like sum of all fears...phantoms...the da vinci code...this are some of the worse movie i have seen...really boring if compared to watchers which really have great elements in the movie...this movie contains great suspense and non stop action!!! i'm looking for this movie...but it is really hard to be found on DVD...<br /><br />by da way...i really recommended this movie to everybody... watch it!!!! you will never regret !!!<br /><br />10/10* | 0 |
****SPOILERS**** Buried under a mountain of medical bills and his funeral business not being able to dig him out from under them undertaker Vito Lucia, Tony Lo Bianco, came up with a plan to make a load of cash with the help of his two crooked pals Moon & Bo, Richard Lynch & Bill Hickman. <br /><br />Vito getting close with his boyhood friend Buddy Manucci, Roy Scheider, as a mob informer to win over Buddy's trust and have him tell Vito what's coming down on the streets of New York in regard to mob activities. Buddy is a cop who works in a sub rosa unite of the NYPD, the Seven Ups, that does things 'their way' to clean up the streets of New York of criminals. <br /><br />Vito gets information from Buddy and makes it look to Buddy that he's really giving him tips about the mob and what it's up too and uses that information to tip off his hoodlum associates, Moon & Bo, to rip the mobsters off of their weekly take as well as kidnap top mob loan sharks and hold them for ransom.<br /><br />Everything is going well for Vito & Co. until the mob decides to retaliate and mistakenly grabs beats and kidnaps a member of the Seven Ups Ansel, Ken Kercheval,who was working undercover thinking he was one of the hoods who was kidnapping and ripping them off. Later Ansel was accidentally killed by Moon when he blasted out the trunk of the car that Ansel was locked in thinking that there was a suitcase full or cash, ransom, in it.<br /><br />Fast pace and exciting movie with that gritty and grimy photography of New York City that was so effective in the movie 'The French Connection' which also stars both Roy Scheider & Tony Lo Bianco who are in this movie too. Incredible car chase that started in downtown Brooklyn and ended up in the wilds of New Jersey some 15 to 20 miles away with Buddy almost ending up decapitated for his heroic efforts. <br /><br />Roy Scheider who is not a big man is as tough and effective as any big action actor I can think off like Clint Eastwood would have been in the same movie. Scheider reminds me a lot of, he even looks a bit like him, former welterweight and middleweight champion Gene Fullmer who beat the great Sugar Ray Robinson for the middleweight championship back in 1957 and acts like him too in the movie : tough durable and destructive. <br /><br />Tony Lo Bianco is very good as Vito the undertaker the lowlife heel who plays off Buddy and the mob to the point that leads to Buddy's partner Ansel getting killed. Even though he's trash you can't in a way not help feeling sorry for Vito since he only wants the money he gets from the ripped offed mobsters to pay his sick wife's Rose's hospital and medical bills. Even the fact that Ansel was killed due to his actions Vito never wanted anybody to get hurt but like they say when you play with fire you end up getting burned. In the end Vito have a lot of explaining to do to the not so sympathetic and caring mobsters. <br /><br />The movie 'The Seven Ups' has the late Bill Hickman doing the dangerous stunts with the car chases as well as act in the film. Hickman was also the stunt man in both great movies that had him doing the driving on the roads streets and highways of New York City and San Francisco 'The French Connection' and 'Bullitt'. | 0 |
This is one of Barbara Stanwyck's earlier films and it sure does have an unconventional theme. She's making money by dancing with men at a dance hall. She really doesn't like the work, but it's a living. Her boyfriend seems like a pretty nice guy, but she's also pursued by rich guy Ricardo Cortez. Well, after marrying, it turns out her 'nice guy' is a thieving, womanizing weasel and rich Cortez turns out to be a heck of a guy. By the end of the film, Barbara simply has had enough, as any SANE woman would walk from this horrid marriage.<br /><br />In the 1920s and early 30s, Hollywood did pretty much anything it wanted and some of their films had themes or scenes that would surprise many today--such as nudity, adultery and bad language. While TEN CENTS A DANCE isn't a blatant example of this morality, it does have a theme that never would have been allowed after the toughened Production Code was created and enforced starting in 1934. In some ways the Code was great--after all, parents didn't need to worry about what their kids saw in films (such as nudity in BEN HUR, 1925). However, it also tended to sanitize some of the movies far too much--and there is no way this particular film could have been made and approved because it tends to glorify divorce--a serious no-no 1934 and thereafter. This is really a shame, as I don't think TEN CENTS A DANCE was bad at all to discuss this--especially since the star (Barbara Stanwyck) was married to a philandering thief. Even so, allowing the film to end with her divorcing him and marrying a man who himself was twice divorced just couldn't have been.<br /><br />Overall, the film is interesting and thought-provoking. Plus, it was well-paced and suited its relatively short run time. Give this one a look.<br /><br />FYI--Sadly, Ricardo Cortez was actually NOT Hispanic but changed his name because of possible prejudice because he was Jewish. He was an excellent leading man of his time, but today is all but forgotten. | 0 |
This is a re-imagining of Tarzan in the era of the Soloflex and Apocalypse Now. There's nothing inherently wrong with using films eased moral constraints to portray an erotic side to the Tarzan legend. There's nothing inherently wrong with the premise that Tarzan doesn't speak. There's plenty wrong with suggesting a woman who could get herself to an African jungle in 1910, could be this offensively stupid and plastic. Bo has as few lines as possible when bodies are explored because this movie is merely a video-centerfold, as neutral as possible so that you can project yourself and your lecherous fantasies into the project. If it succeeds anywhere it's in the implication that National Geographic has influenced the way the imagery of a Tarzan movie might be constructed.<br /><br />It would be ridiculous to argue that movies shouldn't employ the sexual tease as ONE of many tools to draw in viewers. Some really great film moments incorporate it. But this move is at the opposite end of the spectrum - the tease is the only thing going on here; at the time of its release and now. You sit through awful, dumb scenes that offer no interest, and miles of footage of bad acting to drool over the next peek at either of two bodies. Yes... Bo Derek and Miles O'Keeffe are beautiful (um, congratulations on having a working libido.) but if that's your excuse for giving this schlock a good rating you really should visit a porn store and stock up. There's only a hairs-breadth difference between the two formats and (I'm just guessing here) a horny viewer would probably really enjoy the latter. The question is whether a mainstream movie is the best venue in the marketplace for viewers to seek out products that satisfy lust alone.<br /><br />As a showman, John Derek successfully capitalized on the sexual mystique developed over wife Bo in the movie '10'; and created a media event out of a shallow project whose only merit was the hotness of the two leads. The movie itself was beside the point. He was about 20 years ahead of his time in thinking audiences would applaud him for making an insipid, shallow movie that was only about showcasing superficiality.<br /><br />As a director, John Derek appears to require only that Mrs. Derek look pleasant, empty and hump-able in every scene. It's hideously shot. The camera placement is annoying. In terms of editing, the entire 'wipe' catalog is exhausted. The credit sequence is garish. And it's a toss-up as to who commits the worse screen offense; Bo Derek who's such a bimbo that she can't even figure out how to play a bimbo, or Richard Harris who shouts every line (as he likes to do) until you want to shoot him. At least with Bo you can imagine her blaming some horny writer for shortchanging her. | 1 |
I've been a fan of Jim Henson and his characters since the very beginning. The most beguiling thing about them was the love and innocence and camaraderie shown. Kermit was a role model of deep thinking and problem solving. A spiritual character, yet sweetly and believably so. All the other characters were slightly eccentric but it demonstrated how different kinds of beings can co-exist in a caring manner together, respecting each other's difference.<br /><br />Following movies have somewhat kept the same vibe. Yet this 'It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie' would have Jim Henson spinning in his grave. These characters have been completely re-written to be horny, nasty, selfish, and cheesy.<br /><br />The cast goes on to portray God as an uncaring corporate head, with a mean streak. Angels as spineless, non-spiritual corporate staff, and the movie was so bad I had to stop watching. I had bought it for my great-nephew but fortunately I preview anything I give a child.<br /><br />This movie deserved the trash bin instead and has no socially redeeming content or charm.<br /><br />Shame, shame on the people who re-wrote the characters and departed from Jim Henson's original heart-centered, socially conscious version. It does a terrible disservice to a great hearted man who is no longer around to defend his creations. | 1 |
First and foremost, speaking as no fan of the genre, 'The Bourne Ultimatum' is a breathtaking, virtuoso, superb action movie.<br /><br />Secondly, it is a silly malarky of cartoonish super-hero stuff.<br /><br />Thirdly, the film carries a complex, important point, about crime-fighters turning into criminals themselves. No reference is made to Abu Ghraib or the Executive Branch's outrageous domestic assaults on constitutional rights, none is necessary.<br /><br />So, the latest in the 'Bourne' series, in the hands of Paul Greengrass (of the 2004 'Bourne Supremacy' and last year's 'United 93'), is a significant achievement, perhaps held back but not actually diminished by the unavoidable excesses of the genre.<br /><br />'Breathtaking' above is meant both as a complimentary adjective and a description of the physical sensation: for more than an hour from the first frame, the viewer seemingly holds his breath, pushed back against the chair by the force of relentless, globe-trotting, utterly suspenseful action. There is no letup, no variation in the rhythm and pull of the film, and yet it never becomes monotonous and tiresome the way some kindred music videos do after just a couple of minutes.<br /><br />Oliver Wood's in-your-face cinematography is making the best of Tony Gilroy's screenplay from Robert Ludlum's 1990 novel (which doesn't stack up well against the 'Bourne Identity,' written a decade earlier).<br /><br />Matt Damon is once again the inevitable, irreplaceable Bourne, the deadliest of fantasy CIA agents, this time taking on the entire agency in search of his identity, his past, and the mysterious agency program that has turned him into a killing machine. Nothing like his quietly heroic Edward R. Murrow, the always-marvelous David Strathairn is the nasty top agency official, pitched against Bourne in trying to hide some illegal 'take-no-prisoners' policies and brutal procedures.<br /><br />Joan Allen plays what appears to be the Good Cop against Strathairn's Bad One. And, there is Julia Stiles as the agent once again coming to Bourne's aid; a combination of Greengrass' direction and Stiles acting results in a surprising impact by a mostly silent character, her lack of communication and blank expression more intriguing than miles of dialogue.<br /><br />So good is 'The Bourne Ultimatum' that it gets away with the old one-man-against-the-world bit, this time stretched to ridiculous excesses, as Bourne defies constraints of geography, time, gravity... and physics in general. (Can you fly backwards with a car from the top of a building? Why not - it looks great.) <br /><br />All this 'real-world' magic - leaping from country to country in seconds, to arrive at some unknown location exactly as, when, and how needed - outdoes special-effect and superhero cartoon improbabilities. And yet, only a clueless pedant would allow 'facts' interfere with the entertainment-based ecstasy of the Bourne fantasy. | 0 |
As you may have gathered from the title, I wholeheartedly believe this movie to be the worst zombie movie of all time. The acting, camera-work, writing, special effects and anything else remotely related to this movie sucked. People have argued that while this movie is terribly-acted and terribly-produced but it comes through with a witty intelligent script. Wow. The plot has more holes than I or anyone else could possibly count. For starters, why would the government tell everyone to go back to work when it's not safe? I know the government's supposed to be evil but they don't gain anything by killing the entire population of the country. There wouldn't be anyone to govern! Another thing that I was wondering about, even if the government told everyone to go to work, why would people go if the streets were swarming with zombies? Were the zombies going to hide in the bushes and ambush the unsuspecting people in order to aid the government in their plot to kill everyone on the planet? And how about the ending? That stupid Torch guy sacrifices his life in order to get a few close up shots of the zombies. He probably forgot that every camera made in the last 35 years has a zoom feature. And another thing, why does he say Hindenburg before he dies. The Hindenburg was a rare event seen by a very few people. The zombie menace will been seen by everyone in the country, possibly the world. He doesn't think anyone else will get a few snapshots? They also managed to ruin the only semi-interesting scene in the film when the soldier is watching the exotic dancer. Why did the zombie hide behind a curtain for five minutes before attacking the girl? Especially when the zombie could have come through the DOOR. It's probably just something an unintelligent zombie movie fan such as myself wouldn't understand. Every day I pray that God with increase my brain capacity long enough for me to figure out all the subtle nuances in Feeding the Masses.<br /><br />Anywho, I think it's interesting that this is the first movie that gave me the desire to physically hurt the people involved in the production. Hey Trent Haaga, I'm calling you out! | 1 |
This movie has not aged well. Maybe it's just the impact and artful characterization, acting, and directing that we've seen with The Sopranos, but I just viewed Prizzi's Honor for the first time, on DVD, alone.<br /><br />The experience of watching it with an audience 24 years ago must have been quite different, but I have to say, I was just appalled at the ending. Not just the violence of it, but the mere idea that somehow this would be a satisfying ending.<br /><br />I enjoy a good shocker, but this seemed so out of character... Also, when was this move supposed to be set? The cars all seemed like they were from the 1960s, and yet the World Trade Center towers {completed in 1973} were clearly visible in many cityscape scenes.<br /><br />Another way in which the film has aged poorly is the mere idea that a passenger could travel coast to coast with a knife on his person.<br /><br />Somehow, mid-1980s audiences found this film charming and funny. Mid-eighties, meet the late oughts: only of you can live. | 1 |
Wow....it's been a long time since I've last seen such a hilarious movie like this one!!!!! I've never been a great fanatic about French movies, but ever since I fell in love with the beauty and the acting skills of Catherine Deneuve I decided to see all of her movies... however I didn't think this one would be so fantastic as it turned out to be. Lucky me, that I bought it even though I had some doubts! This is really 'feel-good-time' film with class and quality. There are some great social topics and moral drama's involved that are very close to today's modern way of living, which are shown very beautiful and realistic. I also liked the dancing scene in the men's room a lot! But my favourite is the rather timid attempt of Catherine Deneuve to sing.....she brings it the way she is, with lots of grace and modesty at the same time...very tempting! Further on I would also like to express my respect and admiration for Line Renaud, who played a fantastic role (I didn't even know she acted....I've only known her for her music). So, don't wait any longer and go see the movie...you'll be surprised in many ways. | 0 |
Most of Wayne's B westerns are kind of fun in a naive way, but this one really stinks. The editing is terrible, and the direction and pacing is completely lethargic. Most of the cast stands around waiting for the mute guy to write down his thoughts on a pad of paper, and I was bored. Sorry, Duke, but this gets a 1. | 1 |
This film plays really well with an audience. Especially once the chase begins. Plus, Trevor Howard with his sensible, smart charms and Jean Simmons with her innocent demeanor and piercing eyes are terrific together.<br /><br />The film starts as a psychological drama but after the murder it segues into a chase thriller as the two leads head for the border. Some may think the chase is superfluous but actually the chase is essential because it aids in clearing the mind of the Jean Simmons character by getting her out of the oppressive household, plus it helps bring out the real killer - who is suddenly put into such a position that they have to finish the job. The killer rightly believed that once the Simmons character was arrested she would be put away. And it is true that her lack of control in the household - as well as evidence pointing her way - there is no way she would have gotten out of the murder charge. The chase that ensues helps bring out the truth.<br /><br />This is an entertaining film. Seek it out if you can find it. | 0 |
Ossessione<br /><br />Luchino Visconti's debut film, this Italian noir is generally credited with launching the Neorealist movement--well, it says so right on the back of the box--and is a sometimes penetrating, sometimes lugubrious portrait of lonesome individuals in moral flux. Set in Fascist Italy, an assortment of supporting characters--including an ingenuous drifter who espouses Communist virtues--embody the remote desperations of a country searching for its identity from without, drifting phantasms longing for a soul. Although Visconti's compassion for the disenfranchised and his ability to express their lamentable conditions was already well-developed, the spider web of deceit is tenuous--although a staple of noir is to posit a protagonist manipulated by fate and the femme fatale, Gino here is so unhinged to begin with that you fear he might deserve it--the cosmic irony too didactic, the illicit relationship strained with bathos. All the same, it's incisive and essential, although its actual impact on film history is certainly debatable. | 0 |
Hooray for Korean cinema! Last year I saw 'Chungyang' and 'Nowhere to hide', now I catch up with Hur Jin-ho's directorial debut 'Christmas in august'. The variety of themes and level of achievement speak highly of a national cinema ripe for discovery. This film's major themes are death and love. The graceful and thoughtful way Jung Won(Han Suk-kyu) copes with his impending death, and the sublimation of his desires toward Darim(Shim Eun-Ha) out of true love for her. I was deeply moved by his careful management of behavior and emotions, shielding Darim from unnecessary pain without rejecting her.<br /><br />The success of this type of film is predicated on the skill of the actors. Han and Shim excel, being both quite expressive yet naturalistic. A number of secondary characters, Jung Won's relatives, friends, and clients, are quickly delineated to enrich the story without detracting from its main focus. To LIVE is to love, but all things must pass. Pain subsides. Life goes on. | 0 |
What an utter disappointment. Forget this abysmal film and get hold of the TV series instead. What on earth were they doing making the American president relatively sane? ALL the politicians should have been bumbling buffoons (Peter Cook is good as the British PM). It lacks the biting satire of the original, going instead for 'lowest common denominator' slapstick. 1 out of 10 if I'm being generous! This is unfortunately yet another example of a remake which totally misses the point of the original, the difference with this one being that they were both written by the same people. | 1 |
First-time director Tom Kiesche turns in a winning film in the spirit of cutting, dark comedy. Shot on a shoestring budget, yet had the flavor of the early Coen brother's film Blood Simple ... and throw in some Monty Python flavorings to boot! Needs to seen more than once to appreciate all the elements that carry one scene to the next. Expect more good things to come from this writer-director-actor. | 0 |
I honestly had somewhat high expectations when I first began to watch this movie, but it turned out to be probably one of the most boring films I have ever seen!<br /><br />First of all, the pace is incredibly slow, so it seems much longer than it is (and it's not short).I'm sure when Jane Austen wrote the book, she made it several pages long, filled it with description, and didn't intend for people to read in in one day, or it might drag and lose it's appeal, which 'Emma' most certainly did. Now 'Sense and Sensibility' had this flaw of a slow pace, but at least it had lively lines to make up for it, as well as some good performances!<br /><br />That brings me to flaw #2, which is of course, the acting. While I don't happen to care for basically anybody involved in this film, I am sure they are capable of good work, but I didn't see much of it in this movie. It was like people were trying too hard to be witty, too hard to be 'upper-class', too hard to be British (well, some of them), so they all just came off as a bunch of actors and not as people.<br /><br />#3. The cast, as I said, seemed only like actors, and not actually like the people they were playing. Maybe that's a good thing, because the people they played really weren't all that nice. Why did everybody like Emma, for example? Sure, she was nice to the rich, handsome people in front of them, but she was an awful gossip behind their backs. If her friends were 'ugly', then she didn't even bother to go behind their backs. So, why is this girl so great? Why do people have to tell stories, 'just to make her laugh?' Of course the snob couldn't even do that right. I have enough problems with Gwyneth Paltrow as Gwyneth Paltrow, and her 'Emma' did not exactly change my opinion.<br /><br />Well, it's easy to see that I did not care for this one. I'm sure it's a lovely book and all, but some books are really not meant to be made for the big screen, and 'Emma' is one of them. | 1 |
Yes, I am ashamed to admit it, but this show is positively DEVINE!!!It's so entertaining, and I have the absolute greatest time watching it.Ever since Cycle 1 it's been great, and I haven't noticed a downfall in it's glory AT ALL.Tyra Banks as you know is the host, and as fabulous as she is, there's also the other judges and co-hosts such as J. Alexander, Jay Manuel, Nigel Barker, and Twiggy.The main point of the show is for every girl invited to become America's Next Top Model, has to work their way up to the top by completing and winning photo shoot competitions.It sounds great already doesn't it, and let me tell you IT IS GREAT!!!!!It's awesome watching all the different kinds of photo shoots the girls take, and each one is different, cool, and daring.Anybody who hates this show, doesn't have a clue, and I will tell you that this show will be on for a LONG time, so DEAL WITH IT!!! | 0 |
Recap: Ron is about to marry Mel. They are deeply and love and certain they are perfect for each other even though they met just a few months ago. Todd, Ron's brother in law to be is not so happy. He is afraid the marriage is a threat to his cushy job in the family business and decides to arrange Ron's bachelor party. But his real plan is to put Ron in a compromising situation, get evidence and break Ron and Mel up.<br /><br />Comments: Supposed to be a sequel to a comedy classic but it isn't funny at all. It is mostly a pubertal show and a juvenile excuse to show scantily clad women. Actually, in a way, it is almost impressive have many you can put in there, because they are everywhere. Unfortunately that is also one of the signs of a movie that can't support itself. It simply isn't good enough.<br /><br />It has three redeeming points though, or actually three actors that is worth a better script than this. It is lead actor Josh Cooke who actually manages to give an impression of some common sense. Sara Foster I know has more talent than to do movies like this, and Emanuelle Vaugier seem to have a lot more talent than this movie.<br /><br />What is suspiciously absent are good jokes. Actually, bad jokes are rather scarce too. It just isn't funny.<br /><br />3/10 | 1 |
Take:<br /><br />1. a famous play<br /><br />2. a director with now ideas of his own who is using<br /><br />3. a copy of the stage design of a popular theatre production of the play mentioned in 1.<br /><br />4. an actor for the lead - who has no feeling for the part he's playing And you'll get: 'Hamlet, Prinz von Dänemark'<br /><br />I listened to the radio play of 'Hamlet' with Maximilian Schell as Hamlet and I was so disappointed. I hoped that the filmed version would be better, that Schell would at least have a body language to underline what he's saying - nothing. Then the set... the minimalistic design is not everyone's taste, but usually I like it when there's just enough on the stage to make clear what's the setting and nothing more. Alas, that's on a stage, in a theatre. It won't work in a film based on a play that actually has believable settings. That the idea for the set was copied from the theatre production in which Schell played the Hamlet already... let's say if that was the only thing to complain about... I ask myself how Schell could get the part of Hamlet anywhere in first place and how anybody could allow him to play Hamlet a second time. If you've got the choice to view any of the about sixty films based on 'Hamlet', don't watch this one, unless you're a masochist, or really hardcore, or like to poke fun on untalented actors. | 1 |
I loved 'Anchorman; The Legend of Ron Burgundy' and hoped this would be just as funny, but alas, it wasn't. Some bits are excellent though. I thought the sports guy, Champ Kind, professing his love for Ron Burgundy in the car filled with the other members of the news team was hilarious. Everyone is ignoring him and he just gets louder and louder and finally kisses Burgundy which doesn't get acknowledged either. But on the whole the story doesn't gel. It's a noble attempt, however, to salvage the unused bits from the first movie, including an entire plot about some pretty benign would-be domestic terrorists called 'The Alarm Clock.' Maya Rudolph of Saturday Night Live is one of the members and has a couple of funny lines, but basically this unused plot line has good reason to be unused in the first movie. The extras on this disk are pretty good, with the best two being the filmed rehearsals featuring lots of improv comedy, and the faux commentary with Will Ferrell and an 'exec producer' who Ferrell discovers early on was not even a part of the movie in any way, shape or form. Turns out he's 'just a guy' who walked in the side door of the recording studio and pretended to be a producer. It's some pretty funny stuff though and goes on for about 10 or 15 minutes | 1 |
Here's what I knew about 'Atlantis' before watching it:<br /><br />* - It's officially Disney's first animated sci-fi adventure. I'm not sure how accurate that is (I like to nitpick) but it made me curious first time I heard it described.<br /><br />* - The preview looked, for the most part, damn cool. Evidently, it was also 'too cryptic' according to some critics after the fact.<br /><br />* - It apparently did SO badly that Disney said, 'Screw it, let's re-release 'Spy Kids''.<br /><br />So, with all that said, how is the movie?<br /><br />Hella-cool.<br /><br />I'm a sucker for animated fantasy that involves stirring music and rampant special effects anyway, but 'Atlantis' goes all out. It's a throwback to all the CGI eye-candy shots in 'Beauty and the Beast' and 'Aladdin', so much so that it's almost an effects animator's Best-Of Show. The characters maybe aren't that memorable (except, perhaps, for the ship's medical officer), and the plot's a little dull, but this isn't a movie you watch for the plot.<br /><br />Here's a controversy that bothers me. The 'failure' (as in, it 'only' took in, like, five-hundred-million or something; I know animators who'd kill to see fifteen bucks of that) of this movie compared to the popularity of 'Shrek' and 'Monsters Inc.' has been seen as evidence of the death of traditional animation. I don't think that's true. How do you account for the 'South Park' movie? What about 'Final Fantasy'? Really, the story and the artistry is everything, not the method. I don't know what Disney's comeback movie will be like, but I don't think they're out of the picture yet. | 0 |
As an avid fan of the Flashman books by George McDonald Fraser, I looked forward immensely to seeing Flashy on the big screen when this film was first released. Sadly it was a huge disappointment then - so I left it alone for 20 years before going back to watch it again, but it was no better the second time. Mr Fraser is a tremendously skillful writer, but I am not a fan of his film screenplay work with Richard Lester. The penchant for slapstick spoilt 'The Three Musketeers' for me and the same applies here. To me, the whole tone and feel of the film is wrong. The Flashman books are uproariously funny in parts, but they are adventure novels. There is much seriousness in the way the adventures that Flashman has - after all, he is involved in dangerous situations. This is conveyed in the novels, but not conveyed at all on film due to the its comedic style. It is a tremendous shame as it could have a great film had it been a more faithful adaptation of the style of the book. When I first read that the book was to be filmed, the article said that the film was to star Oliver Reed. I rejoiced, as Reed to me was the epitome of Flashman. How I would have loved to see him in the role. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but does not fit the visual image of Flashman created by the books (too scrawny looking! Flashman is supposed to be a big strapping fellow). Neverheless Reed was excellent as Bismarck. What kills the film is that it is made as a comedy. The only scene in which it creates the true atmosphere of the book is the scene in which Flashman kills de Gautet (Tom Bell). A great shame, as the production values, costumes, sets etc are superb and the casting is generally excellent - just about everybody in the film is well cast apart from Malcolm McDowell. Possibly the directorship of Richard Lester was responsible for the way the film is, as a recent radio adaptation of 'Flash For Freedom', adapted by Mr Fraser, worked quite well. Perhaps one day we may see Flashman done justice on screen. | 1 |
I watched the DVD (called BLACK WIDOW in the U.S.A.) and felt afterward that it was, indeed, a truly awful movie. But they must have cut quite a bit out of the original film, or I missed a lot. The sex scenes had very little vulgarity and no nudity (not even a breast), but I've read several other comments on IMDb.com mentioning the vulgarity and something about a tampon. I did not see anything like that, just a bad, boring film with unlikable characters and a trite, sophomoric plot. Giada Colagrande is either paralyzed from the mouth up or Botoxed to the gills, and nary an expression touches her face. And her name makes me think of super-sizing a beverage at Taco Bell: 'I'll have the Cola Grande!' It was actually kind of fun it was so bad, I got to play like I was in my own Mystery Science Theater 3000, noting things like the fact that Dafoe's skin is too big for his face. It's really like silly putty! | 1 |
'The Ballad of the Sad Café' worked hard at its image, but when it came down to crunch-time, it was left standing in its own self-created dust.<br /><br />One cannot image saying this out loud, but if Vanessa Redgrave's Amelia were to fight John Wayne or even Clint Eastwood, my hard-earned dollars would have to go to Redgrave. Her portrayal of Amelia was as close to perfection and consumed with more detailed dedication than most actors are willing to give to any multi-million dollar contracted persona. Redgrave gave Amelia this soulful drawl that was a blend of her own unique voice and a hard-earned woman from the south. To the average viewer, this could be construed as annoying, but as the film progressed it became her Miss Amelia transforming this stage beauty into a roughneck. It was Redgrave's performance, as well as her interaction with the other characters, that made this film stand tall but not the tallest. The others following her performance were needed, but not stellar. As we moved past the murky cliché image passed on by every set designer hired for the post-Depression South job, the minor characters felt like poster board. The image was needed to set the scene, but the characters of the town had no other purpose. Take for example Rod Steiger's vision of some old, wild spoken preacher. His scenes alone will make any viewer question the validity of this off-the-beaten-path town. The main two players who surrounded Amelia battled with charm for the admirable top scene-stealing moment, but due to the lacking direction it just seemed faded. The most absurd of the two (albeit both rank high among the questionable sanity line) is Cork Hubbard who plays Amelia's 'cousin' who shows up randomly one night. His character is never quite defined, he lacks true motive, and his loyalties remain uncertain. He plays no vital role in this film outside of forcing us, the viewers, to question his sanity and honesty. Can you create a character simply by sticking out your tongue, flicking your ears, and punching your chest and head? Finally, there is the other end of the absurd Keith Carradine. Callow's close-ups of this tormented man build character, but our lack of understanding between him and Amelia causes his purpose to flounder. These were the characters, as cliché Southern as they were some stood forward and attempted to create an absurdist period piece, and I cannot argue that they failed.<br /><br />Where 'Ballad of the Sad Café' failed to rise above mediocrity was in the cinematography and narrative. This film was about Amelia, and her need for other souls in her life. The audience's level of comfort with the arrival of her midget cousin was entertaining one couldn't help but wonder if he was honest or merely a confidence man attempt to leech off a warm heart. Cork Hubbard's character is never quite understood, but we do accept him with brief shots of him and Amelia doing small things together. It is his idea that transforms from a recluse businesswoman to a bona-fide café owner. The problem is that director Callow never quite takes us to that dramatic take level between Cork and Redgrave is the man crazy or does he represent all of Amelia's family? I needed something from Callow that brought these two out of the David Lynch-esquire relationship that they had. Then our pool gets even deeper with the addition of Carradine as Amelia's 'love interest'. Using the technique of a flashback within a flashback, we see the two wed, but never consummate their love which Amelia's anger against their love drawing him into the world of madness. Why was Amelia so angry? Why was there no connection between Carradine and Redgrave? Why was this even in the film? With the lack of focus towards these characters's connection, the eventual scenes between the two made no sense throw in Cork's choice and it just gets completely discombobulated. While there were a few beautiful choreographed scenes that Callow created, the inability to transfer his characters from point A to point B. I lost focus, interest, and my care for the characters plummeted when I didn't understand the ultimate question 'why'? <br /><br />Overall, 'The Ballad of the Sad Café' began with a bang, but ended with a very small crack of a firecracker. My emotional feel of this film swung up and down, up and down, and eventually stayed further down mainly due to the lack of understanding of the motives of the characters. Redgrave did a phenomenal job as Amelia, and while the other characters (outside of the random Steiger) tried their best, I just didn't quite understand who they were. Their motives were so muddled that when the emotional ending finally occurred, I was apathetic. Director Callow seemed to have been lacking importing connecting scenes that would allow us to understand the dynamic relationship between all of our main players. Callow created some beautiful scenes where faces seemed to overlap the scenery, which allowed us to focus on Amelia or Carradine, but nothing was explained or developed. The film played out with anger, discover, happiness, flashback, anger, anger, anger, fade out. Without the comparative connectors, this transformed from distinguished period film to actors playing parts in front of camera. It was a shame, because 'Sad Café' had the promise, it just couldn't deliver.<br /><br />Grade: ** ½ out of ***** | 1 |
This film is an eery, but interesting film. I will tell you why it is eery later in this review.<br /><br />The film is interesting because it was the first film to ever contain sound. No, it may not be a one hour and forty two minute film, no it may not contain great action scenes, but it is still a wonderful film to me. It sparked a whole knew revolution if you will, of sound movies. This can be a little eery to watch, knowing that everyone in that film are now dead, I can hear the voice of a man in the beginning who no longer walks the Earth visible, and that the sound is cracky and broken.<br /><br />I recommend this video for everyone to watch. This created movies as we know it today! | 0 |
Asia Argento is a sexy beautiful woman who likes to run around naked which isn't a bad thing in it's self, but, when her character talks about all the guys she serviced, and to see her with Michael Madsen and an Asian guy in the present tense of the movie, it made me feel like I needed a condom over my eyes to watch this movie, like a disease was going to rub off on me or something.<br /><br />The movie felt like it was going for a love triangle/drama/action/??? plot, it just seemed to go everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The acting was great, the plot, not so great. The director needs to at least pick a genre and practice, practice, practice, before trying to do something as complicated as this again, because they are not very good at it obviously. | 1 |
This film is definitely an odd love story. Though this film may not be much to shout about, Nicole Kidman carries the film on her own the rest of the cast could quite easily be forgotten, though Ben Chaplin does do quite a good job of Hertfordshire Life with shots of St Albans & Hemel Hempstead town centre depicting the true essence of the area. What starts outlooking like a regular episode of the popular British TV series'Heartbeat' soon turns into a gritty gangster getaway action flick.Nothing truly memorable happens in this simple small film and thus ends-up as fairly decent weekend entertainment. A good one to watch, and if you like the hero john are lonely thirty something you may find something to identify with in his character. | 0 |
Here is the explanation screenwriter Pamela Katz gave me for why MvT introduced JG as a specific character in the film:<br /><br />'...the historical record is very clear: Joseph Goebbels was directly responsible for the release of the Rosenstrasse prisoners, so we needed a way to get Goebbels himself into our film... For a woman like Lena, a woman from an aristocratic family with connections, it wasn't unthinkable that she would make an attempt to go to the top. The idea of getting to Goebbels wasn't impossible for her, so that became our hook.'<br /><br />Those of you who insist on seeing an actual sex act here can read my new thread below & then fire away.<br /><br />Jan Lisa Huttner FILMS FOR TWO | 0 |
OK. I think the TV show is kind of cute and it always has some kind of lesson involved. So, when my kids decided they wanted to see this movie, I decided to tag along. I wish I'd stayed home and watched the TV show instead.<br /><br />The fact that the humor is silly and unoriginal is the least of the problems with this movie. The plot is next to non-existant, the characters seem to exist in a vacuum, and, worst of all, Gadget does not carry any lesson whatsoever. It appears that Disney took all of the things that make Inspector Gadget work on TV and tossed them all. To be fair, my younger child (8 years old) liked the movie but the older one (10 years old) came away thinking it silly (he was too old for the youth humor but too young for any of the adult humor).<br /><br />Generally, I like Disney films but this one misses by a mile. It is OK for a very narrow age band (say 7 to 9) but a must miss for everybody else. | 1 |
While walking to buy cigarettes, the professional dancer Daniel (Tom Long) is abducted and forced to have kinky sex along many days by three hooded women. When he is released, the director of his company Isabel (Greta Scacchi) has already replaced him in the play and his girlfriend gives a cold reception to him. The disturbed and humiliated Daniel leaves the dance company and travels obsessed to seek out the abductors. Daniel has sex with many women that he suspects that might be the kidnappers. <br /><br />'The Book of Revelation' is a weird movie with a promising beginning that loses the initial power and becomes a sort of too long erotic soap- opera or soft-porn chic. The production is classy, the cover of the DVD is awesome but the characters are not well-developed and the trauma of Daniel seems to be excessive since most of the men would fantasize with the dream-situation that he was submitted to become sexual object of three sexy women. The melodramatic development with the illness of Isabel does not add any value to the plot; the open conclusion is very disappointing and there are no explanations for the motive of the women or the title. It is very clear that the screenplay about a man's feelings was written by a woman. It was good to see the still beautiful Greta Scacchi again and her make-up in the end is impressive. There is a saying in Portuguese that could be translated to English as follows: 'If the rape is inevitable, relax and come.' Daniel should have done this and spared me of watching almost two hours of a pointless story. My vote is four. <br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'O Livro das Revelações' ('The Book of Revelations') | 1 |
The Shirley Jackson novel 'The Haunting of Hill House' is an atmospheric tale of terror, which conveys supernatural phenomena in an old mansion. The atmosphere is well set out, and the chills are staged well. A haunting masterpiece.<br /><br />The 1963 chiller 'The Haunting' stays closely to the book, but also adds its own details to the plot. Fortunately, these are very few, and so the terror of the book and the chills are executed even better on the screen. The black and white photography only adds to the creepiness of the movie. Excellent! <br /><br />And then, Jan de Bont made this. In 1999, the remake of The Haunting hit the cinemas - if you could call this a remake. Why they had to make a remake of the 1963 movie is a mystery in itself, but for the moment, lets look at the film itself.<br /><br />It starts off averagely, as most horror movies do. The set used for Hill House is beautiful, and oddly mysterious, and for a few minutes, it seems as if the film is actually going to be quite a fair re-telling. And then, the first scare comes: a loose harpsichord wire slashes a woman's face (Dr. Marrow's assistant). This is hilarious, and truth be told, it nearly had me in tears.<br /><br />From then on, the film just spirals downwards. The acting seems to become somewhat wooden as the film goes on, with Owen Wilson's character being particularly irritating (so it's such a relief when he's decapitated by the flue).<br /><br />The special effects practically make this movie,, which is a shame, because most of them are incredibly cheesy and look very dated. Examples of these are many, so I won't bother listing them.<br /><br />So, all in all, I, along with hundreds of others, strongly recommend that you watch the original chiller, or, as an alternative, buy the novel by Shirley Jackson. But please, stay away from this. And, if you do decide to watch this, watch it on the TV (as a lot of the channels love to screen this film, and not the original) or rent it cheap, but please don't buy it, whatever you do. Don't waste your money!<br /><br />Final rating: 4/10 | 1 |
Although I have enjoyed Bing Crosby in other movies, I find this movie to be particularly grating. Maybe because I'm from a different era and a different country, but I found Crosby's continual references to the Good Old USA pleasant at first, trite after a while and then finally annoying. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-American whatsoever - but it seemed that the English could do no right and/or needed this brave, oh so smart American visitor to show them the way. It's a 'fish out of water' story, but unlike most movies of this sort, this time it's the 'fish' who has the upper hand. To be fair to both myself and the movie, I have watched it a few times spaced over a few years and get the same impression each time.<br /><br />(I watched another Crosby movie last night - The Emperor's Waltz - and that, too, produced the same reaction in me. And to my surprise even my wife - who for what's it's worth is American - found the 'in your face' attitude of American Crosby to be irritating. One too many references to Teddy Roosevelt, as she put it.) <br /><br />As for the premise of the movie, it's unique enough for its day and the supporting cast is of course very good. The scenery and the music is also good, as are the great costumes - although I agree with a previous reviewer that the wig on William Bendix looks horrid (picture Moe of The Three Stooges).<br /><br />All in all for me this would be a much more enjoyable picture without the attitude of Bing Crosby but because he is in virtually every shot it's pretty hard to sit through this movie. | 1 |
Blue Monkey (1987) or 'Invasion of the BodySuckers' as it's known here in the UK was a pretty boring horror movie about an old man who gets bitten in a greenhouse by some mysterious toxic plant!!!! The man gets rushed to hospital, where this worm like creature comes out of his mouth, of course this transforms into this insect monster and proceeds to go on the rampage!! Despite Steve Railsback and John Vernon being in the movie, i found it to be boring, with a flat predictable storyline, un-interesting characters, cheap special effects and lack of action!!!! Horror fans don't really need to track this rare movie down, you wont be missing much trust me!!! I give this movie 2/10. | 1 |
This is according to me a quite bizarre movie with a lot of humor in it. I wouldn't say that it is very scary, but more fun I guess. That is if you like horror movies. Scarecrow kind of remembered me of 'Children of the corn', but still not. If you compare these two movies this is much more fun to watch =) | 0 |
In a year of pretentious muck like 'Synecdoche, New York' a film born out of Charlie Kaufman's own self-indulgence, comes a film that is similarly hard to watch but about three times as important. 'Frownland' is a labor of love by the crew, the actors and the filmmaker, shot over years by friends. It traces a man who cannot communicate through his thoroughly authentic, REAL Brooklyn world. The people that you see are a step beyond even the stylization of the 'mumblecore' movement. They are real people, painfully trapped in their own self-contained neuroses, unwilling to change, unable. The real world to them is their own set of delusions and because this is a film about people who are so profoundly out of touch, it is very difficult to watch. It is 16mm film-making without proper light, money or any of the other factors that would make a film 'slick', but its honesty can not be understated, a fact that would cause a room full of people to dismiss it and for Richard Linklater to give it an award as he did at SXSW. This does remind of films like 'Naked' or the best of the 'mumblecore'. It is a film that is not for everyone, but one that challenges you to watch and grows on you the longer you think about it. | 0 |
Plunkett & Macleane falls into my favourite genre of film (historical action adventure with comedy) which is probably why I rate it so highly.<br /><br />The action centres around a highwayman (Plunkett) and a layabout 'gentleman' who gets entangled with him and his schemes (Macleane). This leads to all sorts of escapades and adventures which are all tinged with comedy. There is also, of course, a love interest.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is made up of a number of vibrant, larger than life characters who add to the atmosphere of the film and show the excesses of the wealthy at this time.<br /><br />This is an enjoyable film with a fairly simple but worthwhile plot that provides plenty of entertainment. | 0 |
This movie, despite its list of B, C, and D list celebs, is a complete waste of 90 minutes. The plot, with its few peaks, was very predictable. It was so silly that I cannot believe that I am taking the time to even write a review of it. Flex, to his credit, has grown in his ability to act since playing Michael Jackson in a made for TV movie a few years ago. Tangi, on the other hand, has regressed, as she was more talented in her role as Felicity's flunkie some years ago. As I sat watching this train wreck of a film, with its pitiful production and horrible sound quality, other four letter words came to my mind to qualify what I thought of this film. However, in an effort to keep my writings G Rated, I'll simply say this film is another four letter word starting with an L. LAME!!! | 1 |
first watched this film years ago with my daughter who is now 13 and fell in love with the vampire. we both thought it was a top film, then watched sub 11 then sub 111 now i find there is sub 1v which i cannot wait to get my fangs on, and also there is a fifth in the pipe line. if no one has seen the movies. these are the best of the best. i think it deserver's a thousands Oscar's. i could watch these from morning to night.i would love to have a set of nails like he has, watch out girls. i love it as all the story lines continues from film to film. these ant typical vampire movies they are better. i would love to live in the life that is protruded in the films. it would make all my dreams come true | 0 |
To begin with, I really love Lucy. Her TV show still makes me laugh. She was one of the greatest comedians who ever lived, right up there with Chaplin and Keaton. But, her performance in this movie is disappointing. She was too old, and the gauze filters on the lens make her look like a London fog refugee. She couldn't sing, and her voice was so froggy that she croaked through every song. Her dancing days were long in the past. Just because you are a Lucy fan, don't gloss over this mistaken, sad performance and sing it's praises. I prefer to remember Lucy in her wonderful TV series(I Love Lucy) and to draw the curtain of charity over the terrible mess of a movie called 'Mame'. | 1 |
This sequel to the above - and the final entry in the 'Kharis' series - is slightly more enjoyable on the whole but it's also more contrived (hell, we even get a singing barmaid/hostess!): Peter Coe is easily the least charismatic of the various Egyptian high priests we've seen during the course of these films, and Martin Kosleck as his henchman seems uninterested in the proceedings; Kurt Katch, then, is saddled with a ridiculous accent as the man who discovers the newly reincarnated Princess Ananka: the latter, in the form of Virginia Christine (later a much-used character actress) gets her most substantial 'role' and, indeed, the sequence of her resurrection from the swamps is a highlight not only of this film but the entire series. Unfortunately, here too, Chaney has precious little to do as once again the emphasis is on Ananka, as I've said; his Mummy (to which he returned most often at Universal - apart, naturally, from his signature role of The Wolf Man!) remains, without a doubt, his least memorable monster for the studio. | 1 |
This film made me so angry because of its stupidity that I felt the need to create an account on IMDb to share with you my opinion. I liked Ashton Kutcher in 'A lot like love' and this is why I still wanted to see this film despite it's current 4.2 rating. It is highly over-rated. I trusted that an actor (any of them) would judge the script and would not agree to participate in such low/now quality production. It is very disappointing. The theme of home-sitting was much better used in 'Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo'. Things that did not make sense here: fist of all, the house owner leaves his precious pet with somebody who doesn't know anything about taking care of it. Secondly, the rule is not to let anybody in the house, but the house-sitter fails to follow this simple rule. The door is not locked?! And so on.. | 1 |
So this guy named George is sitting home alone on his birthday when two women show up. George's wife is at a hospital taking care of their son so when the wife is away George gets in the bubble bath and makes love to both of the girls. It isn't that great of a scene because it really doesn't show anything. After that the birthday boy wakes up the next morning and the girls are still at his house. They make him a nice breakfast but George isn't hungry. George isn't very happy and he tries to ditch them but when he gets home the girls are still at his house. The girls have had enough with old George and no longer want to cook for them. They both turn out to be major psychopaths and use George in their little crazy game. I liked that the girls just did what they wanted and messed up George's house. George wasn't really that great to his two guests. When George said he was a married man, he really didn't seem to mean it. George looked like Tom Tucker on Family Guy. I was for the two girls the whole time. | 1 |
It seems that Dee Snyder ran out of ideas halfway through the script. The second half of the movie is basically just a rehash of the first, which makes the film very boring. To sum up: Cop's daughter is suckered into party via chatroom where she is sexually molested/tortured by psychopath (played by Snider). Cop rescues her, psychopath is put in therapy/jail. Psychopath is released four years later and the whole thing is played out AGAIN. Within all this are many unexplained plot elements: Why was 'Captain Howdy' psycho in the first place? What's with the one-time personality detour to bible-thumper? How does he kidnap all the adults and manage to sew their mouths shut without a struggle? And perhaps the biggest unsolved mystery of all... how does a 6'2' man with pink hair hide himself completely behind a 5'6' average build woman? These are just some of the questions I had watching this film.<br /><br />It seems that Snyder was trying to make some kind of commentary on a) the 'dangers' of online chatrooms, b) the hypocrisy of Christian sexual mores, and c) the effect our twisted puritanical society has on us as individuals. If that is so, he failed. The movie is just too poorly done to entertain, never mind convey social messages. The torture scenes are stupid and boring, bordering on silly (especially when Snyder goes into one of his 'pain and death' monologues), and everything else is just plain dumb. The 'call tracing' scene is really lame... when are the cops gonna get caller ID and *69? The young partner of the main cop character is particularly awful... he shouldn't be working as an actor, basically. And the audio in the final showdown scene is really poor. I guess they couldn't afford two boom mikes?<br /><br />The rest of the acting is not awful but it's not good either. The cop is pretty one note, and his detached quality is not quite believable. Dee Snyder is actually not too bad, but he snarls and sneers way too much. Robert Englund (who deserves way better) puts in a somewhat amusing performance of a hypocritical redneck. If you're a big Robert Englund fan the movie is probably worth seeing just for him. Everyone else is forgettable.<br /><br />In conclusion, we've seen all these plot elements done before and done better, in films like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, HELLRAISER, and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. I suggest you rent one of those instead of watching this turkey. 3/10.<br /><br /> | 1 |
This is hands down the worst movie I can ever remember watching. Everything was unbelievably cliché and retarded. The acting was horrible too. The camera work wasn't bad but that still couldn't redeem it. The writer/director of this film must suffer from down's syndrome if he believed this movie would help his career. I want the hour and a half of my life back that I wasted watching this crap. I would rather watch a video of the grass growing than this. I cant believe IMDb is making me write 10 lines in order to post this but I feel that this movie is so bad that I must continue to warn others about it. The reason I came about this movie is that my girlfriend requested it from the local library thinking that it was the Kris Kristoferson movie which ended up being entitled 'Disappearances'. I don't know whose fault it was for this garbage ending up in my DVD player but I feel that someone owes me at least $20 for my time, pain and suffering. In conclusion, the director/writer of this movie better hope i ever recognize him on the street. | 1 |
'Oh, you pilots are such men.' 'They don't call it the cockpit for nothing, honey.' Dialogue like that is just one of many reasons why The Concorde
Airport '79 (or, if you saw it in the UK where it dragged its heels getting released there, Airport '80: The Concorde) was the last and by far the least of the series. The disaster movie was in dire straits in the late70s, what with The Swarm having offered much unintentional hilarity and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure, When Time Ran Out and City on Fire simply offering much boredom, and the desperation to find a new spin on the genre is all too apparent here. This time it's a conspiracy plot, with Susan Blakely's news anchorwoman discovering billionaire boyfriend Robert Wagner has been selling arms to terrorists and the North Vietnamese. Naturally, she decides to tell him everything rather than make the story public, but, he fobs her off by explaining 'I'm a very rich man. I have everything in life I could ever want. Why would I jeopardise that by doing something so incredibly stupid?' Just in case she doesn't buy that line, rather than, say hire a hit-man to kill her on the ground, he decides to do things the smart way by planning to destroy the Concorde while she's flying to Moscow via Paris. 'I've done a lot of things I've been ashamed of, but I am not a murderer,' he insists indignantly on his way to reprogramme a guided missile to destroy the plane. So, nothing incredibly stupid there. And when that fails, he sends a jet fighter after it. And when that fails
<br /><br />Don't even think of looking for anything resembling logic here: this is real bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that even the studio gave up on and marketed as a comedy in the US after critics laughed it off the screen. Where the previous three entries all had the look of glossy big-budget entertainments, this small-screen friendly effort (the only one not to be shot in 2.35:1 widescreen) doesn't even manage to make the Concorde look good, which is quite a feat. TV veteran David Lowell Rich presumably got the directing gig because he was fast, cheap and had previously directed TV movie SST: Disaster in the Sky where Peter Graves' supersonic airplane found itself unable to land due to sabotage and Senegalese flu (which was not, intentionally at least, a comedy despite the presence of a young Billy Crystal in the cast) and seemed like the natural choice for what looks like a $14m TV movie that somehow escaped into theatres when no-one was looking.<br /><br />Cast like a bad episode of Hollywood Squares, stars are in very short supply this time round, and most of the few vaguely familiar faces seem to have been rounded up from rehab clinics and busted sitcoms. Alain Delon gives the Hollywood career that one last shot as the pilot, 'Happy Fish' (don't ask) George Kennedy moves from the executive suite to the co-pilot's seat in the hope of reminding people of the other movies, while the rest of the ensemble includes a couple of veterans of The Towering Inferno (Wagner and Blakely), a soft-porn star (Sylvia Kristel, trying to go respectable), an Ingmar Bergman regular (Bibi Andersson and she's the one playing the hooker!), David Warner's navigator on a diet having nightmares about being chased by bananas, the voice of the Devil (Mercedes McCambridge), Charo and her Seeing Eye Chihuahua ('Dohn miscon-screw me'), Martha Raye and her weak bladder, Jimmie Walker playing the sax in his seat and smoking weed in the john (in the few moments its not occupied by Martha Raye), Cicely Tyson kissing her credibility goodbye as the obligatory mother with critically ill child and a frozen heart in the overhead locker, airline owner Eddie Albert and trophy wife Sybil Danning occupying the best seat in the house, Ed Begley Jr in goggles, and the Russian Olympic team and their lovable coach Val Avery and his deaf daughter (ahhhh!) on a goodwill tour of the States (who knew about the boycott?). Just to add a touch of The Simpsons to proceedings, Harry Shearer voices one news report in the same tones he'd later use for Smithers.<br /><br />Highlight? Despite the impromptu wedding ceremony during a crash landing, it just has to be George Kennedy diverting a heat-seeking missile by opening the window, sticking his arm out (at nearly twice the speed of sound!) and firing a flare while the plane is upside down! And then Alain Delon turns off the engines so there won't be a 'heat source' for the missiles to home in on
Yes, someone actually got paid for writing this, and that someone was future Oscar winner and screenwriter of Munich and The Insider Eric Roth (hey, everybody has to start somewhere), although in his defence it was producer Jennings Lang who came up with the plot. Still, what do you expect from a film that credits stunt balloonists and ends with a shot of the Concorde flying off into the sunset? Amazingly, in one of those won't admit defeat moments studios used to be prone to, Universal shot another 20 minutes or so of footage a couple of years later to include in the network TV showings (not included on the DVD). Sadly its box-office failure led to the fifth entry in the series, the laugh-riot that would have been Airport 1984: UFO, never getting off the ground. Even more genuinely tragically, it was the Concorde used in this film that crashed in France 21 years later.<br /><br />(Oh, and if you're wondering what Charo says to her Chihuahua in unsubtitled Spanish when it's not allowed on board, it's 'What do you think? Don't worry. When the revolution comes, I promise you will fly on anything you want. I promise. What a shame, my love. What do they think they are?') | 1 |
I first watched this film when I was a kid and is the only time in my life that I can remember putting my hands over my face and eyes in utter horror at one particular scene. I remembered it again with a disscusion with my uni friends and promptly bought it on video with plenty of hesitation I might add (to my surprise I only found it on the web in the States when it was made in England!) When I watched it again my reaction and to my surprise was almost the same, of sheer horror and fear and never has my heart been beating so much too. This is in my opinon the SCARIEST film ever made, Hollywood films seem tame in comparison and a bit Pony and Trap (crap), pardon the pun. What is amazing though is the power of this film and at uni when watching this with about twenty of my associates I have never heard so many screams, blokes as well! Even the sight of the video brings the fear of God into me of that one particular scene, and left me feeling that I will never walk alone again in the dark!!!! | 0 |
Young writers, young auteur, young cast, busload of producers, what could go wrong? Everything. Even lame is too good a description, that suggests that three of four legs were functioning, when actually, none of them were. Barely enough recycled plotline for a 48 and a half minute television hour, gratingly stretched to ninety minutes. The audience was talking back to the screen, so bad was the story. Dirty cops steal drugs from the evidence locker. How many thousands of times has this been done on television? Bad cops frame good cops. Again, how many times? There was not an original shred in this entire concoction. Giovanni Ribisi made a valiant effort to prop up the lack of script, drawing the only laughs of the entire movie. And the thought of he and Claire Danes working from a real script with a grown-up director and photographed by an actual cinematographer intrigues me. Note to screenwriters: Buy one of those story generators. It can't possibly be as bad as ripping off bad television. Note to auteur: There are shots available to you other than closeups. Even the lovely and interesting face of Claire Danes eventually grows tiresome in closeup. Note to cinematographer: Apprentice yourself to a professional for a few years--you have much to learn. Note to color timer at the lab: At least try to persuade the auteur and the cinematographer that they don't know what they're talking about. Note to Claire: I hope this paid for your new condo. It's time to get some professional management and start actually reading the scripts before signing on. | 1 |
A young man, named Danny, has run away from home and meets a drifter, named Bix, who agrees to tag along with Danny and watch out for him... and his money. They end up in a small town where they meet Carrie - a shy, naive girl working in her father's diner. Bix starts seeing Carrie but he plans on leaving soon (because he's a drifter, see? He's no good! Understand?). Meanwhile, the town creep, Jesse (played by a perfectly casted Jack Elam), keeps showing up at the diner and bothering Carrie. Danny keeps inadvertently picking up whores left and right (because he's loaded with money he has almost a hundred dollars!) whom Bix has to constantly chase away (there are a lot of ambiguously gay overtones between Danny and Bix in this flick). Eventually, Bix and Danny decide to leave town but trouble is a-brewing, due to Jesse the creep.<br /><br />My review of the movie itself: a terrible, dated 'Troubled Youth' flick from the '50s.<br /><br />My review of the MST3K version of the movie: I've got to say that this is one of the best episodes of MST3K ever. The riffing is dead-on, all the time. Except for the somewhat downbeat ending, this movie is easy material for Joel and the Bots, especially Danny's constant screw-ups that Bix has to rescue him from. The host segments are pretty good too, especially the segment with the `Train Song.' Hopefully, Rhino releases this episode to home video one day. | 1 |
Lou Gossett, Jr. is an excellent and captivating actor, but to have him take the role of a 'president' and then have him act like he's James Bond, running around carrying a Gun and entering a warehouse to uncover a plot to kill Christians, and then being able to Escape the supposedly High Security Facility to live another day, does Not do him Justice - this movie has so many Unresolved Issues<br /><br />I will attempt to list just a few: <br /><br />1 - what was the purpose of 'stockpiling' a Vaccine if no one is Vaccinated? - for example, the preacher could have been Vaccinated if the 'tribulation force' already had Vaccine on hand - later, buck Williams' wife goes to be with the sick preacher and she herself becomes sick; so, was the Virus, therefore, Contagious? - IF it was Contagious, then why did Ray and his wife go into the church without Proper Protection? - why didn't they become Sick too? - and when Chloe drank the wine and was 'cured', how did she suddenly know the wine was the 'antidote'? - was it California wine, ordinary Red Table Wine? - could Red Grape Juice been adequate - and,if the preacher had received 'communion' at least every time he preached, maybe he would have had anti-dote flowing through his body already? - buck and Chloe got a 'heavy' box of vaccine that was never used - what mysterious message should we see in that? <br /><br />2 - the presentation of 'evil' forces who are working with the Anti-Christ Nicolai to destroy the world, as being Russian, Chinese, etc., is really a Relic of the 1950's and the early James Bond era, and shows an Ignorance of Modern Society and of Humanity - are we to believe that Russians and Chinese are perpetually trying to destroy this Planet? - and for what Purpose, mere Destruction? - this was such a Narrow-Minded view of this world and was so Cliché as to be Laughable<br /><br />3 - the main purpose of this movie was the scene near the very end where Kirk Cameron and Lou Gossett, Jr. are proselytizing the non-believers in the audience (by showing Kirk proselytizing Lou) - it was a movie with no meaningful storyline, too many disconnects with reality, and a completely inappropriate plot for a great actor<br /><br />I, therefore, rank this as a 1, since Zero is not available | 1 |
What another reviewer called lack of character development, I call understatement. The movie didn't bash one over the head with overexplanation or unnecessary backstory. Yes, there were many untold stories that we only got a glimpse of, but this was primarily a one-day snapshot into an event that catalyzed change in all of the characters' lives. Henry Thomas's performance was a really lovely study in the power of acting that focuses on reaction rather than action. Good rental. | 0 |
A lot of good things could have been done with this movie using essentially the same sets, plot devices and storyline. For example, why not plant a seed of Erica's capability before the murder of her lover? Why not develop Erica and the cop's relationship slowly and convincingly? Maybe contrast Eric's metamorphis by including some other post-event facet, relationship, etc., in her life that she now rejects? Why not have her injure an innocent bystander to underscore the wrongness in Erica's actions.<br /><br />Instead TBO exploits the revenge fantasy to its maximum level, giving insincere lip service to the 'don't do this at home' messages thrown in only to allow the film to qualify as legitimate.<br /><br />I'm not a Jodie Foster fan. After displaying some range in films like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, NELL and one where she plays the ordinary mother of a child prodigy, Foster has slipped into a succession of roles where she plays the same hard-bitten, badgered heroine single-handedly overcoming evil. Such is fine once or twice, but I'm getting too used to her 'fight versus flight' close-up. TBO could have used a younger actress or one that more convincingly embraced being a woman in her forties (instead of 40-something Foster playing a younger woman).<br /><br />TBO is a movie with substantial actors, financing and resources that manages to descend to junk. | 1 |
By convincing the Prime Minister to back the totally unsuitable Ali G as a candidate for Staines in the local elections, nasty chancellor David Carlton (Charles Dance) hopes to discredit his party's current leader, thus enabling him to seize power. To his surprise, however, the plan backfires, Ali is embraced by the nation, and Carlton is forced to find other ways to try and guarantee his political future.<br /><br />Puerile, crude, misogynistic, and always outrageous: Ali G Indahouse, the big-screen debut outing for Sascha Baron Cohen's middle-class Berkshire gangsta, is all of these things and much moremeaning it's my kind of film!!<br /><br />Obviously, there are those who are simply not going to get the joke, and there will definitely be people who find risqué jokes about oral sex, homosexuality, recreational drug use, hardcore pornography, and The Queen's nether regions offensive in the extreme (needless to say, they should stay well away!), but if you find such juvenile humour side-splittingly hilarious, are a fan of Baron Cohen in general, or just want to see hottie Rhona Mitra in her underwear (and you shud, cuz she iz well fit!), then I fully recommend spending an hour and a half in the company of Ali G and the West Staines Massive.<br /><br />They iz wicked! | 0 |
Wow...OK. So, after reading the little feud on here, I decided I had to see this movie for myself. This movie is HORRIBLE. I stopped watching it. I strongly recommend cleaning a closet instead of watching this movie, you'll be more spooked/entertained.<br /><br />It's low budget with bad acting.<br /><br />Whoever is giving this movie 10s is completely incorrect and should be disregarded.<br /><br />I am in no way connected to any of the other reviewers.<br /><br />Simply put, this movie is not worth watching.<br /><br />Very, very BAD MOVIE. | 1 |
I thought I had seen this film before as the plot summary sounded familiar. However, when I watched it one afternoon (in need of some mindless-but-amusing entertainment), I didn't recognise anything - if I had seen it before, I must have blocked the horror of it from my memory.<br /><br />This film is dreadful, and it shows its age. In fact, it looks older than it is: more like a mid-80s moronic comedy. Whilst I am a fan of toilet humour and can see the funny side of many things, this is 'comedy' at its most puerile and homophobic. The plot is as thin as a Supermodel, which wouldn't bother me if only the film were funny.<br /><br />There is only one amusing line in the whole film, spoken by the character Louis: 'Looks like somebody threw away a perfectly good white boy!' In fact, Louis is the only likable character (and that's not saying much). James and Carl are the type of irritating, immature men that a sensible woman would run a mile from, their practical jokes about as humorous as the war in Iraq; the character of Susan Wilkins is colourless (looks like Julia Roberts, but lacks her charisma) and there is zero chemistry between her and Carl - though it may be unfair to blame the actress, as I don't know what she could have done with such a poorly written part; and the villain is neither funny nor scary nor memorable.<br /><br />There is good trash and bad trash. This is trash that definitely should not be recycled. | 1 |
** WARNING - CONTAINS SPOILERS! **<br /><br />First of all, I would like to say that I really liked this game. I got it for Christmas after two months of dropping hints to my parents. I am glad that I did that.<br /><br />First off, I would like to say that the single player was very good. The first level is probably one of the best in the game, when you are at a party in London, and some evil guys ruin it by kidnapping the Prime minister's daughter. Of course you have to rescue her, and it is quite a big level, but should probably take you at least five minutes. The best part, and I think also the funniest part, is when you are in the jet-pack, and people are rappelling down Big Ben. Just equip the jet-pack's most trusty rocket launcher and blast the clock faces and the enemies down. Pure fun!<br /><br />The rest of the levels are very good, but pretty short. There are four mini-levels you can unlock, and that is one of the let downs, because only the first two of them are actually fun, and the last two to unlock are just 'kill 25 enemies' objectives, I mean, c'mon! We got loads of points to unlock these missions and the last two bonus missions are really bad!<br /><br />The multi player, me and some of my friends agree, is very good and challenging, even if there are no bots. Halo didn't have any bots but that is still some fine multi player games! You can be a load of bad guys, and you go against each other, and you can also set traps, which is the best way of killing people without going into view of their character.<br /><br />Gameplay - 8.5/10 (levels can be quite repetitive and bonus missions could be improved). Graphics - 9/10 (there is the odd bad graphic, but that isn't extremely often). Multiplayer - 10/10 (needs no comment, just great, you get to drive in jet-packs and vehicles). Sound - 8/10 Replay value - 7/10 (the only levels I go back on are the Loondon level and Istanbul Part 1).<br /><br />I give this game: 8.5/10<br /><br />Could have a bit of improvement, but it's still good. | 0 |
I grew up watching and loving TNG. I just recently finished watching the entire series ST Voyager on DVD, which may have heightened my sense of disgust with this episode, as the difference in style and approach between the two shows couldn't be more stark. The idea may have been good if used as an opportunity to further expand Riker's character, which is how it probably would have been treated on VOY. They could have featured memories that would be 'new' to the audience, rather than simply regurgitating old show clips. The in and out transitions between the 'memories' and the 'present' in this episode start as cliché in the beginning, and very quickly become intolerable as the tired pattern wears on and on. Bar none- worst episode ever. | 1 |
I saw this movie over 5 years ago and the subject still infuriates me, as it should. Her anger and initiative were inspiring. Not that I would takeover an army and kill people, but the scene at the well and at the rebel strong hold will never leave my mind. This is a great film but be prepared for the strong subject matter. | 0 |
John has made two One man shows. Spic O Rama and Freaks, and neither one has shown up on DVD... John!!! Why do you this to me john?? Put it on DvD John, so the people can see,they need to see John!! :D... Just in case anyones keeping a watchful aye!! | 0 |
I checked this movie out based on a favorable review on this page. It is slow moving and the payoff is a four star dud..The only mystery here is how Oscar® winner F. Murray Abraham got involved with such a lousy script! | 1 |
Like one of the previous commenters said, this had the foundations of a great movie but something happened on the way to delivery. Such a waste because Collette's performance was eerie and Williams was believable. I just kept waiting for it to get better. I don't think it was bad editing or needed another director, it could have just been the film. It came across as a Canadian movie, something like the first few seasons of X-Files. Not cheap, just hokey. Also, it needed a little more suspense. Something that makes you jump off your seat. The movie reached that moment then faded away; kind of like a false climax. I can see how being too suspenseful would have taken away from the 'reality' of the story but I thought that part was reached when Gabriel was in the hospital looking for the boy. This movie needs to have a Director's cut that tries to fix these problems. | 0 |
The superb star quality of Gerard Philipe, who died way too young, leaps from the screen in this witty, funny, sly swashbuckling comedy with plenty of sword fencing and knockabout antics. Charmingly loopy in its' storytelling, impossible to resist. A sweet romantic comedy with a very young Gina Lollobrigida as the love interest. A movie one will remember with great affection. | 0 |
I don't know, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this kind of movie, but it was full of trite melodrama. It was too long and seemed at least mildly disjointed (granted, I didn't pay full attention...). For a more entertaining depiction of the battle of Stalingrad, see Enemy At The Gates. True, some pretentious folks will scoff because it's a Hollywood film, and doesn't show 'the gritty reality of war' like this 'wonderful foreign film' does, but it has better flow and is all around just more fun to watch. Besides, there are already enough contrivedly 'gritty' war movies, and this one just seemed amateurly done. But hey, you might like it, so go right ahead; it just wasn't for me. | 1 |
I haven't been able to decide if this movie is so bad it's good, or, to quote Enid Coleslaw, 'so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again.' No matter, it forced me look much the same way a pile of weird coloured vomit might, and it offers up a number of scenes that you won't forget even if you want to. There's a sneering young Ray Liotta telling a pigtailed Pia that her creative writing trophy looks like a penis. A bit later, there's Ray again, molesting Pia, not with the appropriately shaped trophy but a garden hose. There's a firm chinned Pia telling her domineering Mom that she wants to go to bed with Ray's geezer father, Walter. There's the actress in the graveyard scene yowling the best line ever written by Pia or anyone else: 'WWWWHHHYYYYYYY!' There's that garden hose again, as Walter waves it Pia's face and roars 'Is this more to your liking!?' There's Pia and her date so turned on by closeups of each other masticating salad that they start tearing each other's clothes off. There's Pia showering but forgetting to remove her dress. Perhaps best of all, there's Pia's typewriter, but instead of keys there are the miniature talking heads of those who have tormented her the most (afterwards, I was afraid to open my laptop). And finally there's Pia at 'The Awards' exposing Hollywood for the cesspool it is, spitting out the second best line ever, 'I guess I'm not the only one who has ever had to **** her way to the top.' I see I have already spent more time commenting on 'The Lonely Lady' than I have on far better pictures, so I'll quit. Be forewarned, though, that once you start watching you probably won't be able to take your eyes off the screen until two hours of your life have vanished forever. | 1 |
Sure it was well shot and made, very well shot and made! But the story was just so weak. And the portrayal of Lincoln was even weaker. Not that Henry Fonda wasn't good but the character he played was nothing but a loon. Do you mean to tell me that Lincoln was a wise cracking smart ass with no respect of the law or the court. I mean who the hell was he supposed to be? Cousin Vinnie? I mean come on, 'I'll just call you Jackass then'???? I understand that Ford was going for great funny hero guy but I didn't really like this guy at all. He cheats in sports, talks like a real sweet simpleton and does not seem to know were to sit in a courtroom. How am I supposed to take this seriously.<br /><br />The twist was even weaker. I mean come on! That was just stupid. The whole story seemed like it was thought up by some 5 year old in his or her dreams. Saying that I liked it enough, it was very entertaining and made me laugh at several occasions so I can't say it's a bad film. In fact I must say that I must say it's good enough, nothing that entertains me and makes me laugh can be bad BUT this vivid and silly story was just so ridiculous that I can't understand how anyone could consider it great.<br /><br />I have no idea how historically accurate this film was but if any of it was true I would really have to shake my head. | 0 |
When I rented 'Unhinged', I was expecting a gore movie. The box even claimed that the movie had extreme scenes of violence that were cut from the theatrical release (I now have serious doubts about this being released in the theater). After finishing the movie, I wondered how it could even receive a video release.<br /><br />The plot is as follows: A group of three young women on a car trip crash their car into a tree. These women somehow manage to make their way to a mansion, which contains an extremely sexist woman. Beyond this point, the movie is mainly composed of useless scenes that are intended to make the movie long enough for release.<br /><br />One of the things that makes this movie awful is the acting. Lisa Munson, who plays the main character, looks as though she is reading her lines off cue cards. The others acting is bad, but not nearly as bad as hers. Another thing that makes this movie bad is the camera technique. Many shots are taken by cameras attached to the ceiling. This gets very annoying as the movie progresses. On top of all that, there is very little gore, which makes the box very misleading. <br /><br />Don't waste your time on this one. My rating: 1 out of 10 | 1 |
The endless bounds of our inhumanity to our own kind never fails to stun me. This truly astonishing story of a horrifically abused and largely unheard-of population is compelling, well-documented and enraging. As an American, I am constantly humiliated by my country's behaviour and this is just another in our long catalogue of international debasement. We suck. This is probably the first John Pilger documentary I've seen, but it immediately made me want to see what else he's done. My only complaint, and the reason I gave this film only 8 out of 10, is that Pilger shows us this travesty and the appalling collaboration of the US and UK governments, demands that we viewers/citizens are complicit in our own inaction...but makes no suggestion of how to help. I don't know about Britain, but America's made it nearly impossible for the citizenry to take part in their government's doings. A gesture in the right direction might help these islanders' cause. | 0 |
I have no clue as to what this was shot on but you can definitely tell that they had no budget. Bad acting, horrible cinematography, and lame plot and some decent special effects do not make a good movie. The WWF style cinemtography will make you cry...where's the tripod?! The filmakers aimed high, but sorely missed their mark. | 1 |
I love everything about family guy.<br /><br />My favourite characters in family are Brian and Stewie and I like the episodes when it mainly features them such as 'Road to Rhode Island' (Season 2), as they interact very well. The comments they make just have me in stitches. Peter's behaviour is also very funny as some of the things he does 'are just so brilliant they're retarded.' The voice acting is excellent, especially Seth MacFarlane as he provides the voices for half of the Griffin family as well as their perverted neighbour Glenn Quagmire and how he manages this range (particularly with singing) I just don't know. He deserves his two Emmy's for providing the voice of evil baby genius Stewie. Adam West also steals the show with his funny and completely insane regular character the mayor of Quahog. What I like about Chris (voiced by Seth Green) is the things he says show that he takes after his father when it comes to intelligence and common sense.<br /><br />The only thing I have found annoying is that in the UK Fox has decided to change the seasons to increase DVD sales, which in no way reflect the programme itself but rather the marketing.<br /><br />If you enjoy Family Guy then I would thoroughly recommend Seth MacFarlane's other project American Dad which uses a different style of humour but is still extremely hilarious. | 0 |
Frank Sinatra starred in this odd little short from RKO that is now in the public domain. The film came out at about the same time the war ended and is a nice plea for religious tolerance.<br /><br />The film begins with Sinatra on stage singing. After leaving the stage, he walks out into the alley and finds a group of kids picking on another because of his religion. Instead of yelling at the boys (or helping them for that matter), Sinatra delivers a nice civics lesson on religious toleration and equates prejudice with fascism. The kids seem to get the lesson but then, out of the blue, Sinatra begins singing a song that, frankly (get it?), kids would have hated. He had a lovely voice but unfortunately I think this detracted from the excellent message he gave to the kids about tolerance. It's a case of a good message with too much singing--even if the guy singing is Frank Sinatra. It's also an interesting curio--a nice historical piece that is often overlooked...plus it's quite touching even if it seems a bit schmaltzy. | 0 |
I've seen the original English version on video. Disney's choice of voice actors looks very promising. I can't believe I'm saying that. The story is about a young boy who meets a girl with a history that is intertwined with his own. The two are thrown into one of the most fun and intriguing storylines in any animated film. The animation quality is excellent! If you've seen Disney's job of Kiki's delivery service you can see the quality in their production. It almost redeems them for stealing the story of Kimba the white lion. (but not quite!) Finally Miyazaki's films are being released properly! I can't wait to see an uncut English version of Nausicaa! | 0 |
Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel 'Ye Shall Know Them' by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.<br /><br />An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man the 'missing link' in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe 'the Tropi' and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly 'human' and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.<br /><br />This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical
. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless. | 1 |
This is a silly movie with much singing and dancing. Acting is average, but writing leaves something to be desired. There are rememberable performances by Buddy Epsen, with a short but outstanding performance by Gypsy Rose as the bitter wife of a rich playboy. A totally unbelievable portrayal of college life which ends with a superb ice skating exibition of Alice in Wonderland. Many parts are worth watching, but do not be afraid to fast forward through parts of the movie | 1 |
How can a major German TV station broadcast a mess like this? It's amazing how the main actors avoid every acting talent - Even the well-known Gottfried John is acting very poor - especially in the double murder scene - how amateurish.......! The screen plan is very , very extended - perhaps to fill out 2 parts of the movie. Be careful not to fall asleep while watching! The set is obviously very often a blue screen, f.g. the scenes on the ship with unreal sea in background...! In the German version the sound and the dubbing is very poor - probably reason: different languages of actors - but: other international productions do handle this much more professional. Advice: Do NOT watch - it's a diabolic waste of time! | 1 |
Three young college women, Simona (Iva Krajnc), Alja (Tanja Potocnik), and Zana (Pia Zemljic), go on an adventure canoing down the River Kolpa, dividing their Slovenia from neighboring Croatia, in this 2002 Slovenian film by Maya Weiss. What could have been an Eastern European version of the well-known and exciting 1972 'Deliverance' turned out, for me, to be utterly uninspiring with flat character portrayals that denied sympathetic identification with the characters.<br /><br />Alja and Zana are not convincing as students at all, though Alja expresses a desire to be a writer, and both use what seemed to me to be excessive bad language. Alja is bored with her boyfriend and seems to just be drifting along in life. Zana, even less scholarly, is a self-absorbed adventure seeker with an attraction to other women. I had some sympathy with relatively innocent Simona, conservative and starry eyed. The very idea of these three traveling together just doesn't work for me. The disdain that Zana and Alja show toward Simona makes no sense - why would they choose her as a travel companion to start with as surely they must know her demeanor and attitudes?<br /><br />The three begin a carefree journey down the river on two canoes, undeterred by a news story of a woman's disappearance along the river. Things become more somber with the mysterious appearance, sometimes real and sometimes possibly hallucinatory, of a rabidly conservative fisherman politician (Jonas Znidarsic).<br /><br />I did enjoy the scenes along the river and of small villages the trio visit. It may be because of a lack of cultural understanding, but the film didn't move me otherwise. I was surprised to see that the film has won some awards. | 1 |
A whole bunch of teenagers gather around to discuss their fears, but an uninvited guest has showed up and is killing everybody off.<br /><br />Probably the worst horror film of the 90's, Camp Blood (1999) is the only film that could challenge it for that title, has some of the dumbest characters and situations to ever grace a television screen. The so called surprise ending is awful, as is the rest of this film. Mildly entertaining on a sooo bad it is good level. My rating: 2 out of 10. | 1 |
I have been looking for this mini-series for a very long time. I saw this movie when I was living in back in Russia many years ago. I'm curious if somebody who has the recorded copy of this movie can send me the copy. I'm willing to cover all the expenses and pay for the extra tapes or DVDs. This is one of the best TV series that I have ever watched. I would recommend it to anybody who is somewhat interested in Israel History and World History after WWII. I'm also trying to find a book (I have heard that its even better than the movie)however the new one costs around $50 on amazon and I have never purchased a used copy. my e-mail address is [email protected] Thank you very much for you help. | 0 |
I hated this movie. It was absolutely horrible, poor,poor, PITIFUL acting, REAL REAL REAL stupid criminals that weren't even the LEAST BIT funny(unlike the first 2 home alone movies that were very good). all the boobie traps are weak, pathetic excuses for ideas poorly copied of of the first two which just meant that the people writing this movie were just lazy because their paycheck didn't go above 20 bucks a week. This movie is absolutely lousy, it's not worth even renting. In fact don't even watch it on t.v.! Go use your eyes in a more useful way by seeing the first two! I BARELY give this 1 star(out of 10). Just trust me when I say, if you liked the first two, and you are not a complete stupid person, you will not like this movie,do not watch this movie!!! | 1 |
This was a favorite of my childhood - I can remember seeing it on television and thrilling to it each time. Now that I'm grown up and have a kid of my own, I wanted to introduce him to this classic movie. We watched it last Friday, and he liked it. During Abu's fight with the giant spider, my son's hand crept over and took hold of mine - he was genuinely scared. 'Is he gonna beat the spider, Poppa?' Just watch, you'll see. He has no historical frame of reference to speak of (eight years old), so Bagdad under the grandson of Haroun al-Raschid might as well be Oz under Ozma.<br /><br />I think he especially liked how much of the heroics and derring-do were perpetrated by the boy-thief, and not the grown-up king. In fact, if you deconstruct the film's narrative a bit, the king is the thief's sidekick, not the hero at all - which must be very satisfying to imaginative, adventurous young boys. <br /><br />It's definitely a period piece - I suspect that by the time he's eleven or twelve, my son will find it 'corny' or whatever word the next generation will be using by then. The love story is barely one-dimensional - as a cynical friend commented, 'Why does Ahmad love the Princess? Because the narrative demands it.' The willingness of Abu to put himself in jeopardy (repeatedly) for the clueless, love-struck deposed king is equally improbable. But to quibble about such things while accepting flying mechanical horses, fifty-foot genies and the Temple of the All-Seeing Eye would be fatuous in the extreme. The satisfaction of seeing the prophecy fulfilled at the movie's climax is tremendous, as is the final shot of Abu triumphantly flying away on his (stolen) magic carpet, seeking 'some fun, and adventure at last!' | 0 |
One thing I always liked about Robert Ludlum thrillers is just when you think you have it figured out, it goes in a completely different direction. There are so many twists and turns in this film that I have a sore neck from watching.<br /><br />One thing I also like about director John Dahl (Kill Me Again, Rounders, Unforgettable) is that he can be depended upon to direct and, in this case, write (with his brother Rick) a good story.<br /><br />Now, add Nick Cage, Dennis Hopper, Lara Flynn Boyle, and J.T. Walsh to the cast and you have a story that will keep your interest even if they are playing characters that all of them have perfected. Dahl seems to bring out the best in folks, and this will keep you interested, and guessing, until the very end. | 0 |
Terminus Paradis was exceptional, but 'Niki ardelean' comes too late. We already have enough of this and we want something new.<br /><br />Big directors should have no problems seeing beyond their time, not behind. Why people see Romania only as a postrevolutionary country?<br /><br />We are just born not reincarnated, and nobody gives a s**t anymore about old times. Most people dont remember or dont want to remember, and the new generation of movie consumers dont understand a bit. This should be the first day of romanian movie not the final song - priveghi! Maybe younger directors should make the move. | 1 |
'The belief in the Big Other as an invisible power structure which exists in the Real is the most succinct definition of paranoia.' Slavoj Zizek <br /><br />This is a review of 'Marathon Man' and 'The Falcon and the Snowman', two films by director John Schlesinger.<br /><br />Though Hitchcock and Lang brought the 'conspiracy thriller' to Hollywood, the genre only blossomed in the late 60s and 70s, with films like 'The Parallax View', 'Z', 'Marathon Man', 'Capricorn One', 'The Manchurian Candidate', 'Three Days of the Condor' and 'All The President's Men'. This was the age of Vietnam and Watergate, the public deeply suspicious of all political leaders.<br /><br />The genre remained quiet in the 80s and early 90s, until the 'X Files' TV series sprung to life. With taglines such as 'The Truth Is Out There' and 'Trust No One', the series posited a world of vast conspiracies and government plots, the common man at the mercy of all manners of ridiculously elaborate schemes. The only way out of the maze? 'Fight the future!' as the tagline of the series' final season proclaimed. It was apparently our duty to trawl through the labyrinth of information, discovering some elusive 'truth' that ensured our own freedom.<br /><br />This trend ended with the boom of the internet, conspiracy thrillers now giving way to 'conspiracy documentaries'. The internet generation lapped up such independent documentaries as 'Loose Change' and 'Zeitgeist', whilst in the mainstream Michael Moore titillated his audience with stuff like 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. All these documentaries believed in a 'secret order', a cabal of wealthy politicians and businessmen who conspire to reduce human rights and enslave the world. They struggle to create a mono-myth, linking various conspiracies and hidden agendas into a single, all encompassing narrative that explains the purpose and point and future of everything.<br /><br />This need to 'streamline narratives', to make them more 'efficient', is reflected in the scientific community, who battle to create a 'Grand Unification Theory' and ultimately a 'Theory of Everything', merging everything from Quantum Mechanics to Special Relativity into one giant all encompassing formula.<br /><br />So ultimately, the 'conspiracy thriller' is rooted in man's desire to have control. The modern subject is one who displays outright cynicism towards official institutions, yet at the same time believes in the existence of conspiracies (an unseen Other pulling the strings). This apparently contradictory coupling of cynicism and belief is strictly related to the demise of the big Other. Its disappearance causes us to construct an Other of the Other (conspiracy) in order to escape the unbearable freedom its loss causes. Conversely, there is no need to take the Big Other seriously if we believe in an Other of the Other. We're therefore allowed to display cynicism and belief in equal measures. <br /><br />Man thus seeks to assert control over a wayward universe, to create a kind of paternal babysitter (be it God, a mathematical formula, a conspiracy theory, an explanation for violence/conspiracies/murder/war etc) who provides meaning and symbolic order. The Big Other provides reassurances to the believer. It's a 'lifestyle choice', akin to religion, in which his place in the world is dependent on sheer irrationality. <br /><br />The problem with most 'conspiracy thrillers', from the innocent days of Hitchcock's 'Topaz' all the way up to modern fare like 'The Da Vinci Code', are two fold. Firstly, they are not incorrect in suggesting that something is 'wrong' amongst the 'elite' or 'best people', but they are incorrect in individualizing and personalizing processes that are social, collective and systemic, an approach which implies that it is just a question of personal morality rather than social structures. Secondly, and most importantly, these 'conspiracies' ignore the fact that the Big Other simply doesn't exist. There is no symbolic order pulling the strings.<br /><br />Some modern 'conspiracy thrillers' ('Eyes Wide Shut', 'Existenz' etc) acknowledge this, with their untangleable webs of lies, accidents, truths and half truths, nothing ever adding up, nothing ever making sense, the real and the hyperreal, the truth and the desire, all blurred, without any identifiable ground zero, but these are mostly films by intellectual directors.<br /><br />Compared to these modern 'conspiracy thrillers', 'Marathon Man' and 'The Falcon and the Snowman' are positively archaic. 'Marathon Man' is a about a grad student (Dustin Hoffman) who gets embroiled in his big brother's business (Roy Scheider), which unfortunately has to do with spies, guns, double agents, diamonds and evil Nazi dentists. Scheider is suave, Hoffman is excellent and Schlesinger hits us with some neat visuals (the reveal of the Eiffel tower is stunning), but what's most interesting about the film is the way that its various plot lines don't intersect until the 1 hour mark. Even then, it takes a further half hour for things to start making sense. Unfortunately, the film ends with a clichéd showdown between the villain and the good guy, everything neatly resolved and explained.<br /><br />'The Falcon and the Snowman' is a bit more ambitious. Sean Penn and Timothy Hutton play two friends who sell government secrets to the Soviet Union. Hutton works at a civil defence contractor and smuggles information out of his office and into the hands of Penn, a small time drug dealer who has no qualms selling to the KGB. Penn does this strictly for the money, whilst Hutton is disillusioned with the American government (particularly its attempt to depose the leader of Australia) and so sells the secrets strictly because he hates how his country conducts crimes and games of espionage. In other words, the film is about a conspiracy undertaken as a response to conspiracies.<br /><br />'Marathon Man' 7.9/10 <br /><br />'The Falcon and the Snowman' 8/10 <br /><br />Aside from an oddly slapstick car crash and its clichéd ending, 'Marathon Man' is an effective thriller, with several neat scenes. 'The Falcon and the Snowman' is even better, Penn turning in a memorable performance. | 0 |
A kind of road movie in old-fashioned trains in the Slowenian late summer province. At the beginning you see someone in underwear sewing trousers from black cloth, and when the same young man in his black trousers leaves the house with two suitcases, you see that the trousers-part is missing on a flag of mourning (appearently his father has died). In the train he meets a young lady, and almost without words, but many small gestures, a wonderful love story begins. It's a somehow surreal, very poetic, and a little bizarre movie, with a lot of strange characters and strange incidents. Beautiful pictures with love for beautiful details. | 0 |
Hopalong Cassidy with a horse who is not white & not named Topper? Go figure!<br /><br />This travesty does a gross injustice to the greatest of all cowboy heroes, Hopalong Cassidy. The actor who plays him is young versus old, blond haired versus white haired and kills people versus shooting the gun out of their hands. Will the real Hopalong please stand up!<br /><br />One of the worst movies ever made &,believe it or not, by the person who brought us the Grandfather saga! | 1 |
Being a Harrison Ford fan I am probably being kind. It was predictable, sappy...my husband made a lot of gagging sounds while we were watching it. What a disappointing movie. Our local newspaper (San Jose Mercury News) actually gave this 4 stars out of 4 stars!!! Hard to believe that the reviewer saw the same movie we did. | 1 |
This movie appears to have made for the sole purpose of annoying me. Everything I hate about films is present: fake sentimentality, extreme corniness, bad child actors and more feature abundantly. That's ignoring the fact that it depicts the extreme ignorance of American sports fans, with many of the cast professing that a football is shaped like a lemon. What?! That's a Rugby ball. The story follows a group of no hopers that get a new teacher that they like (who, coincidently, teaches the class in a short skirt) and gets them interested in football. Naturally, they're all rubbish (don't forget, they're no hopers) except for one kid who has moved from El Paso. Blah Blah, etc etc and the kids still don't become good footballers, but good heart ensues and the no hopers are turned into a bunch of well-rounded kids. Hell, even the adults start to come round; drunks are turned into caring parents, illegal immigrants are let off the hook...groan.<br /><br />This movie stars Steve Guttenberg. Now, before you go rushing off down your local video store to grab yourself a copy, hold up a minute. Guttenberg is rubbish. No, no; come on let's face it, how did this guy ever get to be in a movie? I have absolutely no idea, and there is nothing in this movie to give me an idea. Olivia d'Abo stars along side Steve and doesn't impress either. She merely seems to be going through the motions and looking nice while doing it. Although I have no problems with the latter part; her performance does the movie no credit. The child actors that make up the rest of the cast are just as bad as you would expect from a movie like this. Most of them are disgusting and/or annoying and it doesn't make for pleasant viewing at all. There's a goat in the film who plays the mascot and he does a good job; but you wouldn't see a movie for a goat, so don't bother seeing this movie. | 1 |
The Sentinel features a sort of run of the mill and clichéd suspense/mystery but is lifted with some good acting and taut pacing. These stories have already for the most part gone through as many permutations as we can bear, so what we're left with is how good is the acting, how smart are the setups and bad guys, how well crafted is the main plot etc etc.....so the Sentinel does a solid job given it's content. Michael Douglass and Kiefer Sutherland both maintain some good screen bravado and attitudes. Eva Longoria (first time I've seen her on screen) brings some satisfactory support. The whole affair side of the story is utterly implausible knocking it down a bit, but it deserves slack. Worth a viewing if you like the genre. | 0 |
I saw this film at the Edinburgh Film Festival, and would not recommend it. It is two and a half hours long, during which nothing much happens at a wading-through-porridge pace.<br /><br />The main characters are gormless and totally lacking in charisma or personality. No-one smiles at all during the film (neither would I if I had their lives), and although Domino seems to have a healthy sexual appetite she doesn't seem to enjoy sex at all.<br /><br />The whole experience is depressing and ponderous, the director lingering over each scene in a way that drove me crazy rather than striking me with the beauty of his technique.<br /><br />Too many questions were left in my mind: why does he sniff the Algerian man's head? Why does he levitate? What is he looking at over the allotment fence? Why does he kiss Joseph? Why did we go and see this rubbish rather than ordering another bottle of wine in Bouzy Rouge? | 1 |
Every kid has that movie that he pops into VHS when he has nothing to do, or when there is a babysitter around. This was that movie for me.<br /><br /> I can tell you the whole plot exactly, I must have seen it 100 times at least, and I can say it is a good kids/family movie.<br /><br />I still have the tape, I haven't watched it in 5 years, but maybe I'll get around to it this week, and be a kid for the day.<br /><br /> You just have to love the care bears, and their messege.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Talk about false advertising! What was this doing in the comedy section of my video rental place? I think there was maybe one laughable part in the movie. I can appreciate black comedy, but this had only the blackness without any comedy. The movie was generally disturbing and un-funny. Yes, Kevin Spacey was good as Buddy and the rest of the cast was also good, but generally the movie falls apart because we don't really see a good enough reason for Guy (Whaley) to lose his mind so badly. The ending was disappointing as well. What would Buddy's motivation be for letting Guy get away with what he did? This isn't really explained AT ALL. Why would Buddy go for such a plan? Wouldn't it be more like Buddy to screw Guy completely by turning him over to the police? The ending didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me no matter how I looked at it.<br /><br />Generally, I disliked the film despite the good acting. Spacey essentially chews scenery for most of the film, but towards the end he gives Buddy a bit of needed humanity. The story just wasn't as good as the cast. | 1 |
Oh wow, the character shares my name first name! Nick! This movie as bad as the first one, if not worse. Well, at least there's an actual octopus in this movie. An actual octopus that makes a better appearance in this film. By better, I mean, 'Longer' the acting is pretty dry and it's hard to sit through. Just to let you know, when this ninety minute film ends not only are you freed from your couch but you get your ability to breathe back. Not only that, but you realise how stupid you are and then commit suicide, realising how horrible life is after watching this film. Really, it shows how desperate horror movies are today, more crap like this is being realised and where the hell have the real masters of horror been lately? This film should have been the final straw, so we can bring back cinematic geniuses in horror cinema, that could make some actually GOOD modern horror films, this movie bites. | 1 |
Fatal Error is a really cool movie! Robert Wagner, Antonio Sabato Jr., Janine Turner, Jason Schombing, Malcolm Stewart, and David Lewis are in the film. The movie's cast all acted really well. Robert Wagner played his role good. The relationship between Saboto Jr. and Turner was a nice one. There maybe a big age difference there but they are a unique couple. The two actors really worked together rather well. The music in the film is really good by Ron Ramin and fits the flick very well. There is a bunch of stuff that happens in the movie which you don't know what is going on and what is going to happen next and this movie keeps you going from beginning to end. If you like Robert Wagner, Antonio Sabato Jr., and Janine Turner then watch this excellent movie! | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.