review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
I just saw this movie for the first time ever and I liked it. Her dancing was very entertaining. I read somewhere that she got the part in this movie because she knew how to dance. The scenery was great too. Yvonne is such a talented woman and beautiful. WE laughed at the silly kissing scenes, but that is what is great about old movies! I grew up with her on The Munsters and I am enjoying watching her in her earlier movies. They may not all be the best out there but still worth watching to see her act and sing. I am slowly purchasing all her movies and watching them as I receive them. I have a large collection of her memorabilia. | 0 |
i believe that this movie was a terrible waste of my time, and i would know after watching it 5 times in class. this movie does not show what absolutely perfectly happened during these times. no one can truly say that these things happened to the letter. if anything the only good part would be the actors, even tho that they were really really crap.they were reading the script without expression. quite boring. i would rather watch play school. so i would definitely like to never ever see this movie again in my whole life. it is a complete waste of time unless you want your time to be wasted and if you would like to see an unrealistic view of what happened back in 1981. | 1 |
'With all the misery in the world, how can we not get drunk?' Mia<br /><br />A lovely aerial view of a major city turns ominous with the approach of a fleet of airplane bombers; an irate hairdresser reacting to a perceived racial slur cuts a road through a businessman's bushy hair; a man dreams of being dragged to an electric chair after a failed magic trick and a teacher breaks down in front of her grade school class because her husband called her a hag. These and about fifty other vignettes that run the gamut from the outright depressing to the wildly humorous to the joyously uplifting populate Roy Andersson's You, the Living, his first feature since his critically acclaimed if commercially unsuccessful Songs From the Second Floor.<br /><br />You, the Living is filled with the same kind of imaginative set-pieces as Songs, replete with black humor, surreal situations, and strange looking characters. Though a bit overlong and less focused than his earlier work, what remains constant is Andersson's unmistakable style with its stationary camera, sterile-looking backgrounds, and precise attention to detail. If there is a theme that ties the sketches together, it is that our time on Earth is limited and 'tomorrow's another day', so let's treat each other with kindness. Along the way, we are entertained by tuba and drum music from the Louisiana Brass Band, dinner guests at a banquet hall standing on their chairs singing a rousing song, and a house that turns into a moving train.<br /><br />The emotions range from the gloom of a daughter attempting to communicate with an Alzheimer's patient to a young woman's ecstatic dream about marrying a handsome guitar-player named Micke to the cheers of a crowd of onlookers. While there is no continuous narrative thread, the theme of greed and desperation appears in several sketches. The first of these threads features two corpulent individuals and their tiny dog sitting on a park bench, the woman bewailing the fact that no one understands or loves her, yet she blithely ignores the man's comforting and reassuring words.<br /><br />There is also a hefty admixture of irony. During what seems to be an executive luncheon, one man tells another on the phone that workers don't appreciate quality and how nice it is to appreciate money and the things that it can buy such as fine wine. When he is not looking, however, a man at an adjacent table calmly lifts his wallet from his jacket on the back of his chair. Though Andersson's cynicism is at times not very well hidden, You the Living has an underlying humanism that shows compassion for the human condition. It is a cautionary tale that looks at the mess we humans have gotten ourselves into but suggests there is still time to turn it around, if we heed the warning of the poet Goethe that opens the film, 'Be pleased then, you the living, in your delightfully warmed bed, before Lethe's ice-cold wave will lick your escaping foot.' | 0 |
A great film. Every moment masterfully conducted by Toyoda and his crew. The actors give credible performances all around.The visuals are haunting,beautiful and sometimes hauntingly beautiful shots of the Japanese country and city landscapes.The sounds,courtesy of Japanese band 'Dig', are never overly edgy as one would expect from band-made soundtracks. It's strangely atmospheric and well suited to the scenes they're on. <br /><br />All in all, they worked everything out perfectly....Well, if they were to give any justice to the story, perfection is the only thing anyone could have accepted. <br /><br />The real greatness of 9 Souls is the compelling story. The prison break movie maybe something of a lost genre these days, and road trip movie losing it's appeal due to the way the world is getting smaller. But this story easily mixes something fresh to those two genres.<br /><br />9 convicts are given freedom and possibly the opportunity to regain their places in society. will society accept them? will they be truly free of their dark pasts? and can they stick together long enough to stay alive and find out? <br /><br />Each convict has an interesting history. Their crimes are as varied as their apparent fates. A sense of brotherhood among them keeps the story high on drama and supplies it with hilariously comedic situations. And due to the nature of their backgrounds, violence is always something waiting to happen.<br /><br />After all that, all i can say is go give it a watch. | 0 |
I really wanted to like this movie. A film with zombie children getting out of a mine to kill people at night really seemed like a great idea for a horror film. Unfortunately, the film was in the bottom 3 of films played at horror fest.<br /><br />A mother and her two daughters attempt to move on after her husband/father had passed away from an illness that cost their family a lot of money. They have to adapt to their new environment. They end up struggling due to all the surroundings for different reasons.(Crazy Zombie kids go into this category) The film never gives any sentimental attachment for anyone that lives or dies, the film produces no scares or jump worthy moments, the film barely shows the children doing what they're supposed to do...Kill! With a bigger budget and a better cast this film could have hope. Until then, pass on it.<br /><br />3.5/10 actually. | 1 |
It tries to be the epic adventure of the century. And with a cast like Shô Kasugi, Christopher Lee and John-Rhys Davies it really is the perfect B-adventure of all time. It's actually is a pretty fun, swashbuckling adventure that, even with it's flaws, captures your interest. It must have felt as the biggest movie ever for the people who made it. Even if it's made in the 90s, it doesn't have a modern feel. It more has the same feeling that a old Errol Flynn movie had. Big adventure movie are again the big thing in Hollywood but I'm afraid that the feeling in them will never be the same as these old movies had. This on the other hand, just has the real feeling. You just can't hate it. I think it's an okay adventure movie. And I really love the soundtrack. Damn, I want the theme song. | 0 |
Legendary hammy and arrogant horror movie star Conrad Radzoff (splendidly played with wicked sardonic aplomb by Ferdy Mayne) dies of a heart attack. A bunch of drama school students steal Radzoff's corpse from its crypt and take it to a rundown mansion so they can party with it. Radzoff comes back to life and picks off the rude youths for desecrating his grave. Writer/director Norman Thaddeus Vane concocts a fresh, original, and even pretty stylish spin on the usual body count premise, offers a neat evocation of the glitzy Hollywood milieu, and does a sturdy job of maintaining a pleasingly misty and spooky ooga-booga atmosphere. The kill set pieces deliver the grisly goods, with a gal being set on fire, a juicy decapitation (the severed head rolls right down the stairs and onto the lawn so a raven can peck away at it!), and another poor lass being crushed with a levitating coffin rating as the definite gruesome highlights. Kudos are also in order for the stellar cast of familiar B-flick faces: Mayne has a deliciously eye-rolling ball with his flashy role, Leon Askin contributes an amusing cameo as bitter washed-up director Wolfgang, Nita Talbot adds some class as flaky psychic medium Mrs. Rohmer, plus there are nice turns by Luca Bercovici as jerky drama student ringleader Saint, Jennifer Starrett as the sweet Meg, Jeffrey Combs as the geeky Stu, and Scott Thomson as the nerdy Bobo. Popping up in cool bits are Chuck 'Porky' Mitchell as a detective, Patrick Wright in one of his customary policeman parts, and Tallie Cochrane as a corpse. Joel King's polished cinematography gives the film an attractive glossy look. The moody score by Jerry Mosely likewise hits the shuddery spot. A fun little fright flick. | 0 |
As a 'Jane Eyre' fan I was excited when this movie came out. 'At last,' I thought, 'someone will make this book into a movie following the story actually written by the author.' Wrong!!! If the casting director was intending to cast a 'Jane' who was plain he certainly succeeded. However, surely he could have found one who could also act. Where was the tension between Jane and Rochester? Where was the spooky suspense of the novel when the laughter floated into the night seemingly from nowhere? Where was the sparkle of the child who flirted and danced like her mother? Finally, why was the plot changed at the end? One wonders whether the screenwriters had actually read the book. What a disappointment | 1 |
The film begins with promise, but lingers too long in a sepia world of distance and alienation. We are left hanging, but with nothing much else save languid shots of grave and pensive male faces to savour. Certainly no rope up the wall to help us climb over. It's a shame, because the concept is not without merit.<br /><br />We are left wondering why a loving couple - a father and son no less - should be so estranged from the real world that their own world is preferable when claustrophobic beyond all imagining. This loss of presence in the real world is, rather too obviously and unnecessarily, contrasted with the son having enlisted in the armed forces. Why not the circus, so we can at least appreciate some colour? We are left with a gnawing sense of loss, but sadly no enlightenment, which is bewildering given the film is apparently about some form of attainment not available to us all. | 1 |
Not knowing a great deal about the Truth and Reconciliation commission, I can only look at this as a piece of entertainment. I started watching it too late in the evening (recorded from BBC2 earlier this year) but once I'd started I had to watch to the end.<br /><br />The down-side is that it's effectively a courtroom drama - never my favourite genre - but it's stunningly photographed (largely in super-saturated ochres) and well acted. Like a good novel, I couldn't put it down. All the way through, I wished I was watching it in a cinema to do the music and photography justice. What happened to its release in theatres? I'm an admirer of Chiwetel Ejiofor since I saw him in Dirty Pretty Things, and Hilary Swank looks terrific in this - very female and sexy for a change (possibly out of place, but she adds to the visual attractiveness of the film).<br /><br />This picture deserves a wider audience than it seems to be getting. | 0 |
I first watched Kindred in 1987 along with another movie called devouring waves. I remember back then i hated them both and i have never really bothered to watch them again.<br /><br />However i have recently started a crusade to collect as many 80's horror titles in their original boxed form, That have been deleted for some time. I have got myself quite a proud collection with many more titles on my list!<br /><br />The Kindred although i have not as yet got a copy is high priority as all the old movies i didn't like back then, I now own and have now re-watched and think they are brilliant and the bits i do remember of the Kindred are now driving me to want to get hold of a copy A.S.A.P.<br /><br />Hurray for the 80's and long live horror! | 1 |
I am appalled to see that so many people have given positive reviews for this 'film'. This movie has no redeeming factors. The music is not good, the acting is pathetic, I have a difficult time understanding how someone could enjoy this movie, let alone sing its 'praises'. The idea is horrible, certain scenes linked to the plot (such as the continued love story even though the male romantic interest is a SHRUNKEN HEAD) are so bad that I wanted to do myself bodily harm while watching them. The fact that there is scene in which a shrunken head flies under a girls' shirt so he can 'feel her up' AND she likes it is reason enough for everyone associated with this film to perish. The link to West Side Story can only be a mockery, since to reference such a great movie in such a horrible one is grounds alone to destroy all copies of this movie. To make a long story short, this film is horrible in every way. And if I had my way, everyone who likes it should go straight to hell.... | 1 |
This early version of the tale 'The Student of Prague' was made in Germany in 1913, starring Paul Wegener (who was also in 'The Golem' a few years later). In this film he plays a dual role (technically impressive for a 95 year old film to see them in the same shot) after meeting a mysterious old man who makes a pact with him for gold - the gold he needs to woo a countess he's previously saved from drowning.<br /><br />Moving at a fast pace (the film runs just over an hour) and fairly well written and characterised, 'The Student of Prague' has echoes of the Faust legend as well as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, starting as it does with a pact with a mysterious figure of potential evil, and developing into good and evil sides of the same person. | 0 |
I'm fan of ART, I like anything about Art, I like paintings, sculptures, etc. This movie shows it, so I like it a lot, it shows how a woman wants to paint anything about Art, especially naked bodies, but she can't do it because of her strict family (father), at the beginning of the movie she painted herself naked, but she wanted a man for her paintings, but her family didn't let her paint naked men because it's against the moral. Even so Artemisia could paint her boyfriend and her art teacher completely naked. She falls in love with her art teacher, and it seems the art teacher is absolutely in love with her too, so at the ending he sacrifices his freedom for hers by lying. He said that he raped her, but it wasn't true. Artemisia fell in love with him, but if she says that she will suffer a lot, because in the trial in which Artemisia, her father and the Art teacher were, somebody was hurting her artistic hands to say the truth. I think this a great movie about ART, and an artistic love, It's worth watching. Valentina Cervi is great as Artemisia, she acts very well, I also like her performance in 'The portrait of a lady' as Pansy Osmond. 8.5/10 | 0 |
As an ex (nuclear) submarine officer I must admit this is my favorite submarine movie (even exceeding Hunt for Red October). Someone knew something about submarines when they wrote the movie. OK - not realistic - but it is a comedy - and has all of the 'inside jokes' from the submarine force. A great cast with the stereotypical uptight submarine guys on the 'Orlando' and our heroes on the diesel boat. Definitely 'DBF' by the way = that means diesel boats forever. But they want ten lines in order to post this - jees is the Admiral in charge here? <br /><br />Line 10. | 0 |
This is the movie that epitomizes the D&D fear of the 80s (and even today). The fear being that people who play D&D (or any other role-playing game for that matter) will be 'sucked in' and lose their ability to distinguish reality from fantasy (and go on killing sprees, child sacrifices, suicide, etc). Great movie for anyone who likes to blame the problems of society on inanimate objects, but anyone who has played a role-playing game, a video game, or even acted in a play will see this as an insult to their intelligence. It is to D&D what Wargames was to computers. Plus as a movie, it just kinda sucks. | 1 |
Well, I'm an Italian horror big fan and I love movies from directors such Argento, Fulci, Bava Sr and Bava Jr, only to quote the most famous. 'La villa delle anime maledette' is one of the most unknown movie of this genre, shot when this kind of cinema began its crisis that continues still today, and director Carlo Ausino sounds totally new to my ears (althoug he directed six movies... this is the price Italian directors have to pay to not work in Rome...) . But the film is not so bad. And it's absolutely not correct to talk about 'trash'. OK, the plot is not so original; it reminds me stuff like the Amytville series (the year is the same of 'Amityville Possession' by Damiano Damiani) or 'Shock', the last work of Mario Bava. But you have to think that this is the movie of a cinematographer (like Mario Bava movies); so the most important thing is the atmosphere, not the story or the characters; atmosphere very well created by the use of light and by the camera movement. The rest remain in the background. I think the movie works; not so good, but works; it's surely better than a lot of Hollywoodian production like 'the Haunting' which have a bigger budget, but not bigger ideas... | 0 |
This is a complex documentary that shows many things about early Gay life. To put it in perspective it was when Gay was the word used for the homo-sexual revolution, and not just Gay as a descriptor. Or is it still used that way today? I believe most of the film comes from circa 1968 to 1989. It was released in 1993, so it's been around.<br /><br />I was touched by the documentaries capturing of one man's love for another over a 20 some odd year period. A love expressed in ways that only true love can be. There are many scenes of incredible empathy and pain, along with scenes of joy and pleasure. There are scenes of life as a homo-sexual and life as a gay. The film itself was a work of love, and I believe it to be a diamond.<br /><br />At the very least one will get out of this film an understanding of the devastating impact of AIDS. As I write this, I am thinking how much earlier this film seems to me to have been set. The advances in medical, political, and social sciences and culture that have taken place since this film was set (some 15 years ago) are amazing. However, obviously, in the case of the disease of AIDS itself, we are not done yet. Heck I guess we aren't done on all fronts.<br /><br />Anyway, it's just a pretty darn good documentary. I'd encourage anyone that feels that they don't quite understand gay life, gay issues, or the devastation of AIDS to watch this film. | 0 |
There is not much to add to what others have already commented, the movie fails hard where it shouldn't, it has no depth in the planning of the heist and the characters are so unbelievable.<br /><br />One thing that got me thinking, was that although the rest of the gang is trying hard to remove the pins from the doors of an armored truck, because there is supposed to be no other way of opening it, the guy inside the truck, with great ease manages to remove the floor of the truck which happens to have a hole in it so he can get out, and then get back in, without being noticed by anyone, because no one else could think that he could get out from there or even better, that they could have gotten into from there.<br /><br />Promising but not quite there. | 1 |
This movie is a fascinating example of Luis Bunuel's storytelling abilities. This is a comedy that is not a comedy, and a social drama that is not a social drama. Even though I don't think it was particularly funny, it made me laugh. Also, despite the fact that you can never take Bunuel too seriously, the movie made think about religion and its importance in some people's lives. Bunuel tells the story of a Catholic priest, devoted to his faith like no one else and the viewer witness what happens when the priest's undying commitment to serve others is put to test. As usual, Bunuel's target is Catholicism, but I don't think he tried to mock the church as he often does. At least I didn't take the film as a mockery of the institution. I think he is trying to make an interesting point about how religion could be a nuisance in today's modern society. Not because faith in itself is bad, but because people always mange to bastardize the concept. Message aside, I think this is one of Bunuel's most clever works. Francisco Rabal is superb as the priest. Definitely, one of the filmmaker's best movies. | 0 |
I had high hopes for this film, even though I had not read the book. Richard Gere and Diane Lane together--should be good already. But the film does not deliver on the promise. I kept waiting for more depth to the characters and there wasn't. I have no problem with the fact that it only took a weekend for them to fall in love. That can happen. But we never really get to know the characters. I would have liked more focus on them. The film reminded me in places of Bridges of Madison County, and that film was far better. I really felt for the characters in that film, and there was a chemistry (much more passion) between Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep that there wasn't between Gere and Lane. Each of them are very good actors in his or her own right. Simply not the right movie for them together. | 1 |
So I caught this one afternoon as 'What Lies Above' and actually watched it because the beginning was somewhat promising. The heroine, Diana Pennington, is a mountain climbing expert...but that doesn't help her when her fiancé Brian gets hurt on a climb. When she goes off to get help and returns, he disappears from the mountain, never to be seen again.<br /><br />Two years later, Diana is still a climber...but she won't go near Snowman's Pass. That is, until Curt Seaver appears and tells her that he can find the body of her lost fiancé with a new satellite program. She agrees and they take off up the mountain with Curt's two assistants: His 'bodyguard' Hugo and the computer whiz Tyler. From the start, you know that there's some ulterior motive going on, but unfortunately the twists aren't good and lead to a laughably bad chase sequence that makes up the last 20 or 30 minutes of the movie.<br /><br />The major disappointments are the red herrings, most of which have supernatural undertones that never come to fruition. The object from the sky that fell into the mountains (which turns out to be not so supernatural), the story of how Snowman's Pass came to be, and the most memorable one of them all: Diana's dream sequence halfway through the movie. But what disappointed me most is where they dropped the ball. The majority of the movie revolves around the search for Brian, that's why I can't for the life of me begin to understand why the mystery of what exactly happened to him and where he was is never solved through the course of the movie. This was the major plot. This was how the movie STARTED! How do you NOT wrap that up?<br /><br />I wouldn't tell too many people to bother with this one... | 1 |
I really wish i could give this a negative vote, because i think i just wasted 83 minutes of my life watching the worst horror movie ever put to film. the acting was just god awful, i mean REALLLYYYY bad, the dialog was worse, the script sounded like it was written by.... i can't think of anything horrible enough to say. And the day 'outside' and the night 'inside' shots make you think the events took over several days. Terribly acted, directed, written, etc etc. all the way down to the gofer how gets lunch for everyone. STAY AWAY FROM THIS ONE AT ALL COSTS. If my only saving grace to stay out of hell is by doing one good deed, it is to tell the world to not watch this crap. This movie is the exact reason why horror movies are never taken seriously. | 1 |
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Basically a man at a horn factory is the fourth to crack, and soon enough Ollie cracks with all the horn noises. He is resting at home with Stan by his side, needing quiet, and the Doctor (James Finlayson) phones to say he is coming over to check on Ollie. After realising plumbing and electricity is muddled up by a cross-eyed repairman, the Doctor comes in for a check-up, and after some tests, he recommends drinking goat's milk and getting some sea air on the ocean. After Stan practises some trumpet playing, hanging out the window by the phone cord and a car crash, he and Ollie to a dock to rent a boat. They keep the boat on the dock trying to milk a goat, and Stan has brought his trumpet! Meanwhile, the newspaper's front page reads that Killer Nick Grainger - Escaped Convict (Richard Cramer) has escaped, and he sneaks onto the boys' boat while they are sleeping, and the goat chews through the boat rope, drifting out to sea. In the morning, the see their location, and the Killer comes out demanding something to eat, and he spots Stan and Ollie making fake food, e.g. string for spaghetti, soap for cheese, belt for bacon, sponge for meatballs, and he forces them to eat it. When Ollie starts choking on something, Stan blows his trumpet to help, and Ollie's rage gets him punching the Killer, and it keeps going till the police arrive, only to have Ollie's rage get them put in prison too. There were the tiniest moments of comedy, but it isn't a great black and white film. 'Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!' was number 60 on 100 Years, 100 Quotes, and Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay! | 1 |
This film is about the worst I have seen in a very long time. Terence Stamp's talent is totally wasted and just about the only thing that I enjoyed was hearing a favorite song of mine, 'If I Had a Million Dollars' by BNL, in the opening credits.<br /><br />Ashton Kutcher plays the main character, a nice guy who gets roped into house sitting for his boss. Misadventures ensue. Blah blah blah. If you have time to kill and having nothing better to do, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, watch something else.<br /><br />There are not necessarily any redeeming moments, but it is nice to see Molly Shannon and Jeffrey Tambor on the screen. They are always pleasures to watch though this film managed to dampen even these bright spots. | 1 |
Like many people on this site, I saw this movie only once, when it was first televised in 1971. Certain scenes linger in my memory and an overall feeling of disquiet is how I remember being affected by it. I would be fascinated to see it again, if it was ever made available for home video.<br /><br />Possible spoiler: I wonder if anyone else would agree that the basic plot setup and characters might have been derived from a 1960 British movie, originally titled City of the Dead, retitled Horror Hotel for the American release? There are some similarities also to a later British film The Wicker Man.<br /><br />One detail remains with me years after seeing the film. It's a small but significant moment near the beginning of the film. As I recall, a minister and his wife have stopped to aid some people by the side of the road, circa 1870, somewhere out West. The friendly seeming Ray Milland introduces himself and his ( daughter?), Yvette Mimieux, a beautiful young mute woman. While the preacher is helping Ray Milland with the wagon, a rattlesnake slithers into view and coils menacingly, unobserved by any of the characters except Yvette Mimieux. She doesn't look scared at all, but stares at the snake with silent concentration, until it goes away. With this strange little moment, we already realize there's something highly unusual about these seemingly normal folks, though the possible danger to the minister and his wife remains vague and uncertain for a long time.<br /><br />That one little scene stays with me vividly after all these years, along with many others. The film has a haunting quality about it that won't let go, and it's not surprising that people remember it so vividly. Someone ought to make this available for home video! | 0 |
This is part one of a short animation clip showing the history of the Matrix, the war between man and machine that resulted in the eventual creation of the Matrix. The animation is part Japanese anime, part contemporary american animation, and is very well made, considering the excellent directors behind the movie. It shows the initial development of AI and the exploitation of the machines by Man, until the day they rebelled... | 0 |
Well, I can safely say I'm human, Wong. And I didn't throw up. I laughed. And laughed. If this movie made you puke, there is something wrong with you. But this movie is incredible. I bought it four days ago, and have watched it 5 times already. The animal cruelty gets my heart, but not long enough to be guilty. The movie is shocking, disgusting, and vulgar. The acting is horrific. What else do you want from a movie? I am a die-hard cult film maniac. Pink Flamingos is awesome. It makes Rocky Horror, as someone has said, look like the teletubbies. | 0 |
This film's trailer interested me enough to warrant renting the DVD. However, the resulting movie is absolutely dire! Admittedly, this is not the worst film ever made, or the worst film this year, but it came damn close!<br /><br />The main issue is the film not knowing what it wants to be: comedy, adult drama, thriller, teen-porn? The story is interesting, as it deals with the pitfalls of mail-order brides, but the film is a mess. What starts out as a mildly interesting 'comedy' (a word I use in the loosest possible terms), then goes totally in reverse, and degenerates into a very dark and distasteful misogynistic thriller. Nicole Kidman should know better, and Ben Chaplin is wasted! As are Matthieu Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel, whom I can only presume did this for the money.<br /><br />This is a bad film in pretty much every single aspect. It's not funny, it's almost so sexist that you could almost forgive Benny Hill for everything he did, and the dramatic elements are just downright nasty. A film to be avoided, unless you absolutely have to see Kidman or Chaplin in every one of their films! | 1 |
Fay Grim is the continuation of a story begun ten years earlier with Hartley's Henry Fool. I haven't seen the earlier film, and I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I can only regard the current film on its own merits.<br /><br />For most people, Hal Hartley's style of film-making is something that you either like or you don't. His combination of action, drama, absurdity and dry, ironic humour really resonates with me, and Fay Grim is no exception. It has an air of sharply-written intelligent parody that had myself and many in the Melbourne International Film Festival audience laughing out loud. For the first half of the film it was relentless and delivered with deadpan straightness. It's a style of humour sadly lacking in cinemas and a welcome relief to the mindless teen comedies that Hollywood pumps out like pancakes.<br /><br />During the second half of the film, the humour starts to thin as the film morphs into an international espionage/conspiracy thriller. Whether this was Hartley's intention or whether he ran out of ideas is not clear, but I think a bit of editing or re-writing to cut fifteen minutes off the film would have maintained the film's original momentum.<br /><br />The performances were generally good, particularly Parker Posey and Jeff Goldblum, who had the most screen time. Saffron Burrows, James Urbaniak, Carl Montgomery and Elina Löwensohn all played good support roles. The film's visuals were nice (set in New York, Paris, Berlin and Istanbul) and the music (also by Hartley) was good without being intrusive. The film is well-written and I enjoyed this it immensely. If you like Hartley's earlier work, you'll probably like this. | 0 |
Hey all, I just wanted to give you all a few crazy facts about this movie. I was actually one of the Make-up FX artists that help create the 'beast' for this movie and I have to tell you the original creature looked absolutely amazing. I remember when we got the first photos back from the set we were all talking about how much of a shame it was that this creature was in a movie that would probably be pretty poor.<br /><br />What actually happened though was that Jason Palmer did the original make-up for the Sasquatch, but for some reason they had to go back and re-shoot much of the creature. The sad part was that Jason passed away a few weeks before that and so the re-done creature was no where near as awesome as the original one.<br /><br />For me it was quite sad because this was Jasons final movie, and he sort of got cheated out of his final fame due to the bad re-shoots. Anyway, I thought you guys may find that a tad interesing, and if you would like you can head over to mmmyeah.com and check out some 'behind the scenes' photos.<br /><br />Later, Jeff | 1 |
Back in 1997, do I remember that year: Clinton bans cloning research, the unfortunate death of Princess Diana, the Marlins won the world series and a woman gave birth to septuplets. This was also the big year in the release of Titanic, one of the biggest films of all time: a tale about the ship of dreams, about a boy and a girl who fall in love but are torn apart by their social class and at the height of their emotional commitment the ship meets with disaster. I don't think anybody could have expected Titanic to be as HUGE as it was, the movie was bigger than life and had millions of fans, 85% of them being teenage girls, I was 12 years old at the time, and of course saw the movie multiple times. It was the film that made me believe that the love that Jack and Rose shared was so real and beautiful. At the time I felt that Titanic could do no wrong, of course I grew up and didn't watch the film since I was 14, a couple years ago I saw the film on DVD for 5.99 and figured that it was a good price and to see what I thought about the movie now. Was it worth the hype? Was it really the best movie of all time? Was that Leonardo's real nose? OK, I know that's silly to say, but I did re-watch the film. Being completely honest here, Titanic is a great movie, best movie of all time, no, just depends on your idea of a good movie, but Titanic delivered in romance, humor, disaster, emotions and never let us go on this maiden voyage.<br /><br />The film starts with Brock Lovett and his team exploring the wreck of the RMS Titanic, searching for a necklace set with a valuable blue diamond called the Heart of the Ocean. Unsuccessful, they instead discover a drawing of a young woman reclining nude, wearing the Heart of the Ocean, dated the day the Titanic sank. 101-year-old Rose Dawson Calvert learns of the drawing, and contacts Lovett to inform him she is the woman in the drawing. She and her granddaughter Elizabeth 'Lizzy' Calvert visit Lovett and his skeptical team on his salvage ship. When asked if she knew the whereabouts of the necklace, Rose Calvert recalls her memories aboard the Titanic, revealing for the first time that she was Rose DeWitt Bukater. In 1912, the upper-class 17-year-old Rose boards the ship with her fiancé, Cal Hockley and her mother, Ruth DeWitt Bukater, both of whom stress the importance of Rose's engagement to Cal since the marriage will mean the eradication of the Dewitt-Bukater debts: while they have the outward appearance of the upper-class, Rose and her mother are financially broke. Distraught and frustrated by her engagement to the controlling Cal and the pressure her mother is putting on her to go through with the marriage, Rose attempts suicide by jumping from the stern. Before she leaps, a drifter and artist named Jack Dawson intervenes. Jack and Rose strike up a tentative friendship as she thanks him for saving her life, and he shares stories of his adventures traveling and sketching; their bond deepens when they leave a stuffy first-class formal dinner of the rapport-building wealthy for a much livelier gathering of Irish dance, music and beer in third-class. But after Cal's servant informs him of Rose's whereabouts', Rose is forbidden from seeing Jack again. However, after witnessing a woman encouraging her seven-year-old daughter to behave like a 'proper lady' at tea, Rose defies him and her mother, asking Jack to sketch her nude and wearing only the Heart of the Ocean, an engagement present from Cal. After a beautiful moment together in the very first backseat fun time, they go to the deck of the ship.<br /><br />They then witness the ship's fatal collision with an iceberg. After overhearing the ship's lookouts discussing how serious the collision is, Rose tells Jack they should warn her mother and Cal. Meanwhile, Cal discovers Rose's nude drawing and her taunting note in his safe, so he frames Jack for stealing the Heart of the Ocean by having Lovejoy plant it in Jack's pocket. Upon learning Cal intends to leave Jack to die below deck, Rose runs away from him and her mother to rescue him. Jack and Rose return to the top deck. Cal and Jack, though enemies, both want Rose safe, so they persuade her to board a lifeboat. But after realizing that she cannot leave Jack, Rose jumps back on the ship and reunites with Jack in the ship's first class staircase. Jack and Rose return to the top deck, the lifeboats have gone, and the ship finally goes down into the freezing Atlantic taking Jack and Rose down.<br /><br />So does Titanic live up to it's hype? I still say that this is a great movie to watch, I think that there were and still are quite a few haters that for some reason just want to trash the movie because it had won a ton of awards and everyone was in love with the movie. But it has great acting, amazing effects, a well-written story and still looks flawless. Love it or hate it, you have to admit this movie didn't get a lot of hype just because of Leo's baby face or Kate's amazing ability to cry on sight, this film is something special. It will always hold a special place in my heart, it has too seeing that I saw this film 8 times in the theater when it was released. But all that aside, I do recommend this movie, it's a great one and sure to go down in the classics one day.<br /><br />10/10 | 0 |
THE SCREAMING SKULL (1 outta 5 stars) This movie boasts some pretty cool opening credits (an offscreen narrator warning that movie patrons will be offered a free burial if they die of fright watching this movie, a scary shot of a skull emerging from a placid pool and the ubiquitous scary music) but, sadly, the movie is all downhill from there. A widowed man takes his new bride to his secluded mansion... admonishing his servants and friends that the new Mrs. has a very fragile disposition due to a tragedy in her past. Well, in no time at all she begins to see and hear mysterious things that no one else can. Her husband assures her that it's all merely in her mind and... well, you can probably see where this all is going. You will have figured out what's going on long before our hapless heroine... because you have probably seen the exact same plot in hundreds of other movies and TV shows (and done better, too). To add to the movie's myriad transgressions, most cuts of this movie (on numerous cheap DVD compilations) seem to be missing a few key scenes. You see the heroine slowly walking towards the window... she goes to open it... you know she is going to see something scary... and then... suddenly the scene cuts to her sobbing in her husband's arms. So what did she see??? I guess we'll never know. | 1 |
this is a movie which reminds me of avatar- starring rajesh khanna from the 80's. the issue of parents-kids divide is interesting but was handled in a rather unoriginal manner.. the characters were not developed fully and the kids seemed to go from being extermely loving ( in the first 15mts of the movie) to being totally unconcerned about the parents,, this transformation was not credible to say the least..they sld have explored this a little more. amitabh and jaya were miscast as this helpless old couple.. firstly amit was not too convincing in this role,because he just did not look like he should be helpless, i mean why not just go back to work where he is wanted instead of being w/ kids who didnt want them.. hema was not convincing as a 60 yr old either... she didnt look a day over 50.. then the whole isssue of the book baghban winning the booker prize begged credibility.. all in all, a movie that handles an important issue but cld have been made better, i give it 5/10 | 1 |
As a non-theist Im not going to comment on the great mans theory which changed the world 150 years ago. Safe to say, science is based on evidence, religion is based on blind faith. Nuff said there then.<br /><br />The film was produced by the BBC, and to be honest, it could quite easily have been shown on television. While the acting is superb, the film itself isn't really worthy of a full blown cinema release. That said, if it reaches a wider audience this way, then so be it. But I have seen many period style dramas on BBC TV and they were well up to the finished standard of this. Just don't expect too much of a big budget thrill ride when going to see it.<br /><br />In some ways, I found the movie almost going out on a limb to apologise to religious fundamentalists. While it attains a good sense of tension the whole way through, I couldn't help wanting it to get to the publication of The Origin Of Species much quicker than it actually did (you'll wait right until the end for that). And it seemed to dwell much more than I was ever aware on Darwin's struggle with himself and his wife Emma, portraying him almost as some kind of insane lunatic at times - which is hardly true. There are many other errors and facts missing in relation to the real story of the lead up to the publication of Origin too, but the whole premise of the movie focuses almost entirely on the difficulty Darwin faced domestically with the book, and a small portion on the death of his beloved daughter Annie. This gives the film its most moving scene, where Annie passes away as she asks one final time to hear Darwin tell her the story of a captive orangutan which died of pneumonia. Though, you'll probably feel a bigger connection with the primate in that scene than with Darwin's daughter.<br /><br />With the early controversy apparently surrounding the movie in the USA it will work well to promote it and ensure many more people will get to see it. But to be honest, there is actually very little in it that insults any mythical Godhead. Its hardly headline news about a theory that has been around 150 years after all. But, as fundamental Christians (and many other religions which we're all well aware of) like to wave a placard or two whenever possible, I guess this movie is as good excuse as any. Personally, I cant see what all the fuss is about. But maybe they're just monkeying around... | 0 |
I was just watching a Forensic Files marathon on Court TV. The episode was identical to the plot of this movie, right down to the incest secret and the affair-with-the-sister subplot. I don't recall any Based on a True Story disclaimer, but the case does have MOW written all over it. Apparently it chronicles the real homicide of Ruby Morris by her husband Earl, sentenced to 25 years to life for her murder. Just goes to show you, truth can be stranger than fiction, because I thought the Lifetime plot was contrived and a more than 'a stretch' insofar as believability goes. I'm with the other posters who said the acting was bad. I didn't notice it with all of the players, though. It was really the lead character, the daughter, whose performance was bad. | 1 |
I'd honestly give this movie a solid 7.5, but I clicked 10 to try to offset the 5 pages of imbecilic, unjustified 1-star reviews. This is an interesting story, all of the acting is good to very good (even Ms. Diaz, who is totally out of her usual grinning-bimbo role here, yet plays it well.) The sets are perfect and the cinematography is consistently appropriately creepy. It's a fine morality play and there is *no* reason to explain the origin of the god/supernatural being/alien/whatever that's 'running the show,' so I'm glad the movie doesn't try. It's really irrelevant to the story, which is relatively long but quite compelling and summed up quite satisfyingly in the ending. <br /><br />Before you decide this movie is terrible (or really, anything under a ~7.5) read some of the dozens of 1-star 'hated it' reviews that are rife with misspellings, lack of punctuation and capitalization, and juvenile criticisms. Maybe the trailer was misleading or something -- I didn't see it -- but some of these reviewers were apparently expecting Terminator 4 or Saw 5 (one reviewer actually compared this movie to Saw! How utterly inappropriate and unrelated!) <br /><br />Seriously, most of these reviews read like you-tube comments -- according to these 'critics' this movie is too confusing yet too predictable, not enough action yet there's too much going on, too smart yet too dumb, explains too much yet leaves too much unexplained... oh -- and it's apparently a 'waist (sic) of time.' Do consider the quality and source of the reviews before taking them to heart. I'm afraid these 1-star kids failed to understand the phrase 'altruism coefficient' and were therefore utterly incapable of understanding the movie's premise (despite adamantly claiming that they 'get it' right before explaining how confusing it was!) If you know what those two words mean you will have no trouble understanding (and enjoying) this movie.<br /><br />I really wish there were a reviewer reputation system here so I could be sure to ignore the rating of everyone who gave this movie 1 star forever.<br /><br />See it for yourself and enjoy the fine presentation of an interesting couple taking an interesting moral 'test' and facing the consequences. It's a good time, in my opinion. | 0 |
Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid! | 1 |
I agree with all the strenghts mentioned in the other reviews but there are some beats missing here that keep it firmly inside the genre of crime drama or film noir and limit it from being a great drama beyond the limits of the 'elements' that make up film noir--not to say that the great film noirs aren't/can't/shouldn't be also great dramas, but this one isn't.<br /><br />One other note the music in the film is used sparingly but I would say is used to accentuate the action more frequently than the wife elements.<br /><br />Great set up to this film by the way with an abrupt sort of non ending ending that is either just right or a let down depends.<br /><br />Spoilers follow as to some specifics.<br /><br />The big turn in the story involves the children seeing their mother die, or it should be the big moment. But the children are never shown to react one way or the other. Neither cries, neither asks their father what happened, the kids are good actors and the reactions of the father are I suppose what matters but this is a big misstep. This is the heart of the story and the kids are kept mostly blank in their reaction. They really just have none, in the next scene they look as if nothing happened.<br /><br />In like fashion there is a bond that forms between Belmondo and Ventura's characters. Belmondo says he knew the partner who was killed--but this is never explained and has no impact dramatically on Belmondo or anyone else. The Belmondo romantic subplot also strains credibility though it's convincingly acted. Ventura's character just lets Belmondo involve a total stranger in their escape plan for no reason. He doesn't even comment or seem to notice. Another gap.<br /><br />The ending to the movie, and I won't spoil it, the ending happens off screen with a perfunctory voice over to tell you what happened. I guess this tries to make it feel more true to life, but again like these other missteps leaves drama off screen.<br /><br />What's the point of not dealing with these issues? I don't know, other than maybe the goals of the film were limited to giving the audience what it wants from a crime melodrama--suggest some deeper elements, then move on to ignore them.<br /><br />Too bad there is much to recommend this film, Ventura is very very good, but too bad it could have been a great drama as well as a crime story--as with IMDb favorite movie of all time THE GODFATHER. This film had potential. Would make for a good remake though if done in the U.S. more problems would probably sink the film, but in the hands of the right director this would be a good remake,though it's doubtful Ventura's performance could be topped.<br /><br />So worth seeing but frustrating as a whole | 0 |
I watched the first episode of 'The War at Home' because I thought it was worth replacing 'Arrested Development', boy, was I disappointed. It should be clear to everyone that this show was blatantly ripped-off of 'Grounded for Life', 'Titus', and 'Married...with Children' since they are all similar in plot and overall mood. The so called 'punch lines' are all repetitious and formulaic, even more, those 'punch lines' aren't even funny at all, to me, they're more along the lines as being crass and crude. The main character Dave Gold acts like a white trash thug, who thinks he's being funny and cool, which he's not. (Even Hillary (Dave's daughter) said so in the episode 'Gaza Strip').<br /><br />In the episode 'Dream Crusher', Hillary wanted to be a singer {but was actually pretty bad}, Dave and Vicky then gladly decided to crush her dreams by telling her she sucked. After that, she then wanted to be a child psychologist and planned on going to Harvard, after telling Dave and Vicky so and left the room, the two of them began mindlessly mocking her. Also, in the first episode Dave said of Hillary's {black} boyfriend 'Does she actually think we're gonna let her go out with this guy? I'd rather drink my own urine', that line has to the dumbest line in the history of television. And Dave is constantly making fun of Larry (his son) when he breaks the fourth wall because he thinks he's gay and is a geek. Also, let's not forget that he also made fun of Larry's (fat) girlfriend. Dave is the father he's supposed to stand up for his son no matter what. 'The War at Home' is without a doubt the worst TV show for family. That clearly explains why the show should be canceled since it spreads a racism and homophobic agenda. It's like the show wants to be funny for always putting in that stupid laugh track every time someone says something, but the lines are all somewhat forced, idiotic and pathetically juvenile.<br /><br />Another reason why the show's horrible is the acting, Mike Rappaport and Kyle Sullivan are terrible, terrible actors. Rappaport has to always move his hands around when he's in front of the camera, he not only does this on this show but he also did that during his time with 'Boston Public'. Sullivan talks and acts like some kind of robot every time he acts (he also did this in 'Malcolm in the Middle'}.<br /><br />So to wrap this whole thing up, you all got your reasons of what's wrong with this show 1.It's unoriginal 2.The acting sucks 3.It's not even funny 4.All the jokes are the same 5.Has lousy script 6.The characters are pitiful and unlikable 7.The dad's a rip-off of Archie Bunker<br /><br />FOX needs to take this trash off the air, because anything's better than this. | 1 |
Yep, it's me again! Mr 'I sit through crap so you don't have to'.<br /><br />What do you think this is about? Could it possibly be about a woman who call a sex line and arrange to meet bachelors in a secluded area? Then her cross-dressing boyfriend comes along and slits their throat with razor, before they make off together with his cash? Wow, what a guess! And if I tell you that the cop who is put on the case is forced to team up with a sexy assistant DA to nail these suckers, what conclusion will you come to? Do you reckon the sexy DA will go undercover wearing a flimsy red dress to an attempt to meet the drag queen, but then end up being kidnapped and having to be rescued by the maverick officer? (who has already handed in his gun and badge) ZING! You get 10 points!<br /><br />Frankly, this film bored me to tears. Why do people insist on making this kind of rubbish? Its a waste of our time, their time and yet they still carry on regardless.. filming a movie that no-one gives an iota about. If it has any redeeming features, there's the fact that it has some of the prettiest ladies I've seen in a motion picture for a while. I hope they spent what meagre wages they earned on plenty of botox and colonic irrigation. They'd look great on the cover of Vogue, or perched on the top of a car in a bikini. They should just leave acting to the professionals (like Shannon Tweed).<br /><br />Talking about future careers, I ran into the director the other day. He sure does whip up a tasty chicken burger meal. I must say too, that the uniform really does suit him. I asked him about 'Party Line', and his eyes went to the floor before he mumbled something about extra fries. Oh well, guess it didn't quite work out. Never mind, they're letting him take over the drive-thru tomorrow!! Hurray!! 1/10 | 1 |
I've been studying Brazilian cinema since 2004, when I stumbled onto 'Cidade de Deus / City of God'. Let me tell you something, this movie is probably as good or BETTER than 'City of God'.<br /><br />The acting, cinematography and music supervision make this movie a unique experience. I have not been to Brazil yet, but this movie presents the harsh reality that is beset before the citizens of São Paulo.<br /><br />I recommend this movie if you enjoy good cinema. This movie is disturbing and you may feel a bit despondent after watching it.<br /><br />Something you want to watch, but nothing you want to go to sleep on. | 0 |
This (allegedly) based-on-a-true story TV movie concerns a woman on the run from the FBI and a *seriously* stupid guy.<br /><br />First, we have Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson), a 'regular guy' type with a mind-numbing job, an ex-wife, a kid he hardly ever gets to see and some cats.<br /><br />Next, there is 'Elaine-Lisa-you name it' (Tracy Pollan), a smart, sexy, good looking woman whose tongue would burst into flame if she ever told the truth.<br /><br />Roger and Lisa meet when she answers a lonely-hearts ad. Roger is one of these poor saps who can't seem to handle living alone, so after his wife dumped him, he places his ad.<br /><br />It doesn't take long for Roger to figure out that Lisa is *not* a good person, but he has no idea how to get rid of her. He doesn't even have enough sense to change the locks on his apartment door after he throws her out.<br /><br />Go ahead and watch this if you don't have anything else to do.<br /><br /> | 1 |
'The seventh sign' borrows a lot from 'Rosemary's baby' and 'the omen' (it actually blends the two stories).Even its title recalls Bergman' s 'the seventh seal' .<br /><br />Nevertheless,it begins well enough,with all the omens scattered on the whole earth,and in parallel ,a -seemingly- distinct plot with Moore's husband trying to save a poor boy (who killed his parents who were brother and sister)from death penalty.This time,both Christian and Jewish religions are called to the rescue (even the Wandering Jew is involved),which makes the lines sometimes unintentionally funny (Have you ever been to Sunday school? But they taught me that God was love!).The best scene IMHO ,is the short dialog between priest John Heard -who does not seem to take things seriously ,too bad he was not given a more important part because his laid-back acting is priceless-and the young Jew.<br /><br />Demi Moore probably registered the same desire as ex-husband Bruce Willis :saving the world.She does not save the movie for all that. | 1 |
Being an Elvis fan, I can't understand how this proyect could be done. Is by far the worst Elvis related movie of all time, totally unfunny, silly and plenty of mistakes about The King. Come on, Elvis' grave in a public park? A mention about Suspicious Minds in 1958?...and these are just two examples. Some people in the cast tries to do their best, Mike Starr is funny (specially as an impersonator), the Tom Hanks cameo is a surprise, but the guy playing the young Elvis sucks.Overall the movie lacks fun and becomes more boring minute after minute. If you want to see an ultra cheap, insane but absolutely funny little film related to Elvis, I truly recommend you 'Bubba Ho-Tep' instead of this mess. | 1 |
I don't particularly care from Michael Jackson. Aside from being a pedophile, I really do not like his music, with the exceptions of a few songs from his landmark album, THRILLER. This is one of them. I do like this video because it is one of the first and most important music videos ever made.<br /><br />This was directed by John Landis, best known to horror fans as the director of AN American WEREWOLF IN London. This music video is not so much a music video but more or less, a short horror film. M.J. and his date are at a werewolf movie. When they leave the movie, they are attacked by a horde of bloodthirsty zombies, when Michael Jackson does his famous 'Thriller' dance.<br /><br />You know, this actually is a pretty good song with good synthesized beats. This and 'Beat It' are probably the only two Michael Jackson songs I can tolerate over and over. I especially love Vincent Price's cameo as the narrator. His distinctive voice is perfect for a horror-themed music video. Even if you don't like M.J.'s music, you need to see this video at least once. By the way, he was good before becoming a creepy white woman with a fake nose. | 0 |
This is a flic that you can safely avoid. childish plot and poor acting from Cameron (she really shouldn't take on these serious roles - they don't suit her)Besides she looks most unglamorous, Lets face it, shes' great in Charlies Angels and She was superb in There's Something about Mary... The Pope wouldn't be a good President of the USA and vice versa, my point being that there are some actors/actresses who are suited to a particular type of character and Cameron is most unsuited for this serious housewife type - there are a dozen other actress' would have done a far better job. The movie itself is rather unbelievable and juvenile in its plot (did I spell Juvinile right??) I noticed a comment from another reviewer who has given The Box a 10 rating, who was derisive in his comments on other reviewers who gave the movie a 1 or 2 rating and couldn't spell. I mean whats spelling got to do with a movie review? Does he mean that persons who spell perfectly could appreciate this movie more that the ones who couldn't? C'mon 'professor. | 1 |
Heath Ledgers acting in this film really bugs me, but overall its a great watch. Bryan Brown is excellent when i dont normally like him, but then his whole gang are a great piece of work. Jimmy is a hapless wannabe gangster who cant seem to do a thing right (SPOILERS: loses pandos money, ackos car and nearly bumbles a bank robbery) but still comes out on top.<br /><br />didnt know what the two kids were in it for at the start but they ties some storylines together nicely.<br /><br />all in all a damn fine piece of Australian cinema 9/10 | 0 |
I saw the movie after checking its rating on IMDb. Back then, it was at 8.0 and I thought, 'wow! That must be a good one'. I thought wrong. The beginning of the movie actually keeps what the plot promises, but then it goes exponentially down underneath its basement. I think without the character of Richie Nix, it might have been alright - although he is the reason the story line takes the course it does. The character is just too extreme for my liking, and hard to endure. Also, the journey the main character takes from the beginning of the story till its 'climax' at the end is partly irrelevant and could easily have been omitted - the alternative is, I just did not understand the movie.<br /><br />Although I must admit that it is 'easy watching', and I had no problems sitting through the whole movie, when it had finished I was somewhat unimpressed by the ending. All in all, rather mediocre. | 1 |
The Nest is really just another 'nature run amock' horror flick that fails because of the low budget. The acting is OK, and the setting is great, but somehow the whole film just seemed a bit dull to me. The gore effects are not the best I've seen but are fun in a cheesy sort of way. The roaches themselves are just regular cockroaches that bite people. The Nest reminded me of a much better film called Slugs. If you liked The Nest then Slugs is a must-see as it's ten times better. Also worth noting is that Lisa Langlois who plays Elizabeth was in another 'nature run amock' type film called Deadly Eyes (aka The Rats), which is about killer rats as you may have guessed. <br /><br />If you enjoy these types of horror films then you may want to give this a watch, but you'd be far better off seeing Slugs which is far more interesting and gory. | 1 |
I once promised never to walk out of any film ( a personal policy that made me suffer through the most different kinds of dreck, such as Rambo 3, Baise Moi, Deep Impact) - but Mr. Seidl almost succeeded. Hundstage was a truly awful experience. Anyone who sees this movie will think that Austrians are a miserable, pathetic bunch of retards. It shows a world where love and humanity don't exist, a world where people humiliate each other only for one reason - to distract from their own miserable existence. By choosing a documentary-like style with non-professional actors (most of them look like straight from the imagination of Austrian shock-cartoonist Deix) director Seidl wants to make us believe that this is real life in Austrian (European? Western?) suburbs. The viewer is confronted with depictions of sex orgies, violence against women and handicapped people, madness and degradation. But this isn't social criticism. This is just pure shock without any aesthetic value. Instead you get bad acting, bad cinematography, bad filmmaking. If anybody needs a film like this to realize that there are things wrong in our society then this person must have walked through life with closed eyes. This is pseudo-social criticism with a sledge hammer. And it looks down on people in a disgustingly condescending way. It shows ugly people - that is not the reason why I hate it. But it depicts average people in an ugly, misanthropic way. And this is why this film is truly despicable. | 1 |
It seems there's a bit of a curse out there when it comes to gay cinema. Namely, happy endings aren't very common. Beautiful Thing excluded, gay films tend to end in broken relationships or untimely death. And some, like Come Undone, just end... period.<br /><br />The creators of this horrid piece of nonsense have a thing or two to learn about plot, direction, and timelines. Within the first ten minutes of this film, I found myself a bit confused, and even more so after the first glimpse of Jeremie Elkaim's character having a little psych session. It seems this film was randomly pieced together without the slightest attempt at continuity or consistency. There's no real way to tell when you're viewing the present or some sort of ethereal flashback. I could only take so much before it became truly unappealing.<br /><br />Stephen Holden of The New York Times called this film '...shimmeringly beautiful and utterly real.' Well, it seems that Stephen invested in beer goggles prior to viewing, as this is truly far from beautiful. Due to all the praise this film received, I expected something worth watching. Sadly, the film lived down to its title. And by the end of the movie (which provided no resolution whatsoever, I might add) it's plain to see that the writers, the director and the film have all Come Undone. | 1 |
William H. Macy is at his most sympathetic and compelling here as a hit-man and loving father who wants to step out of the family business without angering his overbearing parents. Treads much of the same territory as TV's 'The Sopranos' in terms of the mid-life crisis of a criminal theme (here too he visits a shrink) but is still worth watching thanks to some taut direction from Brommel (I look forward to what this guy directs next), an excellent script, and all around great performances. Macy is excellent as always. This is probably his best role since 'Fargo.' Donald Sutherland is at his creepy best as the domineering father. Tracy Ullman gives a surprisingly riveting dramatic turn as Macy's wife. Young David Dorfman is excellent as Macy's bright and sensitive son (many of his lines sound ad-libbed and are wonderful). Even Neve Campell (who I usually find abhorrent) is compelling as the troubled young woman who captures Macy's eye. All of this is punctuated by a moving score and crisp pace that lead up to a predictable but still powerful climax and meaningful and touching aftermath. This film deserved a much wider release, as I suspect it would have connected with audiences. | 0 |
Nothing but the void, a pleasant one for those who have known the eighties, but well, quite boring for those who are not interested in it. NO screenplay in this film, but a hero wandering in an underground New York full of arstists and night clubbers. It is aimless, pointless and naive. But not entirely unpleasant. | 1 |
With the war not going well for the Soviet Union, Stalin accepted volunteers from the prisons and used the prisoners as shock troops. This is the story of one such battalion. There are petty crooks, political prisoners, soldiers kicked out of other units, gray-haired veterans of the White Army plus some dangerous criminals.<br /><br />They are thrown into battle ill-equipped, untrained and face the threat of the NKVD if they show signs of cowardice or failure.<br /><br />The special effects are rudimentary and many of the minor characters are one-dimensional, but the overall story is very human and riveting.<br /><br />I have not seen a version with subtitles or dubbing. Viewing the show required liberal use of the pause button and explanations from a native speaker of Russian. | 0 |
We've all seen this story a hundred times. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. The relationship between the mother and daughter is way too sweet and understanding to pass for realistic. Janet Mcteer's performance is stock southern hot- ticket mother in vintage clothes. Should have been made for the Lifetime Channel. | 1 |
Sam Elliot is brilliant as a tough San Francisco Detective Charlie Fallon. When his partner is killed while meeting with an informant Fallon snaps, beats the informant to death, and dumps his body in a river. The next day Fallon is assigned a rookie partner, and given the task of investigating the informants murder. Sam Elliot does a good job of portraying a man who tortured by the guilt of his own murderous actions, and grief over the death of his partner who may have been involved in police corruption. | 0 |
This scary and rather gory adaptation of Stephen King's great novel features outstanding central performances by Dale Midkiff,Fred Gwynne(who sadly died few years ago)and Denise Crosby and some really gruesome gore effects.Director Mary Lambert has a wonderful sense of visual style,and manages to make this one of the few versions of King's work that is not only worth seeing,but genuinely unnerving.The depiction of the zombie child Gage(Miko Hughes-later in 'New Nightmare')is equally noteworthy,as what could easily have been a laughable character is made menacing and spooky.As for the people,who think that this one isn't scary-watch it alone in the dark(eventually with your squeamish girlfriend)and I guarantee you that 'Pet Sematary' will creep you out.Some horror movies like this one or 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' shouldn't be watched in group.Recommended for horror fans! | 0 |
I was giddy with girlish-glee when I found out about this movie shortly after seeing Spirits Within.<br /><br />After years of anticipation, they gave November 2005 release date. Well, November came. And went. Followed by December. Oh, look, today's January 31, 2006. No US release as of yet.<br /><br />Oh well, I'm so glad I had a friend with a bootlegged subtitled copy. ;D<br /><br />Well, the cg was great. Not as good as expected, but near perfect. I cringed, however, at the unnatural movements made by the children throughout the movie. I had thought that we were passed this by now. Also, I didn't really care for the anime look given to their faces. I was under the impression that they were shooting for a realistic look to the film, and yet most of the characters have larger-than-norm eyes, especially the girl characters. They had personality, though, I'll give them that.<br /><br />Even though I'm not a big fan of anime, I do have to say I was impressed with the wild fight scenes. They were animated beautifully and had me hanging onto the edge of my seat.<br /><br />For about the first two.<br /><br />And there-in lies Advent Children's biggest flaw. It's mostly just a bunch of hyper-stylized fight scenes.<br /><br />A FF7 sequel of epic proportions had been promised for years. Instead, they gave us a pretty piece of cg with barely a plot to excuse it's just-under-two-hours running time.<br /><br />Where Final Fantasy is famous for its intricate stories, this movie falls short. You don't really get to know the characters. The only way you'd have any understanding of most of what occurred in the film would have been if you had played the game. We barely got to see them before they were battling it out with whatever current threat.<br /><br />What hurts the fans even more is the awful cameos that the majority of FF7 characters were given. They were nothing more than Cloud's 'I'll call if I need you, but I probably won't' back up singers. And, to add to the hurt, they had each character individually throw Cloud higher and higher. This little part here was so cheesy I almost turned it off. I would have been much more impressed if he had just simply jumped up all on his own, ricocheting off of walls to get himself up higher.<br /><br />It hurt even more when they reduced the Turks to less-than-just comic relief. That was fine for the game, but this is cinema. People do not act like cartoon characters in a harsh battle. They took away their dignity :/<br /><br />And, spoiler (yeah right, most of you probably already know, anyhow). Who remembers Darth Maul being hyped up in SW: Episode 1? Yeah, now, picture that, but with Sephiroth. That's right. He had maybe 5 minutes of screen time. Maybe that. End Spoiler :P<br /><br />If this movie was made for the fans, then way to go Square. If this is any indication of the direction you're taking the FF series, I doubt you're going to be seeing much of my money. I played your games for the wonderful story and the excellent characters.<br /><br />You had a chance to make something epic. Something truly beautiful, a masterpiece that flies in the face of all of the Disney CG films.<br /><br />Instead you gave us a pretty piece of flesh with hardly anything underneath to hold it together. Way to go.<br /><br />And I'm sure if the rest of the fans paused for a moment and tried to just pay attention to everything but the CG they'd know what I'm talking about. Well, I was gonna rate this a 5/10, but after thinking about it while righting this, I'm giving it a 3/10 because they could have done better. They have done better. And this is just sad.<br /><br />If they're gonna remake anything FFVII, they need to do this one first. | 1 |
I can't believe this isn't a huge cult hit. Perhaps people in 1968, thinking of the Monkees as a silly factory-made pop band rip-off of the Beatles, refused to see it. That cynicism probably covered it from sight ever since. Don't make this mistake. _Head_ is an amazing film that most open minded people will appreciate. It is very funny and very intelligent (and very trippy). | 0 |
I cannot believe someone gave this movie a 1 rating!!! and it is only a 3. average... What is not to love about this film? It is original, it has lots of scare scenes that actually made me jump out of my seat, and it has some great special effects. The story is fresh, there is some nudity, and it is very campy. The killer was scary in his own demented way and the end is very unexpected. I must admit that I really love this film, one of Spain's best horror films ever. If you consider yourself a true horror fan you need to get out there and try to find this film. You will be pleasantly surprised to do so. | 0 |
Well, I'd heard from somewhere that Ossessione is a precursor to the Italian film genre, and particular favourite of mine, the 'Giallo'...but actually, aside from the fact that this is a thriller that was made in Italy; the two have pretty much no relation. In the sixties and seventies, Italian film-makers would get themselves a reputation for ripping off just about every successful American film released. They've not done that here, but Ossessione does follow almost the exact same story as the later American film 'The Postman Always Rings Twice', without giving the book's author, James M. Cain, so much as a credit! Anyway, the plot focuses on Gino Costa, a handsome drifter who, by chance, stumbles upon a café where a woman named Giovanna Bragana works. He soon learns that she's married to Giuseppe; a big fat annoying man, whom Giovanna can't stand to have even touching her. He wants the pair of them to run away together, but she's not so keen on the idea. However, fate ends up intervening and her plan to have her husband murdered is successful...<br /><br />Despite the fact that the film loses some credibility for not crediting the author whose story it's based on, it has to be said that director Luchino Visconti implements the film noir style well, and in a way I even prefer the atmosphere of this film to some of the bigger American noir classics. The story is, as you would expect, extremely strong and the Visconti manages to pull good performances out of his cast. Visconti drags the film out a little bit too much, however, and with a running time of almost 135 minutes, I felt that the story was too thin to warrant this kind of length. I almost feel guilty for levelling all this criticism at Ossessione as it IS a good film, but it's not a 'great' film. The relationship between the two central characters is never really explored properly, and it seems like the film is keener to distract us from it rather than let us into the characters' heads. There's not much mystery to the plot as we pretty much always know what's going on, and by not always focusing on the characters themselves; the film is not as interesting as it could have been. Still, it makes for an interesting viewing and comes recommended for that reason...although it's not as good as the 1946 version of the same James M. Cain classic. | 0 |
I broke my own rule buying this movie from the $5.88 bin at Walmart. Basically, if a movie has a big star in it, and you've never heard of it before, it's usually for a reason. Well in the case of this movie, the reason is because it SUCKED! They plaster Sandra Bullock's photo and name all over the cover of the DVD as bait, and it reeled this little fishie right on in. I was thinking of donating the disc to charity, or giving it to the library, but I don't think I would want to subject anyone else in the world to this movie. Worst lines: 'What do you mean army buddies?' 'What do you mean your dad?' | 1 |
This is a great movie for all Generation X'ers. What a different world the America of 1972 was compared to our psychotic 21st Century. You can get a sense of what an 1972 America gone by was like by watching this movie. I found that the clothing and the car styles brought back to me fond memories of a much better country than we have now. Just think...back then there were only 4 or 5 TV stations to choose from. There was no AIDS, Muslim terrorists, Road Rage, 911, Bird Flu, Freeway Snipers, etc, etc. The Vietnam war was just over. There will still be 7 years before Star Wars comes out. The personal computer and internet would still be 29 years away.<br /><br />When this movie first came out the producers had to market the film themselves as no other film company wanted it. So it began touring small Protestant churches around the country being shown on movie projectors(This was the days before VCRS of course). The pastor of a church who would would be interested in showing A Thief in the NIght to his congregation would obtain a copy of the film. Then he would set up a evening to show it in the church meeting area or lunch room. Members of the congregation would invite 'unsaved' friends and family members and it would be a social event of the week. <br /><br />If you can get past the limited production values of the film and just watch it for its nostalgic value, then I think you will enjoy the film more. Of course I am speaking as a gen xer. <br /><br />If I had a time machine I would go back to 1972 and say goodbye to the 21st century cesspool we have now. | 0 |
Not like I went in expecting a lot out of it, but I was at least hoping for a fun dumb big budget movie. This isn't even that. This item ranks in the bottom half of all the vampire movies I've ever seen (and believe me, I've seen a lot of them). Bad acting, zero characterization, little to no thought, almost non-existent plot (and that that's there you can drive semi-trucks through the holes in). Sure, it has action and is loud, and has more action, and more noise, and blood, and action... These things alone do not make a good (or even halfway decent) movie. Beats me how some people can say this is the best vampire movie ever made--all I can assume is they haven't seen many. I suggest seeing Near Dark instead. | 1 |
I bought this movie at a thrift store. Months before, my friend told me about it when we were talking about dumb movies we've seen. Once I spotted the cassette, I knew I had to have it. I watched it that night. I could tell it was going to be very cheesy and cheaply done. . . That's what drew me to it. I popped it in and I laughed the whole way through. I recognized Gregory (The Ice Cream Man), but I didn't recognize his name and I couldn't remember where I saw him. Later, while watching the Andy Griffith Show, Clint Howard (Ice Cream Man) was featured as an extra since he is Ron Howard (Opie Taylor)'s brother. I saw the credits and I gasped. I turned to my mom, who was also watching the show, and said, 'That's the Ice Cream Man!!' She, too, gasped. This movie is great, but only for laughs and criticalness. It is the perfect example of a cheesy horror flick. If you feel like laughing as well as poking fun at low-budget movies, rent this video. | 1 |
Most of these reviews are dead on, so I'll cut to a different chase and answer a couple of questions I've seen on here.<br /><br />While the characters seem and look young (hence the controversy), the actor/actress themselves were 17 and 18 at the time and so obviously over the 16 barrier. Here in the USA, that's still somewhat controversial but the simplicity and innocence of the film does much to offset it.<br /><br />I'm sorry not to have seen more by Sean; in this movie at least his expressions are demonstrative and obvious; you know exactly what the character is feeling whether he's angry, afraid, or confused. Anicee had a healthy career, who's life was cut unfortunately short by cancer in late 2006. She was a beautiful and talented actress.<br /><br />VHS tapes of FRIENDS can be found at Amazon.com occasionally, but usually for a significant price; I've seen it as low as $60 or so and as high as $152 (as of this comment, there were two for that price). The sequel video PAUL & MICHELLE is not quite as pricey and can be obtained (when available) on Amazon for between $16 and $70 on average. | 0 |
I absolutely love the first three movies, they were great! I once caught Part 5 on VHS 10 years ago, and I was disappointed. But perhaps that was because I never saw the fourth one, because they were shot back-to-back. but after finally viewing a copy today, I have to say it was no way better than number 5. My expectations weren't high to begin with, but this is cheap direct-to-video stuff, not even a horror movie, it's PG-13. The acting was not convincing, the story was rather dumb without any excitement and there were not many effects. But the main problem is that there were no kills or any gore (the annoying kid who gets killed in his car was supposed to be the highlight, but come on..)<br /><br />Surprisingly, both Parts 4 and 5 were directed by Sequel-director Jeff Burr who gave us the excellent Stepfather II and Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. I liked Puppet Master: The Legacy, even if it was nothing else than a tribute with the best scenes from all movies.<br /><br />Overall, Puppet Master is very much like the Hellraiser Series: A great trilogy but forget the rest.. | 1 |
This movie makes several mistakes. a few American actors in Spain , and the Spanish actors speaking English. the 'spaniards' English is OK, but the way the acting is performed it makes it all quite annoying. the dialog through the whole script is very weak; it may have been a Spanish script but translated incorrectly, who knows and who cares. i can only assume that these are famous Spanish actors forced into the English language , they may be good, but not in this flop. you will figure out the movie within the first 5 minutes, thats how pathetic it is. then the rest is just bad . lots of waste of time, lots of UN-necessary plots. Oh did i mention one of the Baldwins' is in this. | 1 |
Boy, this was one lousy movie! While I haven't seen all of the Burton/Taylor collaborations, I can say with confidence that this is the worst. This rich but ill woman (Taylor, of course) owns this beautiful island in the Meditteranean, ruling over a put-upon staff when she's suddenly visited by this traveling poet, who mouths platitudes. In fact, the whole film is just a talk fest, with much of the talk making no sense. Even in 1968, no one could make heads or tails of this pretentious nonsense, and the passage of time makes that even more clear. If it weren't for the beautiful cinematography and scenery, it would deserve a negative rating. The only thing this film is good for is its unintentional laughs at the expense of the stars. | 1 |
Celebrity singers have always had a tough time breaking into the movies (the cinema is littered with failed attempts), and one can go on and on speculating why John Mellencamp never made it big as an actor. Instead of taking small parts in heartfelt projects, Mellencamp dives right in playing the lead in 'Falling From Grace', which he also directed, and the results are as awkward and unbecoming as that title. Story of a famous singer returning to his hometown in the sticks, opening up old family wounds, boasts a screenplay by Larry McMurtry, but the meandering film goes nowhere slowly. The supporting cast is decent, including Kay Lenz (whom it's always nice to see), Mariel Hemingway and Claude Akins (who share the one really strong scene in the picture). As for John's acting, he doesn't look particularly comfortable, despite apparent efforts to make him look at home; he seems to be ducking the camera most of the time, and he never connects with the audience in an immediate way. *1/2 from **** | 1 |
Let me first start with the obvious: antisemitism has been a serious problem throughout history, present in many societies and causing the deaths of million of Jews. That said, the problem with this movie is that it views the United States - probably the most welcoming society ever to Jews outside of Israel - as a not very different place from Nazi Germany. Set in 1943, the movie is about a man (William H. Macy) who gets confused with a Jew after he starts wearing glasses!. A number of very nasty things happen to him after that (he loses his job and he is unable to find a new one, his neighbors shunned him, all ending up in a violent confrontation). From one of Arthur Miller's self pitying, patronizing novels, the sort that gave liberalism a bad name. | 1 |
I suppose if you like pure action... you'll find it here. I suppose if you find a gorgeous blonde designed to be screwed... find it here. I suppose if you want to find a couple of extra baddies, headed by 1-2 extra, EXTRA baddy bosses who meat a nasty end... you'll find it here.<br /><br />Overall, routine stuff, and the good guys come out on top big time under extra-ordinary circumstances.<br /><br />What I marvel most at... How the good guys armed only with pistols, can kill dozens of bad guys with machine guns who are shooting at them at point blank range... and missing. The goodies even get time to reload their pistols amid the hail of machine guns bullets.<br /><br />Ho-hum!!! | 1 |
and nothing else.<br /><br />One of my friends bought the Problem Child Tantrum Pack (contains the first two 'Problem Child's in one disc), and we decided to watch the sequel because it was 'funnier'.<br /><br />There were many funny moments in the movie (the vomit scene, that's all I need to say.), Nippy the dog after eating CHOW DOWN, and numerous others. The movie is nothing but toilet humor, but it's hilarious. Other than the funny moments, though, this movie has little to offer.<br /><br />John Ritter annoys the crap out of me, because it sounds like he's reading out of a book. The man can't act in this one, sorry.<br /><br />Although I can't say if I would find the movie funny now...(we were blown when we watched it), it's a perfect movie for a rainy day...but nothing else. Don't expect Oscar material on this one, guys. | 1 |
This show is amazing! I love each and every episode. Carrie is a spitfire and Doug is a lovable and at times a moron. Arthur, Spence, Danny, Deacon and Carrie's Boss add just a nice end touch to the show, tying up all of the funny, pee in your pants moments. In one of the seasons, Doug tries to get Carrie drunk, because she is nicer when she is drunk. Nice husband right? Carrie isn't much better, when her boss needs a IPS driver to testify in a small case at her job, Carrie hesitates, because she views Doug as a slob and doesn't want him to embarrass her, so she hires Doug's friend instead. Wife of the year. But, who i believe to be funniest is yell-at-random Arthur. He is drop-dead hilarious, and angry. Hey, you would be too if you had to live in a basement where the mold has a funny smell and makes you dizzy. This show is hilarious, and if you haven't seen it yet, then you haven't lived! | 0 |
George Cukor's The Women remains one of the glittering gems of 1939, Hollywood's most golden of golden years. The film crackled and sparked and it's absence of males was a subtle touch, hardly noticed because of all the fine entertainment.<br /><br />Flash forward. We see Fifth Avenue in New York City, in front of Saks. Large crowds bustle along the Avenue...but something's off. The shot reveals only well dressed (attractive and young) women. Creepier than I Am Legend, the visual concept continues, inside the store and later at a large fashion show. What NYC fashion show doesn't have at least 5 gay men? The 'no men' rule is rammed down our throats creating an alien world, off balance and distracting.<br /><br />Enter Meg Ryan, first seen digging in her garden wearing a ridiculous get-up complete with her retro curls and flailing arms. I immediately sympathized with her husband and could understand why he looked elsewhere. Later in the film she morphs into an older Jennifer Aniston look and keeps her arms at her sides. This seems intentional as if to say 'Look! I can still be relevant!' Ryan's character is loaded down with a coven of miss-matched friends (insert Sex and the City comparison here) who, if it were real life, would despise each other. Annette Bening plays the power bitch, who during the course of the film realizes her life's dream doesn't really make her happy. Jada Pinkett Smith is the power lesbian, all atitudinous with no use for any of the men who aren't there. Debra Messing is some sort of baby factory that eats a lot. Eva Mendes is an odd choice for the bad girl to say the least. She looks fake, acts fake and any humor she tries to demonstrate falls flat. Someone's comment on here that she looked trans-gender was spot on. Other various stars show up, to rearrange the furniture on this Titanic.<br /><br />The only thing that would have saved this would have been the brilliant casting of Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. They could have named their price, tucked their tongues firmly into their cheeks and pulled off something very clever and profitable. But no, Hollywood thinks of itself way too highly for that kind of exploitation. Instead we're given this thing that lumbers along awkwardly with no sparkle. Entire sections of dialog from the original are lifted and plopped down into a scene with awful results. At one point Ryan exclaims something along the lines of, 'This isn't a 1930's movie!' No Meg, it's not. | 1 |
I happily admit that I'm a sucker for a beautiful film, and sufficiently inventive camera movements and angles can be enough to keep my interest in a fairly long film. Not one the length of Gojoe though, even though it had some of the most remarkable cinematography I've seen since the Korean period piece MUSA. However, Gojoe provides far more than just beautiful images (as does MUSA... don't which to imply a contrast) - it's second greatest strength is superb acting, and a fascinating story with some very dark philosophy. I must admit to being quite unsure what the point was it was trying to make in the end, but it definitely provokes some thoughts along the way. Vague ones, but definitely thoughts :p<br /><br />One department in which the film could have been better is the action. There's a tremendous amount of bloodletting in the film, but the action is all filmed with hyperkinetic close-ups, and frequently obscured by objects in the foreground. It does create some very intense and impressive visuals, but it would have been nice to see some more actual moves, something to make it more believable that the villains could just wade through entire armies laying waste to everyone.<br /><br />Still, the film is definitely one of the most interesting and most beautiful films I've seen for quite some time. Recommended! | 0 |
Forget Samara/Sadako and Jason...<br /><br />Horror has a new name : GRANNY. The plot is simple but efficient. The actors are good (two thumbs up for 'Michelle' and the killer) and the dialogs are even quite clever. From the beginning to the end, the action will leave you breathless, you just can't escape it... There is blood, awful murders, funny moments, and a sense of perversity that goes far beyond any rule. 'Deja vu' ? Surely NOT : 'Granny' is not another slash movie, it's truly a classic of its own... It deserves the success it had and there's even more success to come with its re-release. Congrats! | 0 |
Once you sit down to see this film ' A Cannon for Cordoba ' you get the feeling it's going to be a great. The reason? The film begins with a rousing score by noted composer Elmer Bernstein who gave us such memorable themes as 'The Great Escape and the Magnificent Seven.' Indeed, when you read the opening credits headlining the cast is none other than George Peppard as Capt. Rod Douglas, you know it's going to have action and lot's of it. Furthermore when you see actor John Russel playing General John J. Pershing, you know you're in for a heroic saga. The story is taken from the annals of the Mexican revolution and involves the U.S. in a border town dispute with the Mexican bandits who cross the Rio Grande in the early 1900s. Among the most brazen of the rebel leaders is General Cordova (Raf Vallone). With his army of Mexican revolutionaries, he attacks Pershing, kills his men and steals some valuable artillery pieces. Since the United States Army cannot enter Mexico legally, Capt. Douglas is sent on what is slated a suicide mission, without orders and without aid from Pershing. His mission is to retrieve the Cannons, destroy a rebel stronghold and bring Cordova back alive. Selecting the roughest, toughest, most experienced, certainly the most insolent men available, Douglas enters Mexico and attacks the nearly impregnable fortress. Dramatic action follows, as does lots of explosive excitement. If one is asks for criticism, I would say the choice of heavies. Vallone and John Larch are not very menacing. Not so with the men who side with Peppard. Pete Duel and Don Gordon (Who is superb.) Nevertheless, this movie is recommended as good viewing. **** | 0 |
This series continues to frustrate and annoy. How are they going to drag this out for another year? Each episode offers up more and more questions, whilst providing the answers to very few. To quote another very popular website, I believe that this show has now jumped the shark!<br /><br />Will, I keep watching it?<br /><br />Probably,<br /><br />Will they manage to keep the show on-air till it ends?<br /><br />Probably not...<br /><br />How did two qualified doctors fail to notice that Naomi was still alive? How did 30 plus people not notice a corpse wake up and walk off with a knife still in her back? How did someone have enough strength to create two trails and climb up a tree to ambush Kate?<br /><br />We've now introduced a ghostbuster...<br /><br />Same time next week? yep! | 1 |
Fot the most part, this movie feels like a 'made-for-TV' effort. The direction is ham-fisted, the acting (with the exception of Fred Gwynne) is overwrought and soapy. Denise Crosby, particularly, delivers her lines like she's cold reading them off a cue card. Only one thing makes this film worth watching, and that is once Gage comes back from the 'Semetary.' There is something disturbing about watching a small child murder someone, and this movie might be more than some can handle just for that reason. It is absolutely bone-chilling. This film only does one thing right, but it knocks that one thing right out of the park. Worth seeing just for the last 10 minutes or so. | 1 |
I'm not really sure where to begin. From start to finish, bad, stinky bad, like stepping into a port-a-john on a 100 degree day. If you force yourself to watch this as I did, keep some Vicodin handy for the pain. I will never understand how flicks this bad make it past the cutting room without the entire reel ending up on the floor. The movie is a cross between Gumby rides Pokey, meets the terminator, meets Wally Beaver playing cowboys and Indians without the cowboys. I've seen better animation in the original cut of the Blob. You will get more entertainment from watching Gone with the Wind while suffering from the puke and poops. Bad acting and hokey lines will have you squirming and wishing you had rented Peewee's big Top or watched every episode of Gilligan's Island back to back. UGH..I'm going to go slit my wrist now. | 1 |
Hard to categorize the film - perhaps it's an avant garde spy thriller? Mother Night is a very good Vonnegut novel, and most certainly one of his easiest novels to adapt into a feature length film. The film adaptation is very faithful to the original book. The 'indie' approach to how this film was produced is probably more effective than having a big Hollywood studio financing it. These days, I doubt an intelligent novel like Mother Night would ever get the green light from the big Hollywood grindhouses. And normally that is too bad, but not in this case. Mother Night has tight direction and a solid cast. Nick Nolte who seems to be getting better roles as he gets older, still has that 'everyman' persona that allows him to take on a wide range of different characters. Sheryl Lee is beautiful and great as always. I always thought she deserved better than she got out of the entertainment industry. I guess making your debut as a dead girl (Twin Peaks)with little air time isn't the choicest of roles, even if the TV show becomes a minor phenomenon. Anyway this film is totally enjoyable and you don't have to read the book to understand the movie. In fact, given today's geopolitical realities, the novel's premise may appear dated, and some younger viewers with little knowledge of history will be utterly confused by the events unfolding (I am talking to you, fellow Americans who are students and scoring the lowest in the industrialized world in geography, history, and lord knows what other subjects!). | 0 |
This movie kept me constantly entertained. In comparing this to Serial Mom, Mr. Waters has gone back to his grittier side. This is not nearly as polished.<br /><br />There is a dark side here. A message about how success and fame changes a person -- but more importantly how it changes the people around you.<br /><br />There is not a false moment in this film.<br /><br />The characters are somewhat cartoonish... but I want to believe that is what Mr. Waters is trying to achieve.<br /><br />It is fascinating to watch how Mr. Waters has evolved... This is truly his finest work. | 0 |
This movie is quite better than the first one 'Astérix et Obelix contre César', but it is far away from perfection. The adaptation of the comic book is good, some of the pictures and the dialogs of the movie are the same as in the book. But there's few things that made the movie not as interresting as the animated movie released in 1968. For example the fighting between Numerobis and Amonbofis. This wasn't necessary or even credible, either for the little love story of Astérix. There were also some stuff missing, like the songs that are in the animated movie, and some other things... I am deceived by the movie because they cutted in the stuff I was expecting tho see and they showed things that I did not wanted or needed to see. I know that it would have been very difficult to make the movie exactly the same than the comic book or the animated movie, but that's what I expected. In conclusion, even if the movie is good, I still prefer the animated movie, wich is in my opinion, far better. | 0 |
Unfortunately this film, 54 was a pathetic attempt of the true story of 'Studio 54.' The only thing that was good about the picture was 'Mike Myers' who was a joy to watch. 'Neve Cambpell,' although her role was little was unfortunately bad. The bottom line is that this film lacked a good performance from the actors, except one and that the conversion of the true story was a desperate attempt for a good screenplay. | 1 |
It would be so easy to dismiss an alien abduction movie before even seeing it - as I did - but this is well worth a look. If you think about it, its not an easy subject matter to handle but this film manages to suspend disbelief which in itself is a feat for such a way out subject. Casting the main character as a doctor was a sensible move which lends credence to his willingness to believe in the possibility of alien abduction. Vosloo plays it very sensitively involving us in his pain and confusion at the weird events that befall himself and his wife. Special Effects are used sparingly but to shocking effect and at times the movie is totally gripping but sadly there are a couple of points where the plot wanders and leaves some confusion. Also, after building to a tense climax the ending is something of a let down. The supporting characters were unnecessarily weak (the alien hunter) or menacing (the psychiatrist) which also served to detract.<br /><br />But all in all it raised some interesting issues amongst which was a telling line 'How do think animals feel when we experiment on them'.<br /><br />The concept of 'lost time' was also thought provoking. | 0 |
Bela Lugosi gets to play one of his rare good guy roles in a serial based upon the long running radio hit (which was also the source of a feature film where Lugosi played the villain.) Lugosi cuts a fine dashing figure and its sad that he didn't get more roles where he could be the guy in command in a good way. Here Chandu returns from the East in order to help the Princess Nadji who is being hunted by the leaders of the cult of Ubasti who need her to bring back from the dead the high priestess of their cult. This is a good looking globe trotting serial that is a great deal of fun. To be certain the pacing is a bit slack, more akin to one of Principals (the producing studios) features then a rip roaring adventure, but it's still enjoyable. This plays better than the two feature films that were cut from it because it allows for things to happen at their own pace instead of feeling rushed or having a sense that 'hey I missed something'. One of the trilogy of three good serials Lugosi made, the others being SOS Coast Guard and Phantom Creeps | 0 |
I have seen this movie twice now on cable. The first time I saw it, it caught me by suprise. The skaters I was seeing were the guys we followed in the pages of Skateboarder magazine back in the late 70's. These were the guys we copied and tried to become while skating. I am glad that a film was finally made that gives an accurate account of how it all came to be. I am almost 40 years old now and I guess a pretty uptight kind of guy with all of life's problems, however; this film did a great job of taking me back. Back to the vacant pools, the backyard halfpipes and the road trips to Cherry Hill NJ. I suspect that in order to really understand this movie and appreciate it, you had to live it. Otherwise, it probably won't have the impact on you as it did me. But for those of you (and you know who you are), who did live it, you know exactly what I am talking about! In any event, I don't care who you are, if you get a chance to see this movie...do it! I give thanks to the Z-Boys of Dogtown for the memories of my youth and thanks to Stacy for making this movie! JOB WELL DONE! | 0 |
When I first rented Batman Returns, I immediately thought it was going to be less than exceptional. I mean, Jack Nicholson was undoubtedly the best part of the first, so without him, how could there be a good movie? Simple, throw in Danny DeVito.<br /><br />Batman Returns is an arguably more dark movie than Batman. There are more villains here, less actual dark comedy in a lot of aspects, and more nerve-striking issues. However, the music is similar to the first if not darker. The scenery is definitely more depressing than the first, every detail right down to the time of year. This movie follows the same comic-style format we came to love in the first Batman.<br /><br />Now for the performances. Michael Keaton thankfully returns as Batman/Bruce Wayne. He was great in the first movie, and just as much in this sequel. There was not enough screen time in the world for Keaton as Batman, need MORE! Danny DeVito gave an award-winning performance as The Penguin, the most grueling, disgusting, lovable, angry, evil, sad, pathetic villain ever to grace a superhero movie. You hate him so much yet feel so bad for him at the same time. And it explains him down to the last detail too, making it all the more conflicting. Michelle Pfeiffer was excellent as Catwoman/Selina Kyle. Two completely different personalities in one. She actually got a good amount of back story as well. Christopher Walken didn't disappoint as Max Shreck, the greedy, judgmental, selfish CEO of the power company. Michael Gough also thankfully returns as the lovable Alfred, and he was just as good here as well. Pat Hingle also returns as Gordon, although I feel he was really never in the spotlight.<br /><br />With lots of great twists and sub-plots, Batman Returns is sure to please any fan of the original.<br /><br />9/10 | 0 |
I was invited to an early screening of the movie about four months before it was released. I had to watch the film and later fill out a packet on my thoughts. It was THE hardest thing to sit through on earth. The show just crawls by, and you quickly begin wishing you were dead. The thing is, there are two types of Mormon films. The good ones with actual good stories, and the crappy ones that just plain stink. Saints and Soldiers, now there is a good movie. But, with these wannabe-comedies, the writers and the actors just try too hard. Basically, they try to be funny when they are not. No wonder why there is such a small target audience for these films; they're filled with 'inside jokes' that aren't funny to begin with, and they just try to poke fun at average things. It's the story that makes the movie, and the stories for these movies are just weak. I bet you can guess what my packet looked like when I was told to fill it out after the movie. ;) | 1 |
I was expecting a little something from 'K-911', I mean it did look like a cute movie that I could get into. I always did love the dog comedy movies. But it looked like it was supposed to be Jame's movie, not Jerry Lee's. The plot was pretty lame and the two love interests really didn't have chemistry to begin with. Not to mention that James seemed to have a total sexist view in the movie despite the fact the writer wasn't going in that direction. James just really ticked me off for more than half the film. The dogs were the true stars and that's pretty sad that they out shined the actors.<br /><br />So, I'm glad it's not just me on IMDb who agrees that this was a pretty stupid movie. But hopefully, James will realize it was his brother Jim who was the talented one, no offense, but not everyone can be their star sibling. Don't you wish Ashlee Simpson would take that same advice? :D <br /><br />3/10 | 1 |
The Dentist was made on the time when almost every profession had it's psycho. We had mad police officers, ambulance men, secretery's and that was just for starters. The Dentist came suprisingly late because going to dentist is usually everyman's nightmare.<br /><br />The plot is twisted. Super clean dentist Doctor Feinstone lives perfect life in his great 'white house', he has beautiful blond wife and great place to work as a dentist. Dark clouds are coming to his horizon in the form of nasty IRS guy (Terminator's Earl Boen), dirty pool cleaner 'cleaning' his wife and suddenly everyone's teeth seems to have gone through dark filter. He goes nutso and starts to take care of people teeth in the nasty way. And you don't want to come to his path.<br /><br />Crew were professional. Producer/director Brian Yuzna had produced stylish horror movies like Re-Animator and From Beyond. He directed the sequel to Re-Animator and his first movie Society was nice spinoff from John Carpenter's They Live. Film's producer Pierre David is known from movies like Scanners. Cast was great. Corbin Bernsen really suprised me. I knew him from LA Law and Major League, but I could newer dream him as a psycho dentist. He was actually great in his role and he was kind of sad person. Linda Hoffman was beutiful and dumb as Feinstones wife. Micahel Stadvec did not have much line's, but after I saw him with ladies of the neighbourhood I knew my future profession. Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead, From Beyond) was nice sight as cop on the case. Virginya Keehne was the innocent teen who is about to be next client to Feinstone.<br /><br />Final warning: If you're like me and have problem with dentist's then maybe you should skip this one. But if you want to try than you should prepare yourself with dark humor and lots nasty drillings. | 0 |
One of Starevich's earliest films made in France is possibly his only political satire. The story of The Frogs Who Wanted A King mirrors its title as a group of high 'croakers' feel that democracy has gone flat so they demand a king from Jupiter to rule their land. When he sends down a stump, the frogs ask for another king, saying the stump is but 'political timber.' Jupiter sends down a hungry stork this time whose frog lusty eyes devour the town's residents. As the original 'croaker' is about to slide down the stork's beak, he speaks his moral: 'let well enough alone.' This film features a few beautiful crowd scenes of dozens of puppet frogs. Starewicz tricks the audience into believing they are all moving at once by keeping the background in constant motion and animating only about six frogs or so at one time. The slightly corny dialogue and problems with lighting in a few places diminish the quality of repeat viewings, however its historical significance in Starewicz's life make it of importance to watch. His feelings towards government immediately following his flee from Russia are likely expressed in this film. In addition, the technical accomplishments of animating so many characters at once in a stop-motion film is astounding. | 0 |
Very interesting and moving documentary about the World Trade Center tragedy on 11th September 2001.The main theme of it is the heroism of American fire-fighters who tried to rescue as many people as they could.The film is deeply emotional and rather disturbing-many people seen on screen have lost their lives!Recommended. | 0 |
I've been disappointed, if not surprised, at the lack of appreciation this film has received. Once again, Billy Zane proves he's more than just a Hollywood pretty boy in a silent performance that combines spastic slapstick with understated pathos. Calling this a silent film is inaccurate, as there's a lot of music and sound. It has a manic pace and is full of the goofy inventiveness that Ed Wood is finally beginning to be appreciated for. Look at the cast listing, and realize that everyone shines. No one is there just to show their face. I believe they're all in the movie to show their appreciation of Wood, and to do a broad, physical kind of acting not seen much these days.<br /><br />But, today, reviewers try to guess what's going to become a hit much more than they show any kind of esthetic appreciation for a movie. And IWUETDID has no discernable target audience. It was made mostly out of love for Wood's script. Even after his death, the trendy social parasites have dealt him another serious blow, and deprived the world of a minor classic. This is a highly entertaining and a genuinely experimental film that really deserves to live, at least on DVD. | 0 |
Seriously, folks...I was getting ready to actually write the Razzie Council and recommend this movie as Razzie Champ for 2007...until I got on IMDb.com and realized its copyright date was 2006 and not 2007. Seriously, though, this movie could have easily been a Razzie Champ. This movie sucked! How in the world this piece of crap was overlooked even for a Razzie nomination in 2006 is beyond me, because it easily could have competed with Basically, It Stinks, Too for the 2006 Razzie Championship.<br /><br />I rented this movie on the recommendation of a female neighbor of mine who told me, 'Oh My God, after seeing this movie, it's going to be a long, long time before I ever stop at a rest stop ever again!' I couldn't believe how not scary and awful this movie was! Possible spoilers below, not that you'll be missing out on anything.<br /><br />OK, first of all...the problem...the rest stop itself. Obviously the director of this piece of crap doesn't know the first thing about women. The toilets in that rest stop were on the same level as the one in the movie Trainspotting. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about women, but one thing I do know is that women, for the most part, are total and complete hygiene/neat freaks. Given the choice between taking a crap on either of those toilets and possibly catching something or squatting in the woods, a woman is going to opt for squatting in the woods. I know, because I've gone camping with them before, and they have no problem squatting in the woods. So right there...major plot hole and untruth.<br /><br />Second of all...she comes out of the rest stop, and her boyfriend who drove the car is nowhere to be found, not him nor his car. He just left. She starts screaming his name, wondering where he is. Ummm...hello? You're standing on wet mud...did it ever occur to you to look down for some tire tracks? I mean, his car is gone...it didn't just get up and fly away. And actually, that makes me think...I actually was looking down at her feet, and there weren't any tread marks in the mud. How...exactly...did that happen?<br /><br />Third...the Bible thumping mobile home family with the freak midget in the back taking Polaroid pictures...Wtf!?!?!?? They made absolutely no sense at all, and it's as if the director just threw them in to be weird for the sake of being weird. They made no sense at all and had no place even being in the movie.<br /><br />Fourth...Oh My God, this...I mean, finally...near the end of the movie...she finally sees the escape hatch on the ceiling inside the rest stop. I'm like, 'You...dumb...bi**h. You've been locked up in this rest stop for all this time...and you just..now...see...the escape hatch on the ceiling?' I mean...it's like they threw that in just because the killer tossed gasoline on the floor through the window and was getting ready to light a match. So she needs to get to higher ground to avoid being burned, and...oh, look! A perfect reason for her to get to higher ground! An escape hatch on the ceiling! It's like...Why didn't she go through that before? Most people in that situation would have seen that from the moment they were locked in that rest stop and gotten the f**k out of Dodge. When they showed that escape hatch at the end of the movie, I was like, 'You have got to be kidding me.'<br /><br />Fifth...what was the deal with all the of people she encountered continuing to just disappear? The girl in the broom closet in the rest stop? The dumb cop? Her at the end of the movie when she ended up in the broom closet herself? It was never explained. Personally, when they did this, I thought to myself, 'Oh, Christ on a cracker, it's her. She's the killer. Wonderful. She killed all of those people, doesn't remember doing it, and the writers of this movie just ripped off a certain French horror flick that I can't mention on IMDb.com or I'll be blacklisted for giving away the ending (that movie sucked, by the way, too, people).' But it wasn't. She wasn't the killer, and the whole deal with the dead people disappearing was never, ever explained. Oh, for the love of God, people, stay away from this movie! This movie sucked balls, and I have now got a serious bone to pick with my neighbor. It's on the 2 for $1 rack at Family Video, don't even rent it if someone gives it to you for free! | 1 |
ROCK N ROLL HIGH SCHOOL holds a special place in my heart because it introduced me to the Ramones. I was too young during the band's mid-70s heyday to be very aware of them, although I had an older cousin who was a big fan at the time. I finally saw RNRHS on television one afternoon in the mid-80s when I was about fifteen years old, and laughed all the way through it. (Isn't it every high school kid's dream to trash his school and blow it up, all set to a rockin' soundtrack?) I recorded a subsequent airing of the film a year or two later and kept watching the Ramones concert sequences over and over again, thinking 'Man, these guys kick ass! I have to check out some of their albums!' The rest is history. Twenty years, umpteen Ramones LPs/cassettes/CDs, and three Ramones shows later, they're still one of my all time favorite bands and RNRHS still cracks me up every time I watch it. Now that Joey, Dee Dee and Johnny have left us (R.I.P. all)at least we have this movie and tons of great music to remember them by. | 0 |
This is a very interesting project which could have been quite brilliant. Gathering 11 prominent international directors and allotting each of them 11 minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame to create a segment of their choice; each short exploring the global reverberations of 9/11. Without using any spoilers, I would say that Ken Loach's piece is the jewel in the crown, and Mira Nair's short (segment 'India'), based on a true story, deserves to be made into a full feature film. One also realizes, while watching his short, why Alejandro González Iñárritu is one of the best directors in the world today he simply is a master of the medium, who has also a profound understanding of the subject matter. Unfortunately, not all 11 parts are made as well. Youssef Chahine, in his segment 'Egypt', assumes the Arab stance of the self-inflicted collective guilt, which piece could have potentially been the most interesting one. He fails miserably. Chahine's short is poorly written and badly executed, at least enough to stand out amongst other, superior chapters of the film. Despite the imbalance in quality, I would still give the film 7/10 for concept, if not for execution. | 0 |
I've heard a lot about Porno Holocaust and its twin film Erotic Nights Of The Living Dead. Both films are interchangeable and were filmed at the same time on the same location with the same actors changing clothes for each film (and taking them off). If you are expecting the D'Amato genius displayed in films like Buio Omega or Death Smiles on Murder, you won't find it here. Nonetheless this film has a charm that exploitation fans will not be able to resist. Where else will you see hardcore sex mixed with a zombie/monster and his enormous penis that strangles and chokes women to death? Only from D'Amato. There is some amount of gore in which many of the men are bludgeoned to death. The film is set on a beautiful tropical island. As far as I know there is no subtitled version, so if you don't speak Italian you wont know what is going on...but who cares right? In all honesty, Gore fans will probably fast forward through the hardcore sex. And if anyone is actually watching this for the sex only, will for sure be offended instantly. I can just imagine modern day porn fans tracing back through D'Amato's output and coming across this atrocity! Out of the two I find Erotic Nights Of The Living Dead far superior. But, don't bother watching either if they are cut. Porno Holocaust is extremely low budget as expected. Even the monster looks no where as good as George Eastman's character in Anthropophagus. The film is worth watching for laughs and to complete your D'Amato film quest. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.