review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Look, I'm sorry if half the world takes offense at this, but life is confusing enough. I don't need to watch it that way. I dig Anthony Hopkins, big time. I even watched Fracture, and I knew that would be a steaming pile of Quentin. But this thing is not well shot, and it's not daring--even if it is artsy. Well-produced films have reasons for cuts and fast edits, not this 'oh, but it's a realistic interpretation' excuse. This thing'll make your head hurt. It's the fastest moving picture ever to take you nowhere at all. I still love AH, and I'll always give him another chance, but if you aren't made of time to watch bad ideas on screen, skip this. | 1 |
If you like original gut wrenching laughter you will like this movie. If you are young or old then you will love this movie, hell even my mom liked it.<br /><br />Great Camp!!! | 0 |
Not to be confused with the 1943 George Zucco movie 'The Mad Ghoul,' 'The Mad Monster' is a film that Zucco appeared in the year before. In this fairly paint-by-numbers affair, Zucco perfects a way to turn his dim-witted handyman, Petro, into a wolf/man hybrid by means of wolf's blood injections, and then wastes little time in sending the transformed doofus to slay the former colleagues who had scoffed at his experiments. It is a very simple plot, really, and an extremely low-budget production. Glenn Strange, who plays the man/wolf here, would soon achieve greater fame playing the Franky monster in films such as 'House of Frankenstein' (1944) and 'Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein' (1948). The makeup job on him here is pretty lame, and only succeeds in making him look like a hippy with bad teeth (like the one in 1957's 'Teenage Monster'). The sets in this film, in addition, are fairly nonexistent, and the denouement is abrupt and unconvincing. I have given the movie a very generous 4 stars, in part because I have an abiding love for 1940s horror films, but truth to tell, most objective viewers would probably deem it laughable crap, and I suppose it is. It's certainly no well-crafted Universal affair or Val Lewton masterpiece, that's for sure! Still, Zucco is always fun to watch, even in undemanding piffle such as this. If you can spare 72 minutes of your life, I suppose you could do worse than 'The Mad Monster' (not TOO much worse, of course!). Oh...one other thing. This DVD is from Alpha Video, and you know what that means: fuzzy images, lousy sound (indeed, the worst sound of any Alpha Video DVD I've encountered so far) and no extras. You've been warned! | 1 |
This is a very sad movie. Really. Nothing happens in this movie. The Script is bad!!! I guess they've just copy-paste the first 15 pages to 90 pages. The Producers must have thought let's create a Hollywood movie here in Belgium. They didn't succeed. Now in the third week it is only running in Antwerp and Brussels at 22h45 or something. In the past we have had really good movies in Belgium, like Daens. Shades is a waste of your time. Maybe you could sneak in the theater after you've seen a real movie. If you've seen 10 minutes of Shades, you've seen it all. It was advertised to death on local radio and TV. I hope it will disappear in the Shades soon. | 1 |
This was one of those films that got a ton of play on the airwaves in the early 1970's, usually on the '4am Movie' or one time, on the 7:30 PM 'Channel 6 Big Movie' and still another on Creature Double Feature.WHen local channels used to run movies as part of their local programming(mostly gone today in favor of infomercial time) It was of the time. A couple of low-rent Abbott and Costello wannabees(Frankie Ray and Robert Ball) are in a platoon of soldiers(half a dozen guys in Army Surplus remainders) who are sent on field maneuvers to look into some strange radiation, and wind up encountering extraterrestrials. They first go into Bronson Canyon to what would be later the famous Batcave on BATMAN, and encounter the remains of a dead 'carrot monster'. Later, in the cave they're chased by a living carrot creature-basically a guy in black suit and paper mache head, with sparkly things on it and ping-pong ball eyes. Two of them-complete geeks,Ray and Ball-are captured and wake up tied to tables and are being 'examined' by space amazons-Dr Poona(nooo kidding!) and Professor Tanga who are stunningly beautiful and even moreso in their skimpy bikini 'uniforms'. We were too young at the time,to realize what later bondage and fetish scenarios this 'examination' scene would more than suggest. Turns out that the two gals and their carrot monster, are stranded on earth with a ship that's well hidden and are trying to return to their world.<br /><br />The film was made as a total comedy with varying degrees of taste but remember this was of the time when Eric Von Zipper and his crew from Frankie and Annette's films, were the height of B-film, drive-in comedy.So it only seemed a natural to jump on the bandwagon for some quick bucks.<br /><br />For some reason I only thought I'd imagined seeing this film to start with. No, I really saw it. And when it was released on 'restored' DVD I was assured in my memory. The comedy goes from mildly funny to just plain stupid, but whatever.The budget is non-existent, which, is a minor miracle when you think about it, that it even got made and we can talk about a 'restored' version here and now-over 40 years later. The payoff is the girls who want to learn about 'love' and 'kissing' and, the upshot is the geeks-which all of us were- get the girls and love wins out. It's just goofy and silly and for the locations, has nostalgic significance. | 1 |
not many people outside poland have had an opportunity to become familiar with andrzej sapkowski's brilliant writings. he's very popular in poland for his fantasy short stories ( i believe none of them has ever been translated intrto english. alas!). to make a long story short, wiedzmin - the main character of sapkowski's books - is a traveling monster slayer, a man of extraordinary strenght and skill: he's pretty much your favourite tolkien-style cool guy. unfortunately, no one would figure this out after watching the film. 'wiedzmin' the movie is nothing but a collection of random scenes, featuring wiedzmin and other characters from sapkowski's writings, but not eben remotely resembling the plot and dramatic pace of the original. event the fact that some of the shots in the film show attractive naked women does not add any quality to it. the movie gets worse and worse with every minute, and does not even meet the requirements of 'so bad it's actually good' category. if you really are into fantasdy and want to learn something about wiedzmin, read the books instead. | 1 |
I wonder who, how and more importantly why the decision to call Richard Attenborough to direct the most singular sensation to hit Broadway in many many years? He's an Academy Award winning director. Yes, he won for Ghandi you moron! Jeremy Irons is an Academy winning actor do you want to see him play Rocky Balboa? He has experience with musicals. Really? 'Oh what a lovely war' have you forgotten? To answer your question, yes! The film is a disappointment, clear and simple. Not an ounce of the live energy survived the heavy handedness of the proceedings. Every character danced beautifully they were charming but their projection was theatrical. I felt nothing. But when I saw it on stage I felt everything. The film should have been cast with stars, unknown, newcomers but stars with compelling unforgettable faces even the most invisible of the group. Great actors who could dance beautifully. Well Michael Douglas was in it. True I forgot I'm absolutely wrong and you are absolutely right. Nothing like a Richard Attenborough Michael Douglas musical. | 1 |
Why this is called 'Mistresses' is a puzzle, because it's about four women, three of whom aren't mistresses
Except, wait. Ah, I see. It's a salacious title and we all have to merchandise I suppose. The series itself? Delicious. Most of the characters are hell bent on cutting metaphorical chunks off themselves. Great fun. Reminds me of LWT's 1976 miniseries 'Bouquet of Barbed Wire', where every character and their dads wielded the machete.<br /><br />Siobhan (Orla Brady) is the only actual mistress and she's getting herself in proper trouble. Husband is infertile. So no chance of a baby there then. But at work, there's Dominic, played by uber-sexy Adam Rayner, who looks so good that there's no surprise when heavy lust breaks out. Dominic, it turns out, has no fertility problems. I expect his sperms do swashbuckling - probably each carries a little sword - and now Siobhan is inevitably pregnant that way instead. What Siobhan should do is to shut up good and tight, and go with - it's a miracle. What she actually does of course is say to her friends 'I have to tell my husband'. No you don't. Really, you don't. Stop. Stop!<br /><br />Katie (Sarah Parish) was a mistress once, for we learn that she'd had an affair with a married man before the series started. Unwisely, she's now taken up with his son. The father died of cancer and Katie, who is a doctor, helped him on his journey. So, she's an euthanasiarist, has had affairs with two of her patients and is sleeping with the son of the father in carelessly ignoring the incestuous undertones. It's not going to end well for Katie.<br /><br />Jessica is an experimental lesbian. She arranges events and she's busy doing a lesbian marriage as the series gets underway. She quickly gets into steamy eye exchanges with one of the brides Alex, played by Anna Torv, and the script hurries along to a lesbonk with great haste. However, it can't think of a good way of putting the two women in bed together, so it invents a very lame 'You're not having a hen night?! Well I can't let you get away with that. I'll organise one and the guests shall be .. Me!', which achieves the result but isn't exactly Winterson. I thought script writers were supposed to earn their living. Lazy. Torv's interpretation of her character is good. Alex treats Jessica as possibly unsavoury and Alex's body language always points backwards when she's moving forward. Mind, once she's over the wall, in she happily goes, and unsurprisingly, for Shelley Conn is so mouth-watering that so would a good percentage of the human race given the chance.<br /><br />Which brings us to Trudi, who's a widow. Of course there should be plain people in a community but, if you're going to have a plain character, then you have to invent something to admire in them. It's quite possible to be a lump and engaging. However, Small's Trudi looks like one of those characters that Casting put prominently in a medieval crowd scene after the director said 'That's ridiculous, not every single character would be pretty'. More tellingly, you can't find anything to admire in her. Nothing. She's a turnip in a bowl of apples. Appallingly, she does 'sexy' from time to time. I won't forget her appearance in bright red corset with stockings tucked into her crotch for a long time, and for all the wrong reasons.<br /><br />So, good, delinquent fun all round. There's easily enough material here for a second series and I hope that they do one. I trust they learn one lesson though. The characters never take off their underclothes in bed! Having spent abandoned hours of unbridled lust, afterwards they surface still wearing their bras, or keep the sheets tight wound round their naughty bits. After several episodes, no nipples yet and you can go beg for a cock. What's this? Early 21st century puritanism? So production team, are you listening? Your characters will solve some of their mental problems if they Do abandon as well as Talk it. At least they'll have more fun in the fun scenes, poor things. In a series dominated by either being in the bedroom, or wanted to be in the bedroom, or having just been in the bedroom, it's a bit silly, and jars a lot, that the characters bonk in their underwear.<br /><br />Overall. I was going to score 6 (top end medium), but the series does one trick that's rare enough. When each episode ends, you always want more, and you look forward to the next one with anticipation. So I score 7. | 0 |
1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast. | 1 |
All I can say is I really miss this show!! My wife & I just got married around the time this show started up!! Why did CBS take it off the air??? I think it was the best show for the whole family to enjoy!! It made me laugh!! It also made me cry. But when CBS took it off the air my wife & I thought CBS made a big mistake. You know what would be so great?? Have a reunion show!! That would be so cool!!!! Anybody know if it is on DVD yet?? On the last season of Promised Land, did CBS show the whole last season?? I think CBS took it off the air at mid-season. My wife & I will never forget it. The opening with that theme song was fantastic!!! This show only comes once in a life time! May we never forget Promised Land!! | 0 |
Nope, I am just not going to get with it here. I refuse to go along with the program. Don't you supposed that perhaps this movie is just a tad over-rated? Look at the reader comments and their star ratings: Most are 6/10, 7/10 or better. I think this is an instance when the ratings may say more about the people rendering them than the movie itself, which is unique. How many other sex fantasies about simulated bestiality complete with horse couplings have become mainstream hits as catalog DVD titles? I watched this movie with a pervading sense of anticipation, expecting fireworks, and instead got someone popping a Gucci shopping bag. It looked great, but once the thrill had been spent even the twist ending didn't do much to save it.<br /><br />The film's background story says it all: Director films about 25 minutes of borderline hardcore fake bestial sex for another movie, is informed the footage will not be appropriate, sets it aside, waits two or three years for a smattering of critical acclaim to build up, then constructs an entire feature around that 25 minutes, filming roughly 70 minutes of otherwise unrelated, excruciatingly boring footage and inserting the 25 minute chunk in as a dream sequence. That the 25 minutes of film in question is strikingly odd, original and shocking in a deliberate, calculated manner goes without saying. But we aren't here to evaluate that 25 minutes alone, we must consider the entire film, and ask ourselves why people are so enthusiastic about the movie? Or are they just enamored by it's background story and history of having been banned by people who were stupid enough to be offended by it?<br /><br />Perhaps it is an anti-clerical agenda that appeals to them. Hating the western religions of catholicism and Christianity is one of the few remaining socially acceptable bastions of intolerance -- Just today it was revealed that the BBC routinely skews their broadcasts with anti Christian & anti Western sentiment in the furtherance of political correctness. You can say anything you want about the Bible, pedopheliac priests, the institutionalized cruelty of the church, and how much white men and their inhuman religions suck the dimpled skin off a golf ball ... But say one negative thing about non-westernized religions, and you are toast. This movie was tailor made for such a sentiment, with a wrinkly old dried up priest who has an entirely unwholesome on screen relationship with two pretty 14 year old French boys complete with inappropriate touching, fawning, fondling, fumbling, groping, and patting of the backsides. Ewww.<br /><br />And then there is the horse couplings, photographed in such fetishistic closeup detail that portions of the film could be used as visual aids for a biology class on animal husbandry. Yes I understand the thematic relevance of the imagery -- large animal phallus's with a wealth of reproductive fluids just waiting to be unleashed like fire extinguishers -- but if I wanted to watch horses, you know, do it, I would like go live on a farm. Having their genitals in my face is about as entertaining as watching someone use a bathroom.<br /><br />Is this movie just a sort of artsy diversion for social deviants? Probably, though I will grant the artistic execution of most of it, filmed in a kind of arty Euro detail that even has a dappled forest pond right out of a Monet painting, complete with a spanning arched bridge. And the ending (which even I managed to be surprised by) does sort of wrap it all up into a neat if distasteful package. But you have to remember that there are certain things that cannot be deconstructed for their design elements and many artists are guilty for exploiting them in their work to lend a sort of gravitas that would not have been achieved without it. That isn't fair, and even Clint Eastwood has fallen prey to the urge with his new movie about Iwo Jima. Whether or not his film is any good stands as a separate consideration from whether or not that battle was a noble cause fought by men who were heroes. The problem is that most people will not be able to separate out the two aspects of the movie and will be lining up to give it Oscars because of it's noble message -- not because it is a particularly good or original movie.<br /><br />While it may seem like an odd parallel, I see one with THE BEAST: How can anyone not see the basic beauty of nature in the sight of two horses mating? And who cannot see the logical culmination of the repressed sexuality from fairy tales in the film's explosive set-piece where Beauty and the Beast finally do the nasty? Somehow I managed to miss both points, and am delighted that I have seen this film so that I can trash it as being what it really is: 25 minutes or so of eye opening over the top adult fairy tale imagery surrounded by 70 minutes of skull drainingly boring artsy-fartsy Euro Trash dreck about some guy getting a haircut, and a great ending. It's art for sure, but it sucks hard.<br /><br />3/10 | 1 |
Gargoyle starts late one night in 'Romania 1532' as a peasant girl (Daniela Nane) travels along in her horse & cart minding her own business when from the moonlit clouds above a living Gargoyle swoops down & attacks her, she manages to escape the Gargoyle & happens upon a castle of some description where an angry mob of local villagers & a Priest are able to put an end to the Gargoyle, or so they think... Cut to present day Bucharest where two CIA agents Ty Griffin (Michael Pare) & Jennifer Wells (Sandra Hess) are about to negotiate the safe return of the son of a rich American ambassador from his kidnappers. In pursuit of one of the kidnappers Griffin loses him on the roof of a building but finds a large pool of blood & no visible signs of what happened to him. Meanwhile Dr. Christina Durant (Kate Orsini) & her colleague Richard Barrier (Jason Rohrer) are renovating a church when the church labourer Gregor (Mihai Bisericanu) informs Richard that he has found some ancient relic, the two investigate & find a cave with lots of slimy cocoons & one very angry & very much alive Gargoyle who wastes no time in killing them both. Griffin & Wells are on the case when they are reported missing & soon realise that local legends of monstrous Gargoyles are true with a local priest named Father Soren (Fintan McKeown) planning to flood the world with them...<br /><br />Co-written, co-produced & directed by Jim Wynorski under his usual pseudonym Jay Andrews Gargoyles is yet another masterpiece Wynorski can add to his credits, not. The script by Wynorski, Ion Ionescu, A.G. Lawrence & Bill Munroe is crap, is unexciting, dull & is as simplistic as you can get. For a start I would like to know if there was only one Gargoyle left who laid all those eggs because I'm pretty sure it couldn't have made itself pregnant. How did it survive in that hole for 500 years? What did it eat? How did the priest know it was there? Why has no one else ever figured it out? Why did the priest want to flood the world with them? To rule it? The Gargoyles are hardly going to take over the world & then let some priest just rule it like a king & if they did what would be left to rule? Much like the guys who wrote Gargoyle I don't think he thought it through that well did he? Whichever way I look at it, whichever way I approach it, from whichever angle I try to figure it out from, no matter how many times I try to square the circle Gargoyles just doesn't make any sense & they story has huge plot holes, lapses in logic & isn't that great to start with anyway. The character's are dull & clichéd, the action repetitive & unexciting while the film as a whole is a real bore to sit through. People do illogical things & everything that happens is far to convenient like when the priest is try to convince Griffin that Gargoyle's exist & one just suddenly shows up & attacks them. The cave full of cocoons is such a rip-off of Aliens (1986) it's embarrassing & the ending was lame. The bit on the large Ferris Wheel at the fair was funny though when the guy mocked the boys fear of heights & forced him to get on it.<br /><br />Director Wynorski cuts costs & steals footage from other films, in fact the best scene from Gargoyle is a car chase through Bucharest but it was taken from the Jean-Claude Van Damme action film Maximum Risk (1996). There are no shocks, scares or atmosphere. The special effects are terrible, the CGI Gargoyle looks like it belongs in a computer game & has little interaction with any living cast members, there are lots of scenes of people looking up to the sky & trying to appear scarred. There isn't even any worthwhile gore to make the thing watchable, there is one awful decapitation & that's it.<br /><br />Technically the special effects are awful but otherwise it's passable, the Romanian locations look suitably Romanian. Gargoyle went straight-to-video & it shows with a pretty cheap look & feel to it. The acting isn't up to much, personality bypass victim Michael Pare makes for the dullest of dull heroes.<br /><br />Gargoyle is a crap film, it fails at everything a decent creature feature should strive to achieve. A total waste of 90 minutes as far as I'm concerned, one to avoid. | 1 |
here, let me wave my hands over the keyboard, i'll tell you what salad she's going to order. over and over, works like a charm: he's such a genius, omg how does he do it? my bullshit detector freaks if i even pass this show when i'm scanning channels, I have to be very careful (these days it's useful far too often, so I don't need it getting broken on idiotic crap like this...careful with that remote!). is this supposed to be some fascist propaganda to make people believe in some invisible realm of uberman control and mastery? or what? why does it exist??<br /><br />this is THE most inane show, completely unbelievable and contrived, and I cannot understand why it's still on the air. so may geeks give SO much better shows such a hard time (Sarah Connor Chronicles, True Blood), but give this nonsensical drivel a pass. shows like Firefly (if there were any like that) fall away after a season, but mindless stuff like this that makes zero logical sense just keeps marching on. yeccch. | 1 |
Best Stephen King film alongside IT, though this one is more fun than scary. <br /><br />This one's got it all: <br /><br />-a great cast with a Alice Krige and Brian Krause and a fun cameo from King himself;<br /><br />-well dosed horror in an amusing storyline;<br /><br />-great use of music, Santo & Johnny's 'Sleepwalk' in particular;<br /><br />-likeable characters in a typical King setting: middle of nowhere village;<br /><br />-lots of humor. You can't really get good scares here because it's too much fun and over the top;<br /><br />-old but really nice makeup effects like they don't make anymore!<br /><br />A 4,5 rating: I don't get it really. When was the last time a horror film was as much fun as this one? | 0 |
Tony Arzenta, a Sicilian hit-man or professional killer, decides to leave the business, and his former employers do not agree.In terms of content, this highly enjoyable action movie doesn't have one; in terms of sheer amusement, it is funit is very melodramatic, violent, quite brutal, the car chases are notable. 'Arzenta' is an unpretentious ,yet very likable filmmuch better than the current Hollywoodian trash that gets the same label. It comes from Delon's rather short flirting with the Italian B cinema of the '70s. It carefully uses Delon's tough guy persona, belonging to the gallery of bad-ass thugs that he made in his youth. <br /><br />I enjoyed very much the fact that Delon made this film, that he had a role in a good Eurocrime flick.<br /><br />The score is very fine, with a good introductory songmaking felt that gusto that the Italians had for the film considered as a synthetic work,where the musical art has an important part.<br /><br />In Tony Arzenta/ Big Guns/ No Way Out the very appealing Erika Blanc (31 years in '73) appears as an unnamed hooker.Meanwhile, Arzenta's girlfriend, Sandra,is played by Carla Gravina (a starlet that practically left the movies after '75).<br /><br />'Arzenta' is interestingly filmedan ambitious visual conception, some Expressionistic peculiar angles. The movie was directed by the prolific Duccio Tessari,the one who made also Zorro (the Delon comedy).Needless to mention that these two films,Tony Arzenta (1973) and Zorro ,are very unlike.The first one is a bloody melodramatic violent action movie--the second is a lighthearted comedy,more kindred to a spoof,though remarkably coherent and skilfully made.Duccio Tessari directed films like Kiss Kiss... Bang Bang (1966),Sons of Satan ,The Bloodstained Butterfly ,¡Viva La Muerte... Tua! ,Tough Guys (1974),Safari Express (1976) ,etc.. | 0 |
Clossius says that 'Baltic Storm' is banned in Sweden. That is not correct! Instead you can buy the film almost everywhere, like in gas stations, shopping malls, internet (of course) and so on. Often to a very low price because this movie is so BAD and nobody wants to see it, despite all the tricks to keep up the interest. The movie only appeals to conspiracy theorists, psychos and other persons living in la-la-land and those who 'knows the truth'. <br /><br />Working on a museum with the Estonia disaster as a theme I have meet them all! I have heard about every theory that exists like cocaine-smuggling, weapon-smuggling, biological warfare, nuclear smuggling, red mercury, aliens, the Russian- the American- the Estonian- the Swedish- and the Finnish intelligence, often in different combinations.<br /><br />Some normal persons have asked why we don't show the film? A question only asked by them who haven't seen this terrible nonsense movie. <br /><br />Once again, 'Baltic Storm' is not banned in Sweden. It has some entertaining qualities but what a hell is Donald Sutherland doing in this movie? | 1 |
Felix is watching an actor rehearse his lines: 'A ham, A ham! My kingdom for a ham sandwich!!!' The dramatic guy that tells Felix he'll 'have to sacrifice my art and go into the movies.' He's in tears. Felix just looks at him like he's nuts, and shrugs his shoulders. The old guy tells Felix to 'go ye forth' and find money to finance a trip to Hollywood. Felix thinks, 'How does he expect me to get the money?'<br /><br />In minutes, of course (this is a cartoon), he spots a shoe business owner putting up a 'bankrupt' sale on his store. Felix comes up with a plan to bail him out and the man promises the cat $500 if it works.<br /><br />Well, it does but the man wants to go alone and leave Felix at home. In an outrageous scene, Felix transforms himself into a briefcase and that's how he gets to Hollywood, transforming himself back to cat when they get there.<br /><br />We then witness Felix's attempts at getting into show business. His audition scenes are very funny, especially with his imitation of Charlie Chaplin. In addition there are caricatures of some famous silent film stars and executives. In all, quite a bit of material is in this 9.5- minute cartoon. It's amazing how much more you can get in an extra 2.5 minutes, assuming most animated shorts are seven minutes in length.<br /><br />At any rate, there were a number of laughs in here and more zany things you could only see in a cartoon, like Felix have a sword duel with giant mosquitoes! Crazy stuff. | 0 |
I work as a hotel concierge in Washington DC and take my word, there was nothing remotely accurate about the character played by Michael J. Fox- # 1 we simply do not walk around with our pockets bursting with theater tickets and $100 bills! #2 If I ever let anybody use a room for some 'afternoon delight' time I'd be fired on the spot! The organization to which I belong (Les Clefs d'Or) has very definite standards of ethics and conduct that we take seriously. #3 Similarly untrue was the concept, at the end of the movie, of Doug simply removing his gold key emblem and passing it on to some other employee- we earn those keys and it is a badge of honor and knowledge to be allowed to wear them. There is a whole application and vetting process to joining our organization.<br /><br />This film does nothing to dispel the unfortunate perception of a concierge as nothing but a money grubbing mercenary. In short it does a disservice to our organization. I welcome any comments. | 1 |
The title should have been the walker. The guy expend 90% of the movie walking. He doesn't know what he wants, or what he is. Go through life stealing peoples identity for nothing. He gets no benefit, no money, nothing pretending to be another person.<br /><br />No body was able to understand why he was pretending to be somebody else.<br /><br />The only thing that was clear in this movie is that he love his father and was a good son. But the rest was crap.<br /><br />May be director is a looser that would like to be somebody else. But what he really should do is to get a real job, because after his movie, I don't think he has a chance to make as a movie producer. | 1 |
An absorbing exploration of virtual reality, although it is not yet clear how much the director himself intended. This film deliberately takes you through several layers of artificial reality, leaving only subtle clues about which layer of virtual reality you are in, positing an ontological confusion for the viewer to ponder. <br /><br />Also can be seen as a satire of video games-- the whole movie though may fall into the fallacy of imitative form here. It seems unable to escape from the video game genre which it imitates; thus the satire becomes problematic. <br /><br />A number of interesting ideas crisscross throughout though: the biological mutant is one; the interface of technology and biology, the cyborg urge to transcend reality-- and philosophical allusions such as the title's to Heidegger, along with existential questions: i.e., the game characters are partly scripted or determined and yet partly free to alter their fate, and they wonder at how strange that feels in the game. One character then notes that this existential confusion is just like real life, thereby erasing again the distinction between the virtual and the real. Likewise with the observation that it is unpleasant to stumble around in a world where you don't know what will happen next and you're not sure how to play since you have to stumble around just to find out the goal and the unknown rules. A virtual game within the game is titled 'TranscendenZ'. Also a critique of how virtual violence makes us unable to feel the effects of real violence. Even the heroes at every level of ontological existence find themselves confused about violence. They don't like it but it is thrilling and part of the 'game', which then they fear is real. <br /><br />The game creator, the god of the system, is assassinated in the end; yet that very scenario is played out in direct parallel to a video game we've just witnessed-- and the onlookers believe that it is still just part of the virtual reality. In the end, the film does not resolve the doubt about whether or not this is 'real' but the point is clear (to me anyway). Existenz means Da-sein: You are there. You are thrown into a set of rules and mysteries at every level. Ontologically, virtual reality recapitulates reality. And its common game motifs express, like a royal road to the unconscious, our own fascination with violence.<br /><br />Nevertheless, while Cronenberg affirms these philosophical allusions in an interview about the film, he claims that he is very much against the 'Reality ... {underground name of terrorist group} portrayed in the film both in the game and in the 'real' level.' Seems that Cronenberg himself did not put that much thought into the film, though his impressive education comes through. The interview in Cineaste gives the impression of a middle brow intellectual who's trying to be avant-garde by inclination. Cronenberg is simply on the side of free imagination -- the clichéd bourgeois modernist credo-- despite the acknowledged ambivalence there. (My impression here might be due to one limited interview.) Still, Cronenburg seems to miss the point that his film betrays the fallacy of imitative form (here imitating computer games while doing a satirical critique of them, but a critique that is unable to 'transcend' the same form) probably because he actually thinks that it is 'imaginative' and radical. Yet the film's imaginative world is less bearable, and more jejune, than our own all-too-real world. It remains trapped in the computer game worldview. | 0 |
It makes sense to me that this film is getting raves from Hollywood because oftentimes in Hollywood it's all just a popularity contest. It also makes sense when you think that people who are liking the film may just be reacting to the countless songs being spit out at you rather than story content. Yet, this film is overrated and overblown. Eddie Murphy looks just ridiculous. No way do Jeniffer Hudson and Beyonce Knowles give the Oscar rated performance so many have raved over BEFORE the film was even out. I can't even believe that Condon is being set up to be nominated for a Directing Oscar when all he did was put together an album. Glitz does not replace a nothing storyline. A bunch of songs does not a movie make. | 1 |
A plot that is dumb beyond belief. However, that said, it must be admitted the lead actors go at their roles as though it were Shakespeare. And that is as it should be. It isn't their fault the writer seems to be in a coma.<br /><br />Hats off to what is really a very cunning performance by Joanna Kerns. She proves that just because it isn't on the page doesn't mean a role can't be seized and dug into. And she does so with gusto. Good for her.<br /><br />Ditto to Christine Elise who is called upon to be little more than confused and weepy, but goes way beyond what is asked of her by the script.<br /><br />And to Grant Show as well. A graduate of daytime and prime time soaps (Ryan's Hope, Melrose Place). He is always versatile and underrated. His primary drawback seems to be his impossible-to-ignore good looks. He is a sturdy, well grounded actor capable of much more than he is generally given the opportunity to do.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is basically window dressing.<br /><br />The direction is adequate and the script, as I alluded to, is fairly idiotic.<br /><br />Watch this one to enjoy three good actors in the leads taking delight in performing some much needed scenery chewing. It's fun. | 1 |
I picked up this movie in the hope it would be similar to the hilarious 'The Gamers' by Dead Gentlemen Productions (which is highly recommendable, by the way). Boy, what a disappointment! The movie is shot in this fake documentary style made famous by the office but it fails to deliver. The reason is partly the stiff acting but mostly the writing and directing. True, it can be funny to use every singe cliché there is about role playing games, but here it is done in such a way that it becomes extremely predictable. Already at the beginning of each scene you know what the 'joke' will be about. But maybe the biggest problem is that everything is depicted way over the top. There is no subtlety in this movie, if there would be captions 'LAUGH NOW' or a cheap 80s-style fake-laughter track it would not make much difference. With some scenes you can't help to think 'Yea, I get why they thought this would be funny' but the way it is executed takes all momentum out of the possible joke. | 1 |
When you read about this film you wanna cringe. I have seen it countless times and yet I cringe myself! So what is the attraction here? I think that for me, it's the offbeatness of the romance. I find it super refreshing to have an oddball coupling between this NYC Jimmy-Breslin-like columnist and a down-on-her-luck (health-wise) ballerina. You feel embarrassed for Paul Sorvino at his unsubtle approach to wooing this woman. Like the guy in the bar who can't take a hint. He's a bit overweight (at least as a would-be suitor for a ballerina. Hope that doesn't sound unkind) and possibly a tad too old for her. Nice change of pace from Greek God wooing Super-model. The Bill Conti score has stuck in my head all these years later, which is a pretty good sign. However some of the acting is just dreadful. A subplot involving a young Puerto-Rican boy befriended by Sorvino's character is just hilariously bad. But the opening scene where Ditchburn is warming up to Carole King draws you right into this story. Good luck finding it. You'd think that Lifetime would be re-airing this or even WE, but I haven't seen it on in quite a few years. | 0 |
During WWII, there were a bazillion movies created by Hollywood and after seeing many of them they start to seem alike. However, OVER 21 is unique in so many ways, as it shows a side of the war you won't see in other films--making it well worth seeing, even if you have seen the bazillion other films! <br /><br />Alexander Knox plays the male lead, but the real lead of the film is Irene Dunne--who looks amazing for a 47 year-old lady (yes, I checked--she really was this old when she made the film). In OVER 21, the pair play husband and wife. He enlists in the military, much to the consternation of his father (Charles Coburn) and owner of the newspaper where Knox is employed, and most of the film takes place when he is in officers candidate school. The film shows little of Knox in the school but instead centers on Dunne as she lives in nearby spartan housing for spouses. During this time, she (as the British say) keeps a 'stiff upper lip' and makes the best of it--even though she really isn't a housewife but a famous professional writer. Occasionally she gets very brief visits from her harried husband but most of the time is spent doing housewife duties and keeping the meddling Coburn at bay. Eventually, she decides to stop the pesky Coburn from phoning incessantly (he ALWAYS complains that his paper won't survive without his son) by pretending to be Knox--writing wonderful editorials that everyone just assumes were written by him.<br /><br />While there is nothing earth-shaking in this film, it's a very interesting slice of life move. Additionally, the acting all around is very good. It's interesting that this film is a fictionalized reworking of the experienced of Ruth Gordon (a famous screenwriter) and her husband, Garson Kanin (also a famous screenwriter as well as director). When Kanin joined the military during WWII, Gordon soon wrote and starred in the play that became this film.<br /><br />By the way, I noticed that some of the reviewers really liked the speech towards the end of the film and were inspired by it. While it was very good, it was also very sad as all this hope for a better world following the war was short-lived. | 0 |
I was fortunate to attend the London premier of this film. While I am not at all a fan of British drama, I did find myself deeply moved by the characters and the BAD CHOICES they made. I was in tears by the end of the film. Every scene was mesmerizing. The attention to detail and the excellent acting was quite impressive.<br /><br />I would have to agree with some of the other comments here which question why all these women were throwing themselves at such a despicable character.<br /><br />*******SPOLIER ALERT******** I was also hoping that Dylan would have been killed by William when he had the chance! ****END SPOILER*****<br /><br />Keira Knightley did a great job and radiate beauty and innocence from the screen, but it was Sienna Miller's performance that was truly Oscar worthy.<br /><br />I am sure this production will be nominated for other awards. | 0 |
There are many good things about the new BSG: There's the multiple Cylon roles for Model 8 and 6, for example, which the two actresses played superbly. There's the old school feel of industrial design aboard Galactica ('My ship will not be networked, over my dead body!') Also, all the space battles, the special effects (even though the seasoned sci-fi watcher will acknowledge the cartoonishness of it all) The darkness of the characters, their essentially flawed nature.<br /><br />That makes it all the more bitter that the ending was so childish.<br /><br />Yes, the first part, the scenes in space, the raid on the Cylons and all that was very good. But the mushy ending? I always watch films and shows these days with the timer hidden, so I never know how much time is left until the end. So for me it was a special kind of torture, to see the end happen over and over again. Every time I thought, oh this is the final scene, the final shot, I got one more. Every frakking character got its complete ending! That wasn't really necessary.<br /><br />What really highlighted the schoolboy amateurishness of it all: The young Roslin scenes. Why is important for us to know that: {a} she lost her sisters and father in a horrible accident and {b} that she has a one night stand with a former pupil/student? What does that bring to the story? Where was the linkage? Now, I'm all for a more European-ish style approach, and a random acts of whateverness in films and shows, and all that, but this was just ridiculous. This didn't bring anything meaningful to the story.<br /><br />Also, I've seen the 'Last Frakkin special' and in it Ron revealed his own cluelessness about the plot: he couldn't come up with a good ending for the story, so .... he just didn't! It's never as much about the characters as they made the last episode to be. The whole 'this was thousands of years in the past' idea, the mitochondrial Eve thing, was also used in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and believe you me, there are a lot of BSG watchers who know that particular H2G2 storyline. And speaking of Hera, now there's a storyline that WAS NOT worked out well, AT ALL. Instead we get Roslin is doing her former pupil who's 20 years younger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for older women with younger men. The more power to them. But this ... just made no sense.<br /><br />All in all, (the writing in) this series is as flawed as they intended its characters would be. That goes even moreso for the last episode. I hope Lost and 24 do better, with their series finales. | 1 |
Not really all that much to this movie...either a stunt racer or a stock car racer has a flaming car in the beginning of the movie, goes to bar, is approached by a biker gang who ruins his chances with a very lovely lady, offer him a job, he goes back to their place, refuses, the police ask him to accept their ya go!!! What plays out is a very annoying little film that sees the hero not really do all that much and a biker gang that can kill and for some reason the police can not pin a crime on them. I am not sure why the female biker did what she did at the end, but hey it is a bad movie, you always get scenes that make little sense. I am still trying to figure out if I misheard it when they said the hero of the piece was a stunt car driver. They may have said stock car driver because why would a stunt racer be racing and I wouldn't think it would be all that uncommon for a stunt car to crash. The actors are bad, and all the bikers are pretty annoying and the hero is kind of incompetent...really this movie is not full of kicks but it is the pits. | 1 |
I am not a fan of Sean Penn, but in contrast to my German colleague whose review appears here, I think he was perfectly cast as the neurotic, druggy character in this film. He has every nuance perfected and reminded me of several acquaintances who had similar tastes in 'recreational chemistry.' I saw this film but once, 10-15 years ago and this is the only part of the film that was etched indelibly on my mind. I don't say it very often, but in this case I will: Bravo, Sean Penn! As for the story line, well, it's based on fact, and as such, it is a tragedy that people would sell their country's secrets to the then enemy. Again, Penn has shown what you can do if you disagree with the administration. Use the freedoms you have, paid for in blood; don't break the law. | 0 |
Hmmm, a sports team is in a plane crash, gets stranded on a snowy mountain, and is faced with the difficult decision to eat the flesh of their dead companions in order to survive. Sound familiar anyone? I refer to 'Alive' from 1993. The only major difference here, of course, is that a big, white, drunken scare crow of a Yeti shows up a few times to drag off the dead. I guess humans taste better than yaks.<br /><br />Stupid: The man in the first scene does not have a reliable firearm when hunting the Yeti, nor does he have a backup.<br /><br />The plane crash is completely bogus. It would have either exploded in the air, exploded when it hit the ground, or become obliterated. The people would not have survived, but hey, it's sci-fi.<br /><br />Stupid: They survived, and they are cold. It might be a good idea to harness some of the burning debris nearby so as not to freeze to death. Fire being warm as it is...<br /><br />WTF: The pilot has frost formed all over his face while he's alive and talking, but oddly enough, no one else does.<br /><br />Stupid: One of the guys tells the others to look for matches and lighters, but there are scattered parts of the plane ON FIRE all around them.<br /><br />Stupid: They find coats and hoodies, and yet there in the cold of the Himalayas, they fail to use the hoods!<br /><br />Stupid: They're staring at a pile of sticks when, I reiterate, there are pieces of the plane ALREADY BURNING.<br /><br />Stupid: The Himalayas are notorious for its storms. It would be common sense for them to collect the debris in order to reinforce their structure rather than sitting outside bickering. There are a lot of pine trees around, the branches of which make excellent insulation.<br /><br />WTF: When in doubt, use a dead man's arm as a splint.<br /><br />WTF: If the one guy knows so much about the hibernation habits of squirrels, bears, and leopards in the Himalayas, then why doesn't he know enough to make shelter and set traps right from the start? <br /><br />Stupid: When attempting to trap wild animals, mindless conversation in the vicinity of said trap always helps.<br /><br />WTF: Do you know how hard it would be to cut a frozen corpse with a shard of glass?! <br /><br />WTF: The group was ready and armed to fight the Yeti while the other two were standing there defenseless. The Yeti ripped out the guy's heart and stomped the girl's head, and the gang did nothing. There's love.<br /><br />So two Yetis and a convenient avalanche to bury the evidence forever.... or so we think. Mwuhahahaa! The story continues into more idiocy but the most action occurs in the last 15 minutes, as usual. Nice thinking with the javelin and the chain, although this is some ingenuity (with the magically-appearing chain) that they lacked in the beginning of the movie when they couldn't even make fire despite the fact that it was all around them.<br /><br />As is typical for the Sci-Fi Originals, the loving couple kisses at the end like nothing horrible has just happened to them (not to mention they ate human flesh and haven't brushed their teeth in several days).<br /><br />The very end, however, is quote lame. | 1 |
Roy Rogers (as Roy) and sidekick Raymond Hatton (as Rusty) join Teddy Roosevelt's 'Rough Riders'. Soon, they get suspended in order to 'Round-up' the killer of partner Eddie Acuff (as Tommy) along the Mexican-U.S. border; they discover creepy gold runners in the process. Notice how, even suspended, Mr. Rogers is able to get the Rough Riders to join in his Round-up! <br /><br />This is not one of the better Roy Rogers westerns. The fighting scenes look like choreographed dances. Rogers sings/yodels 'Ridin' Down the Trail', one of two relatively ordinary songs; and, a stand-out moment, overall. <br /><br />** Rough Riders' Round-up (3/13/39) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, Raymond Hatton, Lynne Roberts | 1 |
What I love about this show is that it follows the lives of modern witches and it's a blast to experience their everyday love, humor and adventure. The literature of magic is so diverse, portraying the ideas of classical, medieval and modern wizardry, like Harry Potter and Sabrina. With Sabrina the Teenage Witch, this show is so fun and unique because it lets us experience a lot of that modern wizardry, seven seasons worth! This show has so many great qualities and it's a joy to watch Sabrina live her daily life in the mortal and 'other' realm. I would recommend this to any family because the television series is clean, funny and adventurous. Classic! | 0 |
The banner says it all, this is one really bad movie, which is sad because I normally like Sheffer, and I have been impressed with Andrea Roth in other roles. This, however, is terrible. I wont waste any more time...its just that bad. | 1 |
This film is an absolute classic for camp. That is why it was an Elvira and MST3000 classic. Everyone knows the story. Scientist keeps his girlfriend's head alive in a lasagna pan in his basement while he cruises town and tries to find her a body by checking out the local chicks. Finally he finds a real hourglass body with a scar-faced chick's head on top. The severed head makes friends with the failed experiment in the closet and the conehead comes out of the closet and rips off the assistant's remaining 'good' arm (his other is not right from a scientist's earlier failure), and the whole place burns down.<br /><br />The movie scared us so much as kids that my friend wouldn't go into his basement for a year after seeing it. As kids we ranked the scariest movies of all time and this one was number four. Only one of those scary movies was really any good (the Original 'The Haunting'.)<br /><br />I had to give this movie a seven rating for the tremendous amount of entertainment value it offers. Its eerie effect because of the crappy production and the weird sexual angle when the scientist looks for the bodies (complete with porno sound track) scares the hell out of innocent children, while the ridiculous aspects make it prime material for watching talking and laughing. I could watch this film tonight and enjoy it while I'd rather go to the Dentist than watch 'Chicago' again.<br /><br />Seven is the most I can give it, because its entertainment value is mere luck. The film , as cinema, is a disaster. | 0 |
Went with some friends and one of my friends mom, thinking it would be a good way to start off the spring break, but the movie turned out awful. We all agree it shouldn't have been PG-13. More like R material. Lots of sexual dialog, cussing and referring to boy and girl parts (below the waist). Not worth the time or money. Strongly urge you not to go, or rent it when it comes out. If you do end up going, don't take smaller children. Not the type of movie to see with the family! If curious about the content, check out the content advisory section on the Superhero Movie page on IMDb. Most of the content that was meant to be funny was extremely crude. Especially when they make fun of Steven Hawking. | 1 |
**SPOILERS** Since the disappearance at sea of her favorite niece Phyllis murder mystery writer Abigail Mitchell, Ruth Gordon, has strong suspicions that it was Phyllis' husband Edmund Galvin, Charles Frank, who was responsible for her death. In fact Abigail is convinced that he murdered her and made it look like a tragic accident.<br /><br />Knowing that there's no evidence to have Edmund arrested for Phyillis' death and deciding to take the law into her own hands Abigail cooks up this elaborate plan to do him in and make it look, like Phyllis' death, a tragic accident. Getting Edmund to secretly come over to her mansion to give him the combination to her walk-in safe, as she's about to leave on vacation for New York City, Abigail tricks him into going inside locking the startled and surprised Edmund in. With the safe being soundproof nobody at the mansion the butler maid and Abigail's personal secretary Veronica, Mariette Hartley, hear him screaming for help and the next day Edmund is found suffocated to death. Veronica discovered Edmund's body as she was about to put away, for safe keeping, Abigail's latest murder mystery manuscript.<br /><br />Lt. Columbo, Peter Falk, is called on the case involving the strange death of Edmund Garvin to determine if it's a murder or a tragic accident. Going through Edmund's apartment Columbo is puzzled to find out that he doesn't have a single photo of his late wife, who's been missing for just a month! This ties into what Abigail always felt about him in Edmund not being in love with Phyllis and also a suspect in her, in Abigail's mind, murder. <br /><br />Columbo a big fan, together with his wife, of Abigail's murder mystery novels has a hard time realizing that she in fact was responsible for Edmund's death. All the evidence points to Abigil including a pair of missing car keys that was Edmunds. This all proved that Abgail was in fact in the house, not on her way to the airport, when Edmund was locked inside the walk-in safe.<br /><br />Going through all the evidence Columbo comes up with this strange conclusion that Edmund must have left some evidence inside the safe in writing to who his killer is. That conclusion is quickly checkmated when it's found out that Edmund didn't even have a pen or pencil as well as light, with the safe light-bulb burned out, on him to write it. There's also something very odd that's inside the safe that has been on Lt. Columbo's mind ever since he came on the case. This has to do with the black paint residue that was found under the dead Edmund's fingernails and on his belt buckle! <br /><br />It's that evidence, when put together with a number of other items in the safe, that in the end hangs Edmund's murder on the tricky and very cunning mystery writer Abigail Mitchell. Edmund let Abigail unknowingly convict herself in his final attempt as the air in the safe was being used up, by his breathing, in using burnt out matchsticks to write on Abigail last manuscript who murdered him: Abigail Mitchell! | 0 |
I had neither read any of the books nor seen the first movie so after receiving passes to a preview show, I had no expectations.<br /><br />'Angels and Demons' was a muddled, convoluted film lacking direction or any believability. There was very little character development and I never found myself caring about the plight of the protagonists; the reverse was true, I was more interested in seeing how the antagonists would succeed as the first half of the film was almost exclusively focused on why the Illuminati are who they are.<br /><br />The film jumps from location to location with little explanation or reason and expects the viewer to believe that everybody in the movie is an ally when they first meet. Any analytical mind will realize this is highly improbable.<br /><br />The climax is extremely cliché and leaves you asking what happened and wondering why nobody considered some of these points, it feels very tacked on and unnecessary.<br /><br />The actors are not particularly believable in their roles, mostly because I found it difficult to believe that scientists, professors, and men of the church would act in the manner that they do without regard to the consequences of their actions. Events that happen are not plausible in the slightest and the pace of the movie is questionable with the characters jumping around while on a tight schedule and I had to question how the protagonists manage to get from location to location on time, every time.<br /><br />The most pleasing part of the film is the cinematography, I found it a beautiful film to watch but it was such a mess, that I found it would not be worth paying to view in theatres. | 1 |
What great locations. A visual challenge to all those who put their eye behind the lens.This little jewel is an amazing account of what you can shoot in just 16 days. Good going folks!. I can not wait to see what your next feature will be. I'll be with you all the way. | 0 |
I've read that Paolo Sorrintino's inspiration for The Consequences of Love came from simply observing a businessman alone in a Brazilian hotel, and speculating what he might be doing there. The film unfolds to us in a similar way. We view the existence of Titta who has lived alone in a hotel in Switzerland for 8 years. He is secretive and avoids friendship. His life is dominated by order and regularly. Gradually, the truth of his existence is revealed to us until, finally, his world begins to fall apart.<br /><br />The mystery of Titta is central to The Consequences of Love and it works thanks in large part to the superb performance by Toni Servillo. His character becomes all the more intriguing to us as little details are revealed - that he injects heroin once a week, that he has no imagination. Although some here criticise the dialogue for not being naturalistic, that doesn't matter in my view - this is not that sort of film, and I think the script is great. The camera work is also excellent.<br /><br />If you have to criticise, the film does lose its way a in the later scenes as the mystery of Titta's existence is revealed to us, and as his world begins to fall apart. However, the tragic final scenes are every bit as good as the earlier build-up. | 0 |
** and 1/2 stars out of **** Lifeforce is one of the strangest films I've ever seen, so ridiculous, yet at the time it's strangely compelling and never the least bit dull. Whether it's due to the nonstop nudity, the large amount of violence and action, it all comes together to make an entertaining 2 hours of cinema.<br /><br />The spaceshuttle Churchill has been sent to investigate Halley's Comet when they detect something hiding inside the coma of the giant rock. A small team, led by Colonel Carlsen (Steve Railsback), has been sent to search the area. What they discover includes hundreds of frozen bat-like creatures and three nude and seemingly unconscious humanoid beings inside strange crystalline containers, two male and one female (Mathilda May). They decide to take all three back with them, which results in a catastrophe.<br /><br />When London receives no response from the crew, another crew is sent to find out what's going on. When they dock with the Churchill, they find the remains of the crew, all dessicated beyond recognition. The humanoids are still in perfect condition, and they take them back to London.<br /><br />After various tests, the scientists still don't know what these beings really are. Then, late one night, a security guard in the compound feels compelled to enter the room the female is being held. He touches her shoulder, and she awakens, stands up, and smiles at him in a seductive and wicked manner. She approaches him, and begins to kiss him, when it becomes clear that she's actually taking his lifeforce, sucking him of all of his energy (the effect is slightly cheesy).<br /><br />She escapes from the compound and begins to leave a trail behind. Another man, Colonel Caine (Peter Firth), is brought in to track her down. Then the men discover that there is a pattern to the lifeforce process. The corpse of the security guard awakens in 2 hours, and takes the lifeforce of a doctor. It seems in every 2 hours, this process is repeated by a victim. With the help of the Churchill's sole survivor, Carlsen, they attempt to track the girl down before it's too late.<br /><br />Lifeforce is pretty good late night entertainment. It has all the elements one could look for in such a movie, loads of nudity, blood/gore, and plenty of special effects. This is certainly better than a similarly plotted film, Species, thanks in large part to a more riveting finale.<br /><br />The performances range from decent to terrible. Faring the worst is easily Steve Railsback, who overacts to no end. Much better are Peter Firth, who comes through and convincingly, and the gorgeous Mathilda May (she's as beautiful as French actresses Sophie Marceau and Emmanuelle Seigner). May does go through virtually the whole role without wearing clothing, and there were reports that it was hard on her while filming, so the fact that she is able to go through every scene without fidgeting and looking uncomfortable is impressive. There are times when she can be quite creepy, being simply seductive. Most of the film manages to work because of her.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Following the appalling Attack Force, chances were that Seagal could only have a step up with Flight Of Fury. To out-stink Attack Force would take some doing. Flight Of Fury is a marked improvement overall, but still in the grand scheme of thinks, mediocre. Mediocrity is seemingly an achievement for Seagal these days, a sad insight into his movie career's decline. Where Attack Force was a hodge-podge of plot lines altered drastically from conception, to filming, to post production, Flight Of Fury keeps the plot line more simple. Someone steals a high-tech stealth fighter, planning to use it to fire chemical weapons (which we later, bizarrely discover, will destroy the whole world in 48 hrs). Seagal has to get the plane back. It's that simple, no annoying sub-plots, and conspiracies weighing the film down like far too many of his recent works. That's not to suddenly say the storytelling is good though, it's pretty poor. The introduction to side characters is badly done for example.<br /><br />In filmic terms FOF is bad. It's badly acted by all involved, and Seagal looks bored to tears almost. He's just got the look of a toddler who's been forced to perform the school nativity against his will, and so performs with a constant grimace and air of half assedness. Can we blame Seagal though when the material is so un-ambitious and cruddy? Not really. This is the final film of his Castel Studio's, multi-picture deal. The producers can't be bothered to make anything remotely good, promising a 12 or so million dollar budget, and (after Seagal's obligatory 5 million) probably pocketing a nice hefty chunk of it themselves (If the film was made for the remaining 7 million, then I'm Elvis Pressley!). So in that respect why should Seagal put the effort into a film that's already got distribution sorted before it's made. Fan's though may argue, he at least owes them the effort. He's seriously looking jaded, and the continued use of stand ins and dub-overs is further indication of this. Michael Keusch directs with some efficiency, while the cinematography is quite good, but in all technical areas (and as usual with Castel, a bog standard stunt team) there's nothing more than mediocrity, and nothing to help the film rise above its material, and bored leading man. Again there's a few action scenes focusing on characters other than Seagal, which in all truth we don't want to see.<br /><br />Overall the action isn't too bad. It's nice and violent, and on occasion we're treated to a few vintage nasty Seagal beatings, but overall nothing special. Partly due to a poor stunt crew, and the lack of time to film anything too complex or exciting. For me, Shadow Man was a more enjoyable film, because while ignoring the incoherent, jumbled, plot line, there were more vintage Seagal moments, and more of him in centre stage. He never disappeared for long periods during the film. Seagal disappears bizarrely during one action scene here, and re-appears after, with little explanation. There's far too much stock footage used. Using stock shots isn't an entirely horrendous thing, but using it as a crutch is. We're treated to countless establishing shots of naval ships, all the time, which get annoying. Plus the continuity of the stock footage is all over the place (just check the backdrops, chopping and changing).<br /><br />The film is just middle of the road. It says it all that the films best scene is a completely needless, and gratuitous girl on girl scene, with two hot chicks. Seagal even perks up briefly then too! Overall this may be one of the better stock footage based actioners out there, but that's not saying much at all. This will please many fans, but they should bear in mind, Seagal himself would probably want to forget this one's existence. ** | 1 |
Feeding The Masses was just another movie trying to make a little money off of the zombie craze that is going around, mostly due to the popularity of movies such as Land Of The Dead and the Resident Evil series.<br /><br />It starts at a television station, which is guarded by the military, and are reporting that The Lazarus Virus (zombies) are close to containment and the city will soon be free to do their business again. The problem is, this is totally false. Zombies are running rampantly and only a small minority of people are aware. Among them are Torch (William Garberina), the camera man, Sherry (Rachael Morris), the lead anchor woman (who for some reason is listed as playing Shelly on this website) and Roger (Patrick Cohen), their military escort. Torch and Sherry are against lying to the people but the station is being run by secret service (or some other government agency) and they are heavily censored.<br /><br />This movie gives itself a pat on the back on the box-cover saying 'We hold FEEDING THE MASSES on a higher level than any o the three 'of the Dead' films by George A. Rombero.' The source of that quote has lost ALL credibility with me.<br /><br />Let me just say that this movie is BAD. I don't mean bad like I was expecting more (I obviously was, though) but I mean bad in that I could not find any redeeming qualities in the film, whatsoever. The acting in all parts are either over done or too wooden. Did anybody remember their lines or are they reading off of cue cards? I can't even think of what the best part of the movie was or the best actor/actress. There really was not one. If I had to give a nod to someone, I would say Roger, the military escort was probably the most interesting character but that is really not saying much.<br /><br />I would have to recommend to pass on this movie, despite the box-cover looking pretty good (It's what originally drew me to the movie). 3/10 | 1 |
I endured this film just to satisfy my curiosity. It has to be one of the worst films I have ever sat through. I am amazed that this film currently has a 7.5 star rating. The acting is awful, script is non existent and the characters are so predictable and hollow. For a funny film I cannot remember even snickering once and fail to see how it could be defined as a comedy. Do yourself a favour and stay well away from this dross and check out some more worthy alternatives that would give you far greater pleasure. Check out films like the holiday or 27 dresses, these movies would offer a far more satisfying cinema experience. I sincerely hope more educated film goers vote negatively for this film, in the manner it genuinely deserves there bye giving it a more realistic rating that other film buffs could base their judgement upon. Come on folks let's be fair to everyone concerned and give those involved with this film a true reflection on what it is they have produced - an extremely mediocre picture that deserves to be forgotten very quickly. | 1 |
A fascinating slice of life documentary about a husband and wife and their marriage told through the eyes of their son. We all like to think that our parents lived happy lives, that their marriages were full of fulfilment, love, and happy memories. Sadly many of us know this not to be the case of their own families and that of their parents. This wonderful little documentary is told through the camera lens and emotional perspective of the son of a family that has just experienced the death of their mother. The son being a documentary film maker has filmed his elder family for many years, for as he states 'posterity'. Three months after the death of his mother his father remarries his long time secretary. The suddenness of this occurrence stuns the family and pushes the son to dig into the past lives of his mother and father. What he reveals is a fascinating look into the lives of two rather ordinary people who like so many of their generation married early for the wrong reasons and found themselves stuck in a family life where they found they just had to 'make do'. A wife who found herself at times bitterly lonely and unloved and a husband who buries himself in his work. She and intellectual at heart, he a much simpler individual who seems to find most of his pleasures in the quiet solitude of work. They are obviously wrong for each other, this much is clear. Yet they stick it out, for what? Well that's part of the mystery, they clearly show affection for each other at times if not ever much love. You won't find any truly shocking disclosures here, aside from infidelity on both sides, which in good part is what makes this such a gem. You really feel that these could be your own parents if circumstances were different and indeed makes one question the lives of ones own parents. | 0 |
For some reason, I always enjoy movies that people hate, when I really don't think they're that bad - and this is one of those films. In the case of this movie, I think it is way too over-criticized, I really isn't that bad of a film at all. In fact, I think this is one of the better sequels. 'Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers' begins on the night before Halloween, where Michael brutally murders Jamie Lloyd (who was taken captive by the 'Man In Black' in part 5) after she gives birth to his baby. We are then introduced to the Strode family, who is now coincidentally living in the old Myers house (which seems to change in each film). Kara and her son Danny are the main characters, along with Tommy Doyle, the now adult boy who survived the original killings. They must fight together to save Jamie's baby from an evil cult that takes care of Michael, while Michael himself is driven to kill by an old Celtic ritual where he must sacrifice an entire family in Haddonfield.<br /><br />This is surely one of the best sequels in the series, in my opinion anyway, and I can't understand all of the hate it has gotten. It had some nice suspense, an interesting plot (but sometimes confusing, I'll admit), some scary moments here and there, and plenty of gore and knife slashings to appease all of you gorehounds. Not all of the acting wasn't particularly great, but it was convincing enough for me. Marianne Hagan is the leading lady and she is very likable. Paul Rudd plays a grown-up Tommy Doyle, and is also very talented and plays his part nicely. The rest of the supporting cast (besides the brilliant Donald Pleasance) isn't much to praise, but it wasn't too bad either, all things considered. I'm still not sure if giving an explanation for why Michael kills was completely necessary, but it turned out to be okay in the end and I wasn't upset with the way they tied everything together. The open-ended conclusion was also kind of eerie, but could have been something more. <br /><br />I have also seen the infamous 'Producer's Cut' of this film, the original cut of it, and I think that in some respects, it is better. It further explains the Thorn curse that drives Michael and has some extra scenes that really helped support the film, plus the ending was a lot better in my opinion. It felt more natural than the conclusion that we're given in the studio cut of the film. I wish that Dimension would release this alternate version of the film, because I personally think it is better. The chances of that are very slim though.<br /><br />Overall, 'Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers' is a very good sequel and will please all of the fans of the series. This movie isn't the best of all horror movies, but it's definitely worth renting if you want to see Michael do his thing. Just don't expect brilliance, and you'll enjoy it. 7/10. | 0 |
There is some spectacular, heart stoppingly beautiful photography here of a range of scenery and animals, from arctic to tropical and everything in between. The camera techniques are varied and spot on from close ups to aerial work. Editing is tremendous and the commentary is spot on too, with just the right tone and some dramatic and telling facts about our world. Where the film falls down a bit is in trying to cover and integrate four themes - seasonal patterns, climate change, individual animal stories and hunter/ hunted interactions across multiple environments. Eventually it all gets a bit bitty and disjointed. Overall, well worth seeing especially given the issues covered but don't expect Oscar material. | 0 |
There were many 'spooky' westerns made in the 30s and early 40s, and although this has a strong beginning, it isn't one. Randy Bowers (John Wayne) stopping at a 'Halfway House' saloon, finds it to be full of dead bodies, the bartender's corpse draped over the bar holding a gun, eyes watching Randy from behind holes cut through eyes in a picture, and a player piano playing 'The Loveliest Night of the Year.' <br /><br />It was the result of a robbery by the Marvin Black gang, to get Ed Rogers' $30,000. Randy is an investigator who 'works alone,' who wastes little time in getting arrested, escaping (with Ed's daughter Sally's help) and literally landing in the midst of the Black gang's hideout behind a waterfall. It all moves along fairly quickly. Only one too many chases after Randy slow it down.<br /><br />We even get George Hayes, clean shaven and playing two parts-- Marvin Black, the vilest villain, as well as the Good Citizen, Matt the Mute, who communicates via handwritten messages. Having him play two opposite roles was a good idea, but the writing down of messages thing gets old real fast, even for him, as he finally gives up doing it near the end saying to Sally, 'Ah, I'm fed up with this!' You can find George playing a vile, vile, double crossing villain in the serial 'The Lost City' (1934).<br /><br />I think this is the only 'Lone Star' film in which the title relates to, or is mentioned in the film! Sally offers her hand to Randy and says, 'He's not alone anymore!' Then cut to their arms around each other as they look out facing a lake. Sally's running off with Randy seems too abrupt and not sufficiently prepared for. Too much time spent on horseback escaping the sheriff.<br /><br />Not that bad considering everything, but not that great either. I'd really give it a 4 and a half. | 1 |
I may be biased, I am the author of the novel The Hungry Bachelors Club, self-published in 1994. The screenplay was written by my good friend and hungry bachelor, Fred Dresch, who was the inspiration for the character Marlon in the film. I couldn't be more pleased with the trailer, I hope to see the film in its entirety and I will further comment. But Jorja Fox, who plays Delmar Youngblood, my character, is stellar. She carries the bulk of the emotional vehicles in fine form. I couldn't have done better myself! This looks like real people, hardly formula driven and thankfully drives my statement against racial prejudice home, gracefully and heartfelt. | 0 |
More wide-eyed, hysterical 50s hyper-cheerfulness that gives new meaning to anti-social, pathological behaviour. Danza and Grayson will leave you begging for mercy.<br /><br />It's a shame that all the people involved in the making of this movie are now dead (or in nursing homes). I kinda thought about suing them for torture. As this movie started unleashing its shamelessly aggressive operatic assault onto my poor, defenseless ear-drums, I felt instant, strong pain envelop my entire being. That damn muscular vibrato can shatter Soviet tanks into tiny bits, nevermind glass.<br /><br />'Why didn't you switch the channel if you didn't like it?', you might ask angrily. Fair point, fair point... The answer is that I wanted to, but the pain was so sudden and excruciating that I fell to the floor, writhing in agony. With my last ounces of energy, I tried to reach the remote but couldn't.<br /><br />A silly little fisherman with the questionable talent of singing with an annoying opera voice is discovered by Niven, who then proceeds to 'pigmalionize' him. Lanza is in love with asymmetrical Grayson, but she predictably treats him with contempt until they finally hook up. This may seem like a rather thin plot, but this noisy movie is so chock-full of singing and music that there is barely any dialogue at all. This movie is RELENTLESS. Forget about torturing hippies and war prisoners with Slayer's 'Reign In Blood' (as in a South Park episode). Whatever little conversation there is amongst the silly adults that infest this strange 50s musical world, it's all infantile - as if they were all 6 year-olds impersonating grown-ups. I can only envy people who find movies like this funny. It must be great being easy-to-please: what a world of wonder would open up to me if only I could enjoy any silly old gag as hilarious, gut-busting comedy. <br /><br />But let's examine this phenomenon, the 50s musical. My best guess is that 50s musicals offered the more day-dreaming idealists among us a glimpse into Utopia or Heaven (depending on whether you're church-going or Lenin's-tomb-going), or at least very cheesy version of these fantasy-inspired places. TTONO is more akin to a representation of Hell, but that's just me. I don't seem to 'get' musicals. People talk, there is a story - but then all-of-a-sudden everyone starts singing for about 4 minutes after which they abruptly calm down and then pretend as if nothing unusual happened! When you think about it, musicals are stranger than any science-fiction film.<br /><br />Worse yet, TTONO (my favourite type of pizza, btw) is not just a 50s musical, but one with opera squealing. Opera is proof that there is such a thing as over-training a voice - to the point where it becomes an ear-piercing weapon rather than a means of bringing the listener pleasure. The clearest example of this travesty is when Lanza and Grayson unite their Dark Side vocal powers for a truly unbearable duet. I tried lowering the volume. I lowered it from 18 to 14. Then from 14 to 10. Then 8. I ended up lowering it to a 1, which is usually so low that it's only heard by specially-trained dogs and certain types of marsupials, and yet I STILL could hear those two braying like donkeys!<br /><br />Take the scene in the small boat in the river. Danza starts off with one of his deafening, brain-killing tunes, and then... nothing. No animals anywhere to be seen. Even the crocodiles, who are mostly deaf, have all but left. If you look carefully, you might even see the trees change colour, from green to yellow, in a matter of minutes. No, this was not a continuity error, it was plain old torture of the flora. And those trees were just matte paintings! Imagine how real trees would have reacted.<br /><br />The reason glass breaks when a high C is belched out of the overweight belly of an operatic screamer is not due to any laws of physics relating to waves and frequency, but because glass is only human - hence can take only so much pain before committing suicide through spontaneous self-explosion. I can listen to the loudest, least friendly death metal band for hours, but give me just a minute of a soprano and I get a splitting headache. | 1 |
We screened this movie in a club as an example of how classic literature can become twisted into some of the most awful movies of all time. Just the fact that the back of the box proudly proclaimed the plot to be set in the 'techno-futile' future should have been enough of a hint. I think that word describes the movie itself, because no matter how much technology they tried to use to save this movie, the effort was completely futile. Not to mention that our club advisor told us that it allegedly couldn't get a distributor for two years.<br /><br />This cinematic failure is littered with cheesy, cliche dialogue that's worse than angsty teen poetry. Beowulf's character changes halfway through in a way that is in no way credible, and whenever he's in an action scene, he's constantly flipping like a hyper gymnast. There is even, as they say, a 'token black guy' whose attempts at humor are completely out of place. And, of course, the daughter of the leader of the outpost Grendel is terrorizing is a total vixen. A vixen whose breasts are exposed throughout the entire movie. A vixen who wants to fight the creature, yet she never puts on armor. And her weapon of choice is a little carving knife. And despite their dire situation, she still dresses up for dinner, in a dress with a see-through skirt that exposes her short-shorts underwear. There are a couple scenes that could pass as soft core pornography, and in the second scene they even reuse footage from the first. I thought the portrayal of Grendel was bad enough, but then came the end of the film, which featured a display of CGI that might be decent for the 80s, but is totally ridiculous for a late 90s venture. I could go on, but you all should watch this film for the fully laughable effect yourselves.<br /><br />The other club members and I did manage to have fun watching this by taking a cue from MST 3K and mocking it the whole way through. I'm still reeling from an extra's weapon: a perpetually spinning pizza cutter on a pole. | 1 |
one of my favorite lines in Shakespeare.<br /><br />i.e. *we're not finished with you by a long shot* so not only does Shylock not get his pound of flesh, or the 3,000 or the 6,000 or the 36,000 (each of the 6 parts were a ducat) ducats, in a matter of minutes he is ruined by having to forfeit all his possessions. and his daughter has long abandoned him already.<br /><br />vengeance is a dish best served cold. but Shylock's attempt at revenge totally backfires. <br /><br />I suspect this play was and is popular because it caters to the wish we have for justice. but the hard reality is the world is engulfed in injustice and most of it stands. a few big names get tossed in jail, sme gang punks lose their turf to the 'good guys' but in reality most of the time it's the other way around.<br /><br />but not in this play. the long howls of racism and antisemitism forgets that it could well have been any other social outcast group that gets the comeuppance, it's just that the money lenders of the time were Jews and therefore the needs of the story line puts Shylock the Jew into the role of villain.<br /><br />Merchant of Venice is my 3rd favorite work by Shakespeare, 1 and 2 being Hamlet and Macbeth. this production gives excellent treatment of the moral of the story. the scenes with the suitors alone is worth watching. also the awkwardness of the new husbands squirming and minimizing the fact they let the rings so easily slip away that they had sworn to keep forever. in real life, this trick is the thing that spouses coyly use to remind their better half that promises MUST mean something and not be made frivolously. there is far deeper significance to this play than just the comedy/dramatic aspect. it is about loyalty, commitment, and love.<br /><br />well worth watching over and over. | 0 |
With films like 'Wallace & Gromit' and 'Chicken Run' under their belt, the good people from the other side of the pond, Aardman Animation, are now introducing us to a bit of their twisted humor in the form of 'Creature Comforts'.<br /><br />Derived from a short done early in their careers, 'Creature Comforts' is a slice-of-life show where snippets of conversation are removed from their context and given to an animal of some sort.<br /><br />Aardman Animation went across the country interviewing people with innocuous questions such as, 'Are you a liar?' and then speed things up a bit asking about their sex lives.<br /><br />The answers, while seeming to be boring and mundane, are actually quite funny, when you understand the dialogs come first and the animals are added later.<br /><br />How many of these animals look like the person making the statements? One of the characters discussing what he looks for in a woman, 'I like them kind of thin.' is an insect, the Walking Stick.<br /><br />There are two dogs discussing odors and smells, while sniffing the behind of a poodle, as they talk about the different smells of a woman.<br /><br />There are two birds in a cage. As the 'wife' tells the litany that is her health, her long suffering husband stands by her, saying nothing.<br /><br />While it might take some time for 'Creature Comforts' to find it's 'legs', it should find a place on television for those who are tired of the ordinary. While there are more reality shows than Carter has liver pills, 'Creature Comforts' is one of a kind and definitely worth watching.<br /><br />Some of the humor might seem a little racy, it's the claymation that catches the attention of the children (like the old Batman series of the 60's, the jokes are subtle enough the kids won't get them) and it's the jokes that are there for the adults. | 0 |
Dean Koontz's book 'Watchers' is one of the finest books I have read. Sadly, the movie is a sad caricature of the book. The disillusioned middle-aged hero and the lonely spinster with whom he finds a meaning to his life are converted in the movie into a couple of silly teenagers, the stoic security agent and the conscientious sheriff are combined into a farcical villain - you get the picture? The moviemakers have taken a moving tale of love, horror and adventure and converted it into a Z-Grade horror flick aimed - very poorly - at the teen market.<br /><br />Buy the book and enjoy many hours of reading - it will be far, far more rewarding than watching the movie.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Okay, this show is nothing but AWESOME! It has a great story line and plot and great actors and actresses. Jeremy Sumpter is so hott and he is perfect for the role! He is gunna be big in Hollywood. He has a bright future ahead! This show better last a long time because I really love this show, and I hope that it has a lot of success! It is so interesting. I have been waiting for it to come out for about 6 or 7 months and it's finally here, and it's great! I tape it, too. I can watch it whenever I want now! Too bad its only on once a week though. I wish it was on at least twice a week because now I wish that it was Tuesday every day! Hope you all like this show!<br /><br />~Ashley~ | 0 |
I know slashers are always supposed to be bad,but come on,what the hell is this?It's like a bunch of 10-year-olds saved their lunch money and started filming this by the end of their week.<br /><br />Anyway,six young people all go to the same house to get killed off screen.We have the brainy one,the slut,the other slut,the black guy,the killer,stereotypes like that.After one gets eaten by a shaking boat,the others all get stalked by some guy who wears a mask the people at the poor box rejected.There's one pretty decent murder somewhere in the middle,but then it's back to even more boredom,and especially more false scares.Seriously,we actually know it can't be the killer when a person gets attacked because the guy sure loves to take his sweet time for everything.<br /><br />After every character you expected to die dies,the standard ugly blonde chick and her soon-to-be-boyfriend eventually get captured by the killer(they get like,pushed down and then faint)and the killer reveals himself.I think the writers of this movie just took a blindfold and a pen and put it somewhere on the list of characters.The motive is just lame and don't even get me started on the damn secret.The killer then of course takes way too much time to explain everything(and then about ten minutes extra in which he slices up his own arm for some reason)and eventually gets overpowered by a guy with a gun.Hey,no fair!<br /><br />Really one of the most awful movies I've ever seen.I could enjoy myself more by watching a Lindsay Lohan-movie,I swear.I mean sure,most 80's slashers sucked as well but at least they threw in some T&A.This movie just has nothing going for it. | 1 |
What are people on here talking about? I must have seen a different movie than you guys. I was so bored that I walked out of the theater. What is up with this stuff. I only laughed once and not even that hard. Whoever greenlit this movie should be taken out into the street and beaten. I usually always find something I like in a movie, but this is crazy. 'Slackers' makes 'Not Another Teen Movie' look like a classic. It ranks up there with such trash as 'Body Shots', 'Con Air', and 'Conspiracy Theory' as one of the worst of all time. AVOID AT ALL COSTS! I thought the studio would be handing out money to people as they left the theater as a sign of their apologies, but to my dismay that wasn't happening. Looks like I will never see that money again or the two hours. | 1 |
Siskel & Ebert were terrific on this show whether you agreed with them or not because of the genuine conflict their separate professional opinions generated. Roeper took this show down a notch or two because he wasn't really a film critic and because he substituted snide for opinionated. Now, when Ben Lyons comes on I feel like I'm watching 'Teen News' -- you know, that kids' news show, hosted by kids for kids? Manckiewitz is not much better. It's obvious they've encountered only a steady diet of mainstream films their entire lives. The idea that these two rank amateurs have anything of interest or consequence to say about motion pictures is ludicrous. If they are reviewing a non-formula film, they are completely lost. Show them something original and intelligent -- they just find it 'confusing'. Wait -- I think I get it ... ABC is owned by Disney ... Disney makes movies for kids. While Siskel, Ebert, and Roper promoted independent films and were only hit-or-miss with the big budget studio productions -- what a surprise: these two guys LOVE the big studio schlock and only manage to tolerate a few indies. Plus everyone knows the age group TV advertisers are aiming for. The blatant nepotism is the icing on the cake. In what alternate universe do these guys qualify as film critics? | 1 |
This 3-hour made-for-TV miniseries came home with us from Blockbuster's this weekend. The production company clearly spent a lot of money on sets, costuming (Bridget Fonda, especially), and special effects (including a great Jim Henson talking polar bear & reindeer). They should have spent a bit more money getting a coherent script. The story line was so loose that it really never came together. One can overlook Irish-accented Germans, but not herky-jerky storytelling. With senseless loose ends which included a special guest appearance by the Devil, this one is certainly not destined to be a Christmas Classic. A shame that they wasted good performances by the two female leads. | 1 |
Hey if people thought ed wood was a bad director then they totally have not seen this movie. I mean there were gaping plot holes and under utilized cast. Shoddy special effects. I mean I cant believe that this movie came out from a Hollywood studio. A high school drama club could probably come out with a better product. I mean they had Erika Eleniak who is gorgeous Casper van dien and under rated actor. Their agents should be shot to ask them to sign on to this dribble don't they read scripts. I still cant believe that tiny lister was a survivor in the movie i was banging my head the whole time at why him and not a descendant of van helsing be the last man standing. I am a fan of vampire movies and this is by far the worst they should stake it so that it never sees the light of day. | 1 |
Typical De Palma movie made with lot's of style and some scene's that will bring you to the edge of your seat.<br /><br />Most certainly the thing that makes this movie better as the average thriller, is the style. It has some brilliantly edited scene's and some scene's that are truly nerve wrecking that will bring you to the edge of your seat. The best scene's from the movie; The museum scene and the elevator murder. There are some mild erotic scene's and the movies pace might not be fast enough for the casual viewer to fully appreciate this movie. So this movie might not be suitable for everybody.<br /><br />The story itself is also quite good but it really is the style that makes the movie work! It might be for the fans only but also casual viewers should appreciate the well build up tension in the movie.<br /><br />There are some nice character portrayed by a good cast. Michael Caine is an interesting casting choice and Angie Dickinson acts just as well as she is good looking (not bad for a 49-year old!).<br /><br />The musical score by Pino Donaggio is also typically De Palma like and suits the movie very well, just like his score for the other De Palma movie, 'Body Double'.<br /><br />Brilliant nerve wrecking thriller. I love De Palma!<br /><br />10/10 | 0 |
Perhaps the best movie ever made by director Kevin Tenney (well, his Witchboard is not on the top of my all-time horror list), this one is a strange, fascinating mixture between Pin and Child's Play, both better than this one, but not so better. Sure, the plot is contrived and perhaps too predictable, but the actors are good, Rosalind Allen is very pleasant to the eye (and so is Candance McKenzie - God bless her for the shower scene!), the child actress is very good in interpreting the disturbed daughter and the Pinocchio puppet is scary enough to give you a few thrills down the spine. For a B-movie not bad at all. | 0 |
I give this movie 2 stars purely because of its slightly liberal plot line. Without going into too much detail.<br /><br />The acting in this movie is terrible. Really terrible - wooden, shallow.<br /><br />The graffiti on show is weak, so bloody weak that I can only wonder why they bothered to use graffiti artists at all. IT was obvious in the spraying scenes that they'd gotten other people in to do the 'work'. They might as well have let the actors do the painting and saved themselves a few cents.<br /><br />I would avoid this film at all costs.<br /><br />The kid loco soundtrack used to be something I listened to on my iPod, its going to be a while before I can go back there for fear of this movie coming back into my mind.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs. Unless you are thinking to yourself 'Wow, its been a while since I've seen a really sh*t movie....' | 1 |
FLIGHT OF FURY takes the mantle of being the very WORST Steven Seagal flick I've ever seen...Up to now.<br /><br />It's a dreadful bore with no action scenes of any interest, Seagal isn't really trying in this - he's fat and his voice is dubbed once more.<br /><br />The Co-stars fare no better, being a rather sorry load of 3rd raters.<br /><br />The Direction by Keusch is very poor and it comes as no surprise that he's also responsible for another couple of Seagal stinkers (SHADOW MAN & ATTACK FORCE) The screenplay Co-written by Seagal himself is laughably inept.<br /><br />According to IMDb $12M was spent on this boring load of old tosh - If these figures are correct I sense a big tax fiddle as nowhere near that amount was spent.<br /><br />FLIGHT OF FURY is actually a shot for shot remake of the Michael Dudikoff flick BLACK THUNDER - which has to be better than this tripe.<br /><br />This has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever,Give it a MISS! 1/2 * out of ***** | 1 |
The barbarians maybe´s not the best film that anybody of us have seen, but really????........It´s so funny......I can´t discribe how mutch I laughed when I first saw it..The director really wanted to do a serious adventure movie, but it´sso misirable bad....so bad that it´s one of the funniest movies I´ve ever seen......so my advise is that you should see it.....and if you alredy did, se it again!!!!!!! | 0 |
Now this is what a family movie should be! There are few films of recent years that have been targeted at families or children that really are worthy of their viewing public; but this IS one of them. My whole family came away from the film, awed, entertained, dazzled, and happy. We're still quoting little anecdotes from it here and there. The children LOVED it and so did we (hubbie and I are 36 and 32, respectively)!<br /><br />Apart from its beautiful and striking animation, the characters (small as they may be, and imaginary as they are) are very well developed. There isn't one of them that you cannot empathize with. The personalities bringing these little creatures to life are well casted voice talents, combined with the skill and artistry of some of Disney's best animators. This is a film worthy of Walt Disney, himself. I think Mr. Disney would heartily approve of this new film... Flick, Dot and their fellow band of tiny heroes may become as popular as Mickey and Minnie in our time.<br /><br />This is one the family leaves the theatre wanting to see again.. and buy to own on video or DVD. I'm eager to see it again.. to pick up what I might have missed the first time. (Never have I seen my children so quickly and vividly identify with and embrace characters before... my daughter is still talking about little 'Dot'.)<br /><br />This film is funny, heartwarming, clever and great fun for the whole family! | 0 |
I want to believe all new horror films coming out of Japan these days are edgy and make for enjoyable watching.<br /><br />Spider Forest is neither.<br /><br />It is seldom that I finish watching something and end up teed off for the waste of time, but Spider Forest was an exception in this regard. I was very teed off. The makers of the film succeeded on one level; throughout the film I could not stop because I wanted to see the answer to the mystery spun by the storyline. I could not stop watching. That's why I was so angry when the film finished... they dragged me all the way through 2 hours of tedium for this POC? WARNING: Spider Forest is another one of those Japanese 'ghost' stories, though you don't realize that going in.<br /><br />I never want to see a Japanese ghost story again. They're phony and contrived. 'It's a ghost story' has become like a big rug under which to sweep any and all unresolvable plot holes you have in your story-telling. | 1 |
You have to like baseball, and you have to at least sort of like Tom Selleck, but if you meet those criteria you should thoroughly enjoy this movie. Selleck plays former major league star who finds himself traded (?) to Japan as his career winds down. Really well thought out and fascinating look at Japanese customs and behavior. Great supporting performances by Selleck's manager ('Japan's Clint Eastwood'), his girl friend Takanashi, and his interpreter. The chemistry between Selleck and Takanashi works very very well, this is really a very nice romantic movie apart from the baseball. Look for Haysbert as fellow player well before he became a persistent shill for Allstate. Movie wraps up very nicely. Easily in my top fifty all time movies and maybe my favorite one on baseball. | 0 |
This is defiantly a DVD rental movie. I'm a big fan of the cast members but the storyline never really grabbed me. Don't expect 'Oh brother where art thou' in any way shape or form. Funniest part in my opinion is when the war hero explains what happens over in the Argon. Seems like they were trying to copy some of Clooney's funny facial expressions from 'Oh brother where art thou' but you could kind of tell they were trying for that. John Krasinski was the bright spot and was solid throughout. Renee Zellweger plays the part of a zealous reporter willing to do whatever for the story. Overall it's a movie worth watching at home. | 1 |
You know this is gonna be a cheesy movie when:<br /><br />1. It was made it the 50's 2. It's in black and white. 3. It has no name actors! 4. Screaming makes up for the lack of special effects!<br /><br />Well not to be outdone - this movie brilliantly incorporated all four of the above elements to turn this into a true cinematic blunder.<br /><br />Okay - shhhhh but I am gonna discuss special effects here - or lack of them - <br /><br />Did you catch the underwater scenes? It looks like it was poorly filmed through an aquarium - note the cape flapping in the breeze.<br /><br />And the repeated re-use of Stock Footage, (exterior house shots, the bridges scenes -- great enhanced the K-R-A-F-Tiness of this film - not since 'PLAN 9' - have I seen such creative usage of stock footage.<br /><br />And hey where there was a lack of special effects - not to worry - screaming DOES take the place of special effects in this movie as well. Yes this movie even cleverly used that old hack trick.<br /><br />Grab the popcorn - set your brain on stun (several fermented beverages DEFINITELY helps), sit back, and wonder: why the heck did they put this on film again?<br /><br />Wayno<br /><br /> | 1 |
Ok, basically this is a popcorn sci-fi movie, but from the outset its obvious that it has been directed with a great deal of intelligence. You can count about 10 clichés that the film is building up to, but it only delivers on about three of them, and a couple of them have a twist to them that lets you know once again that the director hasn't assumed that you are an idiot. Kurt Russell's acting is truely superb and brings a depth from the character that is suprising and rewarding. Recommended if you've just seen something really stupid, and want to rebuild your faith! | 0 |
A young Frenchman uproots himself as he becomes an Erasmus exchange student in Barcelona and comes back a better man. Sounds boring? No way! The movie is filled with colourful people, all of them stereotypes (the British twat and her racist brother, the sexually liberated Dane, the ultra-organised German,...). In this case though, the stereotypes are brilliantly done. You feel like you know people like that (I for one know an arrogant doctor and his trophy wife, and they're just like the characters in the film!), they feel like REAL PEOPLE!<br /><br /> Go see this movie and enjoy the subtitles! | 0 |
When I first saw the Premiere Episode of Farscape, I had no idea what to expect. I was immensely impressed and satisfied with 'Premiere'. Subsequent re-watches, however, have made numerous flaws apparent to me that I missed initially. 'Premiere' is not a great Farscape Episode, but it deserves credit for successfully and efficiently setting up the plot and giving the basic back stories to many of the regular characters.<br /><br />The episode begins with John Crichton (Ben Browder), an astronaut and scientist, preparing to launch into space in the Farscape Module, a small space ship perfected by Crichton and his friend DK. Crichton has a revealing conversation with his father, Jack Crichton, and then begins his test flight in space. Of course, everything goes wrong and Crichton is 'shot through a wormhole' and winds up in 'a distant part of the galaxy'.<br /><br />After exiting the wormhole, Crichton's module is pulled on board a living space ship. From here, the characters and story line for the Farscape series are introduced in an entertaining albeit rushed manner.<br /><br />The regular characters are properly introduced during the first half of the episode. Of course, there is Crichton, played well by Ben Browder. He offers a the audience a sympathetic character to identify with. He's lost and has no idea how to do much of anything. In 'Premiere', Crichton has to choose between joining the prisoners or the Peacekeepers. He knows nothing at all about either side, but in helping Aeryn (a captured Peacekeeper pilot) it becomes clear that he intends to help the Peacekeepers. He probably would not have ended up siding with the prisoners if it hadn't been for Crais, a Peacekeeper captain, declaring Crichton to be the murderer of his brother. This puts Crichton in an interesting situation: he's stuck with bizarre, violent escaped prisoners in a far-off galaxy about which he knows nothing at all. Crichton's total lack of knowledge of the Farsape world makes him a particularly interesting protagonist during Farscape's first season.<br /><br />The supporting cast is just as compelling. There's Zhaan, a blue Delvian and former prisoner. She's peaceful and reasonable, as opposed to fellow prisoner Ka D'Argo, a powerful and hard-headed warrior. Virginia Hey is totally covered in blue makeup, allowing her character of Zhaan to appear cool and convincing. D'Argo's mega-makeup, in contrast, is below-par. He looks kind of silly with his giant tentacles and strange nose, and there is something peculiar about his eyes. They look as if they have had some sort of allergic reaction to his makeup. Farscape would give some improvements to his makeup in Season 1, but the overall costume would, for me at least, remain as a problem until Season 2.<br /><br />The puppet/digital characters of Rygel and Pilot are, to put it simply, excellent. Rygel is a tiny Hynerian Dominar who floats around on some sort of hovercraft. In 'Premiere' he is given some good dialogue but not much else. Pilot nearly steals the show as the liaison between the living ship, Moya, and Moya's passengers. Even in the first episode, Pilot gives off the appearance of being a real, living alien; he never once in the show seems to be a giant, expensive machine.<br /><br />The Peacekeeper characters introduced are quite interesting as well. The Peacekeepers are made up of a race called Sebaceans, who look just like humans. The chief antagonist is introduced in 'Premiere' as Captian Crais, who believes that Crichton killed his brother. In reality, Crais's brother's death was merely an accident resulting from an accidental collision with Crichton's ship. Aeryn Sun, a pilot who Crichton helps escape, tries to explain that the death was an accident, but Crais just claims that she is 'irreversiby contaminated' and refused to change his mind. Crais obsession for revenge, warranted or not (it should be clear to Crais that Crichton isn't responsible), is mysterious in 'Premiere', but would be explained later in the season. Aeryn herself provides an extremely interesting character. By being forced to leave the Peacekeepers, she changes her whole way of life, and is in that regard in a similar (though less severe) situation as Crichton.<br /><br />The actual episode, as mentioned earlier, feels somewhat rushed and clunky. So much happens that not enough time is spent on anything. Also, D'Argo (for now) looks kind of silly running around in his mediocre costume trying to appear menacing. Still, 'Premiere' is solid entertainment. The special effects (such as in the starburst sequences) are impressive. Most of the costumes and the sets on board Moya are original. Despite its flaws, 'Premiere' is a must-see for Farscape fans. 3/4 | 0 |
This movie has the feel of a college project over it, who wants to do a blair witch project meets saw theme. But it isn't successful. The cinematography is poor, and the acting even more so. The characters, in my opinion doesn't come off as being credible at all. The editing of the film isn't really working as intended either. There are a lot of poor effects, which I believe are put in there to try and add a horrid effect. But to me it just gives me a feeling of indifference.<br /><br />I would stay away from this movie, unless you are a dedicated movie freak, who likes to watch 'different' and indie 'horror' movies. However, I believe this movie is not worth watching, for the average person. You will get no pleasure out of the poor effects, and the handycam feel, which this movie bestows on it's viewers. | 1 |
First things first! This isn't an action movie although there is a lot of action in it! I think you can compare it to American sports movies! Where a team of very bad players succeed in the unthinkable,winning a game or tournament beyond expectation! In this case it isn't about football or baseball,but Taekwondo! In the beginning these street thugs seem to be good for nothing! But soon we will find out that they don't want to be thugs and actually achieve something in life! It is nice to see them struggle and training! I was surprised how funny this movie was! From start till the end you will laugh your pants off! The young korean actors are very convincing! Go see this wonderful feel good movie! | 0 |
I saw the film yesterday and really enjoyed it.Although there were several clues which I could realize after second time watching ,I was not able to awake the Dow-Dawn case. Maybe this was my carelessness.The subconsciousness of a woman was became concrete with personalization.'Let me go out'the key sentence of the film.Let me go out from deep deep inside of your brain and we will both be free.A discrete film that forcing the limits of human conscious and brain.Anybody who have seen the 'Machinist' would realize the similarities with breaking dawn.A man that could not escape from his conscience (again a psychological and an abstract concept)meets it in an human body.And he will just be free of accepting and realizing there is no way of escape.Also I want to mention about the performances of 'breking dawn's stuffs.In spite of having not many experiences, from actors and actresses to director all exhibited separately reasonable performance that have created a synergy which would increase the quality of the movie | 0 |
When i first saw the title i was already deducing the theme of the film - it clearly wasn't a reference to British currency, so it had to be Shakespearian and about pounds of flesh - taking them, or giving them. Will Smith's a feelgood actor, so serial killers were out. It could only be about a man giving them, so must be about guilt somehow. I spoilt the whole thing for myself by looking it up and knowing the story before i watched, as the beauty of the build-up is the way parts of the main character's background are drip fed to slowly illuminate the audience as to who he is and why he is doing what he is doing.<br /><br />Guilt is a very hard subject to do simply because it's deeply uncomfortable and sad, which is not an encouraging premise when you are hoping for a roller-coaster ride - you know its going to be unpleasant. I wouldn't say the movie glorifies suicide; it delves into the most extreme form of self-sacrifice - martyrdom.<br /><br />It's also brimming with symbolism everywhere, which is a surefire tell-tale sign that the writing is cleverly thought out in great detail and driving at multiple meanings and a deep reflective nature. The most prominent theme that struck me was that he was not only giving his heart to the girl he loves emotionally and metaphorically, but was giving it to her physically as the greatest gift he could. Determined to die, but his plan is thwarted by falling in love - what a 2nd act complication. Absolutely masterful.<br /><br />Yes it is very slow-paced, but i'm undecided as to whether it would have been better slotted into a smaller timeframe. I didn't feel the strain and his terrible inner turmoil as much as i could have, but maybe that's just me having ruined it for myself beforehand. Saying all that though, it is a deeply moving and original film that is an incredibly powerful and thought-provoking tragedy that deserves the awards it will inevitably get. | 0 |
The only thing serious about this movie is the humor. Well worth the rental price. I'll bet you watch it twice. It's obvious that Sutherland enjoyed his role. | 0 |
Simple, meaningful and delivers an emotional punch. I regularly trail through dull short films and it's always nice to come across something that has a simple and enlightened message, without pretensions or self indulgent directing.<br /><br />A boy at school has to attend a lesson when his friend plays truant and is given the most important lesson of his life, only to find that when there are not enough copies to go around he has to share with the school bully.<br /><br />Unlike most short films featuring children or actors these kids hold their own and it's believable. The soundtrack nicely complements the emotion of the piece and the punchline of the film works well. | 0 |
It's fun and fast paced, as one falsehood leads to another and another toward an inevitable, surprising conclusion. The suspense separates this Holiday flick from all others. One wonders how the pieces are going to fit, both during the movie and in the future.<br /><br />The character actors laid the foundation and entertained us in the process. Sinkewicz (Frank Jenks) shows us what manipulation can get...and ultimately what manipulation can cost! Uncle Felix (S.Z. Sakall) sizes up each person for us while trying to protect 'Lishka' (Barbara Stanwyck), and this helps us decide who we are going to root for in the end.<br /><br />If we could ever achieve a perfect world, imperfect people would likely have to undergo a series of events such as these.<br /><br />A glaring weakness is that fake baby cry after it allegedly swallowed Uncle Felix's watch. I've heard more authentic crying from a doll in a toy store.<br /><br />Watch it, and you'll really feel like you've been somewhere! | 0 |
Although the figures are higher in proportion to other areas of society, I don't object to the extremely high salaries for many of today's entertainers and athletes.<br /><br />A-Rod, LeBron or Brady all have deals either well with 8 figures, or the low-9 area. Ray Romano and Jerry Seinfeld could actually become billionaires from their shows, huge residuals and fees they currently demand. Even their cast members, and all of the 'Friends' group reached near or over 7 figures per episode. Letterman's earnings for one show could solve most people's financial problems, and a week or two's take care of many for life.<br /><br />But all of these are based upon sound supply/demand principals, and the financial benefits they bring to their employers. And all perform their crafts ably.<br /><br />But then comes along someone like Rachel Ray, who reaches a level of earnings far beyond any apparent level of talent or skill. I find her shrill, annoying, and with a forced 'perkiness' that's as phony as the proverbial '3-dollar bill.'<br /><br />A friend of mine is responsible for special meetings, events and convention plans for her firm and its affiliates. One of the major talent sources has hundreds of clients available from the $5-10K level, to a handful who get $200K and up per appearance. (This area includes Trump, Seinfeld, Lance Armstrong, Robin Williams, and, no kidding, Larry the Cable Guy.)<br /><br />There are a greater number in the $100,001 - 200,000 range; list included the likes of Bill Cosby, Steve Martin and even cable guy Larry's benefactor, Jeff Foxworthy. <br /><br />This category includes Rachael Ray. I suppose I have to admit there may be sufficient demand for her 'talent' and offerings to justify her talk show and there may be some out there who'll pay more than $100K, + first class air, hotel suite, all expenses and limos door-to-door, for just a couple of hours of her whiny prattle at their organization's event. <br /><br />I just can't figure how-in-the-hell this could be possible. | 1 |
I picked this film up based on the plot summary and critics' quotes on the back of the box. I'm not big into foreign films, and didn't know what to expect. I don't really care for subtitles either. But I absolutely loved it! It has a simple, lovable quality that leaves you feeling good about life. I found myself laughing out loud repeatedly. I'd recommend this picture to anyone, even those who abhor foreign films with subtitles. This one makes it worth the effort. | 0 |
With my two stars I will probably make it to the head of the IMDb hated it'-list for this apparently tremendously popular TV series.<br /><br />Not least because of the enthusiastic comments on this website, I decided to purchase a DVD edition of the series. Because I usually find British humour suits me just fine. I gave up in the middle of the second instalment and according to other comments the funniest' bits were already through.<br /><br />So now I know, according to another comment, that I definitely lack a sense of humour. But then I had to laugh like crazy while watching (and re-watching) Fawlty Towers to which Black Books is albeit faintly thematically related. Why the different reactions? It might be a mere Generation Thing, and yet the differences can be pointed out.<br /><br />Both Fawlty Towers and Black Books are set in businesses which are meant to sustain their owners financially. Both businesses are not successful but seem by a miracle to survive. Fawlty Towers is funny because the protagonists have to deal with situations they cannot cope with. The funniness lies in the fact that they make a serious effort to succeed and while laughing one also feels sorry for them. Black Books has no situations, it's just there and the owner passes his time feeling sorry for himself. If a situation threatens to arise, it is quickly shooed away. It is remarkable how fast and how often a subject is dropped and the protagonists turn to something entirely different to produce an additional joke. Telling jokes and not very good ones - seems to be all Black Books is about. Why a bookstore? A hardware store would have done the job just as well. <br /><br />No, stop, wait. It's a bookshop because below the veneer of rudeness, vulgarity and arrogance the protagonists are supposed to be delicate and CULTURED. They are not some lowbrow gorillas but bumbling semi-intellectual losers. Hey, they are like you and me. The manner in which the series makes that claim is the only way I can explain its success. There is nothing remarkable in the protagonist's actions, what's special about them is their economically unrealistic living conditions many viewers maybe envy them for. That protagonists that narcissistic and vapid convey a sense of belonging and companionship seems to be a trademark of the time the First World is presently living in.<br /><br />Recently I watched Tittybangbang, also a fairly new British TV comedy show. I found it uproariously funny. It is often quite tasteless or xenophobic but always with a purpose and hitting the bull's eye in its social criticism. The humour is mainly created by situations or by characters with a purpose. The low ratings in IMDb might indicate that this brand of humour is not in keeping with the times, but I am glad it's still alive and kicking and hope it will continue to do so. | 1 |
Confounding melodrama taken from a William Gibson story, produced by John Houseman and directed by Vincente Minnelli! Richard Widmark heads up posh, upscale rural nervous asylum, where his loose wife battles with self-appointed queen bee Lillian Gish, and Widmark himself gets the straying eye for staff-newcomer Lauren Bacall, who is putting her life back together after the death of her husband and child. Facetious and muddled, set in an indiscriminate time and place, and with a 'David and Lisa' love story hidden in the plush morass. Widmark and Bacall do have some good chemistry together, but this script gives them nothing to build on. For precisely an hour, most of the dialogue concerns what to do about the drapes hanging in the library (this thread isn't used as symbolism, rather it's a red herring in a non-mystery!). The picture hopes to show the loggerheads that disparate people come to when they're working in the same profession and everyone thinks their opinion is right, but unfortunately the roundabout way Minnelli unravels this stew is neither informative, enlightening nor entertaining. ** from **** | 1 |
For the people who have compared this TRASH to the brilliance of David Lynch etc... please listen to your carer when they say... DONT USE OTHER PEOPLE'S PC WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION! <br /><br />This is complete and UTTER POO! There is NO art here. This is some person trying to make a name for himself with a cluster of gross out ideas which he was not clever enough to enforce into ONE main idea so instead he went for the easy option. <br /><br />Any one with half a brain could sit at home and conjure up some controversial images to shock viewers, but it takes a person with true imagination to be able to make it into a movie people WANT to watch.<br /><br />I am a LOVER of shock cinema. I have seen OR OWN pretty much all you can get... And I can strongly advise to anyone who LOVES the world of movies to steer WELL CLEAR of this garbage.<br /><br />This one is ONLY for people who like to over analyze what they are watching, OR for the 17 year old first time drinkers who dont know any better.<br /><br />0/10!<br /><br /> | 1 |
I watched 'Gristle' primarily for the presence of Michael Dorn, as I enjoyed his Worf portrayal on Star Trek TNG, but had never seen him out of his makeup. Dorn appears to have a nice presence, and probably has the potential for a profitable acting career. This movie, however, gave him little dramatic challenge, except to prove that he can, indeed, use the 'F' word.<br /><br />It appears that this movie was made by someone who fancied himself as a forward-thinking type, with a social conscience. Yeah--- for 1965. Today, the themes are so belabored and sophomoric and cornball that even Spike Lee's dreadful 'Bamboozled' looks good in comparison.<br /><br />This crime-caper flick has an intricate labrynth of double-, triple-, and quadruple-crosses, but the plot scheme is so convoluted that it collapses upon itself within the first 30 minutes. Mostly, after that point, I simply watched out of momentum, and a mild curiosity about how each scene would play out. There is a great cast here-- you will recognize virtually everyone as a character actor from much better movies. Why are they all in this? I suspect it was 1) The work, and some money, even if modest. 2) Perhaps the director knows all these actors from acting classes and social connections around LA--- you know, perhaps they participated to support him, as a fellow struggling movie guy on the third and fourth tiers of the Hollywood scene. Dunno... but the movie was half-baked--- not really 'finished.' I gave it a 3, although my affection for the actors involved was undiminished from my admiration of their previous work. Let's hope everybody has moved on to more professional, more carefully done, and more thorough projects since. | 1 |
I can't believe I missed this one. Made in 1970 with a budget that would probably allow you to make one indifferent episode of a TV soap, this is 90 minutes of sustained, sharp as a knife film making. You will find the outline, plot etc elsewhere on this site.Consider though that the whole thing was shot using a single, hand- held,16mm camera... all the dialogue is improvised... none of the 'actors' had appeared in front of a camera before... It sounds like a recipe for disaster. Instead what we get is hippies v cops running around in the California desert in what evolves into a 'that's not fair.. i'm on that person's side'scenario. The only problem is, the director keeps making you shift your allegiance and at the end of 90 minutes we're still not sure who has one. Brilliant... Quite brilliant. | 0 |
Watching Smother was perhaps the longest not-quite-90-minutes of my life. There wasn't a laugh to be had; in fact, I don't remember ever cracking a smile. Diane Keaton was horridly unfunny as a middle-aged chain-smoking dog hoarder, the textbook overbearing mother character, a relentlessly irritating woman who clearly suffers from some kind of personality disorder. She is manipulative, conniving, melodramatic, childish, narcissistic, and worst of all, boring.<br /><br />I suppose I should briefly mention the other characters, but why bother? It was just a long string of movie clichés--the dippy, socially inept distant relative who's just trying to break into 'The Industry', the gruff and long-suffering but somehow still lovable father, the mild- mannered wife who just can't take it anymore (but eventually moves beyond the discord and resignedly comes home), the herd of unhousebroken dogs who like to chew throw pillows while everyone is away, etc.<br /><br />God, what a snore. I've never been a Diane Keaton fan and Smother only reminded me why. Overacting is overacting, no matter how many pictures you did in your prime. Her attempts at physical comedy were especially humiliating. What was the director thinking?<br /><br />While I like Dax Shepard and can even sometimes tolerate Liv Tyler, their performances were so lackluster and dull that it was clear that neither actor gave a damn about this movie. That was okay, because neither did I. Keaton's endless self-absorbed prattling was intolerable and at times Shepard's dislike for her seemed genuine. By the end of the movie I wanted to slap her myself.<br /><br />Awful. | 1 |
This is quite a bad movie but oh well, this movie is at least not as lame as the third Ghoulies movie.<br /><br />Yes, this is a bad movie in terms of its writing, directing, acting and basically everything in between. It has such a weak, simple and ridicules story, that besides has little to do with the previous Ghoulies movie entries. It tries to connect the movie with the first movie 'Ghoulies', from 1985 but then on the other hand, if they really wanted to connect this movie with its predecessors, then were are the Ghoulies in this movie? Instead now we are having some small people, played by Tony Cox and Arturo Gil, dressed up as demons. Not that the Ghoulies from the previous movies were any classic characters but they were nevertheless the heart and soul of the movie and also provided the movies with a certain amount of fun. It's like having a Gremlins movie without the Gremlins.<br /><br />The movie is not really interesting to watch because it lacks any tension, good humor, intriguing characters and basically everything else you can think off because it got put together by persons who obviously aren't the most talented ones within their business. Just like at director's Jim Wynorski resume, with movies such as 'The Witches of Breastwick' and its sequel, 'Alabama Jones and the Busty Crusade', 'House on Hooter Hill', 'Scream Queen Hot Tub Party', 'The Bare Wench Project' and the sequels 'The Bare Wench Project 2: Scared Topless' and 'The Bare Wench Project 3: Nymphs of Mystery Mountain' and 'The Da Vinci Coed' on it. <br /><br />Yeah the movie is quite silly and campy but this is not really enough to boost this movie and gives it some more entertainment value. You know, it's the kind of cheap looking movie with some lame special effects, costumes, make-up and actors nobody has heard of ever since.<br /><br />Still it isn't the worst movie out of the series because of the reason that 'Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College' is by far a more worse movie, since that one had some horrible lame attempts at humor. This movie at least still does some attempts to be serious and professional one, even though the end result is far from perfect.<br /><br />Bad movie making and perhaps only watchable for those who have seen the previous Ghoulies entries.<br /><br />3/10 | 1 |
When I first saw this movie, I had thought that it was going to be a terrible upset, being directed by first-time director Liev Schrieber. What I saw in the next 130 minutes completely and utterly changed my mind. Based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, Everything is Illuminated tells the story of a young Jewish-American collector(masterfully played by Elijah Wood)who is trying to find the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis in WWII. He travels to Germany and enlists in the help of a 20-something, club hitting translator and his grandfather. This results in a rigid search across the country, and they are determined to find what they are looking for. Shot in some of the most beautiful countryside in the world, Everything Is Illuminated delivers tension between the translator and his grandfather, and of the help that Jonathan needs to find his quarry. There is much religious matter as well, as the grandfather refers to Jonathan as 'The Jew.' All in all, This is a movie that deals with finding yourself and loving family. I give this wonderful, if not illuminated movie, a 10 out of 10.-Arjun | 0 |
Sorry this was a woeful excuse for a film.. a plot line so holey it resembled a block of swiss cheese and a butch of characters who seemed to me to be utterly devoid of inter-personal relations.. Well except of course for Carlyle and Lee-Miller who i could have sworn were meant to be in love.. Unlike the union of Tyler and Miller who were for the most part, like the rest of the film, utterly unconvincing.. although the end product was uncaptivating and amusing for all the wrong reasons, the production values were high and deserve some acknowledgement..but unfortunately the end result was rubbish..what was everyone involved thinking..? they definitely should have packed up early on this one.. | 1 |
Where do they get the money to make films like this? I mean, there's nothing redeeming about this film. None of the actors are known, the writing is terrible, the photography is blurry, the story wanders between being a bad version of Repo Man and a nicklodeon western and the acting is unbelievable. For someone who watches all kinds of film, good and bad, I must admit that this film is about the worst I've seen since Attack of the Eye People back in the 50's. I don't really like to trash the effort of people trying to create some entertainment or, heaven forbid, art but this film would seem to appeal to no one. The story bends on a mystical contamination of a person who's a bad version of the Celtic Soul eater, although he functions more like a male succubus without the sexual overtones. The bad guys have to team up with the good guys in a town where they are unable to escape from. Take it from there as that, alas, is the best part. My advice is that unless you are into bad mythology, amateurish writing, unconvincing acting and tedious settings, you will best be served by leaving this one on the shelf when you're out renting videos. | 1 |
Film follows a bunch of students in the NYC High School of the Performing Arts. There's Coco (Irene Cara) a black singer who WILL make it to the top despite everything. She's helped by Bruno (Lee Curren) a white musician. Then there's Doris (Maureen Teefy) who wants to be an actress--but she's shy and scared. She becomes friends with Motgomery (Paul McCrane)--purportedly the only gay student in the school and is romanced by Raul (Barry Miller). Then there's Leroy (Gene Anthony Ray--who sadly died in 2003) who's homeless and a great dancer--but can't read. Then there's various teachers (Albert Hague, Anne Meara stand out) trying to teach the kids.<br /><br />The songs are GREAT (the title tune and 'Out Here On My Own' were nominated for Best Song--'Fame' won), the dances are energetic and the young cast shows plenty of ambition and talent. BUT this film misses the boat in the drama department. Many plot lines are brought up and completely left open-ended by the end of the movie. Why did Coco do a porno? Did Doris and Raul remain together afterwords? Did either make it? How about Montgomery--what happened to him? And did Leroy ever graduate--and how? There are too many long speeches (Raul has two) and moments that just lead to nothing. I'm assuming there were cuts in the script--I can't believe the movie just left all this open. <br /><br />Still, it's worth seeing for the acting and, again, the music. There's basically not one bad song and the dances go full force (and at one point stop traffic--literally!). My favorites are 'Fame', 'Out Here...' and 'I Sing the Body Electric' which is a great closing song. So I recommend it but can only give it a 7--the script really needed to tie up loose ends--and it didn't.<br /><br />Trivia: They wanted to shot this film at the actual School for Performing Arts but couldn't get permission. The dean of the school read the script and said there was way too much swearing in the film. That is true--there is a LOT of foul language but that's how high school kids talk. Avoid the TV version which abysmally overdubs it. | 0 |
Daniel Day-Lewis is the most versatile actor alive. English aristocratic snob in A Room With a View, passionate Irish thief in In the Name of the Father, an impudent, violent butcher in Gangs of New York (in a performance ten times stronger than Adrian Brody's in the Pianist) and as the outrageous Cristy Brown with cerebral palsy in My Left Foot (just to name a few). His roles all influence eachother, but each is seperate, and utterly unique. He changes completely, with each character he takes on. And I'm beginning to believe that he can act as anything. Anything.<br /><br />As Cristy Brown he is stunning. He does not ridicule the character, and he does not pity the character. A difficult achievement. And Cristy Brown comes to life. A smart man. An outrageous man. Human.<br /><br />This movie, despite small scene-transition faults and the like, is an inspiration. Yes, it's predictable. But is it stupidly sentimental? No. I laughed. I cried. Not a single moment of cheese. Proof that this isn't a Hollywood movie.<br /><br />My favourite scene is the scene in the restaurant, when Cristy is discussing painters with Eileen, Peter and her friends. Here's where Daniel Day-Lewis reaches an acting climax. 'I'll kick you in the only part of your anatomy that's animated.' 'Wheel out the cripple!' And his performance never slows down, never falters, and is beautiful. Simply. He has a lot of screen time here. I watch it again again, and I never get tired of Cristy's perspicacious eyes, twitching and guttural speeches.<br /><br />A must-see. Fo sho, yo! | 0 |
Unfortunately, due to a sluggish start, I can't say that this is one of Hitch's best films. It very excellent none the less. The film stars Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day as parents who get caught up in a political assassination plot and must try to get their kidnapped son back. They both give excellent performances, not surprising of course. Really, however, I was most impressed with Hitchcocks amazing use of music. The climax at the Opera house was fantastic, and using a live orchestra to create music and suspense at the same time was pure genius. Absolutely fantastic suspense came out of that scene. Also, the use of Doris Day singing 'Que Sera, Sera' was excellent. Especially when it is transposed on scenes at the end of the film. So, this film to me ends up being Hitchcocks best use of music that I have seen to date. Unfortunately it had a slow start, or I could have recommend this film a little more highly. Even then, it is still well worth a look. 8 out of 10. | 0 |
There's a good story well hidden and never really used! <br /><br />The film is short and overly dependent on action and thematic photography; somehow, character and story development have been forgotten. What is left is muddled and superficial.<br /><br />Turn off your brain and watchyou will probably find that the time goes quickly enough, but unless you are the sort of person that finds soaps deep and meaningful, you are going to get no real satisfaction from this film.<br /><br />Watch only if you have nothing better to do and then only if someone else pays for the video rental. | 1 |
This is your typical Priyadarshan movie--a bunch of loony characters out on some silly mission. His signature climax has the entire cast of the film coming together and fighting each other in some crazy moshpit over hidden money. Whether it is a winning lottery ticket in Malamaal Weekly, black money in Hera Pheri, 'kodokoo' in Phir Hera Pheri, etc., etc., the director is becoming ridiculously predictable. Don't get me wrong; as clichéd and preposterous his movies may be, I usually end up enjoying the comedy. However, in most his previous movies there has actually been some good humor, (Hungama and Hera Pheri being noteworthy ones). Now, the hilarity of his films is fading as he is using the same formula over and over again.<br /><br />Songs are good. Tanushree Datta looks awesome. Rajpal Yadav is irritating, and Tusshar is not a whole lot better. Kunal Khemu is OK, and Sharman Joshi is the best. | 1 |
Well, I notice IMDB has not offered any plot info...that's because it's not possible to do that without sounding vile and disgusting...because that's what this movie is...VILE AND DISGUSTING !! I watched it because I am a humongous Fan of Chris Noth, whom I have met in person and he is a great guy...but if I ever meet him again, I will have no qualms about asking him whatever posessed him to star in something so awful. He plays a former child prodigy who is now a brilliant doctor, who spends his spare time running over small children with his car, with the intent of maiming and crippling them...this is not a 'spoiler', because all this is made very clear from the begining...sickening enough?? Oh, it gets better...he is manipulated into doing this, by his incestuous sister, who threatens to with-hold sexual favors from him if their latest victim fails to die...even Clive Barker couldn't write anything so hideous. Please, if you want to see Chris Noth in something worthy of his talent, rent 'Teddy Roosevelt and The Roughriders' | 1 |
'Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters' is a visually stunning production that handles complex issues with evocative ease. It is based on the life of controversial Japanese author Yukio Mishima, who committed suicide in the 1970s. It is not really a biopic - at least not one in the traditional sense - but an exploration of Mishima's iconoclastic oeuvre. The film succeeds in presenting abstract concepts in an unembroidered, totally engaging manner. Paul Schrader makes you sympathize with Mishima without having to deconstruct him or his work. It doesn't quite solve the puzzle but it does make you understand it. An added bonus: As we see Mishima's fury over the lack of tradition in a morally vacant modern society, Schrader gives us an excellent demonstration of the dichotomy between thought and execution in cinema. John Bailey's cinematography is spectacularly good. The grandiosity of composer Philip Glass' work is perfectly suited for the project. 'Mishima' is the best film I've seen this year, so far. | 0 |
The worlds largest inside joke. The world's largest, most exclusive inside joke.<br /><br />Emulating the brash and 'everyman' humor of office space, this film drives the appeal of this film into the ground by making the humor such that it would only be properly appreciated by legal secretaries writing books. The audience is asked to assume the unfamiliar role of a legal secretary, and then empathize with the excruciatingly dumb protagonist.<br /><br />The entire film is centered on the legal secretary finding free time, listening to music and writing a novel while working. These are his goals. You can't imagine the slap in the face it is to the audience when (around halfway through) they find out he has had a job which fit all three of those criteria, but then gives it UP! The director and screenwriter (Jacob Kornbluth and Josh Kornbluth) completely remove the audience's motivation to empathize or even find entertaining a protagonist that has previously thrown away that which he is complaining about the lack thereof.<br /><br />Apart from that major stumbling block, the legal secretary insider humor fails because they must be explained explicitly to the audience each time they happen. Without these asides, the audience wouldn't have noticed anything particularly strange. Humor is only effective if it doesn't need to be thoroughly explained to the audience what is funny. | 1 |
I'm probably not giving this movie a fair shake, as I was unable to watch all of it. Perhaps if I'd seen it in a theater, in its original presentation, I might have appreciated it, but it's far too slow-moving for me.<br /><br />I read the book some 25 years ago and the details of the plot have faded from memory. This did not help the film, as it's something less than vivid and clear in its presentation of events.<br /><br />This is really four linked films, or a film in four parts, and was, I believe, intended to be seen over four nights in a theatrical presentation. I found Part I to be enjoyable enough, but it was all I could do to sit through Part II, which drags interminably. Reading Tolstoy's philosophizing is one thing. If you get a good translation or can read it in the original, his brilliant writing far outweighs any issues one might have with the pace of the story. On film, however, it's hard to reproduce without being ponderous.<br /><br />I have other issues with the parts of the film that I saw. It's very splashy, with a lot of hey-ma-look-at-this camera work that calls attention to itself, instead of serving to advance the story.<br /><br />Clearly, I'm missing something, but I just couldn't summon the enthusiasm to crank up parts III and IV. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.