review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
My friend and I rented this movie for 3.99 at blockbuster. If I'd have known how absolutely horrible this movie was going to be, I wouldn't have paid a cent. I had no warning for this bs. The acting can't even be called acting, the inevitable sex scene is awkward, and you can tell that both girls feel completely uncomfortable doing it, and the male villain... god, who couldn't tell he was going to attack emily And the musical cues... my lord. This movie makes me want to cry. Never rent this. In fact, if you happen to look upon it, gauge out your eyeballs. This movie isn't of God- it's from hell. I'm just gonna take the last couple lines to write blah blah blah shiz cause I really don't want to continue on with this review. | 1 |
Thomas Ince always had a knack for bringing simple homespun stories to life with fullness and flair. 'The Italian' is such a film. Solid acting, particularly by George Beban, father of silent child actor George Beban, Jr., and wonderful sets convey a realistic feeling of early immigrant tenements in New York. These give this 1915 film an authenticity which is unusual in features of this vintage.<br /><br />The film begins with the modern day and a man (George Beban in modern clothes) reading a story about an Italian immigrant, and then we transition into the story with George playing the immigrant. He raises enough money to bring his fiancée from Italy to America, marries her, and has a son with her. But times are hard and the family struggles to survive. I found myself wondering why the mother didn't breastfeed her child, and avoid the complications with the dirty formula, but oh well, even the early Dream Factory was pushing political correct behaviour for women in 1915!<br /><br />The best scene in the picture is when Beban has a chance to seek revenge on a crime boss who inadvertently put him in jail, and at the last minute he decides against his planned course of action. Very neat. I loved the curtain effect, it was great. Wonderful use of lighting in this film.<br /><br />I give 'The Italian' an 8 out of 10. | 0 |
This film is probably the best new French film I've seen in this century so far. There have been some great ones including Noe's Irreversible, Green's Le Pont des Arts and Hadzihalilovic's Innocencebut none of them come close to Les Amants Reguliers' timeless glory.<br /><br />The movie is a description of the events of May 68 and what followed in the wake of it and furthermore it is and update of, and a homage to, the Nouvelle Vague-movies of those days. Concerning the depiction of the riots in Paris the movie is meticulously accurate (I'm only 19 and I wasn't there myself but you know what I mean)and the almost real-time and very long riot scenes set the stage perfectly for the aftermath of the events in the streets of Paris. The riots are not glorified or beautifully photographed like the ones in Bertolucci's The Dreamers (to which the movie is comparable in many ways) instead they are filmed in grimy black and white shots courtesy of the excellent William Lubtchansky. The love story that is the movie's main concern after the riots in 68 is filmed in stunning and far less blurred shots and manages to evoke true feelings of love and adolescent confusion in the midst of the otherwise politically concerned and seemingly cold environment.<br /><br />This film is a beautiful love story and it radiates through it that the director wants to depict his own experiences of those mythical late 60's which makes the film all the more compelling. But the film is also a homage to the whole Nouvelle Vague canon. Much of the dialogue evokes early Truffaut, and the length and non-action and plot less structure is reminiscent of Eustache or Rivette. There are even Godard-like verfremdung-effects with the persons looking directly into the camera and even addressing Bernardo Bertolucci directly. This film is no doubt an answer song to Bertolucci's The Dreamers and it is also a Nouvelle Vague homage but still it stands by itself as a beautiful and radiant love story.<br /><br />Bottom line: This movie is incredible and if you love French cinema you shouldn't sleep on it. It may be the finest french film since Eustache's La Mamain et la Putain. | 0 |
Dr. Hackenstein begins at the turn of last century, '1909 The dawn of modern medical science' to be exact. Dr. Eliot Hackenstein (David Muir) is in the early stages of his rejuvenation of living tissue experiments, Dr. Hackenstein manages to bring a skinned rat back to life which confirms he has succeeded in bringing the dead back to life... It's now 'Three years later' & Dean Slesinger (Micheal Ensign) is round the Doc's house for dinner. As Dean Slesinger & Dr. Hackenstein eat they talk about Hackenstien's experiments which Dean Slesinger has always been opposed to, Dr. Hackenstein shows Dean Slesinger his laboratory in his attic where he keeps the severed head of his wife Sheila (Sylvia Lee Baker) who died in an unfortunate 'accident' & can telepathically talk to him (Christy Botkin provides Sheila's voice apparently). Dr. Hackenstein also show's Dean Slesinger a skinned chicken running around in a cage & explains that with the process he has developed he will bring Sheila back to life. The Dean has some sort of seizure & apparently dies. Meanwhile sisters Wendy (Bambi Darro as Dyanne DiRossario) & Leslie Trilling (Catherine Davis Cox) plus their Brother Alex (John Alexis) & their cousin Melanie Victor (Stacey Travis) are driving along near Hackenstein's house when they crash, they seek shelter & assistance & arrive upon Hackenstein's doorstep. Dr. Hackenstein invites the four stranded travellers to stay for the night. Later on Dr. Hackenstein is visited by two grave-robbers, Xavier (Logan Ramsey) & Ruby Rhodes (Ann Ramsey) who deliver a male body when Hackenstein actually needs female parts for Sheila. Dr. Hackenstein being the genius that he is decides not to waste the opportunity of having three young beautiful specimens available & starts to 'borrow' the bits 'n' pieces he needs to complete Sheila...<br /><br />Written & directed by Richard Clark I was pleasantly surprised by Dr. Hackenstein, I'll state right now that it ain't brilliant by any stretch of the imagination but for what it was I actually quite liked it. It moves at a reasonable pace even if it does tend to drag a little bit during it's middle as things settle down. The script tries to mix slapstick humour like a scene when Dr. Hackenstein is trying to restrain Melanie & she tries to gain the attention of his deaf housekeeper Yolanda Simpson (Catherine Cahn) by kicking out & Hackenstein keeping Melanie behind Yolanda's back who is seemingly oblivious to what's happening, with a touch of gore but I'd say Dr. Hackenstein is more of a comedy than horror in conception & feel throughout. There are some tacky puns & sexual innuendo as well which are always good for a laugh, Dr. Hackenstein to Wendy 'would you like to see my instruments' as an example. I also thought the scene when Mrs Trilling (Phyllis Diller) reports her missing daughter's to the bemused detective Olin (William Schreiner) was a pretty amusing sequence going round in circle's talking about why he isn't looking for them even though he has only just been told, why the cell doesn't have a prisoner in it & that if he didn't find the cousin not to worry about it. None of it's flat laugh-out-loud but I must admit I found myself smiling on occasion & found the film as whole to be quietly amusing. There isn't a lot of on screen gore, a few severed limbs, Sheila's decapitated head, some medical stitching & those skinned animals which are definitely fake by the way. I liked the characters in Dr. Hackenstein too, which was surprise in itself. The acting isn't brilliant but to give everyone credit they put some effort into it, lots of exaggerated facial movements & some serious overacting means it's never dull, oh & the three birds in Dr. Hackenstein are fit if you know what I mean. Technically the film is OK as well, once again it ain't going to win any Oscars but I have to give the filmmakers at least some credit for trying to pull off a turn of the century period setting. It doesn't always work, the clothes are at odds with each other at times, the girls look like their from Victorian England while the guys look like their from a western. The house looks as if all the filmmakers did was remove any modern object from the room & stick a few candles in there! It comes across as a little bit on the cheap side but it really isn't a bad looking film at all considering. Could have done without the comedy music though. Overall I ended up enjoying Dr. Hackenstein much more than I thought I would, although that in itself isn't a recommendation. It's certainly is not the best comedy horror film ever made & it certainly is not the worst either. A watchable enough piece of harmless fun. | 1 |
I find I enjoy this show, but the format needs some work. First off, the good attributes. I like how this show will take us through the day-to-day life of an addict because the producers have a knack at getting the addict to show us how bad they've allowed their lives to become. This is followed by an intervention which is then followed by an outcome. Intervention doesn't candy-coat things and sometimes the outcome (often short term due to the constraints of time between filming and airing) is a negative outcome. This makes the positive outcomes all the better.<br /><br />Another thing I like about the show is the quality of the camera work. Given the reality that these cameramen have to squeeze anywhere and don't have the benefit of re shooting scenes the photography is surprisingly good and stable. It's actually superior to scripted shows like 'The Shield' where the photography is so bad it can induce nausea.<br /><br />Now for the bad. An episode will sometimes contain two completely different and unrelated cases that will be mixed together during the show. You'll get caught up in the story of one addict then suddenly you're thrown into the story of another. Get caught up in that story then suddenly you're back to the first addict...or are you? By now you may have forgotten which case the individual currently on screen belong to. This constant flip-flopping between addicts really gets disruptive during the intervention scenes because the show will even mix together the two completely unrelated interventions! I once heard the marketing B.S. reason for this poor design: 'The show can get so intense that switching to another addict allows the viewer time to absorb what they're watching.' Oh please. Clearly the reason this is done is because they have two cases that aren't big enough for an hour show so they mix two together. By mixing them instead of giving each a half hour block, like they should, it forces the viewer to watch the entire thing (and the commercials) if they are interested in one case but not the other.<br /><br />I used to find these 'blender' episodes so annoying that I'd only tell my TiVo to record episodes containing one addict, but then it became easier just to record all of them. | 0 |
Honestly, this is the best reality show anyone has ever come up with. In order to win the money you have to actually be INTELLIGENT. Not only that you've got to be brave, athletic, cunning, etc. It actually requires skill. Not like some lame-ass shows that are on these days. And yet, they only have two seasons of it! Bull..they need to bring this show back!! <br /><br />Although, they'll have a hard time pulling Anderson Cooper away from CNN. He was great.<br /><br />But seriously, it was an amazing show. You never knew who would be going when. And it was so much fun trying to figure out the mole yourself! It was a show you could actually play yourself if you wanted to!<br /><br />BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!! BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!! | 0 |
This budget-starved Italian action/sci-fi hybrid features David Warbeck as a Miami reporter who is chosen by the ghosts of the people of Atlantis (!) to stop an evil businessman (Academy Award nominee John Ireland) from using a telepathic fetus grown using spores from an asteroid to rule the world. You got all that? Despite such a loopy plot, this is actually quite a bore and the RAIDERS OF ATLANTIS sneers at it with contempt. Honestly, the most (intentionally) creative thing about this flick is the slight reworking of Herbie Hancock's BEVERLY HILLS COP theme for the opening titles. The most unintentionally creative bit involves a scene in a lab that is inexplicably shown twice back-to-back. Perhaps director Alberto De Martino wanted to get all avant garde on us in the twilight of his career? I was going to declare this Ireland's worst film on his resume but then I saw SATAN'S CHEERLEADERS was listed on there. I would also like to safely declare that I am probably the only person in the history of the world to do a double feature of this and Hitchcock's VERTIGO. | 1 |
I saw this once probably like most people my age(55) back in the 60's. I understand the dissatisfaction with the final product by both families. But this is a great movie, it was a great Opera; but as a film it is wonderful. This film should be released at least to video, other generations can gain an appreciation of great music and story telling. The cast was made up of some of the greatest Black actors ever, most have now passed away; only Sidney P. is still with us. Please don't wait until he is gone and the film as all old film does, becomes unusable do to the ravages of time. Again this is a great film which is something that one does not see very often today, if at all. | 0 |
David Lynch shot his first film, 'Erasurehead', over several years, adding new scenes each time he managed to raise a little bit more cash. Kevin Smith made 'Clerks' at work, while working as a clerk, and Robert Rodriguez has boasted that 'From Dusk Till Dawn' cost precisely $30,000. But $30,000 is still a hell of a lot of money to raise if you work as a cleaner in a cemetery. And what if an aspiring film maker not only had such a job but also had all the ambition of such luminaries, and all the dorkishness of Smith, but absolutely none of the talent. Such a figure is Mark Borchardt, the subject of this hilarious documentary which chronicles his attempt to make a pair of movies over many many years. Borchardt combines his lunatic dreams with flights of depression and a fatal inability to call it a day; one senses he almost prefers the endless labours of searching for an impossible perfection to an accommodation with the reality that he's simply (on the evidence presented in 'American Movie') not very good. And like a modern day Ed Wood, he surrounds himself with an epic crowd of fellow losers, his genuine affection for whom is his greatest redeeming feature. The collection includes his warring parents, his best friends (one a criminal, the other a reformed drug addict), his own hapless children and best of all his aged Uncle Bill. Bill may live in a trailer park, and just about have given up on life, but he is the owner of a small fortune ($280,000 to be precise) and the touching but potentially exploitative relationship between the two men lies at the heart of the film. Borchardt manages to enlist a few actors to perform (alongside himself, of course) but in the main he is wholly dependent on friends and family to complete his work (even Bill has a role on camera). On British TV, the BBC brilliantly scheduled a screening of 'American Movie' back-to-back with 'Lost in La Mancha', the story of Terry Gilliam's ill fated attempt to film 'Don Quixote'. In that film, one was impressed by the huge amount of professionalism on display (inadequate as it was to the task in hand), and just how damn difficult it is even for experts with millions to spend to make a film; whereas Borschadt is not only penniless, but also such a clown that he can't even pronounce the name of his own work ('Coven') properly. Ultimately, Borschadt is human enough for you to want him to succeed, but awful enough for the viewer to still be able to laugh at his failures. If this film was fiction, you'd dismiss it as unbelievable; but as it is, it's one of the funniest documentaries you're likely to see. | 0 |
The directing is brilliant, the casting is remarkable (though I would've loved to have seen a little more of Aaron Lustig (from Y & R fame), who played Paul Shaffer). I only have two minor quips about the film, as subtle as they are. One- Roebuck's Leno is excellent, but his stage presence (i.e. during what appears the taping of one of his late show episodes) is a tad underwhelming. Two- the distribution of the foul language. I am willing to tolerate foul language, so long as it is not used gratuitously, and to a degree, the film was gratuitous. The language seemed to be used as a tool to reduce the pathos of Bates' otherwise well-portrayed Kushnick by her frequent use of it, and served to make Roebuck's Leno a goody-goody by his lack of use of it (of course, if the characters really did behave this way, kudos to everybody). Nonetheless, the piece is an excellent one, as far as television and video are concerned. The film, I feel, had potential for the big screen, but would've required re-casting for the bit parts, and probably a different director, as well (the aesthetic feel is that of the Larry Sanders show, good for HBO, mediocre for cinematic purposes). | 0 |
I swear, that zombie was killed like twice, and kept coming back. I gave this movie an 8. Let's face it folks, this is exactly what the other reviewers are saying, i.e., a 'handy-cam', shot film. Hey, hey, hey, welcome to total indy film making. The fact that Todd Sheets got over 700 zombies to appear in this movie is a tribute to his talents. Yes, the story has gaps, yes, we see the same zombies over and over again, but who really cares? Take it for what it is, a fun and gory horror film, one to share with your buds, or to gross out the people you really care about LOL. Mellow out people, I suppose you all liked hunks of garbage like 'Titanic' or 'Twister' instead. Peace, and support independent film making!!! | 0 |
MINOR SPOILERS!<br /><br />Well i just sat up late and watched this film, mainly because i enjoyed and rated some of Singleton's earlier work like 'Boyz n the hood'. However, i have to say this was a major disappointment and is everything i hate about contrived, clichéd, so-called 'message' movies. <br /><br />The acting is mainly poor,(pop stars and models do NOT necessarily make good actors...take note), the situations hard to swallow, (rape victim becomes overnight lesbian?...please!), but worst of all it reinforces every screwed up stereotype you can think of. By the second half of the film it has become cartoon like in its characterisation, making you lose any shred of empathy you may have had for its one-dimensional players.<br /><br />Not once is any valid point made about the inherent causes of racism and cultural, sexual and political ignorance. As a result it merely ends up sensationalising the results of these problems. It's message is contradictory, resulting in a sense of confusion and a general lack of plot cohesion. As for the films conclusion i found it predictable, embarrassing, exploitative and mildly offensive. For a film called 'Higher Learning' i have to say all i learned is to avoid seeing this ever again.<br /><br />If you want a true comment on some of the themes that this film completely fails to elaborate upon then go hire 'American History X'....unless you were just watching it for Tyra Banks then go hire a life. | 1 |
This movie surely has one of the strangest themes in history -- right up there with Ed Wood's impassioned defense of cross-dressing in 'Glen or Glenda?'<br /><br />The subject: playing bridge. The Park Avenue set plays it; the Bohemians play it. The Russians -- who speak very questionable 'Russian' and have most unconvincing accents when they speak English -- play it at the restaurant where they work.<br /><br />If one isn't interested in bridge, one -- even despite the great cast -- isn't likely to be much interested in this bizarre movie.<br /><br />Loretta Young and Paul Lukas are fine. (Well --Frank McHugh is an unlikely ghost writer -- as Lukas is an unlikely Russian.) But they are all sunk by the fetishistic script. | 1 |
Excerpt from TV GUIDE:<br /><br />This week on THE LOVE BOAT, Captain Stubing has his hands full when a cryptozoologist gets on board with an unexpected cargo! Join the Captain, Isaac, Gopher and Julie in a fun-filled Halloween Special. Guest starring a guy in a really bad lizard suit as the Chupacabra.<br /><br />This is typical, lame Sci-Fi Channel cut-rate fare. The Captain of a cruise ship, played by the once respectable John Rhys-Davies, is in charge of a Carnival cruise along the coast of Mexico. His daughter is along for the ride, and she's earning her keep by being the ship's kickboxing instructor. Pay attention, everyone, that kickboxing will come in handy later! It should be noted that the Captain's daughter is pretty uncoordinated and painful to watch. It would have been good if she might have taken a couple of kickboxing classes before trying to play an instructor in a movie.<br /><br />Captain Stupid and his daughter join Mrs. Thurston Howell from Gilligan's Island, a kooky cryptozoologist and a dark, mysterious stranger on this 90- minute ride into boredom.<br /><br />That's right, I said cryptozoologist. He keeps mentioning that he brought some precious cargo on board that he needs to check out. Needless to say, the box contains a Chupacabra that somebody decides to let out. From this point on, a man in the rubber Chupacabra suit runs around the ship, killing people. Captain Stupid is powerless to stop it. He decides to call in the Marines but telling them that there are a bunch of terrorists on his ship.<br /><br />The Marines respond. They say all that Marine-speak stuff like 'Hooya' and 'Get Some'. But those silly Marines are no match for a Chupacabra. They don't really tell anyone where they're going either, so there's no help in sight. I guess no one will really miss some lame battalion of lost Marines. But don't forget... Captain Stupid's daughter is, thankfully, a Kickboxing instructor. Yay for Little Stupid! She comes in right in the nick of time, she beats up the bloodthirsty Goat Sucker and saves the day. Chupacabra means Goat Sucker. Therefore, Chupacabras suck. But there's no way that Chupacabras suck anywhere near as much as this movie. | 1 |
I have 2 words for you. Sean Bean. He is the only worthwhile presence in this film. But even so, don't see this movie. Even though he is good as the main villain, you don't want to waste your time. <br /><br />I didn't care about the characters (except the little boy) and in fact, I didn't really care if the star crossed lovers ended up together or died. The movie did not make me care or BELIEVE that these people cared about each other at all. I have read a lot of 'classic' novels after seeing the movies and this movie made me not even want to read the book. The story seems so boring. But I may go ahead and read it to try to redeem the story in my head. <br /><br />Stay away from Lorna Doone. The actress who played Lorna was also in Sense and Sensibility and she was much better in that. Watch Sharpe, Horatio Hornblower, A & E has great movies of novels like Pride and Prejudice. Or miniseries like the Forsyte Saga. Check them out, don't bother with Lorna Doone. | 1 |
This is probably Wayne's poorest movie; at least the poorest in which he had a starring role. It's just incredibly bad. The editing is especially awful; it really appears that the editor (if there was one)literally picked up pieces of film off the floor and pasted them together. The opening has to be seen to be believed. John Wayne must have cringed every time it was mentioned! I know there are 'B' films - but are there 'H' films? If so, this one's an example. And I say this as a devoted JW fan. | 1 |
Summer season is here when the choices in the cinemas are limited to what's the hottest movie of the week, given 99.9% of the screens dedicated to screening it. OK, so I may exaggerate on the percentage, but you get my drift. Besides stuff from Hollywood, Bollywood too have their own share of highly anticipated blockbusters, and from some of the trailers shown, I'm hyped to watch them too. Tashan was billed as one of THE most highly anticipated for 2008, but I was quite surprised at the lower than low turnout at the cinemas. When I watched Jodha Akbar, it was a full house, but it wasn't for Tashan.<br /><br />After watching it, I knew why. It was entertaining, but it was fundamentally weak. Just like it's literal English title, which means 'Style', Tashan is all style, but little substance. Not that it doesn't have the usual star power, but scenes felt forced, and some bordered on a tad ridiculous, even for Bollywood standards I must say. Which is quite surprising given that Tashan is directed and written by Vijay Krishna Acharya, who wrote Dhoom and Dhoom 2, both of which I enjoyed tremendously. <br /><br />In his rookie directorial outing with Tashan, while you can't fault his direction, you'd probably scratch your head over the plot, which was clunky at best. It tried to force too many things into the story, though credit be given where it allowed you some avenue to question character motivation, but that came a little too late, and only toward the finale, which left you guessing for just a moment before it latched into full blown action mimicking many a Thai action movie, with Hong Kong's wirework and Hollywood's ludicrous firearms and gunplay with zero recoil. And in a bid to include everything including the kitchen sink, you have an assortment of vehicles appearing, and the one that took the cake, in a Dhoom 2 homage, was the jetski boat in the middle of nowhere.<br /><br />At best, Tashan can be enjoyed as unintentional comedy, and this is attributed to how the cast hammed up with their characters. Saif Ali Khan plays Jimmy Cliff, a call center executive who gives English tuition, only as a platform for fishing out new girlfriend material. His playboy ways gets junked aside when he meets with Pooja Singh (Kareena Kapoor), who's not exactly who she seems, the meek and sweet natured hottie. She engages Jimmy's services for her boss, mobster Bhaiyyaji (Anil Kapoor), who probably gets most of the laughs as he speaks broken English and phrases must like how an ah-beng does it. And to complete the quartet, Akshay Kumar plays Bachchan Pandey, an illiterate gangster for hire who got engaged by Bhaiyyaji to hunt down Jimmy and Pooja when they escape with money stolen from Bahiyyaji's business.<br /><br />So begins a road trip of sorts, with friends who turned enemies, and enemies whom you know will become friends as the road trip wears on. Jimmy Cliff is probably the most implausible of all, because he goes from zero to hero, executing moves that would shame Rambo, in absolutely no time, which is quite out of character. Kareena Kapoor amps up the sex factor as she uses her charms to guile both men, and has plenty of opportunity to do so given the much touted bikini scenes, and other costumes that boast of plunging necklines or hemlines way above the knee. Every character has a backstory created, and I thought Akshay Kumar's Bachchan Pandey was probably the best, the most touching and the most fun of the lot, even though his character seemed a lot like a non-green Incredible Hulk with his gravity-defying leaps and power packing punches. His wounds also heal automatically, which impressively puts Wolverine to shame. And the best part is his theme song, which is damn alpha-male and played in ra-ra mode each time he takes on adversaries.<br /><br />But sad to say, that's the only tune that is memorable, something that cheers 'Bachchan- Pandey-Bachchan-Pandey'. For most Bollywood movies I watch, I will usually be able to, despite the obvious language gaps, emerge from screenings humming a tune or two. I wasn't able to do that after Tashan, because the songs unfortunately just weren't catchy at all. Usually the song/dance routine works well into the storyline without any necessity to bring the characters out of the current scene or location. That I enjoy, versus plucking them out and plonking them into extreme settings high atop a mountain, or atop jagged rocks on the beach front.<br /><br />Tashan probably didn't take itself too seriously, but coming from Vijay Krishna Acharya's story, you probably wanted something a little more decent rather than the ridiculous, and for continuity to be a little more careful as well. Billed as a blockbuster, now I can start to understand why the crowds have already shunned this one. Despite Akshay Kumr stealing the show, Tashan could have been better on the whole. | 1 |
I saw Five Fingers at the Drive-In in...what, 1973, '74? It was the the first Kung-Fu movie I'd ever seen and I was greatly entertained. I recently bought it on DVD and watched it again. I was greatly entertained the second time, too. I believe this is probably the one most Kung-Fu movies are modeled after. Rival Schools, different styles, revenge, 'white hat' good guys and 'black hat' bad guys. They even threw in the Japanese (VERY bad guys) styles of Karate and Judo. I remember being amused by the dubbing dialog, along the lines of 'Hey You! You are a very bad guy!' and 'They should not get away with this! I will have a go at this bad crowd!' This time it wasn't so distracting, I guess I'm used to it. If you have even the slightest appreciation of this genre, this is one you should see. | 0 |
Carmen is one of the best films I've ever seen. It's hard to say whose performance is best: Antonio Gades, Cristina Hoyos and Laura del Sol are superb.They dance their souls out. It's a beautiful tale of inseparability of life and myth; myth penetrates everyday life. Dance becomes life and entire life is danced out. Real people at one and the same time live their own lives and become somebody else, act out the parts of lovers of old. The magic is continuing. | 0 |
'A New Generation' is the third Amityville entry to base its plot around writer John G. Jones's premise of an item taken from the Long Island house that causes spectral misery and death for its new owners. First a lamp, then a clock, and now a mirror. However, this is also the first Amityville since 'The Possession' to directly tie in to the real- life events that started the whole series. This time around, Keyes Terry (Robert Partridge), an artist, is given a macabre-looking mirror by a homeless man one day. Soon enough, people around him start to die, eventually leading to his discovery that the mirror once hung in the Amityville house - indeed on the very night a man named Franklin Bronner (Sonny Montelli in 'Amityville II') murdered his entire family. Unfortunately for Terry, his discovery of the mirror isn't entirely coincidental, and he soon learns the truth about his past a truth he's kept buried since childhood.<br /><br />This 7th installment in the often worn-out franchise is something of a disappointment for me. Things were starting to pick up with the silly and uneven, yet entertaining 'It's About Time', and given how much this film tries to draw upon its roots - not the first episode, but the source material itself - it should have been better than it was. <br /><br />However, three trips to the same well with yet another evil artifact from the Amityville house with yet another explanation for the malign paranormal visitations is wearing on me, to say the least. One of the biggest weaknesses of the Amityville franchise is the steadfast determination by each set of producers to completely ignore every other episode in the series. On the one hand, it's perfectly reasonable that they don't want to be tied to someone else's continuity, but at the very least, they could maybe acknowledge story lines that have already been done and just possibly *not repeat them over and over again*.<br /><br />There's also something rather plodding about the way in which the story unfolds, doubtless due to the inevitability this repetition-fest brings. Since you already know what's going to happen, the carefully-paced build-up is simply slow and tedious. Or maybe it's just tedious anyway. Director John Murlowski probably could have done more to heighten the tense atmosphere associated with the mirror rather than simply having it flash red and emit chattering 'evil' voices, which lacks any kind of subtlety. There were times when characters seemed fairly unfazed by its otherworldly qualities. If they don't take it too seriously, why should we?<br /><br />Which is a shame, because 'A New Generation' has a more-than-capable cast. I was going to hold off on watching this until I saw the name 'Julia Nickson' in the credits. She captivated my attention just as she always does, and if anything, I was annoyed her part wasn't more extensive. Terry O'Quinn was equally charismatic and again, underused. Partridge himself in the lead role clearly fits the early 90s over-coiffed lumberjack-shirted square-jawed hero type, and while I'm not sure he really gave it the gravitas needed, it's not as if anyone here is performing Ibsen.<br /><br />The sets are also worthy of note, from the dramatic artwork filling Suki's room, to the claustrophobic corridors featured in flashback/supernatural sequences. Getting the look of these right is especially important given how certain sequences are repeated throughout the film to simulated fragmented memories. Clearly, Murlowski is more of a visual director rather than either an actor's director or one of horror. Unfortunately, it is meant to be a horror film, after all.<br /><br />'A New Generation' sees the same race being run for the third time in 4 years. Add to this the lack of direction where it was really needed and the whole effort fails to stand as tall as it should. However, it should be acknowledged for its strong ties with the source material and some good actors in not necessarily their finest hours. Honestly, the ideal person for this is someone who hasn't seen any of the sequels past 'The Possession', for whom the story won't be such a massive deja-vu trip. | 1 |
Rating '10/10' Master piece<br /><br />Some years ago, i heard Spielberg comment that he would redo the movie here and there if he had a chance. Well, Mr Spielberg, i guess nothing is perfect, but this movie - together with schindler's List - is your best. Even Oprah acts well in this one !<br /><br />What got me most is the realism of the story and drama. Stuff like this happened and is still happening in the world. | 0 |
I don't think I really have any spoilers in here but since I do describe a couple of funny scenes, I'll check the box saying 'might contain spoilers' just to be on the safe side. Now...<br /><br />I hardly know where to start. By now you know the basic outline of the story - horse traders Travis (Ben Johnson) and Sandy (Harry Carey Jr.) take the job of guiding a Mormon wagon train West to their 'promised land' and along the way encounter a variety of trials and interesting characters, most notably the outlaw Clegg family.<br /><br />Anyone can enjoy this movie. You don't have to be a fan of Westerns to like this one. For one thing, Johnson and Carey are two of the most quickly likable characters you'll see in any movie. Carey in particular is animated and outgoing, almost like a big kid - while Johnson is a little calmer and wiser, kind of like an older-brother figure. I get a kick out of the scene where they sell the sheriff one of their 'gentle horses' for ten dollars; then inform him that the horse has 'some peculiarities - you might say failings'... Travis elbows Sandy who lets loose with a shrill whistle, sending the sheriff's new horse off on a wild bucking fit with him in the saddle. The look on his face as the horse finally dumps him and gallops away is priceless.<br /><br />Pay attention to the music... even if you never thought you'd be a fan of the Sons of the Pioneers, listen to 'Shadows in the Dust' as the wagon train is shown in motion with some of the people walking along between the wagons. It's a truly beautiful song- too bad only half a minute or so of it is in the movie. I want to hear the whole thing sometime.<br /><br />One thing that impressed me greatly about this movie is that much of it must have been almost as hard to make as the real situation it portrays. Teams of six horses pulling wagons up steep mountain trails, straining to make the top - this was no simple and easy film. It must have been risky for the actors, the stunt people and the animals as well. Fording rivers too, this movie has plenty of authentic-looking action involving the movement of the wagon train. It should be mentioned that both Harry Carey Jr. and Ben Johnson were extremely competent riders, both with many years' experience riding, roping, and doing all manner of cowboy-type things. Carey grew up on a ranch where his family employed many Navaho Indians and in fact he learned to speak Navaho before he learned to speak English. No rhinestone cowboys in this movie - 'Travis' and 'Sandy' were the real thing through and through.<br /><br />Watch for the scene when Miss Denver throws out the pan of water from her wagon, hitting Travis's horse in the face... the horse starts bucking, eventually throwing him off it. Watch the look on Sandy's face when Denver tells Travis 'I'm sorry you fell off your horse.' Another favorite scene of mine is when Harry Carey Jr. (Sandy) gets into a bit of a tiff with one of the Mormons. They're working back to back getting their gear ready, and after Sandy gets disgusted with the other fellow, the two of them get into a rear-end bumping match that quickly turns into a rolling-around-on-the-ground fist fight. Even after the Elder (Ward Bond) stands them up and separates them, the two combatants continue trying to get at each other. The Mormon (named 'Jackson' in the film) gets one final kick in at Sandy so high it hits his shoulder. It's a really funny scene from start to finish. <br /><br />I don't know what else I can say about this movie other than that it has a good story, very engaging characters, beautiful scenery and plenty of action balanced with humor and a bit of drama. Oh, it has been colorized, at least in the version I saw; not the most beautiful color film you'll ever see but I think I prefer it to black and white. I give this one a ten and I don't give out many 10's. One of my favorite movies, without a doubt. And, judging by the other comments, I have plenty of company in that assessment. | 0 |
Imagine if you will an alternative universe where someone has made SEVEN where instead of a talented cast and crew they've cast a politically conscious environmentalist and a stand up comedian as the leads . If your imagination can't stretch that far just watch THE GLIMMER MAN as it's the next worse thing <br /><br />!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />Jack Cole is a cop with a hidden past and it's very ironic that he's played by Steven Seagal since he's also someone witrh a hidden past , but don't tell anyone because it's top secret . Perhaps the biggest secret is how someone like Seagal became a movie star in the first place since THE GLIMMER MAN continues in the vein of all of Seagal's other movies in that it's utter , utter crap . Look at the way he's introduced as his partner walks into his office ' Yoi love beads man . In you're in the wrong office ' Steven replies with something that is side splittingly witty , or he would if anyone was able to understand a bloody word he said because for much of the movie he just mumbles away . In fact the only time I could make out his dialogue was the scene at the school where he bursts in on the gunman holding the class hostage <br /><br />' Don't make me kill you ' <br /><br />Is this what a cop would say to a suicidal gunman ? I'm just thinking that in another movie where Steven isn't the hero ( ie A good movie ) the cop would say something along the lines of ' Don't kill me , I've got a wife and a couple of kids waiting at home ' . So anyway suicidal gunman goes to blow his head off but Steven saves his life by hurtling them both through two sets of windows . It goes without saying that you shouldn't try this at home<br /><br />As the story progresses Steven ( I've given up on calling him Jack though credit to the screen writer for giving Steven a sensible name ) becomes involved in a case a plagiarism where someone has been stealing bits out of other superior movies featuring serial killers . As Steven finds more victims you can see him thinking ' What was that movie that starred Morgan Freeman as a cop ? ' as he inspects the bodies , oh and the action keeps switching back to the hero's domestic life just so we know that this guy's good as a family man , this guy's very good as a family man such a pity he's so bad as a movie star | 1 |
'Hak Hap', or 'Black Mask' (in english) was a disappointment. I was told that it was a sort of 'Japanese version of the Matrix'. Imagine my disappointment. The film was either badly dubbed or the soundtrack didn't time well with the film. Another thing is that the dialogue was pretty much bad. There was very little thought put into the English version of this film and it appeals only to the 'senseless action' genre. Not a film I would want to see again. | 1 |
This movie starts out with an execution of a practitioner of witchcraft and his mistress. His head is chopped off and buried separately of his body...sounds like 'The Thing that wouldn't die' doesn't it? Well it does play out a little like that, but once the body is reunited with the head, all the interesting and gruesome deaths are done and the movie moves very slowly. I mean the movie is only 88 minutes long and I kept thinking 'When is it going to end'? The characters in the movie are idiots for the most part and they pretty much deserve to die for being really stupid. The villain is also very bad as he is slow moving and really you wonder how he manages to do anything considering he is afraid of jewelery. The only thing to keep you watching after the head is reattached is the fact that there are so many boobs being flashed that you really begin to lose track. Still I want to see a horror movie, not a soft core porn flick and as a horror movie it is way to slow moving with way to many slow stretches to be even somewhat enjoyable. And don't read the back of the box as it made it out like there were flesh eating zombies attacking the town, there isn't...only a small scene where three or four zombies attack a house and are so easily repelled they are not a factor in the movie at all and their scene is rather pointless. So for the most part I say you should avoid this movie unless you come across it for really cheap. | 1 |
This interesting documentary tells a remarkable tale of an expedition to take blind Tibetan children trekking in the Himalayas; but also of a personality clash between two remarkable people. On one hand, there is Erik Weihenmeyer, the first blind man to climb Everest, and the team of (sighted) mountaineers who are guiding the kids. On the other, there is Sabriye Tenberken, a blind woman who runs the first school for blind Tibetans, who agrees to the expedition but subsequently has doubts about how it is progressing. At some level, Sabine simply doesn't understand the mountaineer's philosophy (with it's emphasis on summitting); she is probably right in identifying the mismatch between the mountaineers goals and the desires of the children but her certainty in her own correctness makes her a hard person to sympathise with, especially as she has an effective veto. In the background to this (reasonably well-mannered) clash, we get an insight into the lives of the children themselves. I enjoyed the film, although it delivers a message clearly designed to be uplifting - even though it details the quarrel, the film somewhat relentlessly asserts how amazing all those who feature in it are. But it's hard to argue with that assessment, even if it is presented to the viewer somewhat unsubtly. | 0 |
For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would make a movie like this. The plot is tired, the acting is strained, the language is consistently foul and at times the over use of the 'F' word seemed like a lack of dialog was prevalent so 'let's throw in another couple of 'F's' for good measure, that's what the American public wants to hear'. Gossett was particularly foul and seemed to enjoy his part. Forget this c__p, rent 'Shrek' and have a good laugh. | 1 |
Calling this a romantic comedy is accurate but nowadays misleading. The genre has sadly deteriorated into cliches, too focused on making the main couple get together and with very little room for ambience and other stories, making it formulaic and overly predictable.<br /><br />The Shop Around the Corner does not suffer from these illnesses: it manages to create a recognisably middle/eastern-European atmosphere and has a strong cast besides the (also strong) nominal leads; I avoid using the words 'supporting cast' as for example Mr. Matuschek (Frank Morgan) has a central role to the film and his story is equally if not more important than the romance.<br /><br />The 1998 film You've Got Mail borrowed the 'anonymous pen-pal' idea from this film and has therefore been billed as a remake. This is not correct and in fact unfair to the new movie - it shares the genre and borrows a plot element, but that is all. | 0 |
A very potent drama of Faulkner's small town south dealing with an innocent black man's murder of local ne'er do wll. Striking cinematography and good narrative (via flashback) take us through the uneasy relationship between the suspect and the son of his lawyer. A still powerful story that predates the Sidney Poitier films of racial prejudice. Porter Hall has a great role as the murdered man's father. Trivia: this was actually filmed in Faulkner's home town of Oxford, Miss. with many of the residents used as extras. | 0 |
This movie is so bad it's almost good. Bad story, bad acting, bad music, you name it. O.K., who are the jokers that gave this flick a '10'? | 1 |
I wasn't terribly impressed with Dante's 1st season offering in 'Homecoming', it wasn't much of a horror story, but rather a smart political statement with the undead. Screwfly situation is the story of a virus unleashed on the world that causes men's sexual drive to replaced with murderous tendencies toward women. The episode starts out all right with a short film explaining the way the screw fly was killed of by scientists. Then there is short scene where a man is arrested when females bodies are discovered in his home. I assume this is supposed to show the beginning of the outbreak, but is unclear because this is never revisited. The episode go ons for a while introducing characters blah blah blah.It seems cool and mysterious but the episode stars to get worse and worse as it lurches forward until its sad and unsatisfying end. The worst episode. Well, except for chocolate. | 1 |
I just watched I. Q. again tonight and had forgotten how much I love this movie. It is wonderfully entertaining and leaves you feeling that all is right with the world. I love the allusions to Mozart all throughout from the opening with 'Einstein' playing 'Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star' on the violin to him humming Eine Kleine Nachtmusik during the IQ testing of the Ed Walters. I love that a woman is portrayed as intelligent and encouraged to have a career, an especially unique situation for the 1950's, the time in which this movie is set. (I myself have been a teacher but stayed at home to raise my children, so please don't think I am some staunch women's libber.) It's wonderful how a man who is 'only a grease monkey' is finally seen to be just as important and worthy as Catherine's fiance, a clinical behavioral researcher. The message to me is that we are not what we do, but who we are is defined by so much more - no labels. There are so many little gags and one-liners that are almost throwaways if you don't watch and listen carefully.<br /><br />I did catch a few things in the movie that are not listed on the goofs page. In the scene when Ed Walters is to speak at symposium, there are 3 instruments (protractor, ruler, etc.) hanging on the right from the chalk ledge. In the next camera shot, there only 2. In the credits on our video, it lists Tony Shaloub's character as Bob Watters, not Bob Rosetti as he introduces himself in the movie and is listed here on Imdb.<br /><br />I highly recommend this movie. It may be a piece of fluff in some estimations, but has lots more substance than many give it credit for. Not only that, what a great cast is assembled here. Watch it and enjoy! | 0 |
This is the only Christopher Guest movie that rivals Spinal Tap and Princess Bride for sheer entertainment value, but somehow never gets near the recognition. The plot surrounds the contestants--dogs--and their owners as they venture into the world of competitive dog...OK, it's about a dog show. The owners truly are characters, as one would have to be to be so attached to their dogs. That's really all there is to it, but that makes it funny enough.<br /><br />You'd never be able to convince me that a mock-u-mentary about dog shows would be funny prior to catching the hilarious scene where Levy and O'hara visit Larry Miller's house on TV...but that's really all it takes to convert any doubters. Spinal Tap was non-stop hilarity, joke after joke whereas Best in Show was had a few more lulls (and by that I mean say 3 minute at MOST where something riotously funny doesn't happen), but the big laughs are even bigger.<br /><br />The casting in this one is great and even the typically out of place in, uh movies in general Parker Posey does a fine job. In fact, her tirade directed at Ed Begley Jr. and a pet store owner over a lost dog toy is probably the funniest running gag of the film.<br /><br />What's amazing about this movie to me is how the writers somehow managed to weave a plot, simple as it was, around these great jokes so that it actually felt like it had direction. I guess there's a freedom in having such a minimal plot. Everyone's role is pretty well crafted here and the characters are rarely over-the-top. The realism of how pathetic they seem to the outsider is what makes it funnier than Mighty Wind or the uneven Guffman. I actually encounter wierdos like this now and then. If you like Guest's stuff at all, you should definitely own this one. | 0 |
I first saw this movie on cable about 5 years ago and I could not stop laughing. Everything about this movie seemed to click, the storyline, the characters, the setting. As far as film is concerned I wouldn't call this a great movie but for what it is supposed to be it is fantastic. It gets it's meaning across. The cast is maybe as good as any ever put together in a comedy movie. Corben Berbson, Fred Gwynne, Ruben Blades, and Ed O'Neil are hilarious. For this who haven't seen it, I will give you a brief synopsis: Four Criminals meet up in a small town in Montana after receiving a letter from their friend about a bank heist. However when their friend is arrested by two cops who chased him from New Jersey, they try to figure out whats going on and all hell breaks loose. The film is truly a great bank caper comedy and is sort of like a poor mans version of Oceans Eleven, only with four criminals who can't stand each other, and in Montana rather than Las Vegas. All in all if like to laugh I would strongly encourage you to see this movie. | 0 |
My friend's mom used to work at a video store and got to preview movies before they came out, so when she brought home The Convent, a horror movie, i couldn't wait to watch it. Given that it's supposed to be scary but is actually downright hilarious, I can say that in some weird way, I like this movie. <br /><br />yes, the acting is bad, and yes, it's the cheapest movie i've ever seen, but it's so damn funny! 'WHAT, ARE YOU SMOKING CA-RACK?!' i didn't know this movie even was ever released... i figured it was too bad... <br /><br />Yeah, so... overall the movie is pretty bad (you gotta admit that much at least) but I promise you, you will get a good laugh out of it.<br /><br />*this movie kinda sucks but it's good for a laugh... especially that guy that holds the 'dagger of despair'.. THE DAGGER OF DESPAAAAAAIR! | 1 |
This was my very first 'Bollywood' movie and I found it in the same way many other recent viewers did -- through 'Ghost World'. Having done a little bit of reading up on the film industry of Bollywood this week, I understand somewhat why there are seemingly unrelated musical numbers and romance and comedy in a horror film. But 'Something for everyone' doesn't always add up to a cohesive product.<br /><br />The ultra-groovy musical dance number 'Jaan Pehechaan Ho' has captivated the world in a way it probably could not have done in 1965. It's all over the internet now, with many folks scrambling for a good English translation. Laxmi Chhaya does an amazing job dancing take after take, making it all look fresh, new and fun even when any normal person would be exhausted! She rules! <br /><br />On the beach with Miss Kitty is a light-weight fun and pretty tune in total contrast to the horror plot. Still, I find myself singing it in Hindi a week later. I found a rough translation:<br /><br />if you want to live in this life then listen to what I say leave your sorrows behind and join the party take my advice<br /><br />those who want to live live with laughter and singing let your hair down and relax people of this world what do you know? come to me and I'll explain<br /><br />whoever there is who will see me will stop worrying in this world fish swim freely here and there<br /><br />My second favorite number in the film is The Butler's Dream where Mehmood is entranced by Miss Kitty's dancing. The electric tiki-like idols are just wonderfully tacky as is the entire set of this number. Online, I'd seen it described as what would happen if 'Liberace threw up'!! Way fun.<br /><br />Gumnaam is not a good movie as a whole. That's why I gave it a rating of 3. It's actually a real stinker of a film with some fun, kitschy musical numbers that have nothing really to do with the murder plot. | 1 |
Do not expect a classic military comedy, which claims to make fun of the military while only enhancing a militaristic outlook. Instead it deconstructs the elements that make the military such a murderous machine. Kind of East German version of 'Buffalo Soldiers'.<br /><br />'NVA' works on a meta-level that it sympathizes with its heroes' attempts to escape from army drill any which way they can. It's not about loud laughs but about long lasting smiles. Utopian, of course (in one scene you will be shown the harsh reality), but very thoughtful.<br /><br />Just to fill the required 10 lines: Do not go into that movie if you have been an army officer and liked your job. | 0 |
Even the first 10 minutes of this movie were horrific. It's hard to believe that anybody other than John Cusack would have put money into this. With a string of anti-military/anti-war movies already being destroyed at the box office, it's almost inconceivable that a studio of any kind would want itself associated with this script.<br /><br />At first, it may have seemed like some kind of politically motivated derivative of Grosse Point Blank with Akroyd and Cusack(s) all over again. But only about 90 seconds into the movie, it becomes obvious that this is a talentless attempt at DR STRANGELOVE.<br /><br />I liked so many of Cusacks movies that I thought I would risk seeing the DVD of this one. I have to say that I don't know if Cusack is sane enough for me to even watch another feature starring him again unless somebody else can vouch for it. Cusack seems to be so irreparably damaged by his hatred for George Bush and the Iraq war that he is willing to commit career suicide. Tom Cruise was never close to being this far gone. Not even close. | 1 |
You would have thought, given how much this overblown pile of rubbish must have cost, that the budget could have stretched to a decent scriptwriter. Instead, they seemed to have opted for a bog standard Hollywood 'Paint by Numbers' disaster movie plot and dialog. The only cliché they seem to have missed was the Cute Kid. But every other one is there. There's the sullen hero, flung together by fate with both his ex wife and estranged father. There's the doting Dad and the rebellious teenager.There's the 'Professor that everyone thought was wrong until it turned out he wasn't'(Played appallingly by the normally excellent Tom Courtney seemingly in the grip of some powerful drugs), plus the comic duo wandering about in the deserted underground railway.<br /><br />I sat down to watch this full of anticipation. The cast is, as noted, amazing. Yet within minutes it became clear how bad this was going to be. Stuff this useless should come with a warning. Something along the lines of;<br /><br />'This film may have been made in Britain but was aimed at the American market. It therefore contains tired clichés, stock characters, stilted dialogue and a plot so lame brained and simplistic that even George W Bush could understand it.'<br /><br />Avoid. | 1 |
John Huston was seriously ill when he made his final achievement,and it's thoroughly his testament:uncompromising,difficult ,a thousand miles away from crazes and fashions,it will stand as the best 'last film' you can ever dream of.A very austere screenplay,no action,no real hero,but a group of people coping with the vanity of life,the fleeting years and death.The party doesn't delude people for long.Admittedly,warmth and affection emanate from the songs and the meal,complete with turkey and pudding.But the passage of time has partly ruined Julia's voice,first crack in the mirror.Then the camera leaves the room where the guests are gathered and searches the old lady's bedroom.For sure,hers seems to have been a happy life,but it's a life inexorably coming to an end-A shot shows towards the end of the movie Julia on her future deathbed-.Maybe an unfulfilled life,because she remained a spinster,with no children to carry on .Only some poor things,yellowish photographs,bibelots and trinklets.... But are a human being's hopes and dreams all fulfilled?Look at Gretta.She 's a married woman ,about thirty-five,she's still beautiful and healthy but she knows something is broken.What Julia is today,she will be tomorrow,that's why,in her stream of consciousness,she goes back to her past,only to find out how harrowing her memories are: a young man committed suicide for her,a symbol of her youth now waning.The final monologue,if we listen closely to it,involves us all in this eternal tragedy,the doomed to failure human condition,John Huston's masterly lesson. | 0 |
This has got to be the best movie I've seen. You definately have to watch it more than once to find all of the humor and twists. I'm no fan of George Clooney, but he shines here. The real performance comes from Tim Blake Nelson and John Turturro as Pete and Delmar. One of the few movies that I own. | 0 |
This is an incredible piece of drama and powerful which hits you. I found the film was great and getting to grips with the two main characters disability, this was represented in a great performance by both two Michael and Rory. Whether the story is based around a true story I feel the story was trying to giving the audience a message that as a whole the general public should respect and feel for the needs of disabled people and that they should be given the same chance as any other human. On the whole this film reach into my soul and I too felt touched by the actors and the director sending out there creativity. The whole picture is that some actors take it beyond their character the play and only show part of the character that is believable to the audience, but I feel that theses two certainly made great use as their gifted talent to portray a masterpiece piece of drama. Certainly one not to be missed! | 0 |
This film is about the life of Queen Victoria during her youth and her first few years as the monarch of Great Britain.<br /><br />'The Young Victoria' has amazing production. Every scene is designed and decorated to immaculate detail. The extravagant costumes, lavish locations and beautifully landscaped gardens all make 'The Young Victoria' very impressive. I was the most amazed by the thoughtful cinematography. How every person is placed in relation to the background or foreground is well thought out, every scene is well composed. The scene that strikes me the most was when Victoria talks to Melbourne. Melbourne was positioned in the middle of the door frame from Victoria's angle, while from Melbourne's angle Victoria was situated between the space where Melbourne held his arm on his hips.<br /><br />Story wise, it is far too compressed to be followed and understood by a person without historical knowledge of Queen Victoria. Many events are rushed through or not even explained. I expected a grand scene of the coronation, and disappointingly it only lasted for a few seconds.<br /><br />Overall, 'The Young Victoria' is a good film, and it would have been even better if it was longer, so that events could be properly explained without rush. | 0 |
No sense going over the story since enough reviewers have done that. Here's a few different slants on it from one of those 'religious nuts,' as one bigoted reviewer puts it so tolerantly. <br /><br />1) 'Baby Face' (1933) offers perhaps THE classic example ever put on film of how women can manipulate men with sex. There is a lot of truth to what Barbara Stanwyck demonstrates in this film: look cute, bat your eyelashes, offer your body for free.....and men will fall over themselves to help you out with whatever you want.<br /><br />In this case, it was job advancement with the ultimate goal of money.....lots of it. At least four men in this film do provide just that, even if it ruins their lives in the process. <br /><br />2) The ending - which many of the reviewers here seemed to hate - gives another great message: all the money and material goods in the world won't make a person feel fulfilled. A sad comment that so many 'critics' here would rather have immoral messages, preferring sleaze over substance. No surprise, I guess.<br /><br />Any way you look at it, the movie is entertaining start-to-finish and Stanwyck has some great lines, particularly in the beginning when she tells off her crude father and his unruly bar customers. At a little over 70 minutes, this film moves at a fast pace and is over before you know it. | 0 |
Recent years have seen a number of biopics of famous singers, and 'Ray', the story of Ray Charles, has much in common with 'Walk the Line' which was made the following year and told the story of Johnny Cash. Cash and Charles were near-exact contemporaries, both being born in the early thirties and dying in 2003/04. Both grew up in poverty in the American Deep South. Both lost a brother in an accident during childhood. Both achieved success in the 1950s. Both experienced problems in their marriages, and both were addicted to drugs. All these matters are emphasised in both films. There are also similarities with Ron Howard's 'A Beautiful Mind'. Although that film was about a mathematician rather than a musician, it, like both 'Ray' and 'Walk the Line', stressed the part played by its subject's wife in helping her husband to overcome his problems.<br /><br />Ray Charles was born to a single mother in a poor black community in Georgia in 1930. (His original name was Raymond Charles Robinson, but when he was starting his career as a musician he dropped his surname to avoid confusion with the boxer Sugar Ray Robinson). In some ways Charles had an even harder time than did Cash, having to cope with two additional disadvantages in the shape of his blindness and of the racism which affected all black Americans, especially in the South, during his lifetime. Charles had a particularly traumatic childhood, witnessing the death of his younger brother George in a drowning accident and going blind about a year or two later. He appears to have been haunted by nightmares and feelings of guilt over George's death throughout his life.<br /><br />The first half of the film is rather slow moving and is a standard rags-to-riches showbiz biopic, telling the story of how the young Charles is taught to play the piano, becomes a nightclub performer and then rises to fame as a major artist, falling in love along the way with the beautiful Della Bea. The best scenes in this part of the film are the flashbacks to Charles's childhood. There is an effective recurrent image of coloured glass bottles hanging from a tree in front of his house; perhaps this was one of his few visual memories of his life before he went blind. There is also a memorable scene in which the teenaged Charles shames a prejudiced bus driver into letting him on the bus by pretending to have lost his sight on Omaha beach (In reality he would only have been thirteen at the time of the Normandy landings).<br /><br />The second half of the film becomes more interesting as it moves into more controversial territory, focusing on Charles's drug addiction, the problems in his marriage caused by his affair with Margie Hendricks, one of his backing singers, and his battles against racism. In the early sixties Charles caused a sensation by refusing to play in front of a racially segregated audience in Georgia (although, contrary to what is stated in the film, this did not result in his being banned from performing in the state). He also fought against racial divides within the music industry itself, performing not only traditionally 'black' styles of music such as gospel and rhythm and blues, but also traditionally 'white' ones such as country and western (regarded by many black Americans as the music of choice of the redneck community).<br /><br />As Peter Bradshaw, film critic of 'The Guardian', noted 'Ray' is a sunny film which diplomatically turns away from the darker side of things. It omits any mention of such matters as the death of Charles's beloved mother Aretha during his teenage years, his brief marriage to Eileen Williams in the early fifties and his eventual divorce from Della Bea in 1977. It also plays down the extent of his womanising and the number of his illegitimate children. There are similarities here with 'A Beautiful Mind' which also omitted a number of controversial details about its subject's personal life, including a divorce.<br /><br />Fans of Ray Charles will no doubt enjoy the film for the music, but it is worth watching even for those who do not know much about him, chiefly on account of Jamie Foxx's Oscar-winning performance in the title role, reproducing Charles's mannerisms so exactly that we think we actually are watching a blind man, even though Foxx himself is sighted. (Unlike Joaquin Phoenix in 'Walk the Line', however, Foxx did not do his own singing- doubtless Charles's distinctive singing voice was too difficult to reproduce). He receives good support from some of the other performers, particularly Sharon Warren as Aretha and Kerry Washington as Della Bea. The film is uneven and overlong, but nevertheless rewarding. 7/10 | 0 |
Where to begin? This film is very entertaining if you are new to the wonderful game of rugby, however, if you live outside the US and do follow the game, it is laughable. Various rugby traditions such as the 'Haka' which is preformed by the New Zealand 'All Blacks' and only by the All Blacks. The leader of the Haka is usually the member of the team with the best Maori pedigree. This is one of the most important conventions of the modern game and has been misused and represented by the writer. The film itself is quite well directed however it is the poor script and over-all execution that lets it down, heavily. Taking into account is is based on a real story, it does posses a great deal of clichés in the storyline. I would strongly suggest that any American interested in rugby watch this film then watch what rugby actually is on Youtube because the rugby portrayed in this film has been distorted and skewed so far from what it really is. | 1 |
How this character ever got hired by the post office is far beyond me. The test that postal workers take is so difficult. There is no way that a guy this stupid can work at the post office. Everyone in this movie is just stupid and that is probably the point of the movie. How they could go their entire lives and not see an elevator is also puzzling. I didn't take this movie too seriously but it was so stupid. Then he tries to start the car without his keys? Lots of horrible scenes and horrible acting and this movie is not funny at all. It's just a sad stupid mess. I liked the moms dress though.<br /><br />Send it back to sender as soon as possible. | 1 |
So-so thriller starring Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis, who join David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes on a road trip out west. The latter couple are researching notorious murder sites for an upcoming book; Pitt's a serial killer on the lam (unbeknownst to Dave) and Juliette is his poor, not-all-there companion. This is a good cast and the story moves along, but Pitt isn't belivably scary as a serial killer, although it is one of his better earlier roles. The best thing is here is Michelle Forbes, who always manages to shine, whether in her roles on `Homicide: Life on the Street' or in the brief series `Wonderland.'<br /><br />Vote: 6 | 0 |
This must be one of the most horribly titled films of all time. The kind of title that ruins a film because it neither evokes the plot nor the characters. A title like this makes a film flop, even the French title is not much better. Too bad - Truffaut & Deneuve must have been enough to sell it..<br /><br />This is a long film, but largely worth it. Clearly influenced by Hitchcock, we have an intercontinental story about a personal ad bride, her rich husband, a theft, an identity switch, and obsessive love. The plot here is actually very good, and takes us on an unexpected trip.<br /><br />The thing that works both for and against the movie is the focus on the relationship. It is an interesting study in how these plot developments are played out in 'real life relationship' with these two people. Unfortunately, this is what bogs the film down, and makes it ultimately dissatisfying. We do like films to have a real sense of finality, and that is missing here.<br /><br />It was the case in many of her films that Deneuve became a canvas for Directors to play their fantasies out on, and this time it doesn't work as well. Messy here, is the fact that the Director clearly just wanted to have Deneuve take her top off a few times. Deneuve is an actress who always seems very deliberate and thoughtful, so these attempts to make her seem spontaneous fall flat. <br /><br />Basically, the script needed to be worked out better before shooting began, to make this film tighter and shorter and to snap. But Truffaut didn't snap, did he? So - it wanders a bit, but remains interesting. | 0 |
This movie features a pretty decent FX sequence of an earthquake for 1936. The reason you haven't seen it, is because audiences in the 30s were enamored of the 'Jeanette MacDonald picture;' in which the eponymous star warbled her way through countless songs, while plots came to a complete standstill. The FX cross time very well. MacDonald's songs do not, and the awkward insertion of said songs to show off her only typical talent is not good. <br /><br />The hoary device of two friends growing up to become a priest and a hoodlum is given another run through the machinery (Manhattan Melodrama, The Departed). At the 30 minute mark, you've already heard the song 'San Francisco' three times. Entertainment in the thirties is generally an accumulation of irritation. Only Grand Hotel from the decade foregoes annoyance to the degree shown in San Francisco, Dinner at 8, Little Caesar, Stagecoach, All Quiet on the Western Front, Les Miserables etc.. | 1 |
The main attraction of Anywhere but Here is the superb performance of Natalie Portman. She gave her rather thankless character a lot of much-appreciated emotional depth. Susan Sarandon, a fine actress, is suitably sincere as the mother figure. I thought the chemistry between the two stars was believable, a chemistry that could have been developed more with a more involving script. I am not saying the script was bad in any way, I am just saying it seemed underdeveloped at times. I don't think it was the script writer's fault. The film did suffer from being overlong, and became sometimes unfocused in the longer scenes. The film does look beautiful, with some good direction and excellent performances. All in all, watchable certainly, but maybe more for an older audience. 7/10 Bethany Cox. | 0 |
The worst movie i've ever seen. I still don't understand what Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen intend to do in. Maybe they had bills to pay... The best and cult part happens during a flashback which brings us during WWII when a Nazi officer hide his Jewish wife. That's the beginning of a typical serial killer life! It seems to be directed during the beginning of the 80's but then appears a New Beattle... Amazing! This movie was directed in 2001... I'm quite sure that it took less than two weeks to do that movie. I heard that Dennis Hopper's wife asked for divorce after she saw that picture and Michael Madsen's mother had a heart attack when the actor admitted to be the man under the yellow baseball hat. Pathetic! | 1 |
Elderbush Gilch was a big disappointment for me. I'd heared how great it was, how important it was. It just didn't strike me. It had a dim-witted story line, plus some moronic and sadistic Native American characters that are thurroughly offensive by today's standards. While most of D.W. Griffith's films have depth and intelegence, this one feels more like a formula-baised programme picture.<br /><br />I loved seeing Lillian Gish and Mae Marsh in pre-Birth of a Nation roles, plus some of the staging of the battle scenes were pretty good. Acording to future Griffith cameraman Karl Brown, audiences were standing on their seats and cheering once the cavalry comes riding in at the end. I felt nothing. And beleave me, I lve watching Griffith's early work at Biograph. This film just isn't what it used to be.<br /><br />The best thing about this film it that, for all of it's flaws, it has many of Griffith's touches to it. He handles his principal actors pretty well, plus the scene where the indians are encircling the cabin it reminiscent to the climax of Birth of a Nation, a far superior film that would send shock waves across America a little over a year later. | 1 |
I first saw this movie here in the U.K. in December 1989 when Central TV broadcast it. I still have the video tape, although worn out (over the years many friends and family members have borrowed it and have also been chilled by it!). <br /><br />Anyway, I remember coming home that night, grabbing a Christmas tipple, switching the lights out and watching what was advertised as a 'Christmas Ghost Story'. Even now I remember certain scenes that still send the hairs on my neck standing on-end... <br /><br />I have seen some comments on the movie which say it's not this and not that...I think those people get scared by Friday 13th and the like, stalk and slash rammel, which are laughable. This is a 'traditional' ghost story; there is no big budget action or special effects...no swearing, no blood, no gratuitous sex scenes, no chainsaws or guns etc...So how refreshing!!!! It's atmospheric. IF you like chilling horror, well written, well acted and with a genuinely scary atmosphere, this is the movie for you. I like the original horrors; only last night I saw the original Haunting and that is a superb movie. Very atmospheric again - and so is The Woman In Black. The end of the movie differs to the book, but still very good. I recommend it. Try it...you *will* like it if you like traditional ghost stories...SO...turn off the lights, turn up the fire, lock the doors, grab a drink...and enjoy... :) | 0 |
'I just viewed this movie last night and I don't think I will ever think the same about any of the actors involved, because this movie will stick in the back of my mind.'<br /><br />The above statement can be thought of as a good or a bad thing. I mean every time I see Tom Cruise or Demi Moore in a movie, I think of 'A Few Good Men' which is a good thing. Now, every time I see Ron Perlman or Kristy Swanson, I will think of 'Tinseltown' which is a VERY bad thing.<br /><br />I picked this up thinking that it might be something intelligent or at least make me chuckle and with Arye Gross and the aforementioned Swanson and Perlman, I thought that it at least wouldn't be bad. You could tell the movie was made on a budget the size of Wheeling, Indiana (Where? Exactly.), but maybe they used every dollar to make a good movie. WRONG.<br /><br />This movie is NOT funny or entertaining in any sense of either word. It is just there and lasts for 84 excruciating slow minutes.<br /><br />The characters are paper-thin. You almost care about NONE of the characters, and since the leads are two struggling Hollywood writers with a dream that is all the two struggling writers with a dream who wrote this need you to know about them. Okay, the two REAL writers know all about there onscreen versions of themselves, so they figure so does the audience. They don't even think about character development, except for trying to tie there story back to 'Gilligan's Island'.<br /><br />The plot is unoriginal. Two guys live in a storage center, where one of them stores a bed, and there are about twenty other people living there, too. The rest of the story is contrived and stupid. Have you seen 'National Lampoon's Favorite Deadly Sins'? The second story with Joe Mantegna is about a television writer who can't find a good story to make a TV movie about, so he creates one. Now substitute the television writer for a screenwriter, morph Mantegna into to annoying actors half his age, and take away the comedy and you have this movie.<br /><br />The actors try. Kristy Swanson is in the movie for maybe 10 minutes and still gives the best performance in the movie. She is still hot, but it would help if she would actually STAR in a movie instead of constantly making CAMEOS. As for everyone else, I don't think it was the actors fault because they have BAD material<br /><br />Go watch the National Lampoon's movie, but stay away from this movie. | 1 |
Wow! This film is truly awful. I can't imagine how anyone could have read this badly written script and given it the greenlight. The cast is uniformly second rate with some truly horrendous performances from virtually all of the cast. The story is disjointed, fragmented and incoherent. The telling, leaden and predictable. No wit, no charm, no humour. Not sexy in the least. The characters remain as flat as the proverbial pancake. There's also a strong current of misogyny which became increasingly hard to stomach as the film went on. When your lead (Carrell) is unfunny and unappealing it's uphill from there. Despite it's phony turn-around ending where love triumphs over lust I was left with a sick feeling in my stomach. If this is what passes for humour and social comment then we're definitely doomed. | 1 |
Early Jackie Chan film where there is no sign of the Chan persona we know. This is Chan in a full on traditional revenge tale of the sort that was cloned and re-cloned by countless producers and studios all through Hong Kong Taiwan and Mainland China. Its a very serious story that shows none of the humor and warmth that would catapult Jackie Chan to super stardom. Its also clear from watching this that had he not reinvented himself odds are we would never have known him because his career would have been painfully short. As a film on its own merits this is a good looking but pretty unremarkable movie. I was watching it, in the midst of an all day marathon of martial arts films and it would have blended together with every other film that I watched that day had I not noticed Jackie in the film. Honestly I don't think the film is really worth bothering with (there are too many other better variations) except if you're interested in seeing where Jackie Chan started. | 1 |
This is an important film. It challenges the viewer and encourages you to pay attention. There's a lot to like here. The director seems interested in taking apart some of the more tired cinematic conventions. Unlike a lot of recent American cinema, this film takes an interest in what it means to make a movie in the first place. The DVD includes a lot of bonus features, and there are two commentaries that explain the movie for the viewers still befuddled after an initial viewing. When the film screened at Sundance, it made more than a few audience members uncomfortable and angry. This is a Sunday morning coffee movie, not a Friday night party movie. For the dedicated viewer, it's a treasure trove. | 0 |
Let's just say I had to suspend my disbelief less for Spiderman than I did for Hooligans. That is, to say, I have less of a problem believing Toby McGuire can stick to buildings than I do Elija Wood throwing down with toughs in Manchester. I won't get into specifics, as I don't want to write a spoiler, but the idea of grown, professional, British men getting into near death scraps every weekend is, well... funny. And this film is not. The fighting, the idea of fighting, is taken far too seriously. The gravity of the pugilism, the reverence with which the subject matter is treated becomes irritating, as it neither establishes or resolves the conflict. It seems as though the plot, with holes big enough to drive a Guiness truck through, has been slapped together with a contrived 'fish out of water' theme so that viewers can gaze into Woods teary eyes as he learns how to become a man ie. hitting other young men of opposing football tastes with blunt objects and then running away as fast as he can. The characters are cartoonish, especially the Americans at Harvard. The character development and story line are telegraphed to the viewer throughout the picture. Unfortunately, the absurdity of the film doesn't reach its height until nearly the end, which by then you'll have spent nearly two hours of your life you are never getting back. Pick up 'The Football Factory' or 'Fight Club' instead of this corny, and disappointing dud. It doesn't waste time with empty melodrama, the tired old 'Yankee in King Aurthur's Court,' or weepy, parables of coming of age bullsh*t. They're just pure, dark, and clever fun; the way violence is supposed to be. | 1 |
THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS.<br /><br />I have rarely seen a film that is as unbelievable as this one is. And being French, it tries for depth by being enigmatic
nothing really makes any sense.<br /><br />Léo is gay and has just announced at breakfast to his family that he is HIV positive. The youngest brother, Marcel, has not yet come down to breakfast, and the first thing the family does is decide that at 12 years of age he is too young to be told. Maybe if he was four or five, but twelve? The first totally unbelievable thing is that the family doesn't even ask where or how he got the virus, how long he has known about it
nothing is asked. They only worry about Marcel finding out. This is a very close knit provincial family, but although they decide not to let Marcel know about Léo's HIV positive status nor the fact of his being gay, the rest of the family accepts all this news with absolutely no questions or reactions. How many families do you know where the parents/brothers wouldn't have at least SOME reaction to one of the members announcing that he is gay? Here, nothing.<br /><br />Léo decides that he needs to go to Paris to see his ex-lover. And he decides to go on the trip with, of all people, Marcel. Do you know anyone who would bring his little brother along to go see a lover? Again, totally unbelievable, especially since Marcel is not supposed to know either of his medical problems nor of his homosexuality. If this is the way the family has decided to let him find out, it is rather brutal and again unbelievable.<br /><br />Léo goes to find his lover, Aymeric, at his work in a Paris bar. The owner says that Aymeric will not be there until the early evening. But why would Léo want to see him at work? Why not phone and arrange to see him in some place more private where they can really talk? Why not go and see him at his home? But no, Léo shows up later in the day (with Marcel in tow) and is surprised when Aymeric doesn't just drop everything to go walk with him for 5 minutes. Aymeric tells him that he is no longer available, that it was Léo who left him, and that Léo hadn't replied to any of his letters. Léo says 'But I love you' and then wanders off. But if he really loved Aymeric, wouldn't he have at least told him about his HIV status, to warn him to get tested and maybe get medication? This would be the least he could do but not a peep. He leaves and doesn't even warn Aymeric that he might have contracted the AIDS virus. This is totally irresponsible of him and of the film-makers; this film was apparently made for a French TV series for young people it is the perfect way to show kids how to be responsible. Well, not here
I guess 'Every man for himself' is still the French way of doing things
Another aspect of the film which was totally unbelievable was the 'touchy-feely' aspect. Everyone is always leaning against someone, caressing someone or kissing someone. Inside the family and outside the family. I have never seen anyone in France be THIS physical, never mind an entire family. Seated at the breakfast table, one 17 year old brother has his leg perched on the lap of his elder brother, and the elder brother is caressing his leg as everyone sits around discussing something. How many brothers do you know who are THAT physically close? In another scene, the same 17 year old comes into Marcel's room asking 'What's the matter, can't you sleep?', then takes off his clothes and, completely naked, gets into bed with his brother and snuggles up to him as if they were lovers. This and another similar scene between Léo and Marcel gave a somewhat incestuous feel to the film. Sorry, again I don't believe that this is regular behaviour between teenage brothers.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say about the film is that the actors are all quite fine
especially Marcel in the main role. But it wasn't really enough
HIV and AIDS are far too serious to be presented in such a vague and irresponsible light. At the end of the film, the family has gone to the cemetery to bury Léo, but once again, Marcel has been left out of it he has been left in the care of a cousin (I think). Nevertheless he sneaks out and watches the funeral from afar. Is this what such a close-knit family would have done? It is totally inconceivable that they would not have included him in his brother's funeral. It was the last scene of the film, and it was the last straw for this viewer. | 1 |
_Saltmen_ is a long film for its genre, and quite often the pace is much slower than that expected by Western audiences. That being said, I enjoyed it thoroughly both in terms of interesting subject matter and the magnificent images this film contains. Some of the scenery is truly breathtaking, and there is enough of interest that most should be able survive _Saltmen_ with minimal use of the fast-forward.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I don't really post comments, but wanted to make sure to warn people off this film. It's an unfinished student film with no redeeming features whatsoever. On a technical level, it's completely amateur - constant unintentional jump edits within scenes, dubbing wildly off, etc. The plot is completely clichéd, the structure is laughable, and the acting is embarrassing. I don't want to be too harsh: I've made my share of student films, and they were all awful, but there's no reason for this film to be out in the world where innocent fans will have to see it.<br /><br />Safe assumption that - much like the cast - positive comments are filmmakers, friends, and family. | 1 |
'Why did they make them so big? Why didn't they just give the money to the poor?' The question about cathedrals was asked by a student to Mr. Harvey during a school field trip to Salisbury Cathedral. 'That's a good question,' he replied. 'Partly to inspire them - to get them to look up with awe.' I'm not sure that cathedrals have that impact on everyone, but this movie certainly had that impact on me. It was awesome! <br /><br />It didn't start out that way. For a while it seemed to be little more than a depiction of - well - a school field trip to Salisbury Cathedral. If you've ever been on a high school field trip to anywhere this is basically it. You have a group of largely disinterested kids just happy to be out of school for a day, the bus driver who's driven crazy by them and some teachers trying desperately to keep it all under control. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt was my initial reaction. I figured that in the end this was going to be a typical story of a teacher managing to inspire a group of disinterested students. YAWN! But it turns out to be so much more! Timothy Spall was brilliant as Mr. Harvey - a sombre, unsmiling teacher with a strange fascination for cathedrals. Over the course of the movie, his story slowly comes out and becomes the focal point of the story. We also get introduced to some of the troubled students - most notably Helen, also brilliantly played by Nathalie Press, who's into self-mutilation.<br /><br />This isn't a religious movie, but it includes some powerful reflections on religious themes. When Harvey's colleague Jonathon (played by Ben Miles) says 'I don't care what anyone believes as long as they don't try to force it on anyone else' Harvey replies, 'that isn't tolerance - it's indifference!' - which is, in fact (in my opinion) what often passes for religious tolerance in our society. There are scenes of reconciliation between various characters, and the final scene of the movie was brilliant. As Harvey climbs back on the bus, director Susanna White has the camera slowly pan upwards, so that the final shot is simply of the sky - hearkening back to Harvey's comment that the purpose of the cathedral is to get people to look up in awe. The cathedral accomplishes its goal. We look up into the universe in awe, seeking something greater than ourselves, however we choose to define it. This is a very powerful and very inspiring movie. 9/10 | 0 |
It's a tale that could have taken place anywhere really, given the right circumstances. Street entertainer catching the attention of famous opera star and friendship ensuing. The aging entertainer finds/buys a male child to pass his art to. From there, we follow them through the rigors of their challenging, but free life along the river. Traveling town to town, he performs and has some degree of notoriety. Despite the times and the influences, the man is kind and good.<br /><br />Overall, the performances are first rate, especially Xu Zhu, who portrays the street performer. The child (Renying Zhou) is beautiful, and downright strong, and withstands the overt prejudices well. The two protagonists, along with supporting help from the kind opera singer, Master Liang (an interestingly androgynous Zhao Zhigang), paint a very interesting tale of forgiveness, sadness and love. Some have mentioned this film's remote similarities to BA WANG BIE JI (FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE); yet this film can't stand easily on its own, any resemblance is remote at best.<br /><br />My only qualm with the KING OF MASKS, is the ending. It was weak, cliche and about as subtle as a sledgehammer. The audience was already wrapped up in the story, what was the needless manipulation for? What a shame. To bring a fine motion picture that far, only to surrender to emotional (and corny) pathos like that. It frankly made this film good, instead of the classic, it should've been. That aside, the KING OF MASKS is still very well worth your time. I was happy to see the Shaw Brothers are still producing good films. Highly recommended. | 0 |
If you can make it through this flick without laughing out loud at the screen, you are a better filmgoer than I.<br /><br />Count the logic lapses, common-sense leaps, and credibility stretches... betcha need more than two hands!<br /><br />P.S.: If one more film uses a location that is clearly UCLA, and claims that it is a different university (in this movie's case: Berkeley), I'm going to lose it. | 1 |
Possibly the worst film within the genre in existence. It was announced as a comedy, but is simply tragically pathetic. I don't think anyone could have achieved anything more terrible and irritating if they were specifically requested to. It is toilet humour at its very poorest, I would avoid even watching the trailer. I only went to see it because it was announced that if you like Monty Python, you are bound to love this. Whoever wrote that was either biased or seriously deranged. I am still bewildered how one can honestly believe such a statement. Rarely do I leave the cinema, really it takes a lot of effort for a film to have that effect on me: this one did it in just 30 minutes. | 1 |
This is probably the worst movie ever made it is just to bad the name of Roger Corman is associated with it. I could've understand it in his early years when he had lower budgets but nowadays there is no excuses for giving birth to this! I'm a 'B' movie pervert and from certain people point of view all the flicks I love are put aside by 'regular viewers' but take my word on this one, Vampire club makes the top of my list of the best of worst.It's hard to Imagine, vampires with no fangs, the music score is totally out of place,the sound effects are just not effective and finally Mr.Savage doesn't seem to know he is in a vampire movie at all witch is too bad 'cause he had a 'not to bad' career over all. Let me know i'f I'm to hard on this one cause when I don't like a movie I tend to forget about it's good side. | 1 |
It sounded so promising in the Rental Store, the premise sounded great and I couldnt wait to get home and watch it. It was Apalling the Diologue is Dreadful, The Action is Extremely badly Scripted and the Plot takes a nosedive from the beginning. Gutenberg puts in a pathetic performance, Sean Bean tries his best but with a script this bad there wasnt much he could do.<br /><br />This isnt even worth watching, even if you can get it for free (borrow it off a friend for instance) Dont as you will regret it and waste 90 Minuites of your life.<br /><br />0/10 | 1 |
Meltdown opens on a scene of scientists preparing to conduct an important test on a missile system developed to deflect asteroids should they be on a collision course with earth. Nathan (Vincent Gale) mentions some misgivings to his, but the test appears to be an unqualified success. Then the asteroid breaks apart, and the largest piece is pushed into a direct collision path with earth. Fortunately, the huge rock skips off of earth's outer atmosphere and ricochets into space. Unfortunately, the glancing blow is just enough to alter earth's orbit, and the planet begins to spiral closer to the sun.<br /><br />While all of this is going on above their heads, Los Angeles cops Tom (Casper Van Dien) and Mick (Greg Anderson) are on a stake-out. They're supposed to collect evidence against a suspected drug dealer, but the deal they're watching quickly devolves into a shooting match. Afterward, Tom takes a few minutes to be interviewed by a local television reporter who also happens to be his girlfriend, Carly (Stefanie von Pfetten).<br /><br />At a nearby hospital where Mick is treated for a minor injury, Tom has a brief chat with his ex-girlfriend Bonnie (Venus Terzo), who is a nurse. He tells her he's concerned about the fact that their 17 year-old daughter Kimberly (Amanda Crew) is dating a man named CJ (Ryan McDonell). Once Tom explains to Bonnie that he's discovered CJ has a criminal record, she's a little worried herself.<br /><br />It's not long, however, before everybody has something else to worry about. The temperature is rapidly rising all around the world. Carly is one of the first non-scientists to learn what's really happening. Nathan, who is her brother, calls her to say he may have a way that they can survive. Carly calls Tom; he, of course, promptly contacts Bonnie.<br /><br />In relatively short order, the motley group is on the road. Before they can reach their ultimate goal, however, they've got to make their way through bands of looters, deal with a catastrophic water shortage, and manage to travel in temperatures that are high enough to kill.<br /><br />Casper Van Dien is a good looking guy, and I actually enjoyed him in Starship Troopers. That may be because he's good in action scenes. It might also be because he didn't talk much in that movie. In Meltdown, he's unfortunately given just enough lines in situations that are just dramatic enough to showcase his entirely average acting abilities. Amanda Crew is also okay, and Ryan McDonell isn't bad, either. Vincent Gale and Stefanie von Pfetten are also both reasonably good, but Venus Terzo is sadly on a par with Van Dien.<br /><br />What really makes or breaks a movie, though, is the story and the script. While the story here is okay and actually has some real potential, the script is just awful. The science part of the science fiction is non-existent starting with the asteroid pushing the earth out of orbit and escalating with the notion that the 'gravitational balance of the solar system' might 'pull the earth back' into its usual orbit 'over time.' When the temperature in LA hits 120 degrees, cars start blowing up.<br /><br />You know what's even worse than the bad science? The bad continuity. Okay, really hot. Why are people in the movie not only wearing long sleeved shirts, but jackets, too? Why are people mugging each other for bottled water instead of turning on the taps at home? Why are the streets completely empty, but the freeways completely full? And why are the freeways full of unexploded? It's almost superfluous to note that the sets, costumes, and production values were good, especially when that only forces me to say that the edits were not.<br /><br />So basically, you take a pretty good story idea and combine it with mostly mediocre acting, a terrible script, low-end special effects, utterly irrational plot twists, and poor edits, and what do you have? A movie that's even less than the sum of its inconsiderable parts. I'm sorry to say that I can't recommend Meltdown: Days of Destruction to anyone.<br /><br />POLITICAL NOTES: There is mention here that Congress finally loosened the purse strings enough to fund the tests that start the movie rolling. While the tests here were wholly irresponsible (targeting an asteroid with a nuke and not knowing the composition of the big rock is, in fact, well beyond irresponsible and approaching the insane), the fact is that such scenarios are a very real danger to the planet. Unfortunately, we've tracked nowhere near all of the near earth asteroids that could be worrisome in some orbit some day; and our ability to spot something on a collision course with us is limited at best.<br /><br />Once we do discover we're going to be hit, we quite literally have no system in place to deal with it. There are no nuclear-tipped space missiles we can launch; the space shuttle is completely incapable of going beyond earth orbit, and if it were, we couldn't launch enough of them or launch them quickly enough for it to matter. I'm not big on the government doing anything beyond its constitutional mandates, but I certainly think protecting the planet from destruction coming at us from outer space could be construed as defending the country, don't you? FAMILY SUITABILITY: Meltdown: Days of Destruction is rated R for 'some violence.' I frankly didn't find the violence here anything beyond a fairly typical T-rated video game. If your teens are keen on seeing Meltdown and you can't talk them out of it, the R-rating shouldn't dissuade you from letting them see it. It's not, however, a good idea to leave the younger kids in the room with their elder siblings. While the shootings aren't too graphic in the main, some of the dead bodies are. | 1 |
In Truffaut book-length interview with Hitchcock, it's apparent that Big Al's fear from the police dates back to his childhood. His father sent him to the police station carrying a note. The note said: 'He's been naughty, imprison him for an hour.' The policemen obliged and ever since Hitchcock has had a deep fear of being wrongly accused and taken by the police.<br /><br />'Strangers on a Train' is probably one of the best in his 'wrongly-accused' series. The movie is based on a Patricia Highsmith novel. That's the same author who wrote the Ripley series. She was always fascinated by smart criminals.<br /><br />Hitchcock's opening is very strong and takes you immediately to the protagonists: Guy Haines, a famous tennis player, and Bruno Anthony, the aspiring criminal. The two guys share a chemistry which in that day and age was probably a lot more than what the audience could chew. Bruno tries to persuade Guy that they could commit the perfect murder (leaving no clues), if they switch victims. Bruno will kill Guy's wife who wouldn't give him a divorce, and Guy would kill Bruno's father. The motives are respectively love and money.<br /><br />Bruno's performance is meant to be seductive and homoerotic. This is not something that was done by accident. In fact, Hitchcock edited two versions of the movie: one US, one UK. In the US version the volume of Bruno's seductiveness was turned down quite a bit.<br /><br />'Strangers on a Train' is a very deep movie but more importantly this is another excellent Hitchcock thriller. An excellent example of a thrilling scene is when Guy is climbing the steps up to Bruno's father room. Hitchcock reasoned that the audience's attention needed to be distracted at this point so that they don't figure out what Guy will find in the room. Hitch treats us to a HUGE, menacing dog at the top of the stairs which provided the needed distraction.<br /><br />The most famous shot in the movie occurs during a tennis match. Bruno has been continuously stalking Guy so that Guy will fulfil his end of the bargain (kill his father). When Guy looks at the audience, all the heads are swiveling back and forth. All except one - Bruno's. He's looking straight at Guy with an 'i'll-get-you' smile.<br /><br />The ending is another example of suspense. Both men fight for one key piece of evidence on a merry-go-round that's rotating at mad speed. A worker is crawling under it so he could get to the controls. When we finally get off this ride and the movie ends with Guy proving his innocence, we are left exhausted and nail-less (for those of us still biting our nails!).<br /><br />'Strangers on a Train' is easily one of Hitchcock's best 'wrongly accused' movies. Some credit him with one of the best villains (Bruno) as well. All in all, the movie might appear somewhat dated but that's a lesson in thriller-making from the master himself. I won't turn down Leonardo, if he came to teach me Renaissance painting, so neither should you.<br /><br /><< Review posted at FilmDailies.com>> | 0 |
It figures this is a French film, LOL, with the emphasis on young girls with much older men...why is it the French are so fixated on this kind of thing? When the age difference is this great, it really comes off as pervy! Valentina Cervi is beautiful (she bears a strong resemblance to Olivia Hussey, of Zeffirelli's '68 Romeo and Juliet, set in a similar period), but she looks about 15 and the actor playing Tassi, her painting instructor, looks...well, 50 is KIND.<br /><br />Other posters have done the work of explaining the historical record (unusually detailed in this case) of the real Artemisia, a great artist and one of the earliest recognized female painters of this period (17th century). Her story speaks to us in modern times particularly because of the age-old accusation that 'all great artists were men' -- she pretty much blasts that assertion to bits -- and because the story of her rape trial is so poignant. Not only was she clearly assaulted, and forced into a degrading sexual relationship (because in those days marriage to your assaulter was the only way to avoid social shame), but Tassi was a serial rapist and possibly killed his wife and child.<br /><br />The movie does a terrible disservice by inverting this truly fascinating and remarkable real life story -- very dramatic and not in need of any 'spicing up' -- because in some weird Frencified way, it's 'hotter' to have an oversexed teenager drawing male sexual organs and having a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather. That's 'sexy' -- the truth is boring and seems too feminist/politically correct.<br /><br />It also disturbs me that this is ONLY part of Artemisia life considered interesting enough to film. The fact that she painted for decades (her famous painting of Judith beheading Holfernes was painted AFTER, not before the rape), that she was the first woman admitted to the prestigious Florentine Academy, that she went on to have children...oh that's boring stuff. After all, that's about a middle aged woman and they aren't 'hot' like teenagers.<br /><br />I understand that there is a lot of creative license in making a film (or a book) about a real historical character. You need to create dialog, have subplots, create dramatic structure. Certainly some details can be sacrificed -- it's no big deal if the dates are moved a few years, or if Artemisia is played by a blonde actress (when we know from her self portraits that she was a brunette...and a big boned one, not a skinny minny), or something like that. But to turn her story around on her, and make rape into a romance is actually sick and disturbing. It's even worse because the director is female. She should be horribly ashamed of herself!<br /><br />If you LIKE this (and I know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costumes and hot sex), you will probably like 'Dangerous Beauty' with Rufus Sewell and Catherine McCormack. Similarly based on heavily re-written history, with lots of heaving bosoms and jewel encrusted goblets: Bon Appetit! | 1 |
I registered with IMDb.com just so i could comment about this movie. My god what a steaming pile of horse crap this was! It shouldn't even be touted as a real movie, this is very deceiving. this is a 15 year old's film project at best. The acting is terrible. But even good actors could not save this. The dialog is probably the worst part of this movie. Who the hell wrote this crap? And that constant joke coming from the chubby lesbian about Kaye being a 'damsel in distress' got old real fast. God i'd rather have a camel take a wet dump in my ear than watch this crap again. Do not rent this movie. If they gave you the movie for free do not watch it. smash it with a hammer. Even if smashing this video caused you to lose your Hollywood video or blockbuster video account it would be well worth it. this is an abomination. I suppose i have said all i can about this without being redundant. any questions....email me. | 1 |
I made the mistake of watching 'Dark Star' (1974) late one night many years ago. It was one of the stupidest movies that I have ever watched:<br /><br />1. Bad acting.<br /><br />2. Bad writing.<br /><br />3. Scientifically stupid plot. (Destroying an entire planet because its orbit is unstable or in the way will only make matters worse: instead of having one large, easily avoidable object, you'll have thousands of smaller, but equally lethal and more difficult objects to track.)<br /><br />4. Completely unrealistic characters. A painted beach ball as a space alien? The writers must have been doing too many drugs.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, the majority of actors that starred in 'Dark Star' never did anything else. Of those that did do anything else, the majority never acted again after Dark Star. Therefore, having Dark Star on one's acting resume was a death star to one's acting career! | 1 |
Put quite simply, this film is terrifying.<br /><br />It starts off simply, looking like a study of a rebellious young girl and goes on to become a beautifully crafted horror film.<br /><br />Don't expect gore, or zombies. This is psychological, and just as he would also do in Candyman, Bernard Rose manages to convey the horror that is not being believed.<br /><br />Each time you watch this film, you realise more about what's happening, and about how the two worlds in this film interconnect.<br /><br />Drawings have never been scarier. | 0 |
I was at the premier of the movie last night in Rome. I am not an expert in the book, however there are a great deal of changes from the book to the movie. The pacing of this movie is much faster than the Davinci code. Many things were trimmed otherwise this would be a 4 hour movie. Many things were also changed to give the movie a fast pace. I think what matters is the feel of the movie and that works well for Hanks, Brown and company.<br /><br />There are some things in the book that would appear very implausible in the movie form. I am not giving any spoilers, except to say the ending of the movie is handled in a slightly different way. How Leonardo Vetra was found is also different. Those who see the movie might be interested in reading the book to get the full details of the story. Some minor details are are also cut from the movie.<br /><br />Although they did film in Rome, they had to recreate interior shots. Since I went on a walking tour of Rome the day before the movie I can say that the interior sites are authentic in look and feel. Kohler is not in the movie and not much is shown about CERN. Hanks does a good job and there are some interesting scenes involving the Vatican archives. Of course they had no access to that area and I am not sure if anyone actually knows what the Vatican archives look like. Eyelet Zurer has her break in this movie as Victoria Vetra and does a good job as eye candy for Hanks.<br /><br />This movie should be received better by the critics and public, but you never know. Ron Howard mentioned several times in interviews and as we saw him and the cast before the movie, that this is just a movie. | 0 |
This early film from future goremeister Lucio Fulci is a very good addition to the giallo sub-genre. Set in rural Italy, there is a serial killer of children at large. Add to the mix an array of characters familiar to fans of giallo cinema a madwoman, a newspaper reporter, ineffectual police, a sexy siren, a priest, a mute girl, a mentally-retarded loner etc. This is one of the best Italian thrillers of the early 70's.<br /><br />Unusually for a giallo, the victims in this case are young boys, which makes a change from the more typical women in peril angle. The fact that it is kids who are the target of the maniac only serves to make things a little more uncomfortable. Fulci is pushing the envelope a bit here and he goes even further in a gloriously outrageous unPC scene where a young boy is subjected to the somewhat inappropriate attention of a sexy naked young woman (Barbara Bouchet) who he is tasked with delivering a drink to. She displays herself openly and actively invites the youngster to ogle her; ultimately asking him if he wants to go to bed with her. Although she is clearly playing around with him, it's still quite an unusual scene. Admittedly there are one or two unintentionally funny bits of dialogue here but it's very nicely photographed and Barbara Bouchet exudes high levels of confident sex-appeal. A standout scene. Even if you might feel slightly wrong watching it!<br /><br />Along with Barbara Bouchet, the other standout performance is from Florinda Bolkan, who plays a madwoman who is accused of murdering the children. She is not directly responsible but it is left to the viewer to decide whether her black magic may or may not have kicked off the subsequent killing spree. Irrespective, she is hunted down by a lynch mob and chain-whipped while a car radio blasts out rock music. This scene is very strong and unpleasant. Its viciousness indicates the path Fulci's career would subsequently go.<br /><br />Despite the visceral impact of the above murder it's maybe a little surprising that the other killings are either bloodless or committed off-screen. The only other death scene comparable with the lynch-mob is the demise of the killer at the end of the movie, although this sequence is kind of silly. The plot is convoluted and awash with red herrings, although personally, I found the identity of the killer a little predictable. This weakness is less problematic on subsequent viewings though like most gialli, Don't Torture A Duckling is eminently re-watchable.<br /><br />Technically, the film is well made with impressive camera-work, solid acting and effective music from Riz Ortolani particularly good is a recurring unaccompanied female vocal that sounds like it's coming from a distant hill. Fulci obviously went on to make more graphically violent horror movies but here he shows a talent for slightly more restrained material. It's still wild stuff though and is highly recommended to fans of giallo cinema. | 0 |
This movie frequently extrapolates quantum mechanics to justify nonsensical ideas, capped by such statements like 'we all create our own reality'.<br /><br />Sorry, folks, reality is what true for all of us, not just the credulous.<br /><br />The idea that 'anything's possible' doesn't hold water on closer examination: if anything's possible, contrary things are thus possible and so nothing's possible. This leads to postmodernistic nonsense, which is nothing less than an attempt to denigrate established truths so that all ideas, well-founded and stupid, are equal.<br /><br />To quote sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick, who put it so well, 'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.' | 1 |
I'm sorry, I had high hopes for this movie. Unfortunately, it was too long, too thin and too weak to hold my attention. When I realized the whole movie was indeed only about an older guy reliving his dream, I felt cheated. Surely it could have been a device to bring us into something deeper, something more meaningful.<br /><br />So, don't buy a large drink or you'll be running to the rest room. My kids didn't enjoy it either. Ah well. | 1 |
The first film was a nice one, but it is not as good as the wonderful animated classic which I found more poignant and endearing. This sequel is inferior, but not bad at all. Sure the slapstick is too much, the script has its weak spots and the plot is a tad uninspired. But the dogs are very cute here, and Eric Idle is hilarious as the macaw. The film is nice to look at with stylish cinematography and eye popping costumes(especially Cruella's), and the music is pleasant. The acting is mostly very good, Ioan Gruffudd is appealing and Gerard Depardieu while he has given better performances has fun as Cruella's accomplice. But the best asset, as it was with the first film, is the amazing Glenn Close in a deliciously over-the-top performance as Cruella, even more evil than she was previously. Overall, nice. 7/10 Bethany Cox | 0 |
I felt duty bound to watch the 1983 Timothy Dalton / Zelah Clarke adaptation of 'Jane Eyre,' because I'd just written an article about the 2006 BBC 'Jane Eyre' for TheScreamOnline.<br /><br />So, I approached watching this the way I'd approach doing homework.<br /><br />I was irritated at first. The lighting in this version is bad. Everyone / everything is washed out in a bright white klieg light that, in some scenes, casts shadows on the wall behind the characters.<br /><br />And the sound is poorly recorded. I felt like I was listening to a high school play.<br /><br />And the pancake make-up is way too heavy.<br /><br />And the sets don't fully convey the Gothic mood of the novel. They are too fussy, too Martha Stewart. I just can't see Bronte's Rochester abiding such Martha Stewart domestic arrangements. Orson Welles' Rochester lived in cave-like gloom, very appropriate to the novel's Gothic mood.<br /><br />And yet ... with all those objections ... not only is this the best 'Jane Eyre' I've seen, it may be the best adaptation of any novel I've ever seen.<br /><br />This 'Jane Eyre,' in spite of its technical flaws, brought the feeling back to me of reading 'Jane Eyre' for the first time.<br /><br />The critics of this production say it is too close to the book. For me, someone who valued the book and didn't need it to be any less 'wordy' or any less 'Christian' or any more sexed up, this version's faithfulness to the novel Bronte actually wrote is its finest asset.<br /><br />Bronte wrote a darn good book. There's a reason it has lasted 150 years plus, while other, slicker, sexier and easier texts, have disappeared.<br /><br />As a long time 'Jane Eyre' fan, I was prejudiced against Timothy Dalton as Rochester. Rochester is, famously, not handsome; Jane and Rochester are literature's famous ugly couple. And Timothy Dalton is nothing if not stunningly handsome.<br /><br />But Dalton gives a mesmerizing performance as Rochester. He just blew me away. I've never seen anything like his utter devotion to the role, the text, the dialogue, and Rochester's love for Jane. Dalton brings the page's Rochester to quivering life on screen.<br /><br />Rochester is meant to be a bit scary. Dalton is scary. Welles got the scary streak down, too, for example, when he shouts 'Enough!' after Fontaine plays a short piano piece. But Dalton is scary more than once, here. You really can't tell if he's going to hurt Jane, or himself, in his desperation.<br /><br />Rochester's imperiousness, his humor, his rage, his vulnerability: Dalton conveys all, sometimes seconds apart. It's stunning.<br /><br />And here's the key thing -- the actor performing Rochester has to convey that he has spent over a decade of his life in utter despair, lonely, living with an ugly, life-destroying secret.<br /><br />No other actor I've seen attempt this part conveys that black hole of despair as Timothy Dalton does. Current fan favorite Toby Stephens doesn't even try. Dalton hits it out of the park. If I saw Timothy Dalton performing Rochester in a singles bar, i would say, 'That guy is trouble. Don't even look at him.' He's that radioactive with tamped down agony.<br /><br />Zelah Clarke is not only, overall, the best Jane I've seen, she's one of the very few Janes whom producers were willing to cast as the book casts Jane. No, folks who know 'Jane Eyre' only from the 2006 version, Bronte did *not* describe a statuesque, robust Jane with finely arched eyebrows and pouty lips. Rather, Charlotte Bronte's Jane is, indeed, poor, plain, obscure, and little, and NOT pretty.<br /><br />Zelah has a small mouth, close-set eyes, and a bit of a nose. She's truly 'little.' She is no fashion model. And she is the best Jane, the truest to the book.<br /><br />Some described her a cold or boring. No, she's true to the book. Bronte's Jane is not a red hot mama, she's a sheltered, deprived teen whose inner passions come out only at key moments, as Zelah's do here. The book's Jane is someone you have to watch slowly, carefully, patiently, observantly, if you want to truly plumb her depths. You have to watch Zelah, here, to get to know who she really is.<br /><br />I would have liked to have seen more fire in Zelah in one key scene, but that's one scene out of five hours in which she is, otherwise, very good.<br /><br />In spite of its closeness to the text, this version, like every other version I've seen, shys away from fully explicating the overtly Christian themes in 'Jane Eyre.' Christianity is not incidental subtext in 'Jane Eyre,' it is central.<br /><br />Helen Burns instructs Jane in Christianity, thus giving her a subversive, counter cultural way to read, and live, her apparently doomed, pinched life. It is Christianity, and a Christian God, who convinces poor, plain, obscure Jane of her equal worth, her need to live up to her ideals, and her rejection of a key marriage proposal. That isn't made fully clear here.<br /><br />In any case, Charlotte Bronte wrote an excellent, complex, rich novel, and this adaptation of it, of all the ones I've seen, mines and honors the novel best of any adaptation I've seen, and that says a lot.<br /><br />Other versions, that don't fully honor the book, end up being a chore to watch in many places. If you don't care about what Charlotte Bronte has to say about child abuse, or the hypocrisy of a culture built on looks and money, your adaptation of much of the book will be something people fast forward through to get to the kissing scenes between Jane and Rochester.<br /><br />This version, like Bronte's novel, realizes that everything Bronte wrote -- about Jane's experiences at Lowood, and her relationship to St. John -- are part of what makes Jane's relationship to Rochester as explosive and unforgettable as it is. | 0 |
This has to be one of, if not THE greatest Mob/Crime films of all time. Every thing about this movie is great, the acting in this film is of true quality; Master P's acting skills make you actually believe he is Italian! The cinematography is excellent too, probably the best ever. This movie was great; and I have the brain capacity of an earth worm. | 1 |
This movie was one of the longest movie watching experiences of my life. While I like how the director, Chan-wook Park, handled the revenge, the move as a whole was TERRIBLE. Oldboy is only billed at 1 hour and 55 minutes long but it feels like it takes at least 3 and a half hours to tell this story. I will say that the English dubbing was done very well and the movie was easily understandable. I felt that some of the scenes were unnecessarily long and a lot of the dialogue repeated itself. Also, if you have an aversion to annoying voices, then avoid hearing Hye-jeong Kang (she plays Mi-do) speak. If you are looking for a movie to kill time and make you feel morally superior to others, then watch away. If you don't want to watch a movie filled with incest, bad dialogue, unnecessary fight scenes, gross torture scenes and confusing flashbacks, then this is not the movie for you. | 1 |
After 'Beau travail', everybody was waiting for Claire Denis to make a follow-up masterpiece that never arrived. Now it has. Denis makes a quantum leap in this film, an orgy of gorgeous cinematography, elliptical editing and willfully obscure narrative events that feels strange and acts even stranger. There's a nominal plot (derived partly from the Jean-Luc Nancy book of the same name) about a mature man in need of a heart transplant and who seeks a Tahitian son he abandoned long ago; but mostly it's an exploration of the idea of intrusions personal and cultural. It takes a couple of viewings to fully comprehend, and has pacing problems close to the end, but it's still more advanced and gripping than anything else I've seen this year. Miss it at your peril. | 0 |
Unbelievably disappointed. The pace was slow. The characters unbelievable and throughout the film as a whole just let me feel bored and unfulfilled. There was no real plot that could keep you revolving around the film and keep you interested. The heist itself never offered any excitement and didn't seem very well though through.<br /><br />There was not enough depth or background to any character and Laurance Fishbourne's character was one I eagerly awaited for, unfortunately Laurance has no idea how to play the thuggish brut and is much preferred as a likable character. Columbus short one of my favourite actors (in stomp the yard) let me down with his performance, his character was dark and you could hardly see what drove his reasoning.<br /><br />The only character I think offered anything to the film was Milo Ventimiglia (Peter Petrelli in Heroes). Though his character quite small and insignificant I think his touch added to an all around dull film.<br /><br />In Conclusion buy the DVD if you want to find a new way to waste your time. | 1 |
The only reason I came across this movie was that it's on the LITTLE MISS MARKER DVD and I do recommend watching it although you won't like it as well as the better known movie.<br /><br />We have Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard as a con man and his companion. The film starts out quite light, but becomes more dramatic as Coop first plans on using his daughter to extort a sizable amount of cash from his brother-in-law but upon meeting the girl and seeing the discipline she would be subject to with his brother-in-law elects to keep her. However, he has trouble staying on the straight and narrow path and so the drama develops.<br /><br />Cooper and Lombard are good and Shirley still manages to steal the scenes she's in. There's little music in this, and Shirley only has one song. However this is entertaining and worth watching along with LITTLE MISS MARKER. | 0 |
One Crazy Summer is a fun and quirky look at love through the eyes of Hoops McCann. what could have been hokey and dull is one of the freshest and most energetic comedies ever. Savage Steve Holland reteams with John Cusack to make the ultimate summer movie! | 0 |
2 stars out of a possible 10 - and that is being overly generous.<br /><br />I thought with a cast of James Woods, Cathy Bates, Randy Quaid, Lou Gossett, Jr., and Henry Thomas - how could it miss. I was wrong.<br /><br />I can only wonder what drugs Sam Shepard was on the week-end he cranked out this piece of dribble. I'd long suspected Sam S. of being kind of nuts, this film, based on his play, confirms it.<br /><br />This is the kind of artsy b.s. that actors LOVE to sink their teeth into as it gives them a chance to endlessly emote. However, for the viewer who sits through this nonsensical trash, there is absolutely NOTHING to love about this movie.<br /><br />You haven't seen dysfunctional families until you've seen this bunch. Pa is crazy, Ma is crazy, the son is crazy and the daughter is, oh yeah, crazy. They also have mouths on them that utter words that would make a sailor blush, especially the teenage daughter.<br /><br />In addition to the above, as if that weren't enough, the plot--and it's so thin you could read thorough it--has a hole in it the size of Alaska.<br /><br />Ma is conspiring to sell their rundown farm. As it turns out so is Pa. Now I don't claim to be a real estate expert, but the last time I checked, property jointly owned must have both of the owners signatures in order to be sold. If only one of them owned the property, then the other could not legally sell it, so it would be pointless for that person to do so. Mr. Shepherd prefers to ignore this basic fact, and therefore, his plot does not work.<br /><br />Not that anything else was really working anyway.<br /><br />The only possible reason anyone could have for watching this film is if they are absolutely desperate to see James Woods in full frontal nudity, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to. | 1 |
In all truth, this really isn't a 'movie' so much as an extended final episode; by this I mean that, had you NOT followed the TV series (Homicide: Life On The Street) I suspect that you would have a hard time following this made-for-tv movie. Having said that, 'Homicide: The Movie' is still a great watch. I think it says a lot about a television production that EVERY single cast member would return, many after years of absence, to once again portray their characters and bring closure to an incredible program. The movie brings out that sense of 'family', not only amongst the characters, but amongst the actors, as well. It's all very bitter-sweet knowing that this will be the LAST time we will see them all together again under the title of HOMICIDE. Story-wise, I found this film somewhat lacking. Giardello's mayoral candidacy seems particularly contrived, and I felt his shooting could've been dealt with within the parameters of his regular position, as Leiutenant. Also, Det. Bayliss's extreme plot twist, which was left hanging at series end, is finally resolved, but I, for one, NEVER felt that it needed to be; I enjoyed being left with a mystery (let us recall that the very first episode's first case also went unsolved for the entire series run!). As a DEVOTED fan of the TV series I can love this movie, and the fact that it even got made after H:LOTS had been canceled, but I would not recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the slightest exposure to the series. Now, if they'd just release it on DVD... | 0 |
Franco Zeffirelli's ('The Taming Of The Shrew,' 'Romeo And Juliet,' 'Jesus Of Nazareth,' 'Othello') third stab at transferring Shakespeare to the screen works very well, with the casting of Mel Gibson ('Mad Max,' 'Lethal Weapon' and pre-'The Passion Of The Christ' notoriety) in the role formerly owned by Sir Laurence Olivier (and rightly so; see my review on his 'Hamlet,' arguably the best interpretation of one of the Bard's timeless (and most quoted) tragedies) and redone 5 years later by Kenneth Branagh as a full-bloodied treatment, explaining its 3 hour 22 minute running time, combined with a dream cast (and a lot of little additions, which were well-chosen and expertly done by the contemporary master of William Shakespeare, Kenneth Branagh, the director of 'Henry V' and 'Dead Again.' Joining the 'Lethal Weapon' star are Glenn Close ('The Big Chill'), Paul Scofield ('A Man For All Seasons'), Alan Bates, Ian Holm, Michael Maloney (who would be cast as Roderigo opposite Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Fishburne in Oliver Parker's 'Othello' (see my review of Olivier's 'stage' version of the tragedy, though he only starred in it) and who Branagh would cast as Laertes in HIS 3-hour version of 'Hamlet' (a proper homage to Sir Laurence Olivier and his classic version of the play; see my review on that one as well) 5 years later), Nathaniel Parker (who would be cast as Cassio in his brother's version of 'Othello' 4 years later) and Helena Bonham-Carter, who would be cast in 'Mary Shelley's Frankenstein' 4 years later. <br /><br />Zeffirelli intended this movie as a homage to Sir Laurence Olivier (who had died 2 years prior to this movie) and it works pretty well, for the most part. What I was slightly uncomfortable with was Zeffirelli's misplacing a lot of lines and in one scene, he gives one of Hamlet's lines to the Ghost. Also, Helena Bonham-Carter DID NOT convince me as Ophelia. She was too dull and unreal, whereas Jean Simmons (who had immortalized the role in Olivier's version) and Kate Winslet (who did an acceptable job in Kenneth Branagh's uncut, epic revisionist reworking of 'Hamlet') were good in the role, with Jean Simmons being the BEST Ophelia ever, that's why she was nominated for Best Actress in 1948 (she didn't win-what a shame). Ian Holm said his lines too quickly, not slowly as I expected him to, in a scene with him, Laertes and Ophelia. But then again, I'm more used to Felix Aylmer and Richard Briers' interpretations of the role and I think that they did better jobs than Holm in their respective versions of 'Hamlet' (both done by great directors, actors, text-editors, producers AND stars of all their versions of the Bard's work) as Polonius. <br /><br />The rest of the cast, however, was excellent. The scene where Hamlet confronts his mother was very well done, but Olivier and Branagh heightened the scene to better lengths to create even more emotional intensity and suspense that the scene required. <br /><br />I recommend this version just to pass the time, but it's ideal as a teaching tool for 12th-grade English teachers (I recommend showing Olivier's version first, then Branagh's and finally this version). Despite the film's 'PG' rating, there was really nothing objectionable in the movie. Only what the play called for. <br /><br />The Best Versions Of 'Hamlet' Are: <br /><br />#1 Sir Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh. Both were so good that I can't decide which one was the best. See my reviews on these versions for more information. <br /><br />#2 Franco Zeffirelli. This one was alright. It started out alright with a scene not in the play, but should've then progressed to the actual beginning of the play, where a guard cries out 'Who's there?' 'Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself!!' That scene scares the hell out of you because you're sitting quietly and then-bam!!, you almost jump out of your skin. In short, that scene sets the tone for the rest of the play. HUGE blunder on Zeffirelli's part to omit that scene. It also misplaced a lot of lines (and cut others that I think should've been put in), such as the line where Hamlet says to Ophelia 'Get thee to a nunnery, why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?'; that line was supposed to have occurred in THAT scene, NOT where it was placed in the film (after the 'To Be Or Not To Be' soliloquy. This version struggles between cutting out too much or too little from an excellent piece of literature. Kenneth Branagh would remedy that 5 years later with his uncut version of the tragedy, making HIS version a more fitting homage to Sir Laurence Olivier, as several of the actors (aside from him) had performed 'Hamlet' on stage/or on film many times on different occasions. However, Zeffirelli's take on 'Hamlet' IS faithful to the play and THAT's what I was looking for. The setup for the final act duel was the same as in Olivier and Branagh's versions, only that the denouement in Branagh's version was more violent than the denouement of the previous two faithful versions (more in line with the play; Olivier toned it down...and it worked equally well) and stuck more closely to the play, with Branagh throwing in a few harmless touches of his own...to very good effect. <br /><br />This version is Not Rated. | 1 |
Komodo vs. Cobra is not going to set the world on fire. It's not a hallmark of cinema history. What it is is a group of underfunded filmmakers trying to make another movie, make another paycheck, and continue to support themselves and their families. As such I give these efforts a lot of slack. I mean, come on, it has to be hard to be a Russian special effects technician. Not a lot of big budget films getting made there. BUT-- they are a dedicated bunch and more than willing to throw their all into whatever lame American monster flick needs affordable SFX. And I get a kick out of looking for the same locations appear time and again in these flicks. If for some reason you find yourself watching this again, look at the sequence where Pare and company are walking through a 'jungle.' Look at their feet and you'll see paved walkways. And if you happen to still have a copy of 'AI Assault' (shown a week or two earlier also on SciFi), you'll see the folks in there tramping through the same ersatz jungle. Come to think of it, I think the helicopters land in the same clearing in both flicks. I can admire the thriftiness of these films. Every dollar really does show up on the screen! Too bad there just aren't enough dollars...... | 1 |
I loved it so much that I bought the DVD and the novel at the same time. The chemistry between the actors (including little Arthur) is amazing and thrilling.<br /><br />It could have used a bit more screen time for the yummy Frederick Lawrence (played by James Purefoy). And Gilbert Markham was amazingly 'on it' from the very start of the movie. <br /><br />The one who most thrilled me via surprising shock and awe and wonder was Rupert Graves as Arthur Huntingdon. I adore him in Forsyte Saga, and all else I've seen him in. But he outdoes himself here as Arthur. In my wildest dreams I could not have pictured him playing a demented psycho such as Arthur Huntingdon. But he does. And I love it. And I love him. | 0 |
The college teacher Larry Donner (Billy Cristal) is a blocked writer since his former wife Margareth (Kate Mulgrew) ruined him, stealing his novel that became a best-seller. He does not hide his hatred for Margareth, upsetting his girlfriend Beth Ryan (Kim Greist), who is an anthropologist teacher in the same college. While giving classes of Creative Writing, he is stalked by the student Owen (Danny DeVito) that wants to know his opinion about his crime tale. Larry tells that he did not like it, and explains that in every mystery tale, the murderer should eliminate the motive and establish an alibi, otherwise he would get caught. Further, Larry suggests Owen to watch Hitchcock's movies to understand the structure of a suspenseful story. Owen, who wants to kill his detestable mother (Anne Ramsey), watches 'Strangers on a Train' and misunderstands Larry's advice, believing that his teacher wants to swap murders to eliminate the motive. Owen travels to Hawaii and while in a ship, Margareth falls overboard vanishing in the sea and is considered dead. However, Larry does not have an alibi and becomes the prime suspect, while the deranged Owen presses him to kill his mother as part of their supposed deal.<br /><br />'Throw Momma from the Train' is one of the funniest comedies of the 80's and a great tribute to Alfred Hitchcock. The direct reference is 'Strangers on a Train', but there are jokes with 'Vertigo' (with the spinning camera), 'Family Plot' (with the car without breaks) and other movies. The lines are excellent and there is an interesting point when Larry tells that every great romance or mystery has a train. Anne Ramsey is amazing in the role of a nasty and abusive dominating mother and the viewer will certainly feel sorrow and understand the insanity of Owen. Kim Greist is very beautiful and Kate Mulgrew is the perfect bitch. Billy Cristal performs an obsessed character with many silly and unreasonable attitudes but necessary to the plot. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Jogue a Mamãe do Trem' ('Throw Momma from the Train') | 0 |
Some people don't appreciate the magical elements in ROS,but they are what sets this series apart, that and the fact the producers actually decided to dress the actors in proper period clothes and armour--not anachronistic feathered caps,multi-coloured tights and plate armour!<br /><br />But I am really writing to comment on an earlier poster's article. Um, Michael Praed did not leave ROS to do Jules Verne! There are 15 years between these two series. Yup, I agree and Michael might well agree too that leaving ROS was not a good move--but it was a coveted Broadway role that tempted him in '84 and then Dynasty with its megabucks paychecks.... | 0 |
If you like who-dun-its, you will like this film, considered the best Italian detective story (giallo), Fulci has done.<br /><br />It's not Mickey Spillane for sure. There are scenes designed to disturb anyone.<br /><br />Many would be offended by a local beauty trying to seduce a 12-year-old boy. She was joking, but she was naked nonetheless, and he would have jumped at the chance to jump her bones. She also tries to tempt the local priest.<br /><br />Young boys are turning up missing, and there are several interesting suspects. You have to watch carefully to discover the killer. Can you? Don't jump on the first guy, it's way too early, and he is too obvious.<br /><br />Anyone familiar with Fulci will be able to guess the killer, who died a violent death at the end. What crazy reasoning he had. | 0 |
Babette's Feast, for me, is about healing: mending the schism between spirit and body in orthodox Christianity. This puritanical community in remote Denmark is missing an adequate appreciation of all of God's gifts in creation. They have taken the dualism of St. Paul to an extreme, and stress the life of the 'spirit,' not the life of the 'flesh.' Both elderly sisters, in their youth, were frightened by the lure of love and the temptations of life outside their simple village. They, and their parishioners, cling to the narrow biblical interpretation of their former leader, and the sisters' father. The aging congregation has become testy and quarrelsome, and the sisters don't know what to do. Enter Babette, a French stranger, and someone to whom they can show kindness. They have no way of knowing that she will ultimately return their kindness and give fertile soil to their dry, dusty theology. Babette will give everything she has, and in the process, will teach the sisters and their flock about grace, about sacrifice, about how sensual experience (as in the bread and wine of the Eucharist) can change lives, and about why true art moves us so deeply. When they can forgive each other, and themselves, they can focus on God's love that unfolds before them in a concrete way in the present. As a minister, and an artist, I can't recommend a movie more highly. True art and true grace!! | 0 |
Had never heard of The Man in the Moon until seeing it last evening on THIS HDTV channel. Look, my taste is like any others', eclectic. My favorites run from Blue Velvet to Dr. Strangelove to The Ghost and Mrs. Muir thru The Wizard of Oz and The Loved One, Eraserhead, repo man, and The Spy Within.<br /><br />The Man in the Moon is superbly made, a gentle hearted, joyous and tragic film, beautifully filmed, one in which the actors truly live in the moment rather than act. This sweet tale shortly will be in our private library. This beautiful story of life in a far finer era in rural Louisiana literally transports you to its pastoral setting.<br /><br />It's hard to remain stoic during the film's last moments, particularly when the young girl the extent of her older sister's heart searing private pain and forgives all.<br /><br />Rather than spoil the enjoyment or bore you to sobs with my dull prose, will end now with this suggestion from one who enjoys films which speak from the heart to ours.<br /><br />If you purchase no other film, please, purchase the Man in the Moon. This moving story is one you'll enjoy reliving time and again. It is a joy and a gem, a film all too scarce in this world of hardening hearts.<br /><br />The simple virtues evinced in Man in the Moon are a joy to behold.<br /><br />Paul Vincent Zecchino<br /><br />Manasota Key, Florida<br /><br />05 April, 2009 | 0 |
First off, I'd like to say that the user comments alone left me with tears in my eyes from laughing. One comment that bad SF movies become good comedies is right on the mark. MST3000 made it's living off that.<br /><br />If you look at THE ANGRY RED PLANET as the fever dream of a 10 year old comic book reader from 1959, you'll have the handle on this sucker. All the elements are there: the pseudoscience, occasionally logical, more often hilariously infantile. The adolescent boy attitude toward sex, with the 'gigolo' captain (good call on that one, guys!) making eyes at the buxom 'scientist' with hair so red it's a wonder it doesn't set off the fire alarms. The ridiculous conception of Mars as a planet so alien that everything glows red, yet one alien monster has a mouse face, and the blob alien has an eye that rotates like a kid's toy. The comic relief, an overweight astronaut (!) who sounds like he never finished the 8th grade in Brooklyn and has a psychotic fixation on his ray gun. And of course, the mere fact that alien = dangerously evil. If these people had met E.T., they would have roasted him in two seconds flat! 'OW' indeed!<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I rated this movie low. Still, it's never boring (except when the scientist tries to explain everything - only to make it all sound more and more ridiculous), and you have to admit, in your little kid core, it makes you jump a few times. <br /><br />Okay, then don't admit it. I guess you were never 10. | 1 |
From the start this film was awful! Why was it that bad?? If it isn't the naked women, not only in need of a decent plastic surgeon but also the expertise of a dentist followed by a free hand out of Colgate whitening!! Then it's the 'crazy' old guy at the gas station, who isn't so much crazy, but more 'I'm not sure how to act a great deal so I will stare straight ahead and look as stupid as I can while pretending to shout in robotic tones about something in the woods'!! Then back to these naked nymphs in need of a cure for gingivitis.... apparently, without touching you...and this is according to the opening scene.... they can cause a nasty looking red rash on your neck, which I assumed to be a chunk of flesh missing but just looks as though it could do with some TCP to clear it right up. Then you have Sophie Holland who plays Ally, I have never seen such baaaaaad acting, she is more of a 'me me me, if I'm not having fun no-one else is, and I don't wanna do this so I won't, and I'm the meanest cow on the planet, I'm sarcastic, petty and if I don't get things my way I will sulk!', kind of person.... reminds me more of a 6 yr old girl's attitude. I don't think it's even worth mentioning the dire camera angles that remind me of Blair Witch, or how low-budget the film actually was that when Judd was hacking at the 'locked' door it was in fact open before he reached to unlock it from the other side!! This film is completely laughable! If it were a spoof then it would have been successful...only just though, but, as a horror film is was just plain wrong!!! I can't even being to describe everything that went t!ts up in this movie I would run out of room! Although it was funny to watch Andrew drip raspberry juice in his ear every time he opened his mouth while Tom Savini's character was completely blind to the two hiding under the table directly in his line of vision!! It was even funnier when these two thought they could escape on a god damn tractor, which as we all know is thee number one hated vehicle to get stuck behind since its so god damn slow! So is it any wonder they don't get away with it?? And how many people do you know that can slice open their wrist and then run around for hours as if nothing ever happened! No pain, no weakening from blood loss, nothing!? But the silliest part is when all of a sudden (and i mean that literally) it's one YEAR later and Molly is still wandering the woods after having escaped the nymphs, and then lo and behold, Shaun Hutson picks her up...of course not without a line to promote his books!! (altho admittedly he is one of my fav authors) but suddenly, and with absolutely no hint of an xplanation as to how and why... she's evil herself and lures Hutson to his death, then we cut to the crazy dude from the beginning suddenly wandering round the woods with a petrol can, even after his 'dazzling' performance on why no-one should ever venture there for whatever reason...cue the nymphs stupidly slappin each other around a bit for fun while Crazy pours petrol everywhere....and here endeth the film....finally! My conclusion....if you hadn't already guessed by now....absolute rubbish! There was no proper thought went into it at all, whoever was aiming the camera needed firing...and come to think of it so did 99% of the cast! If the right director, actors, and budget got behind this it could have been decent. But, once again, low-budget English horror films but the rest of the genre, the country, and the English film-making industry to shame!! (And I'm English so I'm allowed to say that)! In fact the only decent and exciting part of the movie is in the first 15-20 mins when we watch it turn from night to day over a field type area. All I kept thinking throughout this was 'Jesus Christ in heaven why oh why did you allow someone to make this, its absolute cow's testicles!!' But I can't turn a film off after I've started watching it unfortunately. I had to watch From Dusk Til Dawn afterwards just to remind myself that Tom Savini does have it in him to act well! If there was an option for 0/10 then believe me I woulda chose that, cuz this film isn't even worth the one point I did give it! <br /><br />But this is just my opinion, watch it and decide for yourself. | 1 |
If John Waters had written and directed 'House of 1000 Corpses' after being struck about the head repeatedly with a heavy object, the result would probably be something like 'The Blood Shed.' It's mildly entertaining for the first half hour, but then it slides into a sort of featureless glop of constant screaming and people doing things to each others genitalia with electric carving knives, cutlery and pliers. Susan Adriensen (Sno Cakes) is incredibly annoying and Terry West (Elvis Bullion) is almost as bad in whatever it is he's doing in front of the camera.<br /><br />Maybe the best thing about 'The Blood Shed' is that it won't take most viewers very long to forget about it. | 1 |
I appear to be in the minority on this one, but I found One True Thing to be schmaltzy, contrived and generally unpleasant. Not that the acting was all that bad, but the characters seemed little more than archetypes (the bad father, oh, but wait, maybe he's not unredeemably bad; maybe there can be a resolution at the end . . .). Admittedly, the woman I was with loved the movie, so maybe you'll like it. But I didn't. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.