review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Amelia and Michael are a married couple that are cheating on each other. Amelia has a long-time lover in the hospital and Michael hires a prostitute that doesn't satisfy him. The two smolder with their infidelity but manage to connect to each other in the end.<br /><br />There's not a whole lot to this particular short. The direction is straight-forward and dramatic, which is good, the acting is sincere, but the story leaves a little bit to be desired. Why, exactly, do we care about these two people? It's a little hard to see how this story sticks out from any other infidelity story except that it's much more pared down and doesn't search for meaning in it (a welcoming change of pace if anything).<br /><br />I don't know, it's possible I don't connect to these stories because I've never experienced them. But I have noticed that the blocking in these narratives are typically the same, i.e., a couple talking together while avoiding eye-contact by pretending to be immersed in magazines, etc. The nice things about short films is that they provide a bit more room for trying something different, and I'd like to see a different take.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | 1 |
So bad as good - not only the script is obvious, but the acting is not just poor, but pathetic. The worst of all is the definition of the characters: unrealistic ingenuity, affected reactions, camera forcing to watch superficial aspects, which are introduced as keys to the plot.<br /><br />Can't prevent laughing when, at the end, main character says to second something like 'your daughter plays no soccer and knows no cooking'. Such offense to female intelligence defines the level of this film.<br /><br />Is the film about the psychological behaviour of the second character?, about its impact on the main character?, or just a sequence of events set in order to heat for the obvious ending? <br /><br />Pls, make more of these - I had a good time guessing what next would go wrong... | 1 |
There is a scene in this film at about the 42 minute mark that is among the worst I have seen in some time. As F. Scott Fitzgerald (Gregory Peck) and Sheilah Graham (Deborah Kerr) are lounging on the beach, suddenly things become tense and Sheilah begins to cry--at which point she tells her lover about her sordid past. This 'dramatic scene' becomes so terribly overdone and histrionic I couldn't help but turn to my wife and exclaim how stupid it all was...as dramatic music swelled on the television as it all came to a phony crescendo. NO ONE experiences moments like this--no one. Now how much of the rest of the film is true, I cannot say, but this particular moment was laughably bad and as fake as an $8 Rolex--and leads me to assume that some of the other reviewers were correct--the film is a lot of bunk. However, I am not an expert on the life of these two people and the internet didn't seem to clear this up, either. <br /><br />Just who were F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sheilah Graham and what was their relationship really like? What I do know about Fitzgerald, however, does seem different from what I saw in the film. Was he the suave and decent man we initially see in the film? Well, considering he was married at the same time he was carrying on with Graham and drank like a fish, I'd assume he wasn't. Was he as obnoxious and boorish as we later see in the film? Perhaps, but if he was this bad AND yet Ms. Graham stayed with him, then this makes her out to be a complete dummy--and not someone you'd like to see featured in a film. And, if he wasn't, then the film does a poor disservice to his memory. Either way, it made for a painful and not particularly pleasant viewing experience.<br /><br />The sum total of this film appears to be a tale of two not particularly likable or healthy people. In a dark and salacious way, some might find this all very entertaining, but most are sure to see this as a train wreck with no surprises along the way! Unpleasant but with glossy production values (especially the music, which was lovely but way over the top) it begs the question 'why did they even choose to make this in the first place?'. The bottom line--it's a pretty bad film all around and probably not worth your time--even if, like me, you are big Gregory Peck fan. | 1 |
Bette Davis' electrifying performance is such that it is hard to remember the other female players. They were as perfect in their parts as Davis was in hers - they just didn't have as much to do. Some of the reviewers felt that the book was so much better - it was but to give the film it's due, to condense a 600 page book down to 83 minutes is no mean feat. The first part of the book didn't even make it to the screen - it told of Phillip's childhood, then moved to Germany and Paris, where Phillip had gone to try to make good as an artist. It also chronicles his first romance - with Fanny Price, who kills herself when she realises Phillip cannot return her feelings of love. It is a wonderful book but rambling and I think that anyone who does not think too highly of the film should read the book and will realise how good the film is.<br /><br />After realising that he will only ever be a mediocre painter, Phillip Carey (Leslie Howard) comes back to England hoping to take up medicine. When out at a tearoom he meets a sullen waitress, Mildred (Bette Davis). Even though she has no interest in him and basically treats him like dirt, Phillip is obsessed. It is so hard to watch his efforts at trying to find any civility in this vicious shrew. In one scene she promises to meet him in a second class railway waiting room, when they almost miss each other, she berates him with 'why would I wait in a second class waiting room when there is a first class one available'. You just want to shake him. The only time she is pleasant to him is when she tells him she is going to marry another man, a coarse sales- man, Emile Miller (Alan Hale). With Mildred out of the picture, he meets Nora (Kay Johnson) a lovely woman, who writes romantic novels under a male pseudonym. She jokes about the popularity the books enjoy among servants (in the novel he had seen Mildred reading them.) Nora gives Phillip all the love and confidence he needs but he is incapable of returning her love. When Mildred returns (Miller didn't marry her and she is having a baby), of course he takes care of her and helps her with the baby (in the film it is treated as an object - always called 'baby', never given a name or gender) - she repays him by running off with his best friend.<br /><br />At the hospital he meets Sally Athelny (Frances Dee) who is visiting her sick father. He begins to visit her home and for the first time in his life gets a sense of family. Then surprise! surprise! Mildred returns like a bad penny and surprise! Philip takes her in. But he has changed and feels only disgust when she tries to show gratitude the only way she knows how. Then follows one of the most vicious, verbal fights on film with phrases such as 'you cad, you dirty swine', 'I only kissed you because you begged me' and 'when you went I wiped my mouth, I WIPED MY MOUTH'!!! In the book a lot of Mildred's stock phrases such as 'you're a gentleman in every sense of the word', 'I don't mind', and 'Mr. High and Mighty' were associated with prostitutes and when Phillip meets her for the first time he is struck by that.<br /><br />The end of the film shows Phillip (being truly free of Mildred in the only way possible) now free to love Sally. Again in the book Sally tells Phillip that she thinks she is having a baby but that just makes him more sure of his love. That ending, like Mildred's 'sickness' could not be in the film - even a pre-code one.<br /><br />Kay Johnson was always called on to play sensible, believable women - which she played to perfection as she was obviously sensible herself. Her Nora was the woman Philip should have stayed with. Frances Dee was one of the most beautiful of screen ingenues. She was obviously being groomed for stardom with some roles that proved she was not just a pretty face ('The Silver Cord' and 'Blood Money') but when she married Joel McCrea her career started to peter out. Her Sally did not push her talent to the limits. Apparently Leslie Howard was not very helpful to Bette Davis on the set - he was annoyed that an English actress was not given the part. He used to throw her her lines 'whilst reading a book off camera'. He did start to take an interest when a newspaper reported 'the kid was running away with the picture'!!!<br /><br />Highly, Highly Recommended. | 0 |
'Ask the Dust' looked intriguing from the trailer, and we especially like all of the actors. Unfortunately, the movie was not compelling enough to be considered drama, and it wasn't funny enough to be a comedy. It practically seemed to satirize itself, and to no entertaining effect. After seventy minutes of waiting for this thing to get better, my wife and I walked out, valuing not having wasted any more time on such nonsense. It simply was not interesting, moving, funny nor artistic. It appears as though it were written, produced and directed by a high school kid; worse yet, it was such a shameful waste of otherwise extraordinarily talented actors, not to mention our time and money. | 1 |
I think that this movie is very fun and horror. I love Elvira and I like this movie. It's very pity that second part of this wonderful movie had no success, because it very funny like a first part. I also regret that besides of this movie I have no seen Cassandra Peterson in other films.I think that she is amazing actress with big...potential. I hope that II'll see her in future in the third part of Elvira's adventures. Cassandra Peterson is one of my favorite comedy actresses. Cassandra, if you read this, know that you are the best and my heart will be with you. You can rely on me. What can I more add? This is cool and classical movie! | 0 |
This was one of the dullest movies I have seen in some time. I'm in my late 40s, and watched it with my son-in-law (early 20s) and son (17). The scenery was beautiful, but the story was a bust. We watched about an hour of it and turned it off. I spent more time on my iphone during the hour that we watched it than I spent actually watching the movie. I gave it a 3 because I enjoyed the scenery and cinematography; otherwise I would have given it a 1. I'm sure there are people who are really into the 'art' of it all who will find my review appalling but we're all entitled to our own opinions, right? I couldn't figure out if this was supposed to be a 'chick flick' where the focus was on the mother, or if it was supposed to be a movie for guys, with the focus on battle and adventure. In my opinion, it didn't succeed in either. | 1 |
Jon Voight plays a man named Joe. Joe is shook up by a haunting childhood. He has a strong fear and hatred of religion due to his traumatic baptism. He quits his job as a dishwasher and goes out to become a hustler for wealthy people. He meets a misfit named Ratso(Dustin Hoffman) and the two for a relationship. They go out and work together in helping each other out. They become thieves. The two grow remarkably close and soon can't live without each other. However, there is something very important that Ratso hasn't told Joe, and it could destroy any hope they have of surviving the city together. This is one of the greatest films ever made. It is a heartbreaking and shattering portrait of too very lonely men who have nothing to lose but each other. Their story is devastating to watch, but is ultimately important for people to see. It's one of those films where the characters are pretty much just like the seemingly crazy people you sometimes find on the street. The difference is that this film is from their perspective. Their lives are shown to us and it's devastating to see the pedestrians in this film treat them like dirt, especially if we at one time were one of those people. However, the film doesn't try to guilt trip you. Instead, it shows you the rough side of the lifestyle of hustling. It is not a pleasant and easygoing lifestyle like many Hollywood films portray it such as MILK MONEY and PRETTY WOMAN. The lifestyle of being a male hustler is a dirty, gritty, and ugly life and it's sad that people have degraded themselves like the character of Joe in this film does. What startles me the most about this film was that it came out in 1969, and it has stood the test of time perfectly. Today's audiences will still find great meaning in this film and will still love it and cherish it just as much as critics and audiences did everywhere in 1969. The film was rated X, but what I notice about this film is that the sexuality is portrayed in a much more honest, realistic, and effective way. Anybody who has had sex before will know how humorous, awkward, and scary as hell it can be and this film doesn't shy away from any of that. The sex in this film may not be as graphic as in once was thought to be. Movies that were X rated such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, GREETINGS, LAST TANGO IN Paris, and FRITZ THE CAT all seem remarkably tame compared to the shocking things that people can get away with an R rating today. The sex scenes in MIDNIGHT COWBOY will seem quite strong but they certainly aren't sexy. They are not graphic, but they are realistic, and that's what people should keep in mind when they view this film. The course language that is used in the film, particularly the word 'fag' is used effectively and is not gratuitous. The violence is very shocking to watch even today, but again it is necessary to the plot to depict the world of a hustler. I'm really glad to see that MIDNIGHT COWBOY is not dated and is still just as affecting as it was in 1969, if not more. I can't recommend this classic enough and I do hope that it continues to find an audience because it really is a very special and unforgettable experience that will not soon be forgotten.<br /><br />PROS: <br /><br />-Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are both harrowing and amazing to watch. They have never played roles like this before or since and they are completely different from usual. You'll forget who is playing them within minutes! <br /><br />-Beautiful score <br /><br />-Not at all dated or campy like many films of that decade come off as today <br /><br />-Fantastic and fast editing job<br /><br />CONS: <br /><br />-For mature audiences only <br /><br />-The opening scenes are well done, but they could be just a little stronger. | 0 |
***SPOILERS*** Well made and interesting film about the alienated youth of America back in the 1950's. Back in those days many parents caught up with making big bucks and living high on the hog forget that their children, especially teen-agers, needed a lot more then a car and and hefty allowance in order to feel part of the family. They also needed love and attention, to their growing up problems, which is what 16 year-old Hal Ditmar, James MacArthur never got from his successful movie producer dad Mr.Tom Ditmar, James Daly.<br /><br />Never really connecting with his dad Hal grows more and more distant from both him and his caring mom Helen Ditmar, Kim Hunter, as well as from society. After his dad put Hal down about him wanting to borrow his car, a late model luxury sedan, he and his friend Jerry, Jeffery Silver, drive in Hal's beat up and barley operational 1930's jalopy to the local treater to catch the latest western flick.<br /><br />Feeling like striking out at the world Hal acts like a real first-class jerk sticking his smelly feet almost into the faces of a couple, Eddie Ryder & Jean Corbett, sitting in front of him and Jerry trying to watch the movie. This leads Hal, as well as his friend Jerry, to not only be kicked out of the theater but with him belting the theater manager Mr. Grebbs, Whit Bissell. It turned out that at least Hal was willing to leave the theater, without even getting his money back, but when Grebbs tries to grab him Hal wheeled around and belted him right in the kisser.<br /><br />Hal now in real hot water, he's charged with assault and battery, put's on his 'James Dean' act, at the local police station, making like he's either too cool or just plain stupid to realize what he's done; almost knocked Mr. Grebbs teeth out. It's when Sgt.Shipley, James Gergory, tells Hal that his dad is coming to pick him up when he finally sobers up to the fact of what he's done.<br /><br />The rest of the film has Hal try to straighten himself out but is unable to do that because the low esteem that his dad has of him. Begging his father to understand that what he did, in belting Mr. Grebbs, was in self-defense Hal's father acts as if he's been there, at the theater, and saw the whole incident with his son Hal acting like a street thug instead of of a young man being grabbed and pushed without provocation.<br /><br />Not excusing what Hal did, in laying out Mr. Grebbs, he in fact was willing to admit his hooligan behavior but he wanted both Mr. Grebbs and his dad to at least treat him with an iota of consideration; Gebbs in the fact that he provoked Hal and Mr. Ditmas in not even bothering to hear him out! Feeling like a wanted criminal without anyone, but his mom, to really turn too Hal slowly loses it only to later have both Sgt. Shipley and Mr. Grabbs agree to drop the assault charge. You would think that by now Hal's has finally learned his lesson but the real lesson, more then a stretch behind bars, that Hal's so desperately needed was a lesson that his father totally ignored! Being there when his son needed him most and in that Mr. Ditmar failed with flying colors.<br /><br />Things do in fact straighten out for everyone in the movie only after Mr. Grebbs gets belted, ending up with a butte of a shiner, again by Hal who, going back to Grebbs theater, tries to get him to phone his dad and tell him that Hal was only defending himself when he first, not the second time around, clobbered him. In the end Hal learned a real lesson in getting along with people an not letting his problems become other peoples problems. But most of all Hal's father Mr. Ditmar learned the most valuable lesson of all in how to understand his frustrated and alienated son and act like a father toward him instead of a combination jail-keeper and a sugar daddy. Like the song says 'All you need s Love' to get things on the right track and it was both love and understanding for his son Hal that Mr. Ditmar, until the very end of the movie, lacked the most off. | 0 |
This is a terrible movie, terrible script, bad direction and nonsensical ending. Also, bad performances, except from Clancy Brown who is criminally underused here, and Michael Pollard. Watching this movie was purgatory--you do it to unload enough bad movie karma to actually see a good one further down the line.<br /><br />The movie presents a father and son who look like they couldn't every possibly have been related. The part of the male lead is not well written and seems uncharismatic in this role. You can see the plot points a mile away. The actions of the female lead and that of her brother, the cop, also make no sense. So, a major action on her part at the end of the movie makes no sense script-wise. | 1 |
Julian Noble (Pierce Brosnan) is a hit-man. Or a 'facilitator of fatalities', as he prefers to be called. He is also a drunk, a womaniser, and in the middle of a mid-life crisis. On a job in Mexico City, he bumps into Danny White (Greg Kinnear), an unconfident businessman who thinks he's just nailed a recent pitch, but is unsure. They meet in the hotel bar late one night, after they've both had a few too many margaritas.<br /><br />Sounds like the set-up for a by-the-numbers comedy thriller, doesn't it? But it isn't. Instead, The Matador is a funny and sometimes touching character study. It avoids every twist that the above summary would suggest, sometimes even setting them up just to gleefully tear them down. It is a film that respects it characters enough to just let them get on with it, without feeling the need to shove them into needless plot contrivances.<br /><br />Brosnan's hit-man will inevitably be compared to his Bond, but this is unfair to both performances. Bond is a half-formed idea, a product of all that has gone before; while Julian is a fully-formed character with his own motivations and flaws. He has existed in his own shadowy, seedy world for so long that he has forgotten how to talk to another human being.<br /><br />When he meets Danny in the hotel bar, he sees his opposite: a normal guy with a normal job and normal problems. He envies Danny; the hit-man has become fed up with his life, sees himself edging ever closer to his inevitable 'burn out', as he puts it. But when Danny opens up about the death of his only son, Julian tries to change the subject with a dirty joke. He is a man who has, in his own words, been 'running from any emotion.' Kinnear holds his own opposite Brosnan's performance, and injects Danny White with his effortless everyman charm. He is the perfect foil to Julian; while the latter is drunken bravado and hedonism, Danny is down to earth, with just a hint of eccentricity. But he too goes deeper than his established persona, showing us how far the everyman will go when faced with financial and familial ruin.<br /><br />There is real chemistry between Brosnan and Kinnear. It is most visible in the film's three key scenes: the hotel bar; a bullfight, during which Julian tells Danny what he does for a living, and takes him through a dress rehearsal of an assassination; and a scene in which Julian turns up at Danny's house six months later. This scene also introduces us properly to Danny's wife, Bean (yes, Bean). In another example of how much The Matador respects its characters, Bean (Hope Davis), instead of panicking at the presence of a hired killer in her house, merely asks with forced calm, 'Did you bring your gun?' The script isn't quite as good as could have been after maybe another rewrite. One or two lines seem a little forced, and a couple of the jokes need a little more work. But in the scenes where Julian and Danny (and later Bean) just talk, the writing is superb. The film feels no need to put the characters in any outlandish situations (other than meeting a hit-man, and said hit-man turning up on your doorstep). It just lets them talk, gently nudging them toward necessary plot points.<br /><br />There is action, but only when it reflects on the characters. One notable instance is when Julian botches a job in Budapest because he keeps seeing himself through his rifles scope. The rest of the film is about the characters, how they interact, how they each affect one another. And, ultimately, it is about friendship, even in the most unlikely of places. At one point Julian tells Danny that he is his only friend. And he really means it. | 0 |
I was once a big Olsen fan. I received this movie when I was six and watched it almost nonstop until I was nine. Then it lay on my shelf gathering dust until yesterday. I was left speechless.<br /><br />Mary-Kate and Ashley play Allie and Mel, two twelve year olds who are sent to spend Spring Break in Paris with their ambassador grandfather. Along the way, they meet, as one might expect, two cute French boys who show them the more fun side to Paris. I guess the two boys were okay, fake French accents aside. <br /><br />The plot is predictable and the humour is shallow and corny. Mary-Kate and Ashley play two shallow girls with too much make up on their face. <br /><br />Don't watch this movie if you're not into the Olsen twins or family movies. | 1 |
Vulpine Massacre should have been this movies actual title. And the tag-line should have read 'Guaranteed to make your kids CRY!' This is a nature drama telling the story of a family of wild foxes in a remote region. Starting with the meeting and pairing of two young foxes and the eventual birth of a large family and the trials of raising them. The only speaking is done in narrative by a tree that stands over the den, giving insight into the animals loves and lives... Lovely scenery and gorgeous filming of the animals. Sounds good huh? Well from there things go straight to hell and then start drilling towards the core...<br /><br />*** Spoilers Below - Or they it may be a Warning!***<br /><br />Almost first off we learn one of the foxes is born blind. But seems to get along well enough and there's a beautifully cheerful musical score to accompany him... And then he dies... Next we have one of the siblings adventures. And then he dies... One of the sisters gets her screen-time... and then she dies...And so it goes like some horrific slasher movie as one fox after another is killed off by nature, in traps, just up and vanish, and even by a bunch of snowmobiles! By the end of the movie almost all the foxes have been massacred. Though mercifully no deaths are shown on screen. (Least not in the version we saw.) Unlike say 'Tarka the Otter' the deaths in this movie are almost all pointless and border on the sadistic in the way hopes are built up and then snuffed out. One or two losses would have been acceptable. It is a nature film after all. But not nearly the whole family.<br /><br />Do not go to see this film deceived by the cheery box into thinking its safe for the kids. Watch it with some foreknowledge that things are *not* going to go well at all and that you or your kids may be left feeling very badly depending on how sensitive you or they are. You may enjoy it. Or you may not... | 1 |
Dull, predictable and uninteresting story of a man contaminated by a chemical substance (Weller) who goes on across the country just to find his ex-wife and children; meanwhile, he kills everyone in his way only by a single touch of his hands. In his dangerous track, a doctor (Hurt) and a young reporter (Natasha) try to stop the man. The movie has a not original premise but even though could be much better. The final result is just a movie without suspense or gritting moments. Even the good cast is completely waste. I give this a 4 (four). | 1 |
I still remember when Frog Baseball first aired on MTV. In some sort of odd, surreal manner, the cartoon captured the stupid actions that I think every boy growing up in America engages in. I cringe now thinking about how I burned a crippled grasshopper using a magnifying glass, but it was interesting at the time for some reason. Growing up in the 1980s we all knew 'stoners.' These were the kids who wore Iron Maiden t-shirts to school, grew their hair long, had immature moustaches and were at least two inches taller than everyone else because they had flunked a grade or two. We laughed at them because they were so stupid even when not stoned. So it was easy to understand Beavis & Co because we already knew them, some of us were even them. To the extent that GenXers like myself would spurn the excess of the 1980s and embrace the grunge movement of the 1990s, Beavis & Co were sort of a strange post-modern anthem for us. Strange because like Beavis & Co we didn't care if we had an anthem. It was just an inside joke that we all immediately got even if it was awful. | 1 |
Did the movie-makers even preview this before they released it? The script jumps from place to place without giving much explanation. The beginning doesn't clarify if its a prequel or not. It starts with Superman's beginnings on Earth and then jumps to a point after the last movie - but doesn't really alert the viewer of this. VERY confusing! Superman himself is weak and in need of Prozac. He is portrayed as a potential home-wrecker, a stalker, and someone who is clearly depressed and confused. This type of character rarely makes for an interesting hero. The ending is absolutely ridiculous. Superman ending up in a hospital just made me want to kill him off myself. I'm seriously waiting for a SNL skit where Superman appears on Maury Povich and Maury says, 'The results are in - in the case of the child, Superman, you ARE the father.' To sum up - OK acting by this Superman and Kevin Spacey, but HORRIBLE script. The movie is basically unwatchable. | 1 |
The Bourne Ultimatum is the third and final outing for super-spy Jason Bourne, a man who is out to kill the people who made him into a killer. The Bourne series is one of the highest regarded trilogies by critics (Ultimatum has an 85/100 on metacritic.com, meaning it's status is 'universal acclaim) and for good reason- the fighting is choreographed very well and the deep story can be very engrossing.<br /><br />First, I highly advise you watch The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy, the two fancy-titled prequels to Ultimatum. There may be three different movies, but in reality they are all a continuance of one another: missing one leaves you stranded and confused, just like I was. You will still be about to enjoy the action and fight scenes of Ultimatum if you missed the first two, but then the story will definitely lead to some confusion.<br /><br />If you were lucky enough to view the prequels to this movie, you probably had a treat watching Bourne take down his enemies and track down the man who screwed him from Supremacy. Jason Bourne is played very well by Matt
Damon. Damon does nothing to deserve an Oscar nod, but his work here is good enough to hold it's own. Bourne's adventures take place in many different cities; the cities are all varied enough to keep the movie from becoming bland at times. The agency tracking Bourne takes advantage of every technological tool known to mankind to track him down.<br /><br />I won't go into detail on the characters because they are continuations off of the first two movies. However, it wouldn't hurt the movie to spell a few things out for the audience- not every viewer is a die-hard movie watcher who can pick up on every little hint about story development. Ultimatum wouldn't have been harmed at all if the story was a little more up front.<br /><br />It seems most people agree that Ultimatum was a success of a film: the movie opened to $69 million, and -box office total now is up to $216 mil- is currently still going very strongly for a movie that has been in theatres since August 3. It's the best action movie I've seen since Live Free or Die Hard.<br /><br />Good) Damon is solid but not spectacular, very smart movie Bad) Story is like many others | 0 |
Seriously, I couldn't find anything that constituted a rational human thought in this movie. For some reason, the writer decided to have a bunch of actors in random places grunting, groveling and yelling like Cro-Magnon bipeds. I understand that this was about gymnastics, but seriously, what's with all the roaring and human bleating ? I also saw at least five actors with overactive terrets syndrome and stage 10 syphilis.<br /><br />Although this movie has actual human acrobatics, I must say it is surprising that you can make a movie like this without having any intelligible form of human speech patterns. This is truly a milestone in the history of film-making because there was no conscious decision to make the characters express anything more than a timely Urrrrr ! or Rfff ! sound.<br /><br />Incredible. | 1 |
I was very disappointed by this film for a few reasons. For the first half hour it's actually pretty decent. Although the acting isn't any better then that which you would find in a rap video, its kinda funny and the production value doesn't seem half bad. In fact I almost thought this would be almost as good as Perico Ripiao (another recent Dominican film) which turned out to be MUCH MUCH better than I expected. The plot for the movie revolves around not just cheating husbands but how women are viewed and treated in Dominican society as a whole, which makes for a good premise especially in The Dominican Republic. Unfortunately I don't think the makers of this film relies that a good movie is all about how you treat your subject matter, and they f'ing butchered the veal cutlet they had before them. About 30 minutes into the movie the roles of men and women are reversed after the main characters wife puts a kind of spell on him as a result of his cheating habits. Not only does this transition happen via what look to be cutting edge, space age, CGI effects dating to what I'm guessing would be the 70's, but the whole plot just goes down the drain. The rest of the movie is nothing but cheesy predictable situations, and clever one liners. To top it all off (and I guess I should warn you now **SPOILER ALERT**) it all turns out to be a dream. Oh my who didn't see that coming? Oh man I almost forgot the most ridiculous thing about the movie. Well after about an hour into it I start thinking '
hmmmm something just doesn't seem right about the sound track but what can it be??'
and then it hits me HALF OF THE MUSIC IN THE MOVIE WAS TAKEN FROM A VIDEO GAME CALLED KING OF FIGHTER 95.<br /><br />When oh when DR will you give us a film we can call a work of art?!?! Perhaps a comedy to match France's Amelie, or an action flick to match Thailand's Ong-Bak, an animation as Akira was to Japan, a witty crime thriller as Layer Cake was to England, or a socio-awakening journey as Waking Life had here in the states.<br /><br />...i would give it a 1 but i've seen much worse come out of DR, search Los Jodedores and you'll know what I'm talking about. | 1 |
Contains *spoilers* - also, my quotes may not be exact.<br /><br />Everyone always notes the satire in social commentary and economic parallels - how true. But to me, I see this movie as much more than that. I love the symbolism of this guy in a glowing white suit. There is so much confusion and filth in the world around him, but it won't stick. Alec Guiness was the perfect guy to play this - his boyish grins and eternal curiousity are so appropriate:<br /><br />'That's ingenious - can you tell me, what is the ratio of ink to petrol?'<br /><br />The only moment of defeat is when he realizes that his invention hasn't worked after all - standing there almost naked. Yet, more than shame is the simple disappointment that 'it didn't work.' He's never really intimidated by people. Remember,<br /><br />'But Sidney, we want to stop it too.'<br /><br />Barely a moments hesitation before he's off trying to get away again. Does he show any sign of the pain such a betrayal must've caused? No.<br /><br />Also notable is Dapne's role. She is sick and tired of money and power. She thinks she's finally found love, outside of her father's company. At first she doesn't really care about Sidney anymore than anyone else. But that moment when he falls off her car and she goes back to see if maybe she killed him - and yet he is still thinking only of the beauty of his invention. She's finally found something she thinks is worth living for. The funny thing is that it's not even romance. It is friendship, but of such an ephemeral nature that the title almost doesn't fit. It's more admiration, and perhaps even inspiration.<br /><br />Upon her discovery that Michael has no real love for her, and that her father is completely incompetent to take care of her, she gives into cynicism and tries to temp Sidney. Fortunately she finds that there really are people in this world living for more than power, money and lust. What a refreshment:<br /><br />'Thank you Sidney. If you would've said 'yes' I think I'd have strangled you.'<br /><br />I love the very end, when all of this crazy business seems to have come to nothing. But then, the bubbly, quirky beat starts up and Sidney goes off, his stride matching the tune: dauntless. Where is Daphne? We don't really know - but they weren't really in love and she wasn't really a scientist. He got help escaping and she got 'a shot in the arm of hope.' (Pollyanna) A cont'd relationship would've been nice, but as Billy Joel says 'it's more than I'd hoped for...'<br /><br /> | 0 |
This film (along with Rinne) are minor gems amongst the retread homage pics that have passed for horror movies so far at the 8FTDF 'HorrorFest.' And, yes, that's faint praise indeed. 'Cause there's not much worse in filmdom than would-be auteurs who think atmosphere is a substitute for a coherent plot.<br /><br />And that's all you get with The Abandoned. This is a film that was made almost entirely in the directors head. Sure, it would have been nice if he'd transfered it to film, but this happened instead. It's a very pretty film with a few genuine scares, but the last reel is strictly for the latte slurping cineaste crowd. | 1 |
I really enjoyed this movie. It challenged my emotions and beliefs, making it a true piece of artwork in my book. The acting was unsurpassed. I would never watch this movie with anyone I could not cry around, I don't think I cry harder to any movies, maybe because it makes me look at myself, I dunno. It is a must see. | 0 |
The inherent problem with any staging of 'The Merchant of Venice' has never been the pseudo-controversial anti-Semitism, but the fact that there are two story lines wildly different in both tone and content; a frothy romantic comedy and a searing tragedy. While mixing genres was all the rage in the sixteenth century (and mocked by Shakespeare in Hamlet), it rarely fails to grate with modern audiences. As a result, most directors are forced to place an emphasis on one storyline at the expense of the other, and it is no surprise that the decision falls in the favour of Shylock.<br /><br />Like so many of Shakespeare's great tragic heroes, Shylock continues to fascinate after 400 years because he is such a difficult and complex character. Pitiful, proud, angry, vengeful, weak, arrogant; his behaviour defies simply analysis and continues to be argued over. He is flawed not because he is a Jew, but because he is human. Rarely do modern screenwriters imbue their creations with such richly textured contradictions, and it is to everyone's benefit that we have Shakespeare to draw on for inspiration.<br /><br />Shakespearean language is wild and rambling, saturated in multiple meanings, word play and metaphor. To be understood it must be wrangled and tamed by an actor with the strength and knowledge to do so. When an actor fails, the words pour forth in a torrent of incomprehensible words, but when he succeeds, the English language springs to life with an immediacy and vibrancy that takes your breath away. Al Pacino is one such actor, and here displays an incredible level of clarity and control that, were there any justice, would sweep every award in the offering. He meets the challenge of presenting Shylock head on, and delivers an extraordinarily subtle and nuanced performance. It would be a crime if we never got the opportunity to see what he does with King Lear.<br /><br />The supporting cast is noteworthy. Jeremy Irons gives an original take on the familiar Antonio, presenting an older, quieter figure that displays the unsavoury contradictions between medieval chivalry and ugly prejudice of the time. Joseph Fiennes is a revelation as he matures beyond superficial eye-candy to actually inhabit a character for once. Lynn Collins is the only disappointment. Many of Shakespeare's women are underwritten and require an actor to really work hard to bring them to life, and Collins' Gwyneth Paltrow impersonation seems a little flat and unsuited to the darker tone that Radford is aiming for.<br /><br />The design team must be acknowledged for creating a unique and thoroughly believable vision of Late Renaissance Venice. The city has not looked this ominous since 'Don't Look Now'. Taking full advantage of extant locations and natural light, the film has an appearance of authenticity that is greatly enhanced by the dark and timeworn costume design. All, again, are worthy of award recognition.<br /><br />The financial backers of films such as this must be commended. With a budget of $30 million, they must go into such a venture in the full and certain knowledge that they will never make a profit, and yet they invest nonetheless. We can all be grateful for it, as the result is a remarkable adaptation that is sure to be a benchmark for many years to come. | 0 |
My tolerance for shlocky direction was overwhelmed by some of the choices in this could-be-really-good time-waster.<br /><br />When the 'romantic' intervals were of a nature to take me out of the story and into 'How-and-why-did-the-movie-maker-do-/that/?' mode, you got to figure something is missing in there; restraint and tastefulness, I think.<br /><br />Brian Brown is a capable, empathetic actor - usually. I think he didn't like the project or the people, and it shows. I don't remember anything the other guy did. Can't even picture his face.<br /><br />On the other hand, it doesn't have to be any good to be entertaining; some of the vignettes and twists are fun and even ingenious.<br /><br />I watched this movie ($2.00 purchase at the vid rental place) against the advice of the screenwriter; I understand he was tempted to remove his name from the credits. Matter of pride, I bet. | 1 |
This movie stunk. There is not much more to it. The final fight looked like Walker taking on my grandmother, not some supernatural demon with the strength of ten men. I found the commercials more interesting. The plot twists and jokes could be seen coming a mile away. The only redeeming quality of this film was that it ended. Avoid this at all costs...unless you enjoy bad Chuck Norris movies. | 1 |
In a world where humans can live forever you spend the entire movie wishing they would die. First off if you insist on watching this movie do two things first put it on mute, don't worry you miss a plot, hell they don't even talk for the first 70 min of an 87 min movie, after putting on mute you must now hit fast forward till the main chick dies don't worry even if your paying attention you won't know why or how she died. Once you get to the 'good part' take it of mute. Oh, how will you know the good part, wait for an elevator scene with two morons in space suits with WWII weapons. These weapons won't seem like much till you realize that the first protagonist had a laser tag pistol and a bandoleer of CO2 cartridges. The only remnants of a plot take place between a glowing ball and a semi hot chick who looks like she was attacked by Wolverine. After listening to the 'plot', you will wish they went back to not talking. Of the four people that are in this movie none of them can remotely act, not even a little bit, you will have better luck witnessing acting at a kindergarten theater.<br /><br />To comment on the special on the special effects, let me just say 'Wow', no really you will spend the entire movie saying to your self 'Where did this movie's 1.8 million dollar budget go!' Seriously it will leave you in aw of the magnitude of ineptness. The best 'sets' are basically windows wallpaper backgrounds. The Ships are basically flying wrenches, Wait some are barges that kinda look like whales . I have never heard so many made up words in my whole life. They have buttons on their wrist(large pedometers) that can put them in 'fight mode' and super runing mode (makes them super blurry). This will seriously drain their power reserves but they find bits of wires to chew on to regain their strength. The explosions were less impressive than my fourth of July, I only had sparklers.<br /><br />So the plot as far as I can figure goes something like this 'mother' is a space ship captain and goes to the desert for a while rides a rocket dies. Then her daughter 6000 years in the future ( no I am not exaggerating) recalls her mother's memories through some sort of capsule. Anyways they jabber on for another 10 min and then the cause a big bang. Yes the Same 'Big Bang' that started our solar system. It's explained how she goes back in time or something, it does not really matter it happened i guess. Roll Credits Seriously the whole script was mercifully on one sheet of paper, unless that actually detailed any of the dreadfully fight scenes.<br /><br />After watching the credits I have now laughed more than I did the entire movie, the jobs the created like catering supervisor 'galactius sarcophagus' and then the special thanks to George Lucas was just the best.<br /><br />I really wasn't expecting that much for a movie I paid 99 cents for but seriously some body owes me for this. Most frequent comment heard after the movie 'I want my life back'. You have to admire that some but put time and effort in to this movie but seriously, why ? | 1 |
<br /><br />In Japan and elsewhere in Europe new technology is enabling filmmakers to bypass the closed shop of the Hollywood mainstream and avoid Ed Wood like visible low budget production values to produce compelling films. What a shame that in the UK we can find examples such as 'Avatar' (name of many a video game) where brain dead attempts are made to imitate so many films - and console games beloved of girlfriendless teens - that themselves are cheap photocopies of clichés abound like testosterone fuelled kangaroos. Check out a bit of the synopsis:<br /><br />'Set in futuristic London, 2024, it tells the story of a Team of Virtual Reality Virus Exterminators faced against the ultimate Internet virus.'<br /><br />Go back and read that quote again - avoid guffawing - and try to find a single original idea in it. This should have seemed a tired, sad concept in 1993, never mind 2003. Ah, but there is more - the 'ultimate virus' has already caused planes to crash, infected the air traffic control centre, etc. It has been developed by a 'child genius' and manifests itself as a scantily clad, athletic, mammary jiggling discount Lara Croft imitator who does a great line in snarling and cod martial arts moves straight out of the playground - the living product of adolescent fantasy. Oh, and she is accompanied by 'Predator' like sound effects to emphasise her remarkable powers.<br /><br />The whole thing has a 'futuristic' vision of stunning originality - the Lloyds building filtered with AfterEffects to look somewhat green. The budget does really show - which in this day and age should not. On the whole, a pointless mess of cheese, ham and cliché that Roger Corman would have left on the cutting room floor in his most shameless, desperate moments. Shame that such an alleged labour of love delivered nine minutes of wasted celluloid.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Seven months since a revelatory viewing of Faces, I finally found a rentable DVD copy of Cassavetes' first feature. Shot on a shoestring in Manhattan and in his acting workshop on ad hoc sets, Shadows was the culmination of months of improvisational rehearsals, in which the (mostly amateur) actors developed bonds with one another, invented their characters, and polished their techniques to give their filmed performances just the right tenor of spontaneous familiarity. This intimate approach led to some incredibly daring work in Facesi.e., Seymour Cassel cramming his hands down Lynn Carlin's throat in an attempt to revive her from an overdosejust as the actors' utter conviction here yields blisteringly honest moments like Lelia and Tony's post-coital assessment of their relationship and Ben's revulsion at a black woman's touch as a manifestation of his racial confusion and self-loathing. A homemade production in the best sense, the out-of-sync dubbing and sound recording, and the granular cinematography and up-close camera setups, build an immersive atmosphere that perfectly suits Cassavetes' nuanced vision of human relationships as perpetual works in progress, marked by desperate emotional fluctuations and wistful attempts at communication and understanding. Charles Mingus's largely improvised jazz score is an ideal complement to the film's vision of living by the moment, a mantra by which Cassavetes worked and seemingly lived. | 0 |
All budding filmmakers should watch this movie - it is like a masterclass in digital film- making in itself. Some of the scenes look like they have been shot on much higher production values than what they really have been. It is very encouraging that such a well crafted piece of work can be made on a low budget. The acting is very good, and the characters are very interesting, particularly that of the lead boy (John Kielty), who manages to play a teenager experiencing difficulties whilst remaining really likable. His beautiful but fading mother was also very well portrayed, and the relationship between her and her boss was very intriguing. This is a very quirky, interesting piece and I will be looking for anything else made by the same team. The director is certainly one to watch. | 0 |
'Giant' is one of the most boring, overly-long Hollywood contraptions ever. Many scenes seem utterly fake and without energy. Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, and James Dean are wasted in this big Hollywood production. A central notion to this movie, that a rancher would ever resist drilling for oil on his land, is absurd, and I know this because I'm from Houston. A couple of scenes, especially Dean serving Taylor coffee, redeem this otherwise boring film. For a much more accurate and interesting depiction about how modernism changed the ranches in Texas, see 'Hud' (one of Paul Newman's great performances) or 'The Last Picture Show.' | 1 |
The greatest sin in life is being dull, and this movie is crashingly boring. its funny, its left out of his 'a life in film' documentary. He goes from a long piece on 'Stardust Memories' and then fast forwards to 'Zelig'. This little piece of cubic zirconia just isn't worth the effort. | 1 |
I was forced to watch this whole series of films as a young child and I was told they were REAL! Talk about child abuse. I would have been less frightened of Dracula or Frankenstein. This series is only good for people who believe in this ridiculousness and who want to indoctrinate their children into believing the same. Besides the obvious issues associated with brainwashing and indoctrination, there's also the bad acting, bad writing, and BAD 'special effects'. They are just all around terrible, terrible movies. Yes, believable (and horrifying) to a kid, but I can't imagine a grown-up buying into this shlock. Although, I must say, that I would be interested in seeing them today, as an adult. They might have a certain midnight/cult movie feel to them. | 1 |
While it was filmed at a Florida National Guard site, 'Tigerland' totally reminded me of Fort Polk, LA., firing ranges, maneuver areas, waist-deep water and all. The movie was fairly authentic and the characters similar to those same ones at my AIT in 1974. The difference between the Tigerland year, 1971, and mine of 1974 is all the drill sergeants and instructors knew they weren't going back to Vietnam, as it was pretty much all over, so training was very relaxed - not a challenge at all. That was the precursor to all our troubles in the 70s and 80s, which I know for a fact as I stayed in until 2004. I never heard anyone mention 'Tigerland' but the Army did have realistic Vietnam training villages at different bases across the U.S. Vietnam Vets tell me that up to 1972 Basic & AIT could be pretty rough and rugged, because the trainers had been there and were mandated to train Vietnam-bound men those skills to make it, although that was not always the case. Both a drill sergeant at Polk and later one of my Vietnam Vet NCOs, when we had become instructors at a basic training brigade at Fort Bliss, told me there was nothing they could do to get anyone ready and people just had to find out and figure out for themselves. This movie rates high. | 0 |
For starters, I once met the director when he was going to WW2 re-enactments with a period movie camera and making videos of the events which looked DARNED good. I really wish he'd kept that up. Because as much as I applaud what he accomplished on a clearly 'next to nothing' budget, when I popped out the DVD, I just wondered why I sat through almost two hours of nothing. There's no real plot to speak of, you don't really care what happens to the characters (maybe the Italian troops and some of the Germans), and the ending is yet another 'art film' commentary on the futility of war. I could have told someone how it would end once I got through the first ten minutes. I KNEW the Germans would have a few heroically volunteer to fight to the death, I knew most of the Quartmaster GIs would be killed, it was just too darned obvious! And while I'm on the subject, I was shocked to see so much of the Axis side done well, yet the GI side done comically. All the character development was clearly for non-English-speaking roles. The GIs simply got shafted hard in this film. And I can't help but wonder if they even had someone on the set who understood how the US Army works? The phrases, terminology, actions, were clearly written by someone with no knowledge of the American military at all. Had I now known who had directed this film, I'd have sworn it was directed and written by a German... | 1 |
Okay, so I'm a sucker for a good documentary, particularly where it tells a modern-day Don Quixote story. A caveat: I met Mark Borchardt in the winter of 1995/96 while he was still working on Coven. But I'll save that story for later. American Movie, which commenced production not long after, accurately portrays the person that I knew, although in greater depth than I expected or believed existed. This is simultaneously a very funny and very sad film, and is brilliantly executed. Mark comes across as his own worse enemy: his childlike ambition and optimism -- which I admire -- is undermined by his apparent artistic ineptitude as well as his bizarre fiscal expectations. But he's also a charismatic guy. His loyal Sancho Panza sidekick is equally likeable: loyal, if frazzled, to the core. Like Don Quixote, American Movie presents an often-ignored inefficient aspect of freedom -- that people will be drawn toward professions to which they are not particularly well-suited, irrespective of repeated failure. It is a great film. | 0 |
This film actually manages to be mindless enjoyment for 2/3 of the journey. Sadly, the film ends up being too 'confused.' While I know some of the plot contrivances are standard of 'buddy cop' films I got drawn in to the characters who foil each other brilliantly but in the end the film relies too much on chase sequences as a crutch and I lost interest.<br /><br />The filmmakers did a great job of getting the characters alone and doing their own thing and we got to see who they are and identified with both cops early on. We formed our own opinion instead of being force fed a view of them through constant bickering.<br /><br />In the end there is too much going on and it detracts greatly from what could've been an enjoyable piece of escapism. Here's what's concerning Joe Gavilan (Harrison Ford) at the end of the film:<br /><br />1. His real estate deals 2. His affair with a radio psychic 3. He's being investigated by internal affairs 4. The homicide investigation<br /><br />If you add in Casey's concerns you fond out he wants to be an actor and avenge his father's death. Now some of these things do come together and even come together well but all the plot elements come together amidst this bogus chase that is so long and pathetic that I hardly have time to break my ennui and give a crap about what just happen. The impressive screenwriting acrobatics cannot overcome the bad filmmaking.<br /><br />As if a ridiculous chase sequence wasn't bad enough, one which has four separate sections and could last close to half an hour, wasn't bad enough, Joe Gavilan fields calls about his real estate deal while chasing the perpetrator with a gun. All these extra-curricular plot lines and jokes make it absolutely meaningless to me whether or not the criminal gets caught. We already forgot or no longer care about the murder plot at this point because multiple plot-lines and eye candy of the chases have numbed us beyond all comprehension.<br /><br />While I could go on about the chases and how they ruin a decent story, I won't. This could've been a very enjoyable formula film but it got much too big for its britches and it turned into a redundant waste of time. Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett actually did rather well and a small appearance by Gladys Knight is worth noting. Sadly none of the actors can help this hopelessly misguided film from being forgettable.<br /><br />While this will probably be better than the likes of 'The Hulk' and 'Lara Croft II' that still doesn't make this film good. I once heard that Harrison Ford claimed to only make films that eh thought would make money, I'm not sure if that's true or not. What is true is that to get great box office you don't need a great movie or a great actor, this film has neither in its lead roles. My advice to Harrison Ford would be: to stick to Indiana Jones because at least you can still run. | 1 |
'Convicts' is very much a third act sort of film. All the dialogue and character interaction that occurs within it comes out of the long wind-down of a late southern day. And, by extension, the life of its main character, Soll (Robert Duvall).<br /><br />This is the first collaboration of director Peter Masterson and writer Horton Foote. Six years earlier, the worked together on 'The Trip to Bountiful', a film that seems almost action-packed in comparison to this one. Masterson is not necessarily a good director. In fact, he's just barely this side of adequate. The slow pace leaves a lot of room for cinematographer Toyomichi Kurita, who infuses the film with just the right sense of fragile light & warmth.<br /><br />Because this is essentially a filmed play, with little in the way of editing or directing prowess, it all comes to the acting. As far as I'm concerned there's no flaws here. Robert Duvall and James Earl Jones, two of the best American actors (both born in January 1931), create characters that are wholly real, uninterested in anything besides living. Lukas Haas, a young actor who I was familiar with from 'Testament' and 'Witness', plays a character very much like his other early roles. He is quiet, withdrawn, slightly scared and sad, somehow. These are qualities that seem natural from him.<br /><br />Perhaps a title like 'Convicts' is a disservice to this film. That title, along with the opening scene, seem to create an image of a far more high-strung western type picture. If slow-paced stage productions don't interest you terribly, you'll want to pass on this one as well. Otherwise, this might be exactly the film you wish they made more often.<br /><br />Enjoy. | 0 |
I cannot believe I sat through this utter waste of time. I was just too fascinated by how unspeakably bad it was that I couldn't move. It reminded me of the feeling when you can't take your eyes away from a horrible car crash or the rotting carcass of a cow. You can't help but look, but you feel sick and nauseated afterward.<br /><br />Let me elaborate: 'Plan 9 from outer space', for instance, is not a bad movie. Not even 'Star Wars: Holiday Special' is a bad movie. They both are awful to watch, for sure, but they both have SOME qualities and at least they leave you the strength to reach for the 'off'-button.<br /><br />This 'remake' (in name only) of the sci-fi classic left me weeping on my couch, desperately trying to come to terms with why such scripts get filmed, why anyone would soil the memory of the original classic, and whether or not I could resume my normal life without my suddenly acquired longing for the quiet and peace of death.<br /><br />Although death, I realized, would offer no rest from the horrid memories of this pile of crap, as the poor souls in hell are probably forced to watch it over and over again for eternity... | 1 |
Noni Hazlehurst's tour-de-force performance (which won her an AFI award) is at least on par with her effort in FRAN three years later. Colin Friels is also good, and, for those who are interested, Alice Garner appears as Noni's child, and Michael Caton (best known for THE CASTLE) is a bearded painter. (Also interestingly, Hazlehurst is currently the host of lifestyle program BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS, and Caton is the host of property-type programs including HOT PROPERTY, HOT AUCTION, etc...) This film reaffirms the popularly-held belief that Noni was arguably Australia's top female actor during the early-to-mid 1980s. Rating: 79/100. | 0 |
The Oscar season has arrived so this means a slew of these deep, engaging, powerhouse ensemble films are all over the movie theaters in hopes of gaining an audience and having the opportunity to earn Best Picture in the big show. Among them is this film that is based off a very popular and well-acclaimed play. The original playwright was actually the writer and director of the film adaptation; which comes as a double-edged sword. On one hand, who better to translate the play than the original writer? On the other hand, who better to not see the mistakes and drawbacks of the play and fix upon them than the original writer himself? Doubt mixes excellent acting and plenty of tension and suspense; with a frustrating ending, unnecessary dialogue, questionable directing, and of course, the inability to provide substantial answers. It is a growing trend among these 'high-caliber' films to not answer all questions it provides, and this has to stop.<br /><br />Doubt is like a joke without its punch line, like a book with the final 20 pages missing, like losing reception while watching the fourth quarter of a hotly contested football game, and like not having the 50 cents to continue playing the arcade game and see what happens next. Doubt, just like the previous Best Picture frustrationfest No Country For Old Men, doesn't really end; it doesn't provide us with considerable answers nor does it deliver enough for us to figure out the ending. Yes, that was the intent, but this isn't a test of humanity, it's a cop-out. I do not pay money to see an unfinished work, I pay money to see a beginning, middle, and end, and pray that I don't fall asleep during the three acts. We are forced to become the 'writers' of the movie by filling in the blank ourselves as to what happened before and what will happen to the characters we saw screaming at each other.<br /><br />This little drama is about a nun (Meryl Streep) who seems very sure that the well-beloved priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is making sexual advances towards a child that goes to the church; the first African-American boy in the Catholic church. The church is secretly torn as to whether or not he really is committing heinous sins behind everyone's backs. The plot thickens as some of the kids begin behaving differently, which attracts the notice of a young teacher (Amy Adams). The story is set right after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which shook the nation for quite some time and questioned their faith in humanity and in each other.<br /><br />Doubt's strong points come in the acting ensemble and also the ever-engaging suspense that builds slowly and never boils over. Streep seems to be Oscar-worthy in every role she's in, and here she is no different as her sternness and cold-hearted behavior places a blanket of fear in all the students and with some of the staff in the church. Hoffman excels yet again as the priest, by successfully meshing suspicion with a charming personality and a friendly aura. The seemingly hypocritical personality is tough to pull off, especially when we are suppose to like him and also ponder about him at the same time; but Hoffman steps up to the plate against one of the best actresses of our generation and fantastically delivers. When these two argue, you can hear the fireworks fly without ever seeing one launched. But let's not forget Amy Adams (Enchanted) and Viola Davis (Law ad Order) for their superb job either. Doubt's casting ensemble is among the best in 2008.<br /><br />Yet, like previously stated it's the writing and directing that ruins this film, especially when dwindling down the third act. Questions pop up, but they aren't answered. Characters pop up, but provide no real enhancement towards the plot. Kids behave different, but we never truly find out why. There are awkward angles in the camera-work
and
there's no actual reason why. John Patrick Shanley, the writer of the play, had one previous film in his directing repertoire: Joe Versus the Volcano. Whether sheer arrogance or stupidity, we are stuck with seeing overdrawn sequences of random conversation, utter annoying chatter that bores to no end (There was a two minute discussion about coffee and how much sugar the priest wanted) thanks to Mr. Shanley.<br /><br />Bottom Line: The lack of an ending is a stupid trend that's just as irritating as the seizureific camera-work in action films. It doesn't matter that we have a great talented acting cast, or decent cinematography, or a good story being worked upon, or good usage of sound and music; because we have a barrage of unanswered questions that sprinkles all over a film that is over 100 minutes yet doesn't even finish! The translation from play to film is good and quite accurate, because we have the original madmen behind the projectbut he took the mistakes and stupid hiccups from the play to the film as well. This decade has seen its share of blockbuster and high-profile films that could have gotten a much higher score from me if they had just decided to add a few more minutes of footage and actually end: Sideways, Cast Away, No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading are a few examples.<br /><br />Newsflash: end your stinkin' movie. Please or at least provide a good amount of clues for us to easily fill in the blank (like Wall-E's depressing backstories), instead of staring into space as the credits suddenly start rolling and you are left with a feeling of emptiness, confusion, and mental anguish. Have a beginning, middle, and the end please!! As a critic, I prefer my films to be whole, not incomplete. Doubt feels incomplete, which is why it gets an incompetent grade.<br /><br />Someone has to break this stupid trend. | 1 |
'Panic in the Streets' is a fairly unknown little movie from director Elia Kazan and was made before his classic masterpieces such as 'A Streetcar Named Desire', 'On the Waterfront' and 'East of Eden'. Kazan already won an Oscar in 1947, before this movie, so he was not a completely unknown at the time. Still 'Panic in the Streets' is mostly a movie that passed under the radar.<br /><br />The great thing about this movie is the Oscar winning script. It has a very good concept and its excellent tense thriller material with a sniff of crime/film-noir elements. The dialog in this movie is also absolutely magnificent and gives the movie a feel of reality and credibility.<br /><br />The cast is fairly unknown (especially at the time it was released) but it still features Zero Mostel and Jack Palance in one of their first movie roles. Especially Palance impresses as the tough gangster boss, with a very powerful looking face.<br /><br />Still the movie drags a little at some points. The movie starts of very well but after the start the movie slows down and does not always makes the right decisions in terms of pace and the point of view the story is told from.<br /><br />Yet, 'Panic in the Streets' remains a perfectly watchable movie, mainly due to its solid script and powerful dialog that makes the movie a believable one to watch. For fans of the thriller genre this is a great movie to watch.<br /><br />8/10 | 0 |
After stabbing a retarded boy, the fifteen years old troubled and pessimist Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) is sent to a juvenile detention. His teacher and aspirant writer Pearl Madison (Don Cheadle) gets close and tries to understand him, first with intention of writing a book, and later becoming his friend. Leland slowly discloses his sad vision of world, showing that he is a sociopath.<br /><br />'The United States of Leland' is a depressive and interesting study of a character. The low paced riveting screenplay discloses pieces of the story like a puzzle; there are excellent lines and dialogs; the performances are great, although the twenty-three years old Ryan Gosling does not convince as a fifteen years old teenager; but it seems that a part is missing to complete the puzzle and make 'The United States of Leland' an unforgettable movie. The disappointing clarification of the 'why' for the violent action of Leland against Ryan Pollard is not convincing or touching, indeed shows that this character is a totally deranged sociopath with a weird and sick sight of world. Further, the way Allen Harris gets Pearl's knife is ridiculous. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'O Mundo de Leland' ('The World of Leland') | 0 |
This movie is a 90 minute Ramones concert with brief periods of stupidity and absolute boredom. What kind of high school is this anyway?<br /><br />Unless you are a major Ramones fan, DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT waste your time like I did. This is utterly unwatchable from start to finish. This movie should be called Ramone Fever. Everyone appears to like them in this movie. There is not a plot to be found in this flick. As far as teen comedies go, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one. | 1 |
Wow, not only is this film a 'new lesson in real bad taste,' but also a lesson in 'real bad film making.' Don't get me wrong, I appreciated the concept of 'Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence,' but at the same time one must realize when a movie is terrible. In case you missed out on the storyline, the plot of 'Zombie '90' is about a government plane carrying toxic chemicals that so happens to crash into the wilderness, causing the chemicals to spill, turning locals into hideous looking zombies. The next thing you know, zombies are all over the city eating people alive, while a goofy-looking doctor and a government agent are trying to figure out the disease that's making these people eat one another - hence the name 'Extreme Pestilence.' From then on, all we see is zombies having a field day on every local in sight - nothing but extreme and sickening disembowelments and dismemberments accompanied by endless buckets of guts and gore. Since this is a German film, the film had to be dubbed into English and when you're not laughing at the feeding frenzies of the zombies, the voice-overs are quite hilarious and entertaining as well. As user UnratedX mentioned *SPOILER* *SPOILER* *SPOILER*, there is a scene in the film that crosses the line between what's acceptable and not acceptable, hence the scene in which a woman, who is carrying her infant baby, is being wheeled around in her wheelchair by some dude and a horde of zombies come out of nowhere and attack them. One zombie grabs the baby and rips it into pieces, eating its organs as you hear the baby crying. Wow, that is a new lesson in REALLLLLLLLLY bad taste. Atrocious I tell you, atrocious. | 1 |
The Color Purple is a masterpiece. It displays the amazing acting abilities of Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey, and Danny Glover. Not only is Steven Spielberg the most incredible director of all time but his versatility shines through in this film. If you ever want to see what a movie can do watch this. It's a beautiful portrayal of one of the most moving stories of all time! | 0 |
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Thank God I saw it for free. I would have hated to waste my money on it.<br /><br />First off, there isn't a character in the movie that is in any way likable. Michael Caine comes close, but even he is pretty flawed. The rest of the 'commandos' are made up of disgusting ex-cons. There are the two gay Arabs, and three guys who try to rape a red cross nurse, and the 'leader' who has no trouble sending his men off to get killed so he can escape.<br /><br />The 'mission' is anything from suspenseful. They are to blow up a fuel dump. Sounds exciting, right? Well, the footage follows them through endless sandstorms and fixing flat tires. Yes, you read that right. The 'suspense' is whether they will run out of spare tires. We actually WATCH them change something like 12 flats on the way. That's how incredibly exciting this movie is.<br /><br />They get to the fuel dump to find that it is a decoy. So, nothing to blow up. And at this time, for some very convoluted reason, the British army decides that they don't need these guys anymore, and radios their whereabouts to the Germans to kill them.<br /><br />So, now at least we'll have an exciting race to freedom? Nope, instead, they decide to blow up a different fuel dump, to create a diversion. But, when they get into the place, they set off a trip wire, and the Germans come to get them -- calling out their names over a loudspeaker.<br /><br />Really weird. If the Germans knew where they were and where they were going, why did they let them get all the way into the dump before springing the 'trap?' Instead, they wait until they get into the fuel depot, and set all of their charges. Yeah. Right. That would happen.<br /><br />So, they blow the dump, the leader sells out all of his men -- except for Michael Caine, since he's been offered $2000 to bring him back alive.<br /><br />OK... so, the men are all betrayed and killed, and Michael Caine and Nigel Davenport survive. The British troops come in with tanks, and they decide to go get rescued. Since they are wearing German uniforms (they wore them to blow up the dump) they tie a white flag around a stick and walk out into the road.<br /><br />Some British guy walks up behinds them and machine guns them to death. Credits roll.<br /><br />Yep. The two 'Heroes' of the movie die due to a random act of violence.<br /><br />It's almost like the movie suddenly ran out of budget and decided: 'That's a wrap. Kill them off and we'll go home.' I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this tired, unimaginative and totally unrealistic movie that ended with a gracefulness of a bomb. | 1 |
The year 1995, when so many people talked about the great premiere of BRAVEHEART by Mel Gibson, also saw another very fine, yet underrated movie on Scottish history, ROB ROY. Although it is a very different film, especially due to the historical period the story is set in, ROB ROY has much in common not only with marvelous BRAVEHEART but also with the very spirit of epic movies.<br /><br />It is a film that discusses similar themes, like fight for dignity, courage, honor, revenge, family being a key to happiness. It also leads us to the very bliss of Scottish highlands where the human soul finds its rest being surrounded by all grandeur of nature. Robert Roy MacGregor (Liam Neeson), the main character is a true hero (so universal in epics), sort of 'Scottish Robin Hood' who struggles to lead his people out of oppression imposed by cold hearted lords. Although he worsens his situation through the acts, has to suffer a lot, two things stay in his mind undeniably: HONOR that he is given by himself and LOVE to his woman, Mary MacGregor (Jessica Lange). That leads him to unexpected events...<br /><br />Except for the interesting content and quite vivid action, the movie is filled with truly stunning visuals. This factor has to do both with the sets and locations of the film as well as the wardrobe. Many memorable moments stay in the mind of any viewer who can allow themselves an insight into artistic images. For me, the most splendid scene was in the Highlands when Rob Roy tells his boys what honor really means. Then, he sends them away and beautifully makes love to his woman. The scene he escapes Marguis of Montrose (John Hurt) to the waterfall is also worth a look as a stunning visual. <br /><br />Of course, there is some graphic violence, like in the duel for instance, but I don't think that this violence would be as harmful as in many other modern films. Its justification is like any other epic's: bloodshed and cruelty of those times were really serious and there would be no point in hiding it. The most disturbing scene, for me, was the rape done on Rob Roy's wife by the villain of the story: Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth). It's truly disgusting and kids should definitely stay away. However, all the rest is O.K. Yet, there is one aspect that made me really love this movie, the performances.<br /><br />All the cast do perfect jobs, from the leading Lian Neeson who fits very well to the role of tall, brave, strong Scottish man to the supporting cast of Brian Cox who portrays wicked Killearn, a silent witness of terrible acts who feels comfortable with the evil of war. Jessica Lange is very fine as Mary MacGregor and has some of the most beautiful moments in the film. There is chemistry between Ms Lange and Mr Neeson in many of their scenes. John Hurt, one of the best British actors, does a terrific job as Marguis of Montrose, a corrupted man for whom money is the aim in itself achieved by any means. I like that calmness of his portrayal. But the real villain is played by Tim Roth who truly depicts wretched side of his character, Archibald - a man who mocks love, who loves war and who finds true lust in rape and slaughter. But, like in any good epic, this exceptional evil must find its end...<br /><br />And one more aspect: the musical score: such memorable and sentimental tunes that are bound to sound in the ears for long. The final moment touched me to tears not only because of the beauty it conveys but because I deeply combined these blissful tunes with the grandeur of locations. Scotland remains in the heart of its visitor and this movie reminded me of that permanent effect. It was, as if, my second journey to Scotland.<br /><br />ROB ROY is a very nice movie, very well directed, photographed and acted. It perhaps does not equal BRAVEHEART with its spectacular sets and crowds of extras in battle scenes, but it is a fairly long film with much attention placed on one very significant feature a cinema should have: stunning entertainment combined with heartfelt education. I really enjoyed that film, do not hesitate to call it metaphorically 'highlands of entertainment' and rate it 9/10 | 0 |
This is a terrible remake of a marginal, but well liked, movie from the early 70's. I have seen the original at least 6 times. The 1997 version is a 20 minute movie 'crammed' into 2 hours or whatever the runtime is. Cheesy storyline, which by the way, is completely different than the original. The major government involvement was far-fetched. There is no flow from one scene to the next. In the original you could go get a beer or hit the bathroom and still keep up. <br /><br />It only took a few hours movie time to change the oil pan on the car. It takes many times longer than that in real life. Car guys notice this stuff. Also, the fool or fools that chose to trash a 1968 Charger and abuse a 1970 Challenger should be shot in the heel with a dull bullet. The fact they aren't 'car people' is painfully obvious, and their passing will not be grieved. <br /><br />The actors lacked any emotion, everything was cut and dried. One step above a monotone. A barmitzvah is more exciting and energetic.<br /><br />Last but surely not least, the radio DJ made the statement that the Challenger hit the bulldozers at 180 or 185 (??). That is total garbage. Can you say aerodynamics, or lack thereof?? Hahahaha!! This movie is a joke. Don't waste your time watching this one. | 1 |
Incredible. Does it get any dumber than this? Not a chance. The stupidity in this movie would shame even Ed Wood, De Palma, and Woo. If the first part in the series had mediocre dialog and the second one had bad dialog, then this one has cretinous dialog. Amazing. But this time the story has been lowered to the level of the dialog, too. In spite of the acting and the dialog, I liked the first two films, but 'Cube Zero' will surely kill the franchise. The utterly moronic plot so obviously stems from the pen of a frustrated left-winger.<br /><br />I sometimes wonder if such leftists even themselves realize just how anti-democracy and pro-dictatorship they are. In this movie they obviously target the US a democracy. Why don't they target Korea, Iran, Syria, China, Zimbabwe etc. in anti-military movies? Sure, most of these places are hardly likely to produce a cube like this any time soon, but that's beside the point. It's obvious: writers of garbage like this actually admire these kinds of regimes, whether they are aware of it or not. I would even go as far as to say that ANYONE who adamantly attacks US foreign policies all the time, has anti-democratic beliefs in his core.<br /><br />Back to the movie: apart from being so far-fetched that it isn't even funny any more, the film has many obvious illogicalities. For example, for some reason the two men who supervise the cube have done it for a while and are oblivious to the pain and sadism that the project entails, yet the first one than the other suddenly turn against the system! Anyone who has any idea at all about human nature will see right through this idiocy. Or how about that cretinous character, the one-eyed evil bureaucrat who talks as if he's in a bad Mel Brooks comedy. In fact, as soon as this creature appears the movie loses ALL seriousness and hence any chance of being exciting: it really does become a comedy. | 1 |
This movie for what it is, may be one of the most amazing indie films of recent day. Made on a super small budget, the film has special effects that blow away alot of the current films! IF you have a chance watch it! | 0 |
In this little film we have some great characters but a very shallow plot. It is actually nice to watch because Singleton does a great job at presenting the esoteric conflicts and the interpersonal relationships. This makes the viewer forget the nonexistent realism that this movie supposedly is for. In fact what we have here is all the possible cliches and stereotypes put on celluloid in a rate higher than that of a soap. Definitely not a deep movie (even if it wants to be), but better than an average college movie. | 0 |
In the real world of art Elizabeth Wurtzel is the sexy drama queen every guy wants to do, but no guy wants to wake up next to. Her on-screen portrayer, Christina Ricci, is the ugly artsy wannabe girl that desperately wants every and any guy, but no guy will touch her. That's why, in Prozac Nation, the unreleased 2001 film of Wurtzel's 1990s bestseller book of the same name, there are immediate problems. OK, the problems start before the miscast of Ricci, who has the emotional range of a thimble- is it any wonder that, by far, her finest acting was in the two Addams Family films? First off, she is bizarre looking- with big eyes and a bulging forehead, making her look like the fetal Starchild from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Secondly, she always plays whiney brats. But, thirdly, is the way films try to make it appear any guy would be attracted to her. In one scene in the film her pal Ruby (Michelle Williams) and Liz walk through Harvard, and all the guys' tongues are wagging at Ricci, not the super-cute and sexy Williams. Hello
.Reality check time
. This material begged for the Andy Warhol treatment. Here is his version of the film. A five minute shot of a hypodermic needle. A five minute shot of Wurtzel's hairy pudenda. A five minute shot of her sleeping naked and stoned on the bed. She rises, gives the middle finger to the audience. Cue credits. See, less than twenty minutes to distill Wurtzel's whole life. And, oh yeah, Warhol's film would not have cast Ricci. Even Michelle Williams would have been better, and after seeing Ricci's pallid bosom, I'd take anything Williams or any other babe had to offer me cinematically. Ricci is almost the kiss of death for a film, and how she stays working is a mystery. Think of her performances in mediocre to bad films like Monster, Sleepy Hollow, and Woody Allen's Anything Else- also co-starring Jason Biggs, and now picture another actress in her role, and immediately the films could seem better, if not great. She is the female counterpart to banal, wooden, milquetoast actors like Tom Cruise and Leonardo Dicaprio. | 1 |
This is a thriller with a good concept, good acting, good photography and good intentions all around, but which is confused and disjointed in execution.<br /><br />Garcia stars as John Berlin, an L.A. forensic detective who has moved to a small California town at the behest of a friend of his on the force there. He soon becomes involved in the investigation of an unsolved murder which leads to his theorizing about the existence of a serial killer whom no one else believes in. The known victim is theorized to be blind, which leads to a romance with a blind girl - believed to be a witness - at a nearby school for the blind.<br /><br />Despite a basically intriguing story there were too many quantum leaps and plot holes in this movie where I found myself wondering, 'how the hell did we wind up here?' or 'how did we find this out?' I found it confusing and disjointed, despite the good acting, etc. John Malkovich has a small part toward the end as an F.B.I. investigator out to get Berlin.<br /><br />Not recommended. | 1 |
This show was a landmark in American comedy as it was the first sitcom to star an all Afro-American cast. Sadly though it was never broad-casted on British TV.<br /><br />The Evans family are a poor Afro-American family living in a tower block. The Dad is called James, he tries to run the house, but his wife Florida always gets the better of him. The three children are the artistic JJ, the moody Thelma and the young intellectual child Michael. Always coming into the house is Florida's gossipy friend Willona.<br /><br />I watched two episodes of this show on youtube (Black Jesus and Sex and the Evans Family- the only two on the site). You may be thinking why has an English viewer watched a series that has never been shown or hardly heard of in his country. The answer is this. In 1976, Britains first all black sitcom came out called 'The Fosters' Only two series were made and it now seems forgotten. But I watched an episode and was really impressed. Then I learnt that the scripts were identical to 'Good Times'. They were exactly the same characters but with different names- Sam Foster was the Dad, his wife was Pearl Foster and the three children were Sonny (a young Lenny Henry), Shirley and Benjamin. Pearl's gossipy friend was Vilma. (To read about The Fosters, I have wrote a review about that). Whilst watching 'Good Times' only two things annoyed me. First off was the opening theme tune (awful) and secondly was the audience laughter. I like audience laughter, but in this somebody would say a slightly funny line and the audience would go mad and start clapping. Apart from that it was a very funny show. Let's hope more episodes turn up on youtube and lets hope that someone will release 'The Fosters' on DVD in England.<br /><br />Best Episode: Sex and the Evans family- Series 1 episode 6. The Foster's episode of it was called Sex in the Black Community. The other episode I saw, Black Jesus was a title of one episode of 'The Fosters' | 0 |
Sweeping drama with great sets, costumes and performances though some folks are channeling Rhett, Scarlett, Melanie and even Lady Macbeth. Patrick Swayze and James Read are excellent as two men trying to maintain a friendship despite the ties of family and location. Splendid villains you'll want them all to come to a very bad end. Lots of strong female characters in this one both good and bad. Secondary story lines also are well developed. Several cameos by major stars of past eras. Good representation of history and conflicts for those caught between friendship and politics. <br /><br />Curl up on a rainy day with your DVD or VHS player and drink of choice with this one. A lap rug and a cat would be optional. | 0 |
A very disappointing film from Oliver Stone which, unlike his recent epic 'J.F.K.', fails to stimulate any sort of real emotion. 'Talk Radio' is about talk-back host 'Barry Champlain', a very loud, opinionated man who manages to upset a lot of people and yet still draw an audience, most of whom mind you just want to ring up and abuse him. His boss in the movie (Alec Baldwin) sums up his character very well by saying he's just a shoe salesman with a big mouth. And as Barry (Eric Bogosian) gets death threat upon death threat, the final outcome is almost inevitable.<br /><br />This is the sort of movie that usually has something very powerful to say. However, 'Talk Radio' fails to make a serious comment and remains a frustrating, pointless film.<br /><br />Thursday, September 17, 1992 - Video | 1 |
DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE IF YOU LOVED THE CLASSICS SUCH AS TOM WOPAT, JOHN SCHNEIDER, CATHERINE BACH, SORRELL BOOKE, JAMES BEST, DENVER PYLE, SONNY SHROYER, AND BEN JONES! THIS MOVIE WILL DISSAPPOINT YOU BADLY! First of all, this movie starts out with Bo and Luke running moonshine for Jesse. Bo and Luke would not do that ever on the real series! This movie portrays unimaginable characters doing things that never would have happened in the series. In the series, Uncle Jesse was honest, and law-abiding. In this movie, he is a criminal who is making moonshine and smoking weed with the governor of Georgia. Plus, if this was an extension adding on to the Dukes of Hazzard Reunion! and the Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood, I have one question: HOW COULD UNCLE JESSE BE MAKING MOONSHINE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE DUKES OF HAZZARD IN Hollywood MOVIE? AND HOW IS BOSS HOGG ALIVE WHEN HE DIED BEFORE THE REUNION MOVIE IN 1997! MOVIE AND ROSCO RAN HAZZARD? IT SEEMS MAGICAL THAT THESE CHARACTERS CAME BACK TO LIFE, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN DEAD FOR 11 AND 8 YEARS? If Hollywood really wanted to make a good movie, they should have brought back James Best, John Schneider, Tom Wopat, Ben Jones, and Catherine Bach like they did in 1997 and 2000 and made a family friendly movie with the living original characters that made the show what it was and still is compared to this disgusting, disgraced movie! If you want to see good Dukes movies, either buy the original series, or go out to walmart.com and buy the DVD set of 2 that includes the Reunion, and Dukes of Hazzard in Hollywood movies! They both star the original cast, and are family friendly! Don't waste your time on a movie that isn't worth the CD it's written on! | 1 |
This movie was the worst i've ever seen.<br /><br />It doesn't seem to have a plot but the time you realize this is far beyond the beginning of the movie so you have to watch the shut for a long time to recognize the total incompetence of the director, aka the sloth that plays the tampon chick in the movie, and we do not believe the Willem Dafoe in this movie, he's a clone, because the real Dafoe, like we know from 'apocalypse now' and 'the boon dock saints', would never agreed to such a script.<br /><br />Duh, (Da)foe wrote this bill shut together with his twenty years minus baby. This movie starts with the credits of the two main characters, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the two script writers, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the director, Colagrande.<br /><br />Bottomline (the story); Widow meets guy, guy bangs widow, widow smashes windscreen with guy who banged her.<br /><br />Title in Netherlands; The black widow (different title, same bullshit).<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! It's a total waist of time!!! | 1 |
Robert Duvall is a direct descendent of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, according the IMDb.com movie database. After seeing this film, you may think Duvall's appearance is reincarnation at it's best. One of my most favorite films. I wish the composer, Peter Rodgers Melnick had a CD or there was a soundtrack available. Wonderful scenery and music and 'all too-true-to-life,' especially for those of us that live in, or have moved to, the South. This is a 'real moment in time.' Life moves on, slowly, but 'strangers we do not remain.' | 0 |
Wow, this film was just bloody horrid. SO bad in fact that even though I didn't pay to see it, I still wanted my money back.<br /><br />The film is about nothing intelligible. It's a mish-mash of sci-fi cliche's that were done better by much more skilled film makers. The performances, especially by the leads were over the top in a less endearing Ed Wood sort of way. Speaking of Ed Wood, he'd be proud of the character's dialogue. It's just too taciturn with no hint of irony or sense of humor. On top of that, it doesn't make sense, nor does the plot, or lackthereof.<br /><br />The visual effects are okay, but not enough to go 'oh wow, that's cool' and they just seem to be thrown in to 'be cool' rather than be a good plot device.<br /><br />The soundtrack was another mishmash of stuff that really never set any sort of mood. Again, it seemed as if the director was just throwing in songs in the film in an effort to 'be cool'.<br /><br />Which brings me to my final point. Perhaps if the director actually worried more about plot, story and dialogue instead of trying to 'be cool', he wouldn't have made such a dorky cliche' of a short film.<br /><br /> | 1 |
Absolutely fantastic trash....this one has it all: nudity, good fight scenes, gore, action, explosions etc. It also stars the wonderful Belinda Mayne as Ingrid - not Olga as the other reviewer pointed out - although Olga turns into Ingrid later on in the film (you'll have to watch it to see what I mean).<br /><br />I won't bother to go into the story as it's far too long winded and not very interesting. The relationship between Ingrid and her brother Bo (Robert Ginty) is interesting - watch the towel stealing scene to see what I mean.<br /><br />The fight scenes were at once quite good and then spoilt by some really shoddy gore effects that looked like they were done by the team who did City of the Walking Dead (i.e. strange coloured blood gushing out of neck wounds).<br /><br />I'd advise fans of low budget trash to check it out if they can track down a copy - its pretty rare though and I couldn't ever see anyone bothering to re-release it so it'll become all the rarer in a few years.<br /><br />Anyway I'd recommend it solely for Belinda Mayne's great nude scenes! That lady's a fox! | 0 |
This could have been a very good film, if I had been able to watch it. The hand held camera was very bouncy. From the opening credits I was worried. Several of us watching it felt very nauseous by the end. But we did stay until the end because it was such a charming and interesting film, giving some insight to the young pop culture in South Africa. The black and white film did enhance the artful feeling of it. The acting seemed very authentic. Some of the dialog was a little hard to understand, but a theater full of non-South Africans seemed to find most of it funny. If you get motion sickness at all though, you may seriously consider skipping this film. It's quaint, but not worth the nausea. | 1 |
I just watched this movie today and not only is it, terrible and awful but it looks like the director just got a few friends together to make a movie about a sick man. I also think that this movie has the look of a porn video with it's clear crisp just filmed view.<br /><br />Thank heavens I work in a video store and I didn't have to pay for it cause this movie is crap x infinity..DO NOT BUY OR RENT THIS MOVIE!!!!! You'd have a better time watching Dude Where's My Car than this piece of crap! And that's not saying a lot for that movie either.<br /><br />The acting is lousy and the movie is just very unwatchable. I was watching this movie and I wanted to kill myself during and after the movie.<br /><br />I walked home and threw up after watching this piece of dirt movie, I then took a shower and burnt my clothes. <br /><br />If I had half a mind I would of took the movie outside and burned it too cause no one should be subjected to it...well maybe members of Al Queda..especially the ones we have in custody and also child rapists who are in prison on life sentences with out parole....just make a set up like a clock work Orange, And then force these cheese head to watch it over and over again. | 1 |
Another episode from childhood that, as an adult, I look back on with a different perspective. This was one of my favorite childhood episodes, one that really cemented my adoration of this show. However, on viewing this episode after 20 years, I'd say it is definitely one of the lighter ones, played for laughs and amusement, instead of the dramatic and well-constructed story lines in previous episodes in this, their first and best season. Perhaps this episode was written for a little fan R&R too! As Mr. Spock would say, the story just isn't logical but there are some amusing lines like, of course, Mr. Spock's final one at the end--when he asks the Captain, McCoy et al whether they enjoyed their R&R and they answer in the affirmative, he raises an eyebrow and says 'Fascinating...' in only the way Mr. Spock could do that. An interesting story line, of course, the idea of an amusement park being actually amusing (instead of the fake and often annoying 'amusement' of Disneyland, for example), being able to have one's wishes actually come true. Really, a great idea but not that well executed. And coming from Theodore Sturgeon, another of the great SF short story writers they used in the first season, one wonders how much tinkering was done to the script that Sturgeon turned in.<br /><br />Now, here is a little trivia I learned on this very site: In 1987, James Gunn established the Theodore Sturgeon Award for best short science fiction story. And I'll quote the rest from this site: In 1968 he {Sturgeon} wrote 'The Joy Machine', a third script for the Star Trek TV series {Amok Time the other}, that was never shot. The main reason that it wasn't used in the series is that it contained expensive special effects sequences that would be too much for their budget. However, the script was adapted into a book by Sci-Fi writer James Gunn (Star Trek #80, The Original Series) and published by Pocket Books in 1996.<br /><br />I'd sum this up to say this episode is still very enjoyable, especially if one doesn't think too much about it. Just laugh and enjoy it and next episode we can get back to the serious stuff of protecting the universe. | 0 |
I turned this off about 50 minutes into it! Whoever the moron was who decided to steal the idea of Koushun Takami's book(Battle Royal), & make it into a pathetic reality TV show scenario, deserves to be shot!<br /><br />It has done the Film Industry a good turn though. Now Directors like William Malone(Fear Dot Com) can say 'well at least it's better than Series 7' This piece of crap & Dracula 3000 tie for first place in the worst 100 movies ever made! <br /><br />Be warned this is not a 'So bad it's Good'Flick!<br /><br />This is a disgrace to Film Makers everywhere! <br /><br />Never see this movie! | 1 |
Sure Star Wars (a movie I have seen at least fifty times) beats all the others in special effects, but this film has every thing else!<br /><br />It has horror(non-graphical), romance, robots, witty repartee, intelligence, (surprisingly good) special effects, and drama.<br /><br />I saw this film a couple of years ago in a revival with a newly struck print, and I was amazed at how well it held up today. I thought the old 40's style electronics would look hokey, but they somehow looked futuristic and moderne.<br /><br />Ann Francis in here (mostly) short skirts and bare feet with a girlish innocence that is hard to beat still gets a rise out of me.<br /><br />The Krell monster appearing in the ray beams still scares the bejebees out of me.<br /><br />Of course we all know that the 'Great Bird of the Galaxy' probably modeled much of 'Star Trek' from this movie.<br /><br />No one has yet to beat Robby, the Robot, in terms of personality<br /><br />(sorry, R2D2 and C3PO).<br /><br />This movie, overall, is the standard that all other Science Fiction films will have to measure up to!<br /><br />Honorable mention for the haunting electronic score which kept us all on pins and needles. | 0 |
The movie opens with a flashback to Doddsville County High School on April Fool's Day. A group of students play a prank on class nerd Marty. When they are punished for playing said prank, they follow up with a bigger prank which (par for the course in slasher films involving pranks on class nerds) goes ridiculously awry leaving Marty simultaneously burned by fire and disfigured by acid for the sake of being thorough. Fast forward five years, where we find members of the student body gathering at the now abandoned high school for their five year class reunion. We find out that it is no coincidence that everyone at the reunion belonged to the clique of pranksters from the flashback scene, as all of the attendees are being stalked and killed by a mysterious, jester mask-clad murderer in increasingly complicated and mind-numbingly ludicrous fashions. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery of the killer's identity, as it is revealed to be none other than a scarred Marty who has seemingly been using his nerd rage and high intellect to bend the laws of physics and engineering in order to rig the school for his revenge scenario. The film takes a turn for the bizarre as Marty finishes exacting his revenge on his former tormentors, only to be haunted by their ghosts. Marty is finally pushed fully over the edge and takes his own life. Finally, the film explodes in a crescendo of disjointed weirdness as the whole revenge scenario is revealed to be a dream in the first place as Marty wakes up in a hospital bed, breaks free of his restraints, stabs a nurse, and finally disfigures his own face.<br /><br />The script is tired and suffers from a terminal case of horror movie logic. The only originality comes from the mind-numbingly convoluted ways that the victims are dispatched. The absurd it-was-all-a-dream ending feels tacked on. It's almost as if someone pointed out the disjointed nature of the film and the writer decided then and there that it was a dream.<br /><br />Technically speaking, the film is atrocious. Some scenes were filmed so dark that I had to pause the film and play with the color on my television. The acting is sub-par, even for slasher films. I can't help but think that casting was a part of the problem as all of the actors look at least five years older than the characters they portray, which makes the flashback scene even more unintentionally laughable. Their lack of commitment to the movie is made obvious as half of them can't bother to keep their accents straight through the movie.<br /><br />All of this being said, if you like bad horror movies, you might like this one, too. It isn't the worst film of the genre, but it's far from the best. | 1 |
Offbeat, slow-paced, entertaining erotic thriller with many graphic and 'blasphemous' scenes that will undoubtedly disturb some viewers. However, it'll be hard even for them not to appreciate the several imaginative sequences this film contains, or to ignore Krabbe's first-rate performance. Verhoeven maintains an intriguing ambivalence throughout the film, playing with the meaning of the hero's visions-omens. Unfortunately, in the last 5 minutes everything turns into a blur, and the unsatisfying ending is certainly not as good as the rest of the movie. (***) | 0 |
After World War II the ungoing crime in Phenix City, Alabama, encouraged by the money from an Army base just across the river in Georgia, got even worse. Gambling, prostitution, loan sharking, and the like helped an organized crime apparatus in the city. Soon it was too bad and violent to even tolerate anymore. This movie is based on the real story of that fight.<br /><br />By the standards of the 1950's it was shockingly explicit. Although low-budget, that same small budget helped with the realism requiring location shooting. A very gritty film. Richard Kiley was marvelous as always, and John McIntire stolid.<br /><br />Why this good movie isn't on video is a real puzzle! | 0 |
Back in 1983, Michael Jackson's popularity was such that if he wanted to make a $1 million horror music video with the 'American Werewolf' team and featuring the voice of Vincent Price, then that was exactly what he was going to do. And never has a music video created such a sensation, before or since ... when it was released on VHS, this 13-minute short became the world's largest selling musical of all time. But odds are you already know all about it, as whenever there's a list of the greatest music videos of all time, this one almost invariably takes the top spot.<br /><br />It begins with Michael Jackson walking down a dark street with his date after their car has broken down. He explains to her that he's 'not like other men' (damn right), and then the full moon appears from behind the clouds. His girlfriend stands there and screams, and screams, and then screams some more, during a lavish transformation sequence as Michael Jackson becomes a werewolf. He chases her through the forest, catches her and we ... cut to a movie theatre. Ah, all of this is just occurring in a horror movie that Michael Jackson and his date are watching.<br /><br />So, we're five minutes in and still no sign of the song 'Thriller'. Extravagant, much? Anyway, you must know how it goes from here ... dancing, singing ... graveyard ... Vincent Price ... zombies ... 'What's the Problem?' ... then end credits. End credits for a friggin' music video. 'Thriller' isn't one of Michael Jackon's most memorable songs, but even by today's standards it sure is a bitch of a visual experience. If you still haven't seen it in it's entirety, then you definitely should someday soon. | 0 |
Normally I don't like series at all. They're all to predictable and they tend to become boring and dull very fast.<br /><br />These series however, are well played, the story follows through all episodes and even if you miss one, the story will still be catching your mind.<br /><br />The episodes are all filmed on a hospital and takes you further and further in to the mysteries of dark and old secrets that lies just beneath the surface of the mighty hospital. | 0 |
One of the movies i just DIDN'T want to see. I got it in the sneak-preview, but damn, the acting was very bad! At the end of the movie (i still am surprised i watched the whole movie..) i wondered why i watched the movie.<br /><br />Also here in the netherlands, the writer of this movie (it's filmed from a book of Giphart) thought it was very bad, and was disappointed that his movie came out like this. Next time he wants a role in choosing people for the cast. | 1 |
When I watched this movie when I was a kid I didn't understand the premise of Hitchcock movies, and dark comedy. Now that I'm in my mid 20's it makes a lot more sense.<br /><br />I think the reason I like this movie so much is that the comedy duo of Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito make for some interesting comedy, both slapstick (the frying pan and car scenes) and verbal (the arguments/conversations over murder and writing).<br /><br />The story revolves around Larry Donner(Crystal), a struggling writer who has his masterpiece stolen from him by his wife Margaret (played by a surprisingly radiant Kate Mulgrew, aka Capt. Janeway from Star Trek: Voyager).<br /><br />While he shifts between writer's block and teaching creative writing class, he meets with student Owen Lifts(DeVito), an aspiring writer and overgrown mama's boy who sadly still acts like a kid. He has toy train tracks, need I say more? Think of Failure to Launch, only Matt McConaughey is short, fat, and bald.<br /><br />Owen is stuck in his own life, with a demanding evil mother(Anne Ramsey) who he can't stand. He seeks Larry's advice on how to get out of it, and when he says to go see a Hitchcock film Owen gets the wrong idea that if he kills Larry's wife, he'll return the favor and kill his mom for him. Hilarity ensues while the two try to deal with each other's problem. Owen goes to extremes to kill Margaret while Larry, who refuses to agree to do his 'part of the plan', is driven nuts by Owen's mother.<br /><br />Throughout the film, Larry and Owen slowly but surely form a bond of friendship that is rare in dark comedy nowadays. One part of the movie I really loved was where Owen shows Larry his coin collection, and lets just say its more a sentimental collection than anything.<br /><br />The two main stars aside, the late Anne Ramsey is hilarious as Mama, and deadly with that cane of hers. She's a lot more comedic verbally and physically in this as opposed to her role as Mama Fratelli from The Goonies. So she curses like a sailor and belittles her son at every turn, but thats what makes her character so vivid. She makes her character the kind of person you love to hate.<br /><br />Another treat in this movie is the music of jazz great Brandford Marsalis, who plays Larry's neighbor and friend Lester. There is a great moment in the movie where he plays jazz for Larry, who is depressed and needs some good tunes to relieve the pain. Jazz can do that.<br /><br />In closing, I wish Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito would do another good movie together, but their kinda getting too old for the game I'm sad to say. This is one of those rare movies where both stars shine in their own subtle ways. DeVito's childish comedy and Crystal's sharp wit made this movie for me. 5 star comedy. | 0 |
I just saw this at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco and had trouble staying awake during this incredibly repetitive, unenlightening little film. It is a 75 minutes film that felt like 175 minutes and has about 20 minutes of modestly engaging material. It's not bad in any offensive way, it just repeats things that have been said many, many times over and more interestingly and provocatively. With only a couple of exceptions, the interviews drone on and on and on, making little emotional contact or context to the whole topic. It's more like a 'how to' guide for something that can't be done anymore. I was alive during the era but felt little connection or nostalgia for what was presented. | 1 |
I've got a question for those who thought of this idea. Why? What made them think to make a second movie of this. If memory serves, didn't Cinderella end with 'They all lived happily ever after'? I'm pretty sure it did, or it was implied. Wait a minute, if they all lived happily ever after, how could there be a sequel? Unless they were trying to make the most boring story in history, there couldn't be a sequel. I mean sure, they could have Cinderella singing about nonsense for two hours, but why? A movie that ends in 'happily ever after' can not have a sequel; if it does then they don't live happily ever after! Something's got to go wrong which causes problems with the first ending! Why? That's not right, it's evil. That's my final word on the matter. | 1 |
The movie is absolutely silly.<br /><br />But were you expecting a high-brow intellectual film based on a comic called Slam Dunk? Really? Jay Chou's acting isn't exactly the most moving thing I've ever seen, but I certainly enjoyed the movie. Was it somewhere near the level of awesome that someone like Jet Li or Stephen Chow can produce? No, not really. Was it thoroughly entertaining if you're just taking it at surface value? Absolutely. It's a movie about some Chinese eye-candy idols and musicians who can play basketball at an unreal level of expertise. There's an evil Triad-style dude and a wacky scheming guy who gets Jay Chou involved in all of this. A love interest. It's formulaic but really, suspend disbelief for a while. Come on. It's called Kung Fu Dunk. What do you really think you signed on for? Do yourself a favor if you watch it - I found myself a copy with some Engrish subtitles that made the movie nigh unintelligible conversation wise, but we got a great laugh out of it. They would appear to be extremely fixated on Jerusalem and the numbers 1, 10.<br /><br />I laughed, I cried, I hurled. I'd watch it again.<br /><br />Especially for that fight scene in the bar. Well choreographed and well shot. I especially enjoy the plexiglass lit pool table - I'd LOVE to play on one of those.<br /><br />Slick enough for me, but I dig on trash cinema. | 0 |
...a good script or director couldn't fix.<br /><br />The original 'Poseidon Adventure' was a story of human courage triumphing against terrific odds and personal tragedy. The survivors were led by a charismatic figure of great spiritual strength who would take anything God threw at him.<br /><br />The follow-up tries to recreate the mix but fails through a formulaic script and pedestrian direction. Irwin Allen may have been a great producer of disaster flicks, and done a fine job directing the action scenes in 'Towering Inferno', but he just can't bring any human depth to his characters. If the characters aren't credible any danger they face also falls flat.<br /><br />The script also tries to copy the original too obviously. So we have Peter Boyle doing the Ernest Borgnine thing by being tough and obnoxious (but he has a tender heart); Karl Malden is the Red Buttons moderating influence (and is terminally ill for good measure); Slim Pickens does the comic relief for Shelley Winters, and so on.<br /><br />To make the story more contemporary we have a rogue arms dealer ready to flog weapons-grade plutonium to the highest bidder. A really nasty piece of work who ruthlessly abandons wounded men (the actors playing his henchmen were presumably paid as extras because they don't seem to have any lines) and has a woman shot in the back - what a cad! Thank goodness the French rescue services made the hole in the Poseidon's hull twice as large as in 1972 (and on the other side of the propeller shaft) so he could he get his goods out. And while we're on the subject, how did they get the crates *to* the... oh, forget it.<br /><br />I actually paid good money to see this when it was released. Given the film's current reputation this may seem odd, but it actually got quite mixed reviews at the time. Some said it was junk, some said it was as exciting as the original. Never mind, nobody can be right all the time. | 1 |
This is by far the worst non-English horror movie I've ever seen. The acting is wooden, the dialogues are simply stupid and the story is totally braindead. It's not even scary. 2 out of 10 from me. | 1 |
I'm sorry but I cannot even partly agree with some comments on this awful piece of sh...<br /><br />English is not my native language, because I'm a German citizen, so please do not blame me for inappropriate grammar structures or something *gg I cannot understand why this movie got such a high rating? 6.3??? Are you kidding me? This movie has completely no sense, not even a seem of good acting...<br /><br />When I looked at the comments on The Da Vinci Code, which has - I think - nearly the same rating, I had to bang my head on the table , because I watched 00 Schneider directly after Sakrileg, and oh my god , there are worlds between them.<br /><br />The majority of the posters in this board tears every hyped movie to pieces while rating this crime of movie making with a 6.3 and denominates Helge as a genius. Of course , he knows how to make money, but I think the main aspect of your opinions is the fact, that German isn't your native language and you just ignore - or rather don't notice the bunch of crap which is said in the sentences. OK , I must confess that some scenes ARE funny, but all in all , a 6.3 is just too much for my compatriot ;) | 1 |
this movie may not have seemed like much to some people but it had everything i look for in a comedy. fall down funny moments accompanied by a moment or two of seriously moving scenes, great actors, and pretty much everything a good movie is supposed to be like. despite David spade playing his usual snobby character he made this role into an unusual performance which i don't think he had ever exceeded until he hit the screen with Joe dirt. regardless of whether or not some people were not Chris Farley fans i saw this film when it came out and my friends and i still talk about it... 11 years later. this movie was what finally told me that Chris Farley was the real deal. he is the best comedian i have seen in my life. in the words of some he could be clumsy, clever, funny, serious, crazy, sober, and moving or depressing at the same time. not the same words but the message is all that counts. one of the true great actors of our time, and one of the true great comedy's of all time. along with good acting, good story, hilarious moments, serious scenes that at times brought me to tears. this movie stands atop the hordes as a movie that marked the beginning of a brief reign at the top of the comedy world by the late great Chris Farley. no actor before or since has captured my interests in a movie since. because no actor before or since has put so much into his movies. this movie is worth the time, if you haven't taken the time to see it do so the next time you rent a movie. | 0 |
This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.<br /><br />I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.<br /><br />So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.<br /><br />I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth. | 1 |
Three young movie theater employees are given the task of re-opening a long closed old-time theater at which many years before a shocking series of grisly murders took place. It seems many more murders have occurred since then but all of this remains unknown to these three young upstart employees hoping to finally make it big on their own. As they approach the grand re-opening night, things keep getting stranger and more unsettling with items suddenly starting to move around by themselves without any seen aid and a terrifying old man seemingly haunting the premises.<br /><br />Oh, this is truly horrible. In fact, if it wasn't for Mary Woronov's secretary character being such a fiercely independent outspoken empowered young woman who steals practically every scene in which she appears and the incredibly hot chick who played the unbelievably sleazy yet totally sexy Selina, this would be a total loss. The only other good thing I have to say about this film is some of the movie theater murders are done in truly inventive, albeit not overly gory (a preference for me but not necessarily for others), fashion. The rest just wallows in constant sleaze (so extreme the rare few may actually find humor in it) and runs through the predictable slasher kills annoying characters off one after the other routine. | 1 |
I was totally disgusted with this unnecessary sequel to 'The Poseidon Adventure' a movie which I have given a great comment about.<br /><br />This film is unbelievable from the word GO! I agree, why were no other rescues boats around and helicopters? The one that rescued the original survivors had just flown over the boat that Michael Caine & Sally Field are on. THAT WAS THE ONLY RESCUE CREW? Hard to believe.<br /><br />The acting is generally poor and the show looks cheap. I really hated the waste of talent from some good actors.<br /><br />Don't watch this film unless you must catch Sally & Michael as lovers.<br /><br />gord | 1 |
People call a 976 'party line' to talk dirty to strangers, and perhaps meet up for a sexual liason. A deranged, somewhat incestuous sister and occasional transvestite brother use the line to find people to kill, usually married men, but they don't discriminate! A pair of sixteen year old girls also call the line for fun, pretending to be older, of course. One of them works as a babysitter for a married man who's hot for her (or anyone).<br /><br />Meanwhile, a vice cop is borrowed by homicide when he's the first to discover one of the siblings' victims. He's teamed with a female assistant of the District Attorney.<br /><br />Nothing too special here. Richard Roundtree has little more than a cameo as the police chief. One of the dirty-talking sixteen year olds is played by an actress who also voiced Peanuts character Peppermint Patty! According to the IMDb, the other died quite young, just several years after this movie: sad. | 1 |
This is one of the best romantic movies I have ever seen. Especially girls who can identify with Nicole will love it(not only because of the handsome Dalton James) I also liked the music very much. A highlight was land of the sea and sun from baha-man. So watch the movie and enjoy it | 0 |
The Man in the White Suit is one of those delightful comedies that Ealing studies made so well in the 40's and 50's. The plot of this one follows a man that invents a cloth that neither gets dirty nor breaks. Of course, this is a huge breakthrough in the world of textiles. However, things are not that simple as the cloth will threaten the way of life of many people, including cloth manufacturers, the cloth mill's workforces, and even an old lady that does her washing every week. The Man in the White Suit is a film about scientific advances, and the way that they don't always help; as the old woman says at one point in the movie, 'Why cant you scientists just leave things alone?'<br /><br />Like a lot Ealing comedies, this one stars Sir Alec Guinness. Alec Guinness is a fantastic actor; he has the ability to light up the screen with his presence (and he does in this film, literally), but he also manages to portray his characters in a down to earth and believable way. He is suitably creepy in this film, and he captures just the right atmosphere for his character; an intelligent and ambitious, but slightly naive scientist. Along with Guinness, The Man in the White Suit also features Joan Greenwood, the deep voiced actress that co-starred with Guinness in the simply divine 'Kind Hearts and Coronets' and Michael Gough, a man that would go on to get himself the role of Alfred in the Batman films. The acting in the film isn't always great, but it is always decent, and it's fits with the film.<br /><br />The Man in the White Suit is an intelligent, thought-provoking and witty comedy with a moral. The comedy isn't always obvious, and it doesn't always work, but the film is not meant to be a film that provokes belly laughs, so that is forgivable. I recommend this movie, basically, to anyone that is a fan of movies. | 0 |
There's a great deal of material from the Modesty Blaise comics and novels that would be great in a movie. Unfortunately, several attempts have been made and they've fallen short of the great potential in the character. So, no, this isn't the Modesty you know from the comic strip (currently reprinted in nice editions from Titan Books). This is Modesty some 5 or 6 years prior to the first strip, and from what you can piece together from her back-story, it's accurate.<br /><br />Miramax had the movie rights to the character, with Quentin Tarantino acting as advocate and technical adviser. Early drafts of the Miramax project attempted to adapt one of the best novels, but always managed to leave out some crucial element. Tarantino wasn't happy with any of them, and offered to remove his name from the project so they could proceed. To the studio's credit, they wanted to keep him in the process, since they knew he 'got' the character and her world. With the movie rights close to expiration, they decided to try a very different approach. The result was 'My Name is Modesty,' a small direct-to-video movie that introduces the character.<br /><br />The movie does not introduce Willie Garvin or Sir Gerald. These characters are important to Blaise's adventures throughout most of the published stories. What this movie accomplishes is showing the strength of the character by herself. She never loses her composure, and you never doubt that she's in charge even unarmed in a room full of gangsters with guns. Most of the movie takes place within a casino, which undoubtedly saved money on the production. It doesn't matter. The film does not come across as cheap. Instead, it gives a fairly comprehensive (and believable) back-story for the character and demonstrates just how far she thinks ahead. Should Miramax adapt any of the comic stories or novels now, they've laid out the character's background nicely and won't have to spend much time on her 'origin.' I realize the words 'Direct-to-Video' don't inspire confidence, but this film is well worth a look. | 0 |
I'm a huge fan of the Dukes of Hazzard TV show. And I really enjoyed this flick. I enjoyed myself here a lot more than I did with other summer blockbusters.<br /><br />It's funny hearing people rail against this movie with excuses like 'lame plot' and 'it's much cruder than the show.' Does ANYONE remember the crudeness of the humor in the pilot episode? Daisy makes incest jokes and Bo says that Luke had probably fathered half the kids in the orphanage. The only reason it was cleaned up is because it changed to and earlier time slot.<br /><br />And as far as the plot goes. It was the perfect Dukes plot. In fact as a remake it probably stays truer to the source material than any TV show that has migrated to the big screen.<br /><br />While Sean William Scott and Johnny Knoxville aren't EXACTLY like their small screen versions, they do a great job and work very well together. I wasn't too keen on Burt's Boss Hogg though. And I would have like a little bit more incompetence from Sheriff Roscoe. In the movie Roscoe is a little... scary.<br /><br />And who didn't have a smile on their face as the General Lee is racing through the streets of Atlanta and the back roads of Hazzard?<br /><br />Folks, allow yourself to enjoy a movie that is just an excuse for nostalgia, bikinis and car chases, you won't be sorry. It's just a great dumb movie! | 0 |
There is only one reason this movie is watchable. Till Schweiger. He is such a good actor the movie isn't completely terrible. Uwe Boll please take up another career. The special effects and action are acceptable. All other aspects were very disappointing. All I can say is that Kevin Smith (An evening with...) talked about Tim Burton not ever reading the Batman comics and it showed. Uwe Boll must not have ever played the video games that he keeps making movies about. If you two ever want to know how it is done go see Andrzej Bartkowiak. Doom was one of the best video games to film adaptations ever. Some people may disagree, but if you watch the movie you can see that the guys at ID had a lot to do with Doom. It doesn't seem like anyone at UBIsoft was even near this production. | 1 |
'Riders of Destiny' was the first of several westerns Wayne made for the Lone Star arm of Monogram Pictures between 1933 and 1935. In this entry, the producers try to make the Duke into a singing cowboy called 'Singin' Sandy Saunders with hilarious results. Any Wayne fan knows that the Duke couldn't have carried a tune if his life had depended on it. His voice was apparently dubbed by Smith Ballew whose deep baritone sounds nothing like Wayne. Wayne looks awkward and uncomfortable in 'performing' the musical numbers. Thank heavens the singing cowboy experiment soon ended.<br /><br />As for the movie itself, it contains a standard 'B' western plot of the fight over water rights between the villain (Forrest Taylor) and the local ranchers. Duke, of course plays the hero. He had not yet developed his on screen character and still looked like a poverty row cowboy.<br /><br />Also cast in the film were George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as the heroine's father, Cecilia Parker as the heroine and Yakima Canutt as 'one of the boys' who performs his 'falling from the racing horses under the wagon' stunt while doubling Wayne. Both Canutt and Hayes would go on to appear with Wayne in most of the other entries in the series. Canutt, in particular would have a profound effect on Wayne's future development teaching him, among other things, how to move, fight and look comfortable on a horse.<br /><br />As 'B' westerns go this one isn't too bad, however, I have to give it a failing grade because of the 'singing'. | 1 |
Husband-and-wife doctor team Carole and Niles Nelson are doing modestly well in their careers, but Niles has a gambling problem. His luck changes when he (unknowingly) saves the life of a gangster from Joe Gurney's mob and gets a big bonus from the gangleader himself. Loving his change of fortune (and snazzy new apartment), Niles continues to receive payoffs for patching up other injured members of the gang. Unfortunately, his shady deals come to light in a police raid, which hangs a shadow over his wife's career as well.<br /><br />At this point the plot comes into focus, as Carole Nelson has to rescue her career before her license is suspended. This involves bringing the gang to justice more or less single- handedly. <br /><br />This is not a hard-edged gangster picture, but a plot that might have been comfortable on a show like MATLOCK or MURDER SHE WROTE. There is some tension, but the mood is kept light by Bogart's tongue-in-cheek performance of a stupid gangster who imagines himself as the 'Napoleon of Crime.' His other gang members also function more as stooges than hoodlums. And there's some snappy dialog between Bogart and Francis, especially when she's treating his injuries at his hideout. Of course, as in all gangster flicks, there's a big shootout ending, but with a humorous twist. This is a good short film showing Bogart on his rise to stardom. | 0 |
This is how I interpreted the movie: First things first. There was not a single scene in the movie where u see the bad guy (Taylor) torturing or nailing Ben's hands to the wall. However the same cannot be told of the gals. In the end too, u see Taylor disappear as he walks. Looks like the message there was 'There was no Taylor'. And the whole movie was a figment of imagination of Ben. Also, there was no scene during the torturing moments wherein any of the gals confront or are in the same frame as Ben. It was Taylor all the time. But in real, Taylor was Ben. If they were two different people, then why was there no scene showing both of them in one frame during the horrific times? But of course before that, u do see both of them together and THAT cud just be Ben's imagination at work. Also, when Ben was out of jail, the text on screen clearly says that Ben's story was unrealistic and there was no such place as he had explained (read mine, cars etc...)Even after Liz Hunter leaves Kristy and comes back to find Ben, she doesn't find him. Why??? Because Ben (Taylor) was out looking for the gals. Instead Kristy has all the time in the world to check out Taylor's (Ben) Web cam, photos etc...<br /><br />Somehow everything sums up to just one fact that Kristy and Liz, both of them knew that Taylor was Ben. So, my conclusion is that Ben was schizophrenic and the movie where you see him and Taylor in one frame was nothing but figments of his imagination. Otherwise if there really was a Taylor, then they should have found him out given all the detailed explanation coming from Ben. | 0 |
To begin with, I loved göta kanal 1, it had a lot of classic jokes including that unlucky guy in the canoe who always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, he is still acting the same guy in the göta kanal 2 movie but in my opinion hes performance is not as funny as it was in the first movie, in fact you don't notice him much at all. A thing that made me think bad about this movie is the choice of boats, in this movie there are only race boats, they sure is speedy but those do not make waves like the big floating mansions used in the first movie, I liked the old ones better and these new boats makes one of the last scenes look ridiculous when the man in the canoe suddenly jumps out of it to evade the 'big waves' from those small speedy boats. Truly a minus. You have to accept that we're not living in the same Sweden as in 1974 anymore. This movie also contains a bit more violence than the first one. Although the movie was great all in all. I've just concentrated on some cons that i was disappointed in but the rest of the movie were up to my expectations, so go see it! It's worth the money. | 0 |
I have just seen this broadcast on Channel 4. Having seen some of the earlier comments here I think I would like to state firstly that I am not in favour of the death penalty. With that out of the way, I was expecting great things of this film, but it just didn't quite deliver. Dead Man Walking is very cleanly done, with good performances all round, and a good script. In fact it's hard to fault it artistically. However, I felt that although it attempted to confront the issues surrounding capital punishment, it seemed to become sidetracked by the religious/moral stance (hardly surprising given that the main character is a nun). Although I'm not a heartless individual, I didn't really empathise with any of the characters in the story. If you don't take religion seriously then you probably won't see much in this film. I think that Peter Medak's Let Him Have It was a much more powerful and moving film, and I would strongly recommend anyone considering watching this to go and see that. | 0 |
This is definitely one of the weaker of the series of Carry On films. It lacks the usual fun and sparkle and even the cast seem embarrassed by the poor dialogue. By the time this came out, the series was in terminal decline and boy does it show! If you're coming fresh to this series, avoid this one till near the end. | 1 |
This movie was made because the concept translates well into a two sentence summary that can be used to lure investors. That is, the premise is interesting and sellable. I mean, I rented it based on the synopsis. The problem is there is nothing beyond the initial concept. There is no coherent plot, no fully fledged characters, no real comedy, no interesting scenery, no surprises, and no good performances (except Jon Herder, he does something with very little). It's as if the people who green lit this thing never read the script but only the synopsis. And if there were enough people like me, it may even have made money.<br /><br />To the prospective viewer: don't waste your time, there is nothing funny or interesting to see here. To the creators of the film: hey, you got your film made, so what if its not that great. Most people never get to see themselves or their work up on screen. | 1 |
Actually they could not have chosen a better diversified actor to portray Little Richard than Leon. He captures Little Richard to a most believable essence. The outfits where wonderful and any person watching this movie will definitely keep a smile on their face through the entire movie. Although the movie is a little long, it keeps your attention with the personality and outfits of Little Richard in mind. The ending should have taken a direction of moving Little Richard more into the present where you could see him as he has aged into this new millennium. He will always be the King of Rock-N-Roll as far as I am concerned regardless of what the other media says. | 0 |
Renoir's tale of Paris,the Cancan,a washer-girl and the Moulin Rouge.A more subdued,but highly entertaining version of the opening of the Moulin Rouge. Jean Gabin gives his usual excellent performance.The Technicolor photography on the print I saw was exquisite.An easy evening's viewing. chris w galla | 0 |
The premise and subject about making a criminal realize what his victims went through by capturing his family hostage sounds promising and interesting. But this is the only interesting part which was also dealt 20 years ago with quite finesse by director Ravi Tandon in his film 'Jawab'(1985) too. The problem here is Ace Director Rajkumar Santoshi found himself in some sort of confusion as to whether to make it a fast paced action-thriller (viz. Khakee) or an emotions-rich heavy duty drama (Viz. Damini) and this confusion is quite evident in the final outcome. If we ignore two of his-Pukar (2000) and Lajja(2001), this brilliant director has always given us fairly engrossing films with high entertainment value. Therefore this film comes as a surprise, as to what made this script sensitive director going for half-baked characterization of both of his protagonists-Amitabh Bachchan and Aryeman. As the film is getting over, audience didn't know whom to hate and whom to sympathize with and this factor is the major limiting force in the complete narration. Therefore what starts as a war between a common man and an underworld don ends on a strange note of self-realization and regret by the Don about what went wrong with his own family. The revelation of Don's son as a real baddie does not come as a surprise element in the climax which if compared to similar situation in 'Khakee' worked so effectively with Aishwarya's character. That is not all, there is more to it. The whole dramatization of life of an Underworld Don, operating from abroad looks quite illogical. His openly landing up at Mumbai from where he is suppose to be absconding as well as running after his enemies and shooting them himself does not look believable. Pitching a mediocre, newcomer actor like Aryeman opposite Mr. Bachchan is again not a good idea. But nonetheless film has some plus points. Ashok Mehta's fine camera-work, two good fight sequences (co-ordinator Abbas Ali Moughal), some light well-acted scenes of Akshay Kumar in the Ist half, Santoshi's fast-paced slick treatment and of course Mr. Bachchan as usual trying hard to put some life into his lifeless character. But all these put together does not make this viewing an exciting experience for you and your Family! | 1 |
The story of Farewell to the King is intriguing. An American 'deserter' (I had the impression he and his 3 comrades were only trying to escape capture in the Philippines as their desperate escape by raft to Borneo is not your classic desertion). But no sooner do they come ashore when they are discovered by the Japanese. Nolte's character (a sergeant) has only moments earlier walked down the beach alone and was not noticed. And incredibly, no one noticed his footprints in the sand which would have led the Japanese right to him. But anyway, Nolte is taken in by a tribe of headhunters and becomes their king after defeating another tribesman. So he's out of the war. Then the British commandos show up and want the tribe to assist them in fighting the Japanese.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Nolte's incessant hamming ruins an interesting story. Instead of acting like a former soldier thrust back into the war, now with a tribe of warriors under his command, Nolte acts like he was raised by the tribe. He speaks as if English is almost a foreign language, rarely using contractions. He makes sweeping gestures when he talks, and acts like he is one with nature, as if he was raised in the jungle.<br /><br />There is plenty of action and many interesting scenes with the British interacting with Nolte and the tribe. But Nolte's character is never believable. It always looks like he's overacting. He needed to be a little more of an American soldier and a lot less of a tribesman. As it is, he comes across, not as a regal king, but as a lunatic who has forgotten who he really is. But that is not the intent of the film, as the script has him being admired and trusted by the British commandos. There is never any suggestion that the British thought his behavior was strange. He is simply viewed by the British as the defacto leader of the tribe. Thus, it always seems that Nolte's character isn't fitting in with what's supposed to be happening in the film.<br /><br />Another actor might have done a great job with the role, delivered his lines believably, and made it an outstanding movie. But Nolte ruins the film by hamming up every scene and appearing to not understand what his character is supposed to be.<br /><br />What a waste. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.