review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
'Cut' is a film about some film students making a film. It's very much in the 'Scream' mold, an ironic, self-referential horror flick which, for me at least, falls down because for all its irony, it's still just a bad horror film, same as the films its referring to.<br /><br />But it was not without its charms. Well, one charm anyway. Molly Ringwald was fantastic as the spoilt, bitchy American actress hating every minute of working with the amateur Australian film crew. She was so convincing that its tempting to believe it wasn't an act, although everyone involved with 'Cut' says she was lovely to work with. :-)<br /><br />Seriously, every scene of her pouting, sulking or snapping was great. Everyone else, however, wavered between being OK and being terribly wooden.<br /><br />Anyway, 'Cut' has some laughs, a few buckets of gore (some of it surprisingly gruesome), and ultimately is.. just another bad horror film. | 1 |
I was looking forward to this movie. I like road trip thrillers. I like sex, drugs, youth, action and a great sound track. And I was especially interested in taking the movie trip across Europe to see if I recognized any of my own travel spots.<br /><br />From the first scene, however, this movie was unwatchable. What was Guy doing driving on the wrong side of the road? What could possibly have blown up the van that rolled gracefully down a shallow grassy incline? If they're such bad drivers, why would they take a delivery job? And that's just the first scene! Not even bad enough to be campy or silly. Just Horrible! Horrible! Horrible! Waste of time. Move on to something... anything else! | 1 |
or any stories reminiscent of the Leopold and Loeb case, you may find this movie entertaining. The cast includes Robert Culp,with Stephen Caffrey and Garrison Hershberger as the college students.<br /><br />Peter Falk is his usual self, pretending to be tricked by the precocious students. Caffrey ('Longtime Companion', 'Buried Alive') is excellent, and should do more of these menacing roles. Basically the two frat buddies become tired of their demanding parents, who expect nothing less than academic perfection, attendance at the best schools will only be financed if they conform. There is an excellent scene wherein Culp rakes Caffrey over the coals after he gets a low grade, threatens to cut off his trust funds and Caffrey later says to his friend: 'I hate him, I want him dead'...<br /><br />All is not well in Beverly Hills. This is always an excellent theme. I believe this film came out in 1990 right after the Menendez killings. If you watch 'Menedez, a Killing in Beverly Hills' and then compare it to this film, you may find some interesting parallels. | 0 |
Sadly, this movie did have potential with such a willing cast, but everything was so poorly thought out and poorly executed. I don't think I've ever seen any film where every scene just falls flat with a loud thud, as it did here. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a 'stoner' sex comedy that didn't provide at least one laugh, but this vortex of pain provided nothing but groans and misery. The last time I was this stunned at how un-funny a comedy can be was with the awful 'Big Momma's House.' Scene after scene, these movies will turn your brain into jelly. Silly and stupid can sometimes be funny, but here, silly and stupid are used as a torture device against the viewer. An absolute, rock-bottom dud. | 1 |
Watchable but pretty terrible. How shocking that this was the great Gregory La Cava's last directing credit! Even in his better known roles, I don't care for Gene Kelly. He seems to me to be smug, hostile, and self-involved. Here, paired with a minor actress like Marie Wilson, he seems to show those characteristics in spades.<br /><br />Marie Wilson, playing an heiress who falls for a military man, is exceptionally hard and unsympathetic. The actors seem to be working hard to get past the hard, disagreeable core of the picture and they do OK.<br /><br />The know-it-all butler is apparently meant to be funny but he seems like an extended riff on the prissy bits for which Franklin Pangborn was famous (and in which, despite their stereotyping, he was generally funny -- unlike this guy.) Phyllis Thaxter is as always very appealing in a rather underdeveloped secondary plot. | 1 |
The only possible way to enjoy this flick is to bang your head against the wall, allow some internal hemorrhaging of the brain, let a bunch of your brain cells die and once you are officially mentally retarded, perhaps then you *MIGHT* enjoy this film.<br /><br />The only saving grace was the story between Raju and Stephanie. Govinda was excellent in the role of the cab driver and so was the Brit girl. Perhaps if they would have created the whole movie on their escapades in India and how they eventually fall in love would have made it a much more enjoyable film.<br /><br />The only reason I gave it a 3 rating is because of Govida and his ability as an actor when it comes to comedy.<br /><br />Juhi Chawla and Anil Kapoor were wasted needlessly. Plus the scene at Heathrow of the re-union was just too much to digest. Being an international traveler in the post 9/11 world, Anil Kapoor would have got himself shot much before he even reached the sky bridge to profess his true love :) But then again the point of the movie was to defy logic, gravity, physics and throw an egg on the face of the *GENERAL* audience.<br /><br />Watch it at your own peril. At least I know I have been scarred for life :( | 1 |
*This comment may technically contain 'spoilers' but it sure doesn't contain surprises*<br /><br />My cousin and I rented this the other day hoping to get a good laugh at a typical amateur crappy excuse for a horror movie. Unfortunately, we didn't get too many laughs, and we certainly didn't get too many scares either.<br /><br />Plot outline: A plane containing a company head's daughter and some weird piece of technology crashes in an area where our furry friend lives, so the company head assembles a team of personalities, rather than skilled hunters, to recover it.<br /><br />For the first 3/4's of the movie, things get pretty boring. It mostly consists of shots of Big Foot lurking in the trees with the party members occasionally hearing him, and passing it off as nothing. We also see several shots of the party through Big Foot's point of view, and he apparently sees in thermal vision.<br /><br />To set up the plot, we have to watch sequences of the group sitting around the campfire talking about possibilities to justify the sasquatches existence and actions. 'maybe he can dodge bullets...if he sees them coming'. Sure enough, we later see he can. 'There are many uncharted lands that the sasquatch may live in. Maybe this is one of them that was over-looked'. And obviously it is. 'Maybe the Sasquatch is angry because the plane hit one of his family members'. And sure enough, thats the case. Along with those scenes, there are a couple of 'Oh my god its the sasquatch oh wait its just you!' scenes, and sadly, they are among the scariest.<br /><br />Then, finally, people start dying. Well, 2 people at least. Plus, the bodies of past victims are discovered. The death scenes are pretty lame. It mostly just leaves it to our imagination by showing the Sasquatch grabbing them, then cutting to a different scene, but first, we are treated to some horrible screams off camera.<br /><br />Then at last, we get to see the protagonist's final showdown with the monster. I gotta admit, I found it pretty exciting while it lasted. But alas, it's pretty short lived, and after we are treated to an ending that makes a half assed effort to seem cryptic. Then, some closing text with a rather boring conclusion.<br /><br />I can't say I recommend this movie. It's not quite bad enough to give the Mystery Science Theatre 3000, and its definitely not scary enough and boring to enjoy as a horror movie. Just don't bother with it. | 1 |
Because IT IS, that's why! This is the same jealous-daughter-kills-people flick we've seen a billion times. Rosanna Arquette makes anything worth watching, and Mandy Schaffer's brief nude scene (after teasing via scantily clad attire throughout the film) at the end almost make this trite blarney worthwhile, but not quite.<br /><br />* out of **** | 1 |
I was given this film by my uncle who had got it free with a DVD magazine. Its easy to see why he was so keen to get rid of it. Now I understand that this is a B movie and that it doesn't have the same size budget as bigger films but surely they could have spent their money in a better way than making this garbage. There are some fairly good performances, namely Jack, Beth and Hawks, but others are ridiculously bad (assasin droid for example). This film also contains the worst fight scene I have ever seen. The amount of nudity in the film did make it seem more like a porn film than a Sci-Fi movie at times.<br /><br />In conclusion - Awful film | 1 |
This movie appears to have been overlooked by everyone. Someone should bring it out on VHS and DVD. It is an excellent film and far superior to the one with Brooke Shields, which was terrible. <br /><br />Jean Simmons deserves more credit than she is getting now days. It would be nice if all her films were offered on VHS or DVD. Jean Simmons was, and still is, a very good actress. She certainly was a beauty. In fact, she is still a beauty. She also has done extremely well on T.V. She is so much better than many of the actors today. | 0 |
Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi made many films together, but on the whole (interestingly enough) Karloff usually is the better man of the two. The real exception is 'The Black Cat' (1934) where Karloff is playing the evil head of a devil cult, and Lugosi is seeking revenge on him for destroying his life. But more usual is 'Black Friday', where (whatever his motive) Karloff is trying to improve brain surgery while Lugosi is a murderous thug. In 'The Raven' Lugosi is a sadistic surgeon, who blackmails Karloff to assist his evil plans until Karloff finally has had enough. Rarely are they both negative characters totally. In 'The Body Snatcher', Karloff does kill Lugosi, but Lugosi is trying to blackmail him.<br /><br />The one exception where they are both extremely sympathetic but at cross purposes to each other is this 1936 film, which I feel has rarely had the audience acceptance of some of the other movies I have mentioned. In it Karloff's Dr. Janos Rukh is a hard driven scientific genius who has been sneered at by the 'official scientific community' for his theory that a rare form of Radium is in Nigeria on a meteorite that landed centuries ago. He has finally gotten the support of a well financed expedition led by Sir Francis Stevens and his wife Lady Arabella Stevens (Walter Kingsford and Beulah Bondi), and has another scientist, a Frenchman named Dr. Felix Benet (Lugosi), Rukh's young wife Diane (Frances Drake) and a friend and protégée of the Stevenses named Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton).<br /><br />Before they leave, Rukh is warned by his mother (Violet Kemble Cooper) that he is possibly seeking wisdom that he shouldn't and it may end in tragedy. He tries to dismiss this, but he is worried by what she says, his scientific standing, and whether or not he is going to get his due credit.<br /><br />What he gets is a disaster. He finds the substance, but is infected by it's remarkable radioactivity. He finds that he is slowly burning up, and if he tries to touch people or animals they die. He's actually built up a friendship or understanding with Benet, who figures out a type of radioactive fighting cocktail for Rukh to use to counter the danger. But there are two things that are unbeatable here. The antidote can only last for a certain amount of time, and has to be replenished. And the radioactivity has affected Rukh's brain. He is increasingly jealous of Diane's friendship with Ronald (encouraged, unfortunately by Sir Francis and Lady Arabella), and he is equally upset that (due to his having to pretend to have died - the effects of the radioactivity are like that) Benet and several others are collecting the kudos of the wonders that 'Radium X' is giving to man. Soon Rukh is on a murderous rampage that destroys many lives, ending with his own.<br /><br />The film certainly picked up on science to an extent. Madame Curie had died recently from cancer she got due to work with Radium. Few fully understood the dangers of radioactivity in 1936, but some idea of it was coming out. The wave of murders by Rukh cause the newspapers to talk about a 'curse' on the expedition. Of course, with the idea of a 'cursed' expedition (on the continent of Africa) for a hidden treasure buried centuries ago, financed by a titled Englishman, we have entered archeology not physics or geology (paging Howard Carter and Lord Carnaevon).<br /><br />On the other hand, Benet tries to settle the cause of the string of deaths, and reverts to an idea that was actually demolished in 1888 in England. During the Whitechapel Murders, Sir Charles Warren ordered the retinas of several of the dead victims to be photographed to see if the last image on the retinas was Jack the Ripper. It turned out he only got the photographs of the retinas of dead prostitutes. But the idea did not die. Jules Verne used it in his novel 'The Brothers Kip' in 1899, and here Dr. Benet uses it. As this is a science fiction story, he finds the image of Rukh on the the plate, but Benet drops the plate accidentally and it shatters.<br /><br />The film is good on many grounds, the most interesting that for a change Karloff and Lugosi are not unsympathetic towards each other. There is a type of tragic fatalism in this story that is missing from their other films. The other performances are good as well, in particular Ms Kemble Cooper. She is best remembered as Basil Rathbone's frightening sister (Jane Murdstone) in 'David Copperfield'. Here her final act is the only way to bring this tragedy to an end, and who can say it did not hurt her more than her target. | 0 |
From the very beginning, the political theme of this film is so obvious and heavy handed, that the outcome is entirely predictable. Any good textbook on writing screenplays will advise layering of characters, incorporating character arcs, and three act structure. In this film you will find none of that. The police are the baddies, and consequently are shown as shallow, incompetent and cowards. It never seems to occur to the makers of this film that police might be honourable citizens who see joining the police as a good way to contribute to the wellbeing of society.<br /><br />The viewer gets no opportunity to make up his or her mind on whether Ned Kelly is a good guy or a ruthless villain. The film opens with him being arrested for stealing a horse, but we get no clue as to his guilt or innocence. We see him walk through the door of a gaol, but only know that he has been inside for three years when we hear this much later in some dialogue.<br /><br />This film contains many shots of Ned looking at the camera with a serious expression. I found the film a real chore to watch. It is the direction for modern films, and this one put me off watching any more. | 1 |
William Shakespeare would be very proud of this particular version of his play. Not only is it the best movie version of it, but it's also the only complete version of Hamlet. Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet is simply genius. Not only because it was written by Shakespeare, but also because it had the guts to do the whole thing, even if it went just over four hours.<br /><br />We all know the story of the Prince of Denmark and his plot to avenge his father's death, so I won't go into the details of the story. I will, however, tell you that the best part of this Hamlet version is not the breathtaking sets or the stunning photography, but the actors' interpretations of each character. I doubt you'll find a better Polonius than Richard Briers' delicious portrayal. Plus, you can't go wrong with Julie Christie and Jack Lemmon. Also, Derek Jacobi, a regular among Shakespeare adaptations is magnificent as the antagonist to Hamlet.<br /><br />Of course, we must talk about Kenneth Branagh. He wowed audiences when he came onto the scene with his first outing with Shakespeare, Henry V. He outdoes himself with Hamlet. Sure, Olivier's presence was captivating, but I think Branagh's performance is wonderful. When you watch him on screen, it's almost as if he knew exactly how Shakespeare wanted the role to be played. How he wasn't nominated for an Oscar is a total mystery. At least the movie got a few nominations and even an odd choice for Screenplay. I guess they know good writing when they see it though. <br /><br />All in all, you'll never find a more rich and lavish production of the Bard's best play. To say that the technical aspects were awesome would be an understatement. If you love this play and are a fan of Shakespeare, you definitely need to check this movie out. Even if you don't really care for Shakespeare, the visuals will keep you occupied for the duration of the film. You may not think you'll be able to sit through all of it at once, but you'll soon find out that pausing this movie will make you want to see it even more. | 0 |
First, This movie was made in 1978. So that tells you that the movie is going to be bad anyway.But I am not saying that all old movies are bad . Second, The special effects we're terrible for even that time. Finally, The acting was so bad, Bozo The Clown could have done it better. It makes you wonder how people get the money to make movies this pathetic. This movie sucks! | 1 |
I am assuming that the rave reviews on this page were from people who have never read the book - Unfortunately for those of us who love the text, Hollywood outdid itself on destroying this one.<br /><br />I am not sure where on earth the woman love-interest came from, except that she replaced the cat, nor why our Rogue Male acquired a helpful family back in Blighty - In fact the vast majority of the book has been cut out and replaced with your standard cruddy love story. The ambiguity about which world leader was in his sights was removed completely and our Rogue was given a name (neither of these appeared until the second book).<br /><br />I gave it a 2 rather than a 1 simply because of the wonderfully bad cockney accents. Joan Bennett outdoes Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins by miles and this goes a tiny way towards saving it.<br /><br />Ah well - Brits should probably avoid this. Trust me :) | 1 |
I saw this movie at midnight on On Demand the other night, not knowing what to expect. I had heard of this movie, but never really any opinions on it.<br /><br />I have to say, I was impressed with what I saw. I was genuinely freaked out in some parts and I definitely recall jumping up in my seat a few times.<br /><br />The Blob was scary looking. Now, I look in a jar of jelly and wonder if it'll latch itself onto my hand.<br /><br />Steve McQueen was really good as Steve Andrews, the protagonist of the film. I also liked the old man in the beginning.<br /><br />For a 50's horror movie, this was very well done even by today's standards.<br /><br />8/10. | 0 |
Basic slasher movie premise, 3 young ladies wreck their car and end up staying with a creepy family. YAWN.<br /><br />Watching 36 minutes of a premonition of OJ's car chase with a white sedan instead of a bronco. YAWN.<br /><br />Old lady with hot and cold dementia controlling her daughter... YAWN<br /><br />23 minutes of watching the actors eat - YAWN Trying to identify what the heck they are eating ... OK there might be a drinking game here ... nope - YAWN <br /><br />Complimentary shower scenes ... OK got my interest for a couple of seconds.<br /><br />Completely random and uninspired killings ... YAWN <br /><br />The ending ... dude! that psycho is deranged - why couldn't the rest of the movie be like the last 5 minutes... unfortunately that is it - My advice - fast forward to the last five minutes and watch that and then put something good in the player - for me I am going back to sleep. | 1 |
I first saw this video 15 years ago. I thought it was excellent then and I still do. I am a former teacher of English (high school and college) and a lover of English Romantic poetry, so Coleridge rates highly with me. Anything which might detract from the beauty of the poem or the power of the story wouldn't get my vote of excellence. In this case, everything works well to engage the viewer, especially high school students. The story is well illustrated for a generation which grew up on television. In addition, the voice of Michael Redgrave adds a sense of authenticity and authority to it. Okay, so there wasn't a big budget for the project. So it wasn't Star Wars and there's no CGI in it. But who can dismiss Gustave Doré illustrations as part of the presentation? The comment above, which in just four lines dismisses the video as a piece of trash, is grossly unfair and unperceptive. I'm a friend of the producer, but that isn't my reason for this comment. Rather, I'm defending a work of artistry which I think has value on all levels. It is well suited to bring Coleridge's poem to students in a way which awakens their appreciation of it and awakens their sympathy for the lesson which the ancient mariner imparts. | 0 |
I had first watched this several years ago on a now-defunct Sicilian TV channel; amazingly, the film emerged as a heftily-priced DVD from Criterion: not being sure what I had made of it initially (despite having attained cult status over the years, the achievement proper is clearly viewed with modesty even by genre buffs), I opted not to make the purchase as I did with the similar and, to me, unfamiliar FIEND WITHOUT A FACE (1958). Recently, however, I managed to acquire THE BLOB via a copy of the Spanish DVD which, interestingly, ported over the two Audio Commentary tracks from the Criterion 'Special Edition'
but, regrettably, I could not switch off the Spanish subtitles during playback of the main feature! Anyway, looking at the film anew, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it (despite many a narrative flaw, which I will get to later) as a pure example of 'B-movie' schlockiness (atypically shot in pleasant color) and a time-capsule illustrating late 1950s social attitudes. The male lead was an early role for Steve(n) McQueen and, though the actor may have subsequently looked at it with disdain, his sole contribution to the genre proves fairly engaging: not averse to juvenile kicks but still essentially a decent (and, more importantly, altruistic) kid. The special effects depicting the slimy and expanding creature are not too bad of its kind and period; the film itself rises to a good climax beginning with the monster's invasion of a cinema (showing DAUGHTER OF HORROR [1953/7] as I mentioned recently in that film's review but being curiously screened 'flipped' and which sequence, incidentally, would be featured at the opening of a satirical Italian program actually called 'Blob'!). As to the admittedly minor quibbles I have with the film: the monster is not shown traveling it just turns up at a variety of places, never being seen by anyone!; there is a baffling over-emphasis (tantamount to padding) on the kids' scrapes with Police; it is silly to have the town doctor shoot at The Blob as if fluid, whatever its proportion, can be destroyed by bullets!; equally nonsensical is having the teenagers alert the townsfolk of the danger by making door-to-door visits (especially when considering that, at that stage, only McQueen had actually seen the monster in action)! An inferior sequel emerged in 1972 called BEWARE THE BLOB!; the original was then remade in 1988 I watched this not too long ago but it seems not to have made a lasting impression on me (though I know Micheal Elliott loves it). For the record, I will be following this viewing with two more collaborations between director Yeaworth and producer Jack H. Harris, namely 4D MAN (1959) and DINOSAURUS! (1960). | 0 |
This ingenious and innovate comedy packs many moments priceless and great sense of pace, though overlong. Chaplin's satire with several classics scenes , he has dual role as a Jewish barber and dictator Hynkel, an offensive portrayal of Hitler . Then the barber is mistaken for the Hitlerian tyrant and happen bemusing events. Funny and extraordinaries acting of all casting, as the co-stars Jack Oakie as Napolini(Mussolini-alike), Henry Daniel as Gasbstich(Himmler-alike) and Billy Gilbert as Herring( Goering). Chaplin's first spoken film is brilliantly photographed by Karl Struss.This splendid film contains numerous amusing scenes, the funniest are the following : 1) The one when during the WWI the barber-soldier along with a co-pilot are flying in a turned plane without aware 2)Dictator Adenoid Hynkel doing overacting speeches including a twisted microphone 3)Hynkel playing with an enormous balloon of the world 4)The Jew-barber shaving a man fitting to Hungarian Dance number 5 of Brahms 5) when Hynkel and Napolini each try to keep his body higher than other in a barber's chair; among them.<br /><br />Hitler banned movie exhibition to the Germans due to its satire of him, and put him in his death list after his proposed conquest of America.The movie is co-starred by Paulette Goddard, third of his four wives , they were married in 1936, although no announcement of the marriage was made later, one time finished The Great Dictator.The picture was released in 1940, when Chaplin had survived a moral scandal by a paternity suit but a brush with the House of Un-American Activities was the signal for the USA to refuse him re-entry from Britain and he fled to Switzerland. | 0 |
This movie was strange mainly because the plot was so incoherent. The title refers to a vicious wind which renders the surface of the earth almost uninhabitable when it blows, but this seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with what was going on. The movie seems to be an extremely poor rip-off of Bladerunner ie rogue android being chased by bounty hunter(or ruthless cop in this). Luke Skywalker turns in a surprisingly good performance as afore-mentioned rogue cop. Nothing seems to be resolved at the end of the movie, we never find out anything of any substance about the android or what his intentions are. There is one baffling scene where Bill Paxton(who has kidnapped the android) plays one particular song in his cardboard airplane for no particular reason(the song is called 'Shape of things', by The Yardbirds). This happens again in a later scene where the same song is played for no apparent reason. Does this song have any relevance to the movie? Don't think so. | 1 |
As usual, leader Leo Gorcey (as Slip Mahoney) and 'The Bowery Boys' are hard-pressed for cash. After unsuccessfully trying to sell their old jalopy, the lads look for help at the local bank. There, hapless Huntz Hall (as Sach) has his picture taken by pretty photographer Teala Loring (as Cathy Smith). But, since the shot was snapped during a robbery, it makes Mr. Hall look like the prime suspect. With pals Bobby Jordan (as Bobby), William 'Billy' Benedict (as Whitey), and David Gorcey (as Chuck); Mr. Gorcey wants to clear Hall, and collect the $1,000 reward money. 'Bowery Bombshell' goes through the motions, with Ms. Loring a main strength.<br /><br />**** Bowery Bombshell (7/20/46) Phil Karlson ~ Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Teala Loring, Bobby Jordan | 1 |
Allen goes to the country (somewhere he hates going in real life) and has a weekend with his friends - which are the usual successful white middle-class bellyaching types that feature in many of his films.<br /><br />I usually find something to amuse in Woody Allen comedies, but here he really falls totally flat on his face. Even the one-liners seem to have deserted him. The really is no plot (bar bits and pieces of cod Shakespeare) - but Allen seems to use the location to allow a semi-mystical air, which just makes the thing even more witless and half-baked.<br /><br />It just doesn't work at any level and is just a giant bore. The best thing about this film (apart from the end credits coming up) is that the bad reviews seem to get him to wake up and realise that simply throwing together a slapdash script and casting your mates in it doesn't make for entertainment. | 1 |
I am from Texas, and live very close to Plano where the actual deaths occurred, so I might be a bit biased in saying that 'Wasted' is a film that you just can't get out of your head.<br /><br />Stahl, Phoenix, and Paul all play their characters very realistically. You truly believe that they are everyday high school students who just happen to be heroin addicts. The drug content is handled very graphically as well - although everything that happens in the film serves a purpose, and each moment the characters spiral further downward is heartbreaking. I definitely recommend this film to anyone. Once you watch it, it sticks with you! | 0 |
Jerry Angell, owner of zombie-horror's finest mullet, returns for more undead action in the sequel to director Todd Sheets' atrocious home-made gore-fest Zombie Bloodbath. This time around, Jerry plays a sleazy low-life thug who, along with his equally despicable partner-in-crime, some escaped convicts, several teenagers, and a bunch of screaming girls, comes face-to-face with a horde of shambling, flesh-eating corpses.<br /><br />Obviously having learnt zilch about improving his craft in the two years since Zombie Bloodbath, Sheets delivers another shoddy mess of a film that somehow manages to be even worse than the originala feat that I thought was almost impossible to achieve. The acting is uniformly lousy, the effects amateurish and cheap (most of the gore appears to be nothing more than a selection of offcuts, offal and blood from the local butcher's shop), the story incomprehensible (as far as I could fathom, the zombies rise from the dead because a scarecrow commands them to!!!), and the direction frustratingly laden with cheap looking video effects and completely meaningless cuts to black-and-white.<br /><br />And as if that wasn't enough to convince you of this film's complete lack of redeeming features, the simply mind-bogglingly moronic ending should do the trick: the few remaining survivors stumble upon an abandoned truck that conveniently happens to have a stash of flesh-eating bacteria laying on its passenger seatjust the thing for dissolving the undead (but, strangely enough, not at all detrimental to the living). | 1 |
I've been trying to remember the name of this movie for years (not consecutively, of course). I saw it at the local dollar theater when I was 11, and it was so atrocious I almost walked out; I think I didn't realize one was allowed to leave before the movie ended. Anyway, it stuck in my mind as just about the worst movie I saw growing up. I can finally give it the rating it deserves.<br /><br />1/10 (that was strangely satisfying) | 1 |
The movie adaptation of Heart of Darkness is disappointing, both as a movie and as a representation of Joseph Conrad's classic story. <br /><br />There are several small differences between the book and movie, but that's expected in any book to movie transition. Kurtz dies in a different location; the manager does not accompany Marlow on his voyage; Kurtz's mistress spends much more time with him than in the story. The real issue is the amount of footage that's put into the movie but has no basis in the actual story. For some reason, the director finds the need to 'spice up' a few of the scenes, adding drama or actions that seldom make any sense and are always unimportant to the story. Some examples that come to mind are Kurtz's 'mistress' beating Marlow over the head and knocking him out. Nothing happens while he's unconscious and Marlow didn't even provoke the attack. A couple hours pass and he wakes up: total waste of time. Kurtz has a pet monkey which, for some random reason, he kills on a whim. Also, when Marlow leaves Kurtz's station, he makes the 'noble' decision to leave behind all the priceless ivory he had obtained, for no real reason at all. One other flaw is Kurtz's character. John Malkovich is a terrible choice to play the man who is described as tall and inspirational: a man with a commanding presence. He practically whispers all of his lines which, in a more capable actor's hands, could have been very thought provoking. I can't remove the image of John Malkovich playing a mentally disabled farmhand in Of Mice and Men when I'm watching him botch the role of Kurtz. Over all, I would rate the movie at 3 out of 10 stars. It's a good movie if you've read the book and want to see it in movie form, perhaps to help you visual the scenes, but as a source of entertainment, I would never recommend it. | 1 |
Warning: Herzog is a filmaker, and as such tends to be a bit overly dramatic. So obsessions about closing doors may or may not be a real part of the character's life, but a filmaker's dramatic embellishment - or so both agreed at the premiere in San Francisco. But Herzog's usual fascination with character, dreams and perseverance are well suited by this story first published in Soldier of Fortune, and now a full length autobiographical book. (The Soldier of Fortune comment brought loud boos from the politically correct SF audience, and both filmaker and main character had to ensure the audience who had just seen the film, that SOF's interest was misplaced - so warning, this is not Rambo, just survival.) | 0 |
An Arab American man is kidnapped from an American Airport and flown to 'somewhere in North Africa' where he is tortured. The reason? His cell phone received a call from a known terrorist. The CIA decides to avoid legal means to determine whether the phone call is implication of guilt or just a mistake. After watching this movie we can only but pray some terrorist doesn't accidentally punch in a wrong number!<br /><br />In addition to the rendition there are several related side stories. One involves the daughter of the chief of intel (secret police?) who is torturing the suspect, and her involvement with her lover who happens to be in night school for suicide bombers. This story is way too contrived, but nevertheless intriguing, especially when we see it's outcome. The Director uses a neat time line switcheroo to hook the audience. <br /><br />The second side story is the attempt by the suspects wife to find out what happened to her missing husband. She gets an old lover to help. He (a muted Saarsgard) is aide de camp to a Senator (Alda) and soon gets cold feet when he realizes that his job isn't worth uncovering the truth. Witherspoon is wasted in this role. All she gets to do is look forlorn and pregnant, with one brief rage attack. Streep is good and cold and stereotypical as the govt. (CIA?NSA?Homeland Sec?) official who seems to be a Cheney clone. <br /><br />Gylenhall also is wasted as a minor analyst pushed into in area he's over his head in, although he gets to do the 'right thing' in the end.<br /><br />I found the movie engrossing, if somewhat languorous, but thought it added little to the subject. It is certainly not to be viewed as definitive, and it certainly has an axe to grind. Like 'The Kingdom' it scratches the surface of a very complicated subject.<br /><br />The movie tries hard to give us an idea about rendition, but can only end up by being a 'cautionary tale' about one botched one. The whole point of rendition is not to 'torture' but to get 'terror suspects' to give intel by avoiding legal (therefore obstructive) barriers. Torture, for sure, may be employed, especially if the rendition is out of our hands - although we are obviously not guiltless in this matter - but intel that can save lives is vital in this 'shadow war.' | 0 |
My Super Ex-Girlfriend is an entertaining movie no more no less. <br /><br />The story is quiet simple. Matt Saunders(Luke Wilson) meets Jenny(Uma Thurman) on the subway and hooks up with her. In the beginning of their relationship everything seems to be OK, but then Matt finds out that she's G-Girl. At first that seems really cool to Matt but it turns out that G-Girl is very jealous and needy. So he decides to break up with her and hook up with his colleague Hannah(Anna Faris). This makes G-Girl very mad and she starts to avenge herself on her former boyfriend.<br /><br />What I liked most in the movie are the scenes where G-Girl avenges herself on Matt. It was also nice to see Anna Faris in another role then her character from the Scary Movie saga.<br /><br />I give this movie a 7 out of 10 and recommend it to anybody who likes a nice comedy. | 0 |
The title alone (along with the poster) is enough to give away 'The Projected Man' as an obvious rip-off of 'The Fly'. And Bryant Haliday, while much better than the typical IMDb review would have you think, is nobody's idea of an acceptable stand-in for Vincent Price. Although, come to think of it, who would be, unless Micheal Gough was available?? Still, if you are in the mood to watch a British 'Hammer' style movie with a science fiction theme about a teleportation experiment gone horribly wrong...well, you still might want to give 'The Projected Man' a pass and rummage around in the 'remaindered' bin at your local Wal-Mart for another teleporter-accident movie. Because this one just isn't all that good.<br /><br />Haliday caught a lot of good natured ribbing from the MST3K crew for his part in this movie and in 'Devil Doll', but he is actually the best thing in TPM. Maybe he can't carry the movie, but he gets practically no help here from the screenplay. The script bogs down any forward momentum the plot may have in a mire of nonsense about funding and university politics and a guy named Lembach and some sinister cabal who want the teleportation machine to fail so they can steal its secrets...or something. So all the dramatic sequences in the first half of movie involve either phone calls or unconvincing special effects with transparent espresso machines and teleporting rats. Then when poor Haliday gets mutilated by his machine, he has to spend the last part of the film wearing a diaper over half his face and rubber cement over the rest while he electrocutes various Londoners who chance across his path. Tom Cruise and Eric Roberts using bullhorns couldn't have made this screenplay work. <br /><br />Meanwhile all the other actors diligently try to inject life and interest into their roles for this turgid little project, but the screenplay just swallows their efforts whole. The corrupt project administrator frets and fumes and hisses into the phone to his blackmailers, all the while failing to notice that he looks like a werewolf outfitted in a tweed suit and a Tattersall vest. Haliday's research assistant and ex-girlfriend have the least convincing romance in the history of British horror cinema. His secretary is forced to parade around in her 'smalls'. None of it really works or gels into a real movie. And it all just kind of stops dead, leaving the viewer going, 'Eh? excuse me, wasn't there supposed to be an ENDING here??'<br /><br />Still, for all its problems, I can easily name a dozen horror movies from the same period that were as bad or worse, and so could anyone else who follows movies (or who has ever browsed the IMDb 'Bottom 100'). I wouldn't actually pay money to own 'Projected Man', but if it were included in some compilation along with a dozen other movies in a DVD collection, I'd probably feel OK about having it. It's a harmless diversion, perfect for a horror movie film festival, to watched with friends while consuming many beers and snacks on a Saturday evening. | 1 |
Finally, I can connect the dots between Return of the Jedi and Phantom Menace. We see here where Lucas lost touch with what made the original Star Wars films great and began to descend into the plot less tripe that ruined episodes 1-3. This film is more like one of those cheesy low-budget 80s swords and sorcerer films than anything worthy of being associated with the Star Wars saga. As with the Jar-Jar character, this seems targeted at children (and the toy market). The battle scenes are particularly bad. It was depressing to see Sian Phillips' incredible talent go to such a waste, after her classic performance in I, Claudius. | 1 |
I do love B- horror films. I however, am generally not a huge fan of 'so stupid it's funny' films. I HAD to rate this so highly simply because Death Bed: the bed that eats, is so one of a kind, and so original. there are plenty of question marks, plenty of plot holes, and the WTF factor is cranked up to 11, but i was really not bored for a second. I really couldn't call it creepy at any point, Every minute i was saying to myself 'what the hell is this bed/film going to do next!' I watched this with a friend that is in no way a fan of horror or B- movies, and even she was pretty into it. the effects were actually very inventive and the colors, and atmosphere were quite good. it keeps a very consistent and even tone throughout most of the film, (albeit an incredibly ludicrous consistency) and the acting wasn't TERRIBLE. I can see from the point that there are certain inconsistencies in the actions of the bed that make the suspension of belief damn near impossible, but the film itself was such a unique and bizarre concept, that that fact didn't really bother me. seriously, for me, this film hit that realm of one i will not only never forget, but i guarantee i will find myself thinking back on certain scenes in the future. does anyone else know of any other films in the inanimate objects that eat people genre? totally fantastic. | 0 |
For those of you unfamiliar with Jimmy Stewart, this is one of his 'lesser' films from later in his career. And, while it isn't a great film compared to many of his other pictures, it isn't bad and is a decent time-passer--but not much more.<br /><br />Kim Novak is a witch in New York City and for some inexplicable reason, she decides to cast a spell on poor Jimmy to make him fall in love with her. Over time, the cold and detached Ms. Novak also begins to fall in love with Stewart--and apparently in the witch's rule book, this is a definite NO, NO!! <br /><br />The film is odd in its sensibilities about the witches. They are neither the baby-sacrificing nor the all-powerful variety. Most of their magic is pretty limited and pointless (such as Jack Lemmon using his powers to turn off street lamps). And, very oddly, the witches all seem to be bohemians who hang out in hip bars where you might find people wearing berets and listening to crappy jazz. Considering what I think of jazz, it must really stink to be a witch in this movie's world!<br /><br />Anyway, the film is pretty romantic and mildly comedic, but not something I would rush out to watch. The acting is pretty good, but the script doesn't offer enough payoff to make this an exceptional film--in fact, I almost scored the film a 6--it was really close. | 0 |
This film is an excellent teaching tool as a pre-study of 'To Kill a Mockingbird.' In conjunction with a study of the novel itself, '...Caged Bird...' can be used as an independent literary study or as an introduction to TKM. | 0 |
This film reminds me of how college students used to protest against the Vietnam War. As if, upon hearing some kids were doing without cheeseburgers in Cow Dung Collehe, the President was going to immediately change all US foreign policy.<br /><br />The worst thing is that, while dangerous, the concept of a policy based on if the USSR and US went to war it could mean the end of the world, WORKED. The US and USSR NEVER WENT TO WAR.<br /><br />Had we only conventional weapons, the notion of yet another war, a 'win-able' war, in Europe and Asia was not unthinkable.<br /><br />Not that I think they should get rid of this movie. It should be seen by film students as a splendid example of 'How NOT to make a film.'<br /><br />It should be 0 stars or maybe black holes... | 1 |
All the folks who sit here and say that this movie's weak link is the Ramones would probably say that Amadeus was ok if not for that irritating harpsichordist. Rock and Roll High School was centered around the Ramones. How anyone can watch this and not get a kick out of Joey Ramone eating bean sprouts backstage in an attempt to keep him in performing condition is obviously a wet blanket square daddy-o. Ms Trogar, exploding white mice, the hall patrols...instant classics. Nevermind the Riff Randell character.<br /><br />If you don't like the Ramones then you don't know rock and roll and you don't deserve to watch a movie called ROCK AND ROLL High School. | 0 |
This short deals with a severely critical writing teacher whose undiplomatic criticism extends into his everyday life. When he learns why that's not a good idea, we learn a bit about the beautiful craft of writing that he's been lecturing on. | 0 |
They loved him up and turned him into a horny toad! God, that gets to me every time.<br /><br />This is a great movie. Memorable lines, from 'Thank God your momma died given birth; she'da seen ya she'da died of shame' to 'I don't understand, Big Dan.' Great scenes, from the opening train scene (laughed so hard I cried) to the bluegrass.<br /><br />Watch it. It's good, it's great, it's funny, and it's based on a famous story. Worth your while, believe me. Don't watch this if you have a weak bladder, for you will definitely wet your pants laughing. | 0 |
Melissa Sagemiller,Wes Bentley,Eliza Dushku and Casey Affleck play young students at Middleton College in the town of Middleton.The four teenagers form two love triangles.One night during an ominous full moon they drive and argue along a slippery and twisting mountain road.Not looking properly they careen into another car and one or more of them are killed.The ghostly nightmare begins...Pretty lousy and politically correct horror flick without gore and nudity.It's obviously influenced by 'Carnival of Souls'.The cinematography is decent,unfortunately there is zero suspense.4 out of 10-just another instantly forgettable teeny-bopper trash. | 1 |
This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest. | 1 |
What a horrible movie. This movie was so out of order and so hard to follow.It was so hard to follow and was just confusing. The whole time I was watching it I was wishing it would end!!I felt like I wasted 2hours of my life that I will never get back. Save your money and don't rent this movie. I now see why Sarah Michelle Gellar was barely in the movie. The first movie was great but this was just sucked. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Save your money and watch the trailer because that is about the only thing that is worth seeing with this movie. This movie had no real story to it either. I am still wondering what I watched. | 1 |
The best scene of 'The People Across The Lake' is the genuinely creepy, nightly opening-scene featuring a house, a murder & a lake. After that, it's pretty much downhill from there on as far as the horror is concerned. A family (mom, dad, sister & younger brother) is fed up with the (mildly) dangerous environment of suburbia, and decides to go and live near the titular lake. From then on, the film features too much lame happy family-related doo-doo near the lake, with occasionally some corpses popping up here and there. The couple of scenes where they discover the bodies, are pretty convincing (in terms of creepiness), but they are in shrill contrast with the rest of the goings-on (featuring just every-day-life stuff of the family settling in). The truth to the matters (the mystery as to who's doing the killing) is learned too soon, leaving only the family unknowing and the viewer yawning during the unexciting finale (featuring a discovery in a basement and running around the house), like if this made-for-TV thing suddenly remembered it was supposed to be a horror film. It's not really badly made; the content & story is just not interesting enough. The only highlight in the cast is Barry Corbin, though his performance/character is just a bit too goofy to be taken serious. Blond cutie Tammy Lauren (the daughter) might be a recognisable face for avid horror junkies too, as she also starred in 'Wishmaster' (1997), and made-for-TV outings like 'I Saw What You Did' (1988) & 'The Stepford Children' (1987). She hasn't got much to do in this film, though. Skippable, but watchable, if anything. | 1 |
I generally LIKE Sion Sono's work, but this movie was completely retarded. But sadly, not retarded enough to make it entertainingly retarded. I just sat, mouth agape, wondering when it would end. The plot makes only a whisper of sense. I think it was intended to be campy. I mean, haunted hair extensions - how could it not be? But the humor, such as it was, fell flat. Not funny. Not scary. Not gory. I would say perhaps Sono was a hired hand on this project, but he appears to have written this boring trash as well. I still need to fill a couple more lines, what else is there to say? I suppose I could finish by saying: Better luck next time, Sono-san. | 1 |
Being American, I have not been exposed to this character before, which is good because some of you have been disappointed. I have nothing to compare it to. I have found no enjoyment in the mindless idiot humor in the American teen movies, and although this is a slightly similar type of humor, I couldn't stop laughing. I hardly ever laugh out loud at a movie. And usually a movie has a few funny parts for me, but this movie was funny from start to finish. My only disappointment was when it was over. I'm actually going to buy this on DVD when I find it. | 0 |
I saw this movie at the 18th Haifa film festival, and it is one of the best I've seen this year. Seeing it on a big screen (and I mean BIG, not one of those TV screens most cinemas have) with an excellent sound system always enhance the cinematic experience, as the movie takes over your eyes and ears and sucks you into the story, into the picture.<br /><br />The movie presents a set of characters, which are loosely inter-connected. Their stories cross at certain points, and the multiplicity of story lines reminded me very much of the great Robert Altman and his exquisite films. But the true hero of the movie is obviously the city of Madrid, which provides the backdrop for the entire movie. It houses the characters, contains the pavements and roads on which they walk, and sets the background atmosphere for all the events, all in beautifully filmed scenes.<br /><br />The movie returns again and again to certain themes (shoes, for instance), and in essence Salazar makes his metaphores more and more understandable to the viewer as the movie progresses. He combines the views of the city with the shots of the characters, and elegantly matches the feeling of the scene to the background. A set of talented actors helps him portrait a wide variety of characters. One excellent example is the scene in which Juaquin takes Anita across the street for the first time. It might not work on a small screen, but it gave me goose bumps easily on a big screen.<br /><br />The message of the movie is very positive, and accordingly the movie is light and funny at times. The music along the movie is usually pop, with a few instrumental pieces (I hope to put my hand on the soundtrack one day, although I seriously doubt I will).<br /><br />All together, I came out of this movie with a sensational feeling, and I'm not easily impressed (you'll have to take my word for it). For this and more I give this movie a solid 8/10. | 0 |
This movie has all the ingredients of a great horror story and loses it in the last half. Few movies can actually give me chill bumps. This one did. Few horror movie give me a sense of dread. This one did. It kept me guessing. I cared about the story. I cared about the characters. The acting was decent. Unfortunately, about half way through the movie, the story just doesn't have many good directions it can go. It becomes evident that everything cool about the plot is going to self-destruct. It does. What builds in the first half as a great horror concept shifts away from horror and towards the absurd. A plausible fear turns into a series of implausible reactions from the characters. The story concludes with disappointment. While this movie seems complete, there is one loose end that could setup for a sequel. The movie isn't good enough for a sequel. This movie is worth seeing in the theater, just don't expect to be stunned. This is best suited as a movie to rent. It's probably not a movie you'd want to own. | 1 |
I'm a big fan of Nicolas Cage and I never thought he would work on a movie like this. I couldn't believe the other reviews and I thought it shouldn't be bad to watch it at least once...but trust me, it is.<br /><br />I haven't seen the old movie..but why would they want to remake a movie like this. The very basic idea of a good horror movie is either it should have an extremely intelligent script or it should be extremely graphic. This film doesn't fall under any of those and just remains dumb.I just kept watching the movie hoping it would get interesting at some point , but it never does. <br /><br />So this movie is a big no no for both Horror movie fans as well as for the Cage fans. You could probably for it show up on television. | 1 |
I have no idea what idiots gave this movie a Palm D'Or at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival because it was atrocious! I actually watched the entire thing simply because I couldn't believe that someone would make such a worthless film. There is nothing interesting about the plot, the characters are devoid of depth and there is no attempt at giving any sort of ambiance with music or sound effects. Also, if you do decide to waste 2 hours of your life by watching this film, be sure to bring something to throw up in because the cinematography is simply someone running around with a hand-held camcorder and half the time you can't even see the main subjects. This style has been used much more successfully in movies such as 'Blair Witch' because it creates suspense. In Rosetta, there is no plot and no suspense to which that style would lend anything. I should have known better when it came on at 2 o'clock in the morning that it was going to be horrible. | 1 |
How many of us have read a book or seen a play, and then when the movie version came out we were terribly disappointed? Well, maybe this would be one of those movies for those who saw the play too, but as someone who never had the opportunity to see it on stage, I was extremely entertained by this movie. The characters were funny, the music was great, and the story was interesting and made you feel genuine empathy for the characters, flaws and all. Jonathan Silverman has such good comedic timing, and his lines especially are hilarious. I'm not going to give any spoilers, it's just a nicely done, funny movie showing the inner workings of a middle class family during WWII. So if you never saw the play, and if you have enjoyed other Neil Simon movies, don't be held back by the couple of negative reviews seen here. On its own, Brighton Beach Memoirs is a GREAT movie. I guarantee it (no money back, though). | 0 |
Let me start by saying that I totally agree with the basic thesis of the film, that there probably was no historical Jesus and Christianity is a sham. With that said, this movie does a pretty poor job of proving that thesis. It makes good arguments--the gap between Jesus' theoretical life and the writing of the Gospels, filled only by the writings of Paul, who doesn't indicate a historical Jesus--and then utterly fails to convincingly argue them. It makes broad statements without presenting the evidence the statements are based on, and it resolutely ignores counter-arguments presented by Christian apologists. The intellectual dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and lack of serious argument are obvious, and stunning. The only Christians we hear from in the film are the head of the filmmaker's old school--who comes off like a reasonable, rational person attempting to deal with a twit with a chip on his shoulder--and various Christians encountered apparently at random in a parking lot. I'm sorry, but revealing that average Christians don't know much about their religion isn't exactly damning evidence of Christianity's fraudulence. You may as well claim that Jay Leno has disproved the existence of Michael Dukakis on his Jay-Walking segment. The interviews with experts can be interesting, but the film is filled with too much of, let's be honest, the filmmaker just being snarky. Within the first five minutes the film has already conflated Jerry Falwell with Charles Manson and the writers of the Left Behind series with the Branch Davidians. And by the end, the film becomes so self-centered that there's no rational argument left, just an angry former Christian lashing out at the people and places he blames for his messed up childhood. Y'know, maybe that movie could've been interesting, but it's misplaced in a documentary about the historicity of Jesus, and it's so self-congratulatory as to deflate any sympathy. This is a Michael Moore film without the humor or the film-making acumen combined with a Richard Dawkins book without the wit or the intellectual rigor. Skip it. | 1 |
I first saw this film 40 years ago on N.Y. television, and thought it was a depressing look at the future. Wells sees restriction of private freedoms as a good thing. (' no private airplanes'. The 30 year plus war in the film was the reason this film was not shown to British film goers doing the war. The concept of the future, and the Korda an Co. concept of the the machines of the future are the real stars of the film. The very best acting performance is that of Ralph Richardson as the Boss. A combination of Winston Churchill and Edina from Absolutely Fabulous comedy series. It is interesting to note that the Boss's negative personality is somewhat similar to the war time Churchill. | 0 |
Guys, you got to watch this awesome movie. At the end of this movie you will have a strong passion and profundity imbued into yourselves. The acting of the two characters, Billy Sunday and Carl Brashear deeply touches the heart from inside. This movie is about principles, dignity, patriotism and HONOR. You will hear Chief Carl Brashear say, the Navy has greatest tradition of all - Honor - practiced thoroughly by these two characters. Mere glances of these characters during the movie fills you with enthusiasm. Dialogue delivery of this movie is perfect. You can't find any flaws in the dialogues. What the Master Chief Billy says roams in and out of your mind for a long time after watching the movie. Please watch this movie. | 0 |
Paris, JE T'AIME is a wondrous cinematic homage to the city of light and the city of love, a film so complex that it almost defies summarization and reviewing. Ask a large group of people their impressions of life in Paris and the result would be something akin to this film. Tied together by each of the sectors or Arrondissement of the city, the film examines love in all forms, native folk in their Parisian modes, and tourists interacting with the great city. Approximately twenty writers and directors, each with about five minutes of screen time, include Olivier Assayas, the Coen Brothers, Sylvain Chomet, Isabel Coixet, Wes Craven, ALfonso Cuarón, Gérard Depardieu, Christopher Doyle, Vincenzo Natali, Alexander Payne, Walter Salles, Nobuhiro Suwa, and Gus Van Sant among others less well known. The stories vary from hilarious, to humorous, to touching, to tragic, to banal, to tender.<br /><br />In one story a young Frenchman (Gaspard Ulliel) is attracted to a young lithographer (Elias McConnell), pouring out his heart in French to a lad who speaks only English. In another a separated husband and wife (Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara) meet in the Latin Quarter to finalize divorce proceedings while another couple in Père-Lachaise (Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell) approach marriage without connection until the spirit of departed Oscar Wilde intervenes. Steve Buscemi in Tuileries confronts superstition in a subway with his bag of tourist collections, in Bastille Sergio Castellitto (in love with mistress Leonor Watling) is ready to divorce his wife Miranda Richardson until she confides she has terminal leukemia, Juliette Binouche confronts agony about her son's fantasies and loss in Place des Victoires with the help of a mythical cowboy Willem Defoe, Sara Martins and Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier display a keen tale of mistaken ideas in Parc Monceau, Fanny Ardant and Bob Hoskins 'play out' a strange relationship in Pigalle, Melchior Beslon plays a young blind man to actress Natalie Portman in learning how to see in Faubourg Saint-Denis, vampire love between Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko in Quartier de la Madeleine, Maggie Gyllenhaal is an ex-patriot actress stung out on drugs in Quartier des Enfants Rouges, and Margo Martindale is a visiting tourist letter carrier trying desperately to speak the French she has studied for her life's trip in a tenderly hilarious 14ème Arrondissement.<br /><br />The final few minutes of the film tries to tie together as many of the stories as feasible, but this only works on superficial levels. The film is long and there are no bridges between the many stories, a factor that can tire the audience due to lack of time to assimilate all of the action. But it is in the end a richly detailed homage to a great city and supplies the viewer with many vignettes to re-visit like a scrapbook of a time in Paris. It is a film worth seeing multiple times! Grady Harp | 0 |
EDMUND LOWE (who reminds me somewhat of Warren William), heads the nice cast of an interesting little mystery that moves at a brisk pace and runs just a little over an hour.<br /><br />Douglas Walton plays the unlucky jockey who appears to be intent on his own demise (hypnotism, anyone?), and the suspects include a good number of the supporting cast--everyone from Virginia Bruce, Kent Smith, Frieda Inescourt, Gene Lockhart, Jessie Ralph, Benita Hume, Rosalind Ivan and H.B. Warner. As an added bonus, there's Nat Pendleton as a dimwit detective--and furthermore, get a load of that art deco set decoration for the fancy interiors of a wealthy home. Must have been a set that was used in many a subsequent film.<br /><br />On the plus side, the mystery is not so complicated that anyone can follow the plot with reasonable assurance of not being too baffled. It's all suddenly clear to detective Philo Vance--and then he has a final confrontation with the murderer that gives the film a nifty five minutes of unmitigated suspense.<br /><br />Nicely done and passes the time in an entertaining manner. | 0 |
Some time ago I saw this when HBO was showing it and from what I saw of it, it seemed like a good movie. so I'm in Blockbuster today and I see it there with the DVD'S and I decide what the hell. So I rent it. After I finished watching it I was in shock of how good it was.<br /><br />This movie just touched my heart. Everything in it was so amazing. The stories, the actors, the dark humor, the MUSIC!!! Oh don't get me started on the music in this film. PT Andderson is one of the greats. Definitely the best thing to come out since Quentin Tarantino(a god.)<br /><br />After I finished the first viewing I watched it again with Anderson's commentary (I was suprised on how such a cool guy he is.)<br /><br />Anybody who is interested in movies at all should watch this movie, if they haven't already. Anderson is obviously a film lover. In the movie he rips off so many other directors tecniques. Such as the pool scene with the camera following the girl through the water. Obviously ripped off from 'I Am Cuba.' But I have no beef what so ever with that. The film is very respectable with it's ripoff's.<br /><br />I recomend this film to anybody who can deal with some of the content of the film(porn.)<br /><br />10/10 | 0 |
With this cast and budget you will expect more.<br /><br />John Cusack has made a number movies that border on the strange, yet still work. Neither he, his sister, nor Sir Ben could do anything to save this travesty of trite poorly written garbage.<br /><br />The movie is nothing more than a series of sight gags and poor ones at that. The plot goes nowhere, the writing is contrived, senseless and the characters paper thin. If you think of a movie as being three dimensional where the story and characters bring a depth to the imagery, this stinker comes across as flat as steamboat mickey.<br /><br />Dan Akroyd's appearance in this brought back memories of another truly awful movie, 1991's Nothing but Trouble. Frankly this movie is the type of project that kills careers and gets agents fired. | 1 |
'Happy Days' was produced and broadcast from the mid-1970's to the early 1980's and seems to get more ridiculous with age. At the time of its broadcast, most viewers who grew up in the 1950's were in middle age with families, and the scenes at Mel's Diner probably brought an artificial nostalgia to them. The Fonz was of course the coolest of the cool (although the actor Henry Wrinkler to this day has never learned how to ride a motorcycle). Richie Cunningham was the all-American blond-haired kid who would probably be elected student body president. Potsie was Richie's best friend--the star of the show has to have a best friend, I guess. And Ralph Malph was the bumbling sidekick to the Fonz, if not the entire group. I loved it when the Fonz would beat up on poor Ralph Malph. And there was Mel, the middle-aged lug who ran Mel's Diner. And of course who could forget the appearance of Mork? Was this really the 1950's? Ironically, films produced during the 1950's, such as 'Rebel Without a Cause' and 'The Wild One' have gotten better with age and portray the period more honestly than this show which was produced 20 years after the period it portrays.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the TV show 'Happy Days' is not in the same league as 'Rebel Without a Cause' or 'American Graffitti' for that matter. 'Happy Days' may have captured some aspects of the 1950's with its burger diner, juke boxes, cool cars, and tacky plaid shirts, but it is more a nostalgic idealism done strictly for laughs rather than an honest portrayal. 'American Graffitti' had something to say about young Americans in the 1950's whereas 'Happy Days' seemed more about what middle-aged people of the 1970's wished the 1950's had been like. The result was a kind of watered down fabrication that really has nothing to do with the 1950's. 'Happy Days' is, at best, a comedy-fantasy with some of the artificial culture of the 1950's as its backdrop. As pointed out by another reviewer, the all-American kid Richie Cunningham would probably have been chastised for befriending the likes of a drop-out like Fonzie. And Mel would probably forbid Fonzie from entering his Diner.<br /><br />A quick history: 'Happy Days' was originally a pilot called 'Love in the Happy Days' that was rejected for broadcast. Comedy pilots that had themes concerning sex and romance that did not make it to pilot airing sometimes appeared on the infrequently broadcast show 'Love American Style' which was often aired in place of baseball games that had rained out or other unexpected programming cancellations and/or alterations. In short, 'Love American Style' was a throw-away show that contained all these one-episode comedy pilots that never made it to a slotted debut. 'Love in the Happy Days' did appear as a 'Love American Style' show sometime in the early 1970's, but at the time TV executives could not foresee how a show about 1950's young people would be popular, particularly during the hey-day of comedy shows centering around middle-aged people, such as The 'Mary Tyler Moore Show' (and its subsequent spin-offs such 'Rhoda'), 'The Bob Newhart Show', and 'All in the Family'. (How things have changed since now most TV sitcoms are about young people and the industry avoids most shows about middle-aged people like the plague!) <br /><br />Subsequently, one of the young stars of 'Love in the Happy Days', a child actor from 'The Andy Griffith Show' named Ron Howard, got the chance to star in a film about young people taking place in 1959 called 'American Graffitti' directed by the relatively unknown George Lucas whose previous 'THX 1138' had bombed miserably at the box office. Even when it was premiered to movie executives, again the studios could not see how a movie about young people in the 1950's could become popular because it didn't 'fit' with what had been popular in the past, although they didn't realize that much of the movie-going audience had been young in the 1950's. As everyone knows, the movie was a huge hit, and studio executives recognized that they had completely misjudged their audience. Somewhere during the theatrical run of 'American Graffitti', TV executives realized they had a comedy pilot in their vault that was a lot like 'American Graffitti'. They brought it back with the original cast, plus Henry Wrinkler as 'The Fonz', re-titled it 'Happy Days' and the rest is TV history as it became one of the most popular shows of the 1970's.<br /><br />'Happy Days' now seems ridiculous. The characters are flat and cardboard, never being more or less than what they superficially are. The issues they deal with are trivial. And their reactions appear mindless and even silly. Nowadays, the character of the Fonz seems to be a caricature of, well, The Fonz. Was the idea to be a kind of parody of Marlon Brando's character in 'The Wild One'? Looking on the show with fresh eyes, I feel the producers really missed out on a great opportunity to present the 1950's with depth and realism that still could be fun and entertaining. Instead the producers decided on cheap laughs for quick bucks. This is definitely a show that has not withstood the test of time. 'American Graffitti' has many of the outward appearances of 'Happy Days' but it had an edge. It had an honesty about the characters and their issues. 'Happy Days' took the look of 'American Graffitti' but failed to take its heart. | 1 |
Well, where to start describing this celluloid debacle? You already know the big fat NADA passing as a plot, so let's jut point out that this is so PC it's offensive. Hard to believe that Frank Oz, the same guy that gave us laugh riots like Little Shop of Horrors and Bowfinger, made this unfunny mess.<br /><br />So, this guy doesn't know he's gay till this actor points it out. OK, sure. If anyone ever says I'm gay, I'll know the truth, even if I currently like girls more than George Luca$ likes a dollar.<br /><br />And how to know the true nature of my sexuality? Well, if I like classic litterature, dancing and Barbra Streisand, I'm gay. If I dress like a blind man in a hurry (with half my shirt hanging out), I'm straight. Oh, sure.<br /><br />And here's the big cliché of clichés: no matter how you look, there's always a very attractive Hollywood actor who'll adore every bit of grease under your skin, or a top model who'll love your zero IQ, your butt-ugly face and your pointing-out ears. If all those gay common places weren't enough to get me angry, this did. In real world looks matter, folks, and I know for sure.<br /><br />I see it coming: now you'll say 'Relax! It's a comedy! Don't take it so seriously!'. If being a comedy gives anything 'carte blanche' to suck out loud, I think the world has a serious problem. Wouldn't be much better (and funnier) to make a movie to denegate those old tiresome clichés, instead of magnifying them over and over again?<br /><br />So, one of the absolutely worst movies I've ever seen. 1 out of 10. If giving this rating has something to do with my sexual tendence, please let me know. I'm interested. | 1 |
I thought this movie was brilliant. It was so funny and so true too. A great idea for a movie. Five groups of friends on their way to schoolies. I've got to say that Matt Newton as Mason was probably my favourite character. I wish i could give this movie more than a 10 rating. | 0 |
Well, it's all been said about this movie and I hate it when writing reviews where everyone else already said what's to be said. But the thing is, I have seen zillions of movies and I am working on writing reviews on all the movies that I've seen. So, I have to write something.<br /><br />The acting is stupid. It's truly stupid how the news anchor expresses her sadness towards the plane crash. The nun is nice though and the professional assistant who comes to take care of the child. the three main killings in the movie are just so weak that you wonder how stupid can the makers of this movie be. Don't they realize that even rip-offs can still be scary. We don't see how the granpa is killed. The dentist and his assistant made me feel they deserve to die, you just don't sympathize with them. And uncle tony in the garage dies in a way that could have been worked better. We just hear him scream and we see nothing! | 1 |
So, neighbor was killing neighbor. Reminds me of Iraq. As I watched the American flag (50 stars in 1864?) being dragged behind the horse, I realized why burning that piece of red white and blue doesn't upset me as much as our destruction/indifference to the Bill of Rights. I'm a Southerner, and must have some historical memory.<br /><br />Watching the Tobey McGuire character learn to respect the dignity of a former slave, as he looks at the scalps of blacks and Germans (his ethnic background) being wagered at a poker game.....was interesting. Many twists in this movie. The wife, who is forced into her marriage, shows both lust and a strong will, characteristics we're not used to seeing in 'respectable Victorian southern belles'.<br /><br />The crazy wacked out renegade southerner gave me some insight into why my cousin, head of the Copeland Horse-thieving Gang, Inc. in Mississippi, was hung about that time. Bands of homeless men were roaming the countryside, armed. Remind you of Iraq? And how similar we are underneath the facade of religion and ethnic background? And why southerners are STILL fighting that civil war today.<br /><br />Too bad we can't use that same knowledge in our handling of the country we've just invaded and are occupying, fomenting civil war everywhere. That's Mesopotamia, now called Iraq, who happen to have the misfortune to sit on oil. The wild-eyed killers in Missouri, raiding Lawrence, Kansas could as easily be the insurgents we're fighting now with no success.<br /><br />Another anomaly was the father's tribute to the Yankees who move into Lawrence and erect a school 'even before they erect a church. And for that reason, they'll win.' Huh????? I was taught history in Birmingham, Al and we were taught that the North was much more industrial and richer.....that's why they won. Course, they also LITERALLY had God on their side. As you see here, when the freed slave indicates that he's cutting out to free his mother, sold into slavery in Texas. God, what a horrible legacy slavery gave us.<br /><br />Acting pretty good, lots of blood and gore as the warriors ride gleefully into battle (but didn't hear any rebel yells, so reminiscent of football games in Alabama). You also get a real feeling for how stupid the war was, as the bushwackers and jayhawkers gather their forces for another raid. They have lost sight of why they're fighting, and so do we. Just more mindless slaughter.<br /><br />You're also brought up to date with the limbless kids coming home from Iraq, as the bushwacker (ahh, what connotations) first has his arm seared shut, trying to save it, then has it amputated, and then dies. So much suffering for such a stupid cause.<br /><br />The cinematography is fantastic. Now I have to get back to the DVD and get the production notes, one of my favorite parts of any movie. I suspect that this movie was written by a Gore Vidal, as the spoken language is of a type you would associate with that era, if you knew History. The dialogue is definitely thought-provoking. Not your ordinary blood and guts war movie, by any means. You see the wounded but still active-duty soldiers, still fighting cause they have nothing else to do. You see the southern raiders, living off the land, stealing indiscriminately. Yet, at the beginning, you've seen the battle stop, so the women could be evacuated from danger. As I read the escalating number of women and children dying in Iraq, I'm thinking, 'Where did we lose our sense of honor as a people?' I have forgotten why I sought this movie out and bought it after 20 years, but some book somewhere lauded it. With good reason. Tobey at his best, pre-Spideyman. Buy the DVD or rent it. And tell me why others laud this, not just liberals cest moi. | 0 |
RIFIFI (Jules Dassin - France 1955)<br /><br />To me, it seems a very risky idea to attempt a Hollywood-remake of Jules Dassin's 1955 classic RIFIFI. Planned for release in 2007, Al Pacino apparently is gonna play the lead, taking on the role of Tony le Stephanois. Risky business... How they're gonna pull this off?<br /><br />Ironically, Dassin was blacklisted in Hollywood and went on to try his luck in France and made this little masterpiece, aptly called by some 'The Grandddady of all caper- and heist movies'. In my opinion, it remains a one-of-a-kind classic, beautifully filmed with one of the most memorable endings ever to be put on film. Whatever one's opinion of the film.<br /><br />In the last couple of years RIFIFI has become dangerously overpraised. Nevertheless, this French noir-classic shouldn't be forgotten. Go see it, before the remake is out there, in order to have some ammunition for comparing the two.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 9/10 | 0 |
Agustus and Call really did Nothing? Why are they Hero's they did nothing other then get to places after the bad guys where dead. What was the point of this show? I was very very Disappointed. I expected more action, more story, and to see the birth of Heros and Great Deeds. Instead I saw very little, it seemed like Agustus and Call where just side story's for the great Indian Chief. <br /><br />I'm not even sure that the history is even very close. They did very little to show why the Texans and Comanche fought against each other.<br /><br />The only good part about this movie was Zhan who played Gus very very well and is a great actor. A lot of good story that could have been gone to waste. It was sad and I wish that I had not watched it. | 1 |
What can you say about this movie? It was not terrible, but it was not good! Two days earlier I had watched Lillies and that was one of the best Gay films I have ever seen. So this was not the best time to watch a mediocre Gay flick.<br /><br />The story was silly and the acting was OK. It was not bad enough to turn off, but it had some bad moments and some terrible stereotyping. It was not very well cast either.<br /><br />Would I recommend this movie? No you would be wasting your time and money. I don't understand why movies like these are made and who is funding them. Spend your time Watching Noah's Arc on Logo instead. I think this is where this movie was trying to go but never got there. | 1 |
Forget that this is a 'B' movie. Forget that it is in many ways outdated. Instead give writer-director Ida Lupino much deserved credit for addressing a subject which at the time (1950) was taboo in Hollywood. To my knowledge, this was the first film to address the subject of rape and the emotional and mental effects that that crime has upon its victims.<br /><br />Although much of the cast's acting is pedestrian at best, Mala Powers, who at the time was eighteen or nineteen, gives an excellent performance throughout as the traumatized young woman, Ann, who tries to run away from her 'shame.' Based on her work in this film, I'm surprised that she did not have a more successful acting career. Tod Andrews, too, has some fine moments as the minister who reaches out to help her.<br /><br />Ms Lupino, obviously working on a limited budget, was still able to create some memorable scenes such as the pursuit through the streets and alleys leading to the rape, and the police lineup following it. And, she created a bittersweet ending which left me wondering if Ann really could ever have a normal life again. | 0 |
More than twenty years before Peter Jackson's visionary adaptation of The Lord Of The Rings, there was this 1978 animated effort from director Ralph Bakshi. An ambitious and reasonably faithful version of the story, this has sadly been rather over-shadowed by the Jackson trilogy. Indeed, many reviewers here on the IMDb (mainly those who saw the newer version first) seem to be fiercely unkind to this version.... but if one applies a little common sense, and takes into consideration the time when it was made and the technical possibilities that existed at that time, then they will realise that this is a pretty good film. Indeed, it was shortly after seeing this animated movie back in the early '80s that I sought out Tolkien's book and immediately became a lifelong fan of these richly detailed Middle Earth adventures. So, in some respects, I owe this film a degree of acknowledgement as the film which shaped my literary tastes forever.<br /><br />Sauron, the Dark Lord of Middle Earth, forges an all-powerful ring that gives him incredible power. Following a great battle during which Sauron is defeated, the ring falls into possession of a king named Isildur
. but instead of destroying it he foolishly chooses to keep it. For centuries the ring passes from hand to hand, eventually coming into the possession of a hobbit named Frodo Baggins who lives in a peace-loving community known as The Shire. Frodo learns from a wizard named Gandalf that his ring is in fact The One Ring, the very same that was forged by Sauron all those centuries ago, and that its master is once again searching for it in order to restore his dark power over the entire land. Frodo embarks on a perilous journey to protect the ring with three other hobbit companions, but every step of the way they are hunted by Sauron's ring-wraiths, the Black Riders. There follow many adventures, during which a company of nine adventurers is formed to guide the ring to the only place where it can be 'unmade' Mount Doom, in the land of Mordor. The film concludes with Frodo and his best friend Sam on the borders of Mordor, closing ever nearer to their horrifying destination. Meanwhile Gandalf and the other members of the company fight off a huge army of orcs at the legendary fortress of Helm's Deep.<br /><br />This version covers just over half of the original book. A second instalment was planned to bring the story to an end, but was sadly never completed. While the ending feels abrupt, it does at least end at a sensible point in the story. One has to feel a little frustration and regret that no sequel exists in which we might follow these animated heroes to their eventual goal. The animation is passable, with a nice variety of locales and characters presented in interesting detail. The music by Leonard Rosenman is suitably stirring and fits in appropriately with the epic narrative. The voice-overs are decent, too, especially John Hurt as Aragorn and Peter Woodthorpe as Gollum. On the other hand, Michael Scholes - who provides the voice for Sam - is rather campy and goofy, which is not well suited to the character. The Lord Of The Rings is a commendable attempt to visualise the staggering book on which it is based. | 0 |
This is crap....utter crap. I cannot believe any company could even get people to work on a film like this. Full Moon has a number of awful films, but this has got to be the worst. First off, the plot doesn't exist. It's odd. It's like, they took an idea for the story, and kind of never really got around to developing it. They seemed to have just wasted a lot of time filming outside shots while the two 'heroes' drove around in the desert, and Bradbury talks nonsense for about 10 minutes. There were two scenes in the movie (when Dez and Dazzy are driving, and when Dez and Bradbury are driving) where it just went on and on and on...it was almost like 2 music videos in the place where there should have been some dialog or action. They just drove for about 5 minutes, with nothing but music and shots of the surrounding landscape.<br /><br />Next, we come to the acting, which is simply horrible. First off, the girl who plays Dazzy is just a beast. She is so scary looking, I wanted to look away when she was on screen! Horrible casting. Then, you have the guy who played Dez, who couldn't act if his life depended on it. His 'crying' is actually funny, and his madman antics are even funnier. The guy who plays the desk clerk at the hotel is just as bad, as is the guy who plays Bradbury. There was no acting that deserves any recognition in this movie whatsoever.<br /><br />The makeup effects...hmmm, can anyone say pathetic? The 'effects' were so fake, they were laughable. The crazy little robot looking catepillar thing grabs onto someone, they cut away, and when they come back, the guy has a completely fake looking flesh wound. Nice. Did they run out of money on the makeup budget or what?! I must say the druggie chick who is in the one girl's apartment...nice makeup there too. I think they were going for a drugged look, and I think she was supposed to have a black guy, but it looked more like cheap zombie makeup for halloween.<br /><br />This movie is just horrible from the start. The story is stupid and very, very unoriginal, the direction looks as tho it was performed by a 10 year old, the acting is the lowest of the low, and so on. STAY AWAY from this movie at all costs. It's only 70 minutes long in the first place, and atleast 20 minutes of that is taken up by either music and no dialog or the character sitting around in the hotel. Do not waste your time on this piece of garbage. | 1 |
In his 1966 film 'Blow Up', Antonioni had his hero question truth against a backdrop of British youth protesters. By setting such questions against a fabric of hippie youth movements, Antonioni questioned, intentionally or not, the effectiveness of these organisations. How can you fight for a cause when what you think is true may actually be a lie? On the flip side, the film said that we must fight and actively challenge what we see precisely because others may be deceiving us with false images and false truths. Though the hippie aspects were the most tacky parts of 'Blow Up', they created a nice texture and gave the film more meaning than it might otherwise have had. It was a very cautionary and mature little film.<br /><br />With 'Zabriskie Point' Antonioni throws away all the ambiguities and subtleties of 'Blow Up' and goes full blown hippie. The result is a film awash with bad metaphors, stupid ideas and heavy handed storytelling. How could somebody, who across his career displayed such restraint and intelligence, make something so silly? <br /><br />The film opens with a nice series of close ups, as we watch a group of radicals discussing the meaning of revolution. Suddenly one man (Mark) gets up and leaves. He hates the rigid and ordered nature of revolution. He recognises that, though revolutionaries fight for freedom, to bind oneself to such a militant cause is to effectively give your freedom away. And so like Jack Nicholson in 'The Passenger', Mark just wants to be free.<br /><br />As such, Mark buys a gun and goes solo. He takes orders from no one. When police raid his university campus Mark shoots a guy and runs away. He then flees to a nearby airfield, steals a small private plane and flies out to the desert. Antonioni treats the desert as a peaceful utopia, and contrasts it with the ruthlessly capitalist cities, with their billboards and hollow modern appliances. He sees the desert as a sort of Garden of Eden.<br /><br />In the desert, Mark meets Daria and quickly falls in love. Antonioni then gives us a ridiculous sex scene in which hundreds of hippies have sex in the sand. Free from the constraints of modern life, these tree-huggers and student radicals can now celebrate their individualism by humping in the sun.<br /><br />The film ends with Mark dying and Daria fantasising about blowing up the mansions and stately homes of the rich capitalists who killed him. It's Antonioni's challenge to his audience. Pick up the guns, pickets and explosives, he says. Tear the walls down before they cage you in!<br /><br />Of course the film had no effect on its audience. They recognised 'Zabriskie Point' as being just another self centred commercial attempt at being radical. A sort of commodified radicalism. It felt untruthful and tame.<br /><br />Thematically the film is pretty stupid. Antonioni basically says that if you are unhappy with the modern world, and the fat cats who exploit you, you should either flee to the desert (Mark) or actively fight the system (Daria). That's all well and good. But though artists constantly warn us of such dystopian nightmares, they're all mostly unable to show us how to effectively administer change. Like the end of 'Fight Club', nihilism and violence achieve nothing. In the real world, social change tends to be instigated by humble inventors, spurred ahead by minor technological advancements. I mean, what liberated women more than contraceptives?<br /><br />3/10 - A very bad film. The problem is, Antonioni does not really believe in rebellion. He is a quiet and contemplative man. An introvert who seems to have made an extroverted film simply to garner more adoration from the counterculture who embraced his earlier film, 'Blow Up'. As such, 'Zabrinskie Point' comes across as a very pretentious and stupid film. It's essentially a 50 year old man say 'Look at me, I'm a daring rebel!'<br /><br />There are many films in which the audience is encouraged to fight 'the system', but they all fall into one of four categories. In the first category you have films like 'Network', 'Cool Hand Luke', 'Cuckoo's Nest' and 'Spartacus'. These all show that the lives of freedom fighters all end in failure, though in each case the 'spirit of revolution' survives. The message is that you can not effect change, but by dying or failing, the optimistic notion of change survives through martyrdom. Essentially we must keep on failing rather than give up hope.<br /><br />Then you have films like 'Fight Club', 'Zabriskie Point' and 'Falling Down', which simply encourage you to explode. Tear it all down. Blow it all up. Everything is a lie, so you might as well go out guns blazing. These films are borne out of angry, reactionary feelings, rather than any sort of common sense.<br /><br />Then you have the 'flight rather than fight' category. Terrence Malick and Antonioni are the masters of this genre. Films like 'The Passenger', 'Red Desert' and 'Badlands' show human beings running from worlds they do not like and forging islands or peaceful havens for themselves. Both directors are pessimists, in that Malick has his islands destroyed and Antonioni has his islands offering no sense of happiness or solution.<br /><br />Then you have the fourth category. Films like Donnersmarck's 'The Lives of Others', Ashby's 'Bound For Glory' and Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange', treat artists as a force of change and rebellion. In these dystopian worlds, in which everyone is content to be a slave to the state, it is the unbridled creativity and freedom of will of the artist/criminal who keeps the system in check. By simply existing outside of the herd, you create waves. Your comments, actions and critical eye, challenges the status quo. As such, Donnersmarck's film has novelists and artists undermining Nazi Germany, whilst Kubrick has Alex the artist/criminal fighting Nazi droogs, painting the town in blood and sperm. | 1 |
A top notch Columbo from beginning to end. I particularly like the interaction between Columbo and the killer, Ruth Gordon.<br /><br />As an avid Columbo fan, I can't recall another one in which he doesn't set up the killer at the end as he does in other episodes. In this one, as he's trying to determine the correct sequence of the boxes and the 'message' that the nephew left behind, it finally dawns on him.<br /><br />The music in this episode is very good as well, as it is in many of other ones. | 0 |
Bad sequels.....this one's a real one! When the first movie was very very bad, you have to be fool to make a sequel.....Worse actors, worse scenario,worse special effects,worse movie!!! This is history! Bad history! I give it 0 and a half (for laughs) out of *****. | 1 |
I have seen several comments here about Brando using a Southern accent, some of which felt it was a mistake. When this movie was made, racism and discrimination were very strong in the South. The Jim Crow laws were still in effect. Civil Rights was in it's infancy. Could this have possibly been a subtle social commentary, a Southern man in love with a woman of another race? The same way MASH was a subtle criticism of the Viet Nam war? Any thoughts?<br /><br />Another comment was made about Myoshi Umeki appearing 'cold'. Anyone who has been in Japan would understand. The Japanese people, at least in my experience, did not tend to show emotion in front of strangers. There were strict social rules, especially for men meeting single women. Americans in Japan were totally foreign to this culture, and the blunt attempts to meet women were shocking to the ladies. One trait of the Japanese was to smile when embarrassed or uncomfortable, which many American servicemen took as a sign that their advances were welcomed. Also remember that at the time represented in the movie, Japan had just been defeated, and the occupying forces were treated with reluctant acceptance. I think Myoshi Umeki gave a very credible performance of what her situation would have been. Watching her interaction with the American actors brought back several memories of my own experiences in the country. I was able to meet a pair of lovely young ladies who, after I convinced them I was not the typical American male, taught me their language and their culture during my time in their country. | 0 |
A terrible movie containing a bevy of D-list Canadian actors who seem so self-conscious about the fact they are on-camera that their performances are overly melodramatic and quite forgettable.<br /><br />This film is badly written, badly edited, and badly directed. It is disjointed, incomprehensible and bizarre - but not in a good way. McDowell does a great job with what he is given, but is the only one in this film to do so - he really has a bad story and script to work with. It's not even camp enough to be funny.<br /><br />I have yet to see Van Pelleske act in a credible manner, and even the sub-characters like Eisen (with his nasal, whiny voice) confirm that we are on a lot in Toronto rather than on a barge off Africa.<br /><br />Didn't the director see that the 'creature' looks like a jazz dancer in an alien suit? The fight between the blue bolts of lightning and Pelleske's orange wisps of 'magic' (!?! for lack of a better word), is obviously the result of bad actors, with no choreographer, overlaid with completely derivative special effects. Was there even a director on set or in the editing room for this disaster film (not the good kind)? <br /><br />Learn from the mistakes of others ... don't even waste your time with this one, you'll regret it like I did. I have nothing more to say about this waste of celluloid. | 1 |
When Stanwyck's husband-to-be is murdered on the eve of their wedding, she retreats to a mountain lodge, where she slips (sort of) off a cliff and is rescued by wealthy attorney Morgan. Morgan falls in love with her, leading to a definitely one-sided marriage, spent on a huge estate in Chicago (which appears to be surrounded by mountains!). Stanwyck is tempted by dashing Cortez, but eventually returns to Morgan, in a very subdued and unconvincing story resolution.<br /><br />This film has a great cast (Morgan in particular is one of my favorites) and a great director, but the script is meandering and seems pointless at times. I was so ready to enjoy this movie but I was ultimately disappointed. Still worth watching for the cast, and it's good for anyone who likes 1930s films. | 1 |
Travolta and Thurman deserved a better movie. This one is very secondary in all aspects, not a single fresh idea. But the biggest problem is this film's ridiculous philosophy. A gang of black rappers after all their criminal activities and even killing people are becoming almost positive Mickey Mouse-like heroes performing on stage and giving away awards at the ceremony. Perhaps this matches the real life. But showing it as a quite normal 'happy-ending' is beyond my imagination.. 'What's wrong with shooting a couple of bad Ukrainians if they are not politically correct?' - the show must go on! That makes me think that Hollywood writers have a big problem with separating good and evil, even if the genre supposed to be a 'black comedy'.. | 1 |
This is one of those movies that I watch every time it's on not because I like it, but because it's so bad I can't take my eyes off it (like 'Battlefield Earth' or '3000 Miles to Graceland'). The first time I watched I kept waiting and waiting and waiting to laugh and didn't get my chance until about 3/4 of the way through the movie when they strip the harassing cops to their undies and handcuff them in the park in a unflattering position. Beyond that, the jokes aren't funny, the characters aren't funny, their mishaps and missteps aren't funny...add it up, it's not a very funny movie! Not even at a slapstick level! And what's with the reggae soundtrack? It's a movie about two white garbagemen and the music is all reggae. Seems out of place, don't it? If you like a good trainwreck, this is for you. If you like a good comedy, look elsewhere. | 1 |
The only reason I watched this is because of its stars, CASPAR Van Dien, Micheal Pare & Eric Roberts & catherine Oxenburg * & Jeniffer Rubin, All capable actors & have given good performances in the past,. NOT THIS TIME,, a weak serial killer story, You can guess who the killer is in the first scene. Very contrived in all aspects there is nothing to recommend in this disaster, my rating is *1/2 POOR | 1 |
I'm just getting the chance to dig into past Austen films, and I picked this up because Persuasion is, has been, and always will be, my favorite work by Jane Austen, and Anne Elliot my favorite Austen heroine. So it was with great anticipation that I popped the disc into my player.<br /><br />I wasn't disappointed, either. I knew there were bound to be some draw-backs, so I'll state them, and try not to be too thick about them. Anne Elliot is the most introverted of Austen's characters; she is the least talkative and the least witty. There are passages in the book where Anne says nothing - only her feelings are described. This works fine in print, but how to successfully transfer this to the big screen? Short of doing thoughtful voice overs (which would grow tedious over four hours) you're left with a long succession of shots where the heroine says little or nothing, and must communicate all by her facial expression. This can leave the feeling that the film is slow, and lacking in purpose. If you need a more overt style of Austen, then certainly this film is not for you; but if subdued is more your style, and you tend to pick up on unspoken 'vibes', this will fulfill all expectations.<br /><br />Anne Firbank (as Anne Elliot), is, thankfully, an actress whose face can convey much. She looked as I had always imagined Anne Elliot would look: not a knockout - Anne wasn't supposed to be the elegant one of the family - nor in her first youth - which is also highlighted occasionally by the lighting and make-up. What you see is someone who is very like Austen's character: someone whose appearance you might pass over once; but hear her speak, and look more closely, and she grows more attractive the better you know her. This is Anne Elliot, as brought to life by Anne Firbank.<br /><br />Captain Wentworth's portrayal is ably handled by Bryan Marshall. The bitterness is never apparently obvious (save at the concert scene); and, yes, I found it hard to believe he wound find Louisa Musgrove interesting as she was shown. But that is another point of Austen's book: he did not find her interesting, he TRIED to find her interesting, and, ultimately, failed (sigh of relief). So this, too, fits with Austen's original story.<br /><br />I especially liked the portrayal of Lady Russell, who I thought in the book was not portrayed as TRULY bad; this also comes out in this adaptation.<br /><br />So this is one film which closely followed the book; I could write much more about how faithfully everything was reproduced, but I'd run out of space here. Charles Musgrove remained one of the most buoyant characters (good fun), Mary the most annoying (I was dying to have her just shut up - but I had that feeling when I read the book, too), captains and the admiral I thought charming.<br /><br />The cinematography I thought a trifle stiff. There was little or practically no fade from one screen to another - perhaps this is due to it being a TV movie. One scene - CHOP! - the next scene, the actors enter from right, proceed left, and - CHOP! - another scene, where the same thing happens. This was the only part of the movie which I felt cheated me a little. A Low Budget has to show itself somewhere, I suppose.<br /><br />And, as I said earlier, if you like some pace to go with Jane Austen, don't bother with this one, as you'll find it way too slow. I enjoyed it enormously, though, as it brought a wealth of detail (the sets were richly elegant!) to an excellent adaptation of my favorite Austen novel. I highly recommend it! | 0 |
I have begun to melt so I will make this review as short and sweet as possible.<br /><br />There's this astronaut, and he goes up in a spacecraft with two other guys, ya know? Except something happens that exposes him to radiation, and then when they come back...well, never mind what happened to the other guys, but our astronaut has begun to melt! No, not just burn up, but MELT! Like an ice cream cone in July! Well OK maybe not that fast, but ya know what I mean.<br /><br />Anyway, he gets all red & gooey, and the fact that he's melting makes him really mad. I guess he also checked out the 'melting man' handbook because suddenly he knows that in order to keep from totally melting away, he has to eat human flesh, so he starts ripping people apart.<br /><br />There are other characters, but in a movie where a man melts and melts and melts (and melts), do you really need any others? What's important is WHO will he munch next, and WHAT will be left of them? HOW long will it take for him to just melt away to nothing? WHY was this movie made in the first place? WHERE did they get the money? WHEN will you fall asleep while watching it?<br /><br />I've very nearly melted, but I still have enough time left to tell you that this movie is dreadfully boring, even though the idea is really cool and kind of gross. The makeup is neat but everything else is...SPLAT | 1 |
My family and I have viewed this movie often over the years. It is clean, wholesome, heartbreaking and heartwarming. Showing us the compassion between two families of two countries thousands of miles apart and by the most uncanny of coincidences, it's almost as if the hand of God had to be intervening.<br /><br />5 yo Jodelle Micah Ferland who plays Desi the heart stricken little girl, does a magnificent job of acting her part, and for me she was the Priam choice for the lead role.<br /><br />All in all, a 10 out of 10. There are no downsides to this sweet human story. Children of all ages will tearfully, then joyfully watch this and it will bring the viewing family together with smiles and good feelings. | 0 |
A few things to touch on as a response to the earlier person's comment. You just have to pay attention to what is going on in the film.<br /><br />(I guess they are spoilers)<br /><br />The red stuff under David's mouth? Poison ivy, the wife says not to scratch it or else 'it will spread'.<br /><br />David goes 'insane' because the stranger is telling HIM to get out of the house, which probably proves David's theory of an affair happening between the wife and stranger; he runs after the man. <br /><br />David does not lose him in the woods, he simply hits the stranger a couple of times and leaves it to his wife to pick up the pieces.<br /><br />Only the wife eats the mushroom. <br /><br />I must say, after that one point with the wife and stranger, I began to feel disappointed. But the ending made up for the entire film.<br /><br />And for that and the very last scene... this is one of my favorite movies ever. I should have put it together earlier, but let myself get sidetracked. I was really surprised, honestly.<br /><br />This film is interesting, to say the least. But if you are not watching this for the performances that the actors give, I'd say you better let this one go, because that is all that keeps this certain film together. | 0 |
Okay, so I've read most of the reviews on this movie, as well as comments left by visitors to this site, and the feeling I get is that most people who wrote reviews really didn't like this movie. That's why I'm writing now-I represent the minority because, I did. I admit, I went to see the movie because I am very impressed with Ryan Gosling's compelling abilities, and the projects he has been a part of lately have been nothing less than incredible. He is an amazing actor. That aside, I wanted to see this movie because it seemed intriguing to me... why? Because it's a whodunit where you know `whodunit' from the start, and that's kind of unusual.<br /><br />As the plot goes, two teenage boys endeavour to commit the 'perfect crime' because they believe in a twisted philosophy that only through committing acts of crime are human beings truly free-the uninhibited, and let's remember, guiltless, acting out of one's will. The relationship between Richard and Justin was complex, hinted at homosexuality, and was brilliantly acted by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. Gosling was the manipulating, controlling smooth-talker, and Pitt was the extremely book-smart, socially awkward outcast. Enter Sandra Bullock's character, who it seems most people didn't particularly appreciate. I think when people see she was the executive producer they automatically assume any role the actor has in it is a self-glorification thing. I didn't see that as the case here. Without 'Cassie's' personal history about the ex-husband that nearly killed her, who, not surprisingly, shared similar traits with Richard Hayward, she never would have pursued her instincts about Justin and Richard. The case was seemingly airtight against Ray, the unsuspecting school janitor and friend of the boys. Even when the boys are questioned near the end of the movie neither Bullock nor her partner have much solid evidence about them other than the fact that they lied about knowing each other, and the vomit Justin left at the sight. Therein lay the genius of the movie because the philosophy the boys were trying to prove through the act of killing, the guiltless acting out of will as `true freedom,' ended up working against Justin, who ended up having a conscience after all (and ended up leaving part of his conscience at the body dump site). Without that crucial piece of evidence, they almost had a 'murder by numbers.' And to readers out there who have puzzled over the title as much as I have, I looked in to it and found that something done 'by numbers' (such as a painting) suggests careful and critical planning and exacting. There's also a song by Sting called 'Murder By Numbers', but that's beside the point. :)<br /><br />Many readers questioned the necessity of the relationship between Cassie and her partner, but I think it really meant to show how cynical and manipulative she had become because of her history. Like it or not, her history does play an important role in this movie because without it, she would likely have never followed her instincts about Justin and Richard. Yes, it was a bit of the cliche `women scorned, woman acting out vendetta in every facet of her life' plot, but I think without the depth of Cassie's character you have just another movie about teenage killers, and they just may have gotten away with it. There's no movie there.<br /><br />And to the reader who commented that the teenagers obviously didn't commit the perfect crime because the police were on to them from the beginning, can I remind you that the reason was because of the purposely placed, and totally traceable shoe prints. The boys wanted to be involved-it was a game. They were so confident that they had committed the perfect crime that they wanted to see first hand the difficulty the investigators would have in uncovering what they think is the truth. What they didn't expect was that Cassie Mayweather had an overactive case of instinct working on her side. A little unbelievable? Maybe. But many crimes have been solved by police officers who have followed their instincts. However, this is a MOVIE!<br /><br />I saw this movie in theatres about three times, and each time it revealed a little more to me, and I liked it a little more. The more I watched it, the more I was captivated and frightened by the psychological depth Richard Hayward-there are people really like this. My main complaint about the movie would be that they should have had Justin and Richard's interactions a little more central (because, let's face it, there lays the intrigue in the entire film) and my main props go to characterization-each character was very distinct and interesting in his/her own way. It was very well acted, although I would have given Ben Chaplin's character a little more depth to work with (he's a good actor) and maybe pared down Bullock's character a smidgen.<br /><br />I think everyone should keep in mind that for a Hitchcock type thriller like this to basically tell you the 'whodunit' at the beginning, it poses a very big challenge for the writers to keep the attention of the audience until the very end. I think they did so quite well by utilizing a few small plot twists throughout, slow revelation of the different character dynamics, and by lighting up the screen with some really emotionally charged performances by the young actors Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. I think if we remove our innate cynicism and attempt to see how psychologically complex the characters and their interactions are, we may be able to look beyond any apparent plot holes and see the real texture and quality of this movie, if only in the characters who were brilliantly portrayed. Especially Richard Hayward. Not that I'm biassed. :) | 0 |
OK, look at the title of this film.<br /><br />the title says it all right? the title is great... i mean, a lot of things should come into your head after readin it. in fact, you might be extremely anxious to see it.<br /><br />well, sadly, you won't see any of that.<br /><br />just a bunch of bad actors, some blood spilling, some hot chicks, and some lesbo action.<br /><br />oh, well, i think there are about 5-10 minutes of zombies and vampires indeed...<br /><br />get away from this if you want to see a good movie. else get it. | 1 |
George Hilton never really grabs me like Franco Nero or Clint Eastwood, but this is a great outing for him. Basically rippin off the Django/man With No Name and doing a damn good job. The opening sequence of this gem is a classic, and the cat n mouse games that follow are a delight to watch. Fans of the genre will be in heaven. | 0 |
The biggest problem with this film is that it's nothing like Bruce Allmighty. The first film played upon every daydreamer's fantasy of being able to control ones surroundings as one sees fit. Evan's experience though is entirely different. He has none of the control that Jim Carrey fools around with and instead the story centers around the power of belief. Now this would have been fine, since the first film was preaching the same message. The problem is that the sequel does it's preaching at the expense of the comic relief. And to add insult to injury it also throws in politics into the plot. You get the distinct feeling that there is a clear message with this film, and it's main objective is not to make you laugh. To sum things up this movie is failed mixture of Eddie Murhphy's 'The Distinguished Gentleman' and Charlton Heston's 'The Ten Commandments'. I'm not sure if Steve Carrell is at fault here, you get a sense that it's his character that limits his abilities as a comedian, the former news anchor Evan Baxter is not supposed to be funny, he's basically an antagonist made into a protagonist which in this case only adds to the confusion of what this movies message is supposed to be about. | 1 |
Okay, I didn't get the Purgatory thing the first time I watched this episode. It seemed like something significant was going on that I couldn't put my finger on. This time those Costa Mesa fires on TV really caught my attention- and it helped that I was just writing an essay on Inferno! But let me see what HASN'T been discussed yet...<br /><br />A TWOP review mentioned that Tony had 7 flights of stairs to go down because of the broken elevator. Yeah, 7 is a significant number for lots of reasons, especially religious, but here's one more for ya. On a hunch I consulted wikipedia, and guess what Dante divided into 7 levels? Purgatorio. Excluding ante-Purgatory and Paradise. (The stuff at the bottom of the stairs and... what Tony can't get to.) <br /><br />On to the allegedly 'random' monk-slap scene. As soon as the monks appeared, it fit perfectly in place with Tony trying to get out of Purgatory. You can tell he got worried when that Christian commercial (death, disease, and sin) came on, and he's getting more and more desperate because Christian heaven is looking kinda iffy for him. By the time he meets the monks he's thinking 'hey maybe these guys can help me?' which sounds like contemplating other religions (e.g. Buddhism) and wondering if some other path could take him to 'salvation'. Not that Tony is necessarily literally thinking about becoming a Buddhist, but it appears Finnerty tried that (and messed up). That slap in the face basically tells Tony there's no quick fix- as in, no, you can't suddenly embrace Buddhism and get out of here. <br /><br />Tony was initially not too concerned about getting to heaven. But at the 'conference entrance', he realizes that's not going to be so easy for him. At first I saw the name vs. driver's license problem as Tony having led sort of a double life, what with the killing people and sleeping around that he kept secret from most people. He feels free to have an affair with quasi-Melfi because 'he's Kevin Finnerty'. He figures out that he CAN fool some people with KF's cards, like hotel receptionists, but it won't get him out of Purgatory. Those helicopters- the helicopters of Heaven?- are keeping track of him and everything he does.<br /><br />After reading all the theories on 'inFinnerty', though, it seems like KF's identity is a reminder of the infinite different paths Tony could've taken in his life. Possibly along with the car joke involving Infiniti's that made no sense to me otherwise. Aaaand at that point my brain fizzles out. | 0 |
Maybe you have to be a former hippie to fully appreciate this, because aside from some dated fashions, music and dialogue, it doesn't really have a thing going for it nowadays.<br /><br />Four fun-loving college art students enjoy carefree days of painting nude models and riding on motorcycles. They take acid in one scene and go to a zoo. A sign flashes on the screen that says 'Do Not Feed The Animals,' and suddenly they're in a cage laughing and hanging from a chain tire swing (?!) An evil artist (Larry Swanson) tells (in flashback) how his art career was almost ruined because of a crippling hand disease. He sends out zombie henchmen dressed in black to kidnap people, then injects them with a serum that distorts their faces. He's trying to create some new form of abstract act (I'm guessing here, the details given are a bit fuzzy, to put it mildly). Meanwhile, Jason (Ross Harris) sets out to save the day after his friend Scotty (Chris Martell) is killed and his girlfriend Janet (Eugenie Wingate) is kidnapped. I thought the zombie make-up in ZOMBIE LAKE was awful, but wait until you see it here! It's by Douglas Hobart, the star of DEATH CURSE OF TARTU. A small role is played by Brad Grinter, the director of the Z-classic BLOOD FREAK, which is much, much more enjoyable than this deadly dull turkey (aka NIGHTMARE HOUSE).<br /><br />Useless trivia note: The 1984 Regal video release features the wrong cast (for THE BRIDES WORE BLOOD) printed directly on the video label!<br /><br />Score: 1 out of 10 | 1 |
The movie starts out with some scrolling text which takes nearly five minutes. It gives the basic summary of what is going on. This could have easily been done with acting but instead you get a scrolling text effect. Soon after you are bombarded with characters that you learn a little about, keep in mind this is ALL you will learn about them. The plot starts to get off the ground and then crashes through the entire movie. Not only does the plot change, but you might even ask yourself if your watching the same movie. I have never played the video game, but know people who have. From my understanding whether you've played the game or not this movie does not get any better. Save your money unless you like to sleep at the theaters. | 1 |
Most of Chaplin's most famous films are his full-length features. And, I assume most people have at most seen only a few clips of him from his pre-feature days when he starred in dozens and dozens of comedy shorts. This is really a shame, as some wonderful shorts are pretty much waiting to be discovered by the world in the 21st century.<br /><br />If someone watches this film they have an excellent chance to see some of Chaplin's better shorts because Chaplin himself chose these three shorts and strung them together with a bit of narration to make this 1959 feature film. This is great for several reasons. First, in Chaplin's earliest films from 1914-1915, his character of the Little Tramp is still in its earliest incarnations or is absent altogether. Plus, even when he is there, he was often mean-spirited and self-centered--something very alien from the Little Tramp we have grown to love. Second, because the shorts that were chosen were in great condition, if you watch this film you won't need to worry about watching scratchy film with gaps and lousy musical accompaniment that doesn't fit the action (a common problem).<br /><br />So, for a great look at Chaplin's shorts at their finest, give this film a chance. It's sure to provide you some excellent laughs. | 0 |
There were a lot of truly great horror movies produced in the seventies - but this film certainly isn't one of them! It's a shame The Child isn't better as it works from a decent idea that takes in a couple of sometimes successful horror themes. We have the idea of a vengeful child, which worked so well in classic films such as The Bad Seed and then we have the central zombie theme, which of course has been the backbone of many a successful horror movie. The plot is basically this: young girl blames a load of people for the death of her mother, so she goes to the graveyard and raises the dead to get revenge (as you do). This is all well and good, except for the fact that it's boring! Nothing happens for most of the film, and although it does pick up at the end with some nice gore; it's not enough of a finale to justify sitting through the rest of it. The film was obviously shot on a budget as the locations look cheap and all the actors are rubbish. There's really not much I can say about the film overall as there isn't much to it. The Child is a dismal seventies horror flick and I certainly don't recommend it. | 1 |
There I was on vacation when my host suggested we take in this B-Movie festival in Breda. I was resistant, as I hadn't gone on the trip to sit in a movie theater, but I've got to admit that I don't regret a second of this one (especially with Stephen Malkmus' contribution). It probably helped that I had no idea what to expect.<br /><br />SEA OF DUST starts out like a typical costume drama. We've got a young medical student going to help a doctor whose town is being destroyed by a crazy plague (which somehow involves exploding heads). On the way, he stops to visit his fiancé and gets thrown off the property by her father. Traveling on, he finds a girl lying on the road, another plague victim, and takes her along to the doctor's. Yawn, I thought. It all seemed pretty predicable.<br /><br />And then everything went crazy and it suddenly turned into a completely different film. Tom Savini shows up looking like Dracula, characters begin traveling to 'the other side' of reality, and the dialog gets increasingly humorous.<br /><br />And just when I thought it had settled into a groove, the picture changes again, becoming really dark and bizarre. I won't spoil it for first time viewers, but there's an amazing sequence about hollow people, lots of chat about the abuse of religion by society, and some over-the-top gore effects. And did I mention Stephen Malkmus? This isn't a perfect movie (in case you haven't figured that out from its appearance at a B-Movie festival), but it's well worth the time for adventurous viewers. Great visuals, cool soundtrack, lots of interesting ideas. The acting is a little zany at times, but I think that's the point.<br /><br />Funny I had to go to Breda to see find an American picture that looked like a British horror movie. You figure that one out... | 0 |
Gorgeous Techicolor production telling the unusual tale of the romance between a woman of strong religious faith and a Trappist monk who has left his monastery, breaking his vows. The film opens at a convent in Europe, where a former student prays - a lonely beauty in black named Domini (Marlene Dietrich). She is advised by the Mother Superior to go to the desert and 'find herself', and lose her grief over her father who has recently died. In the train car on the way into the Sahara she sits opposite a very, very troubled man (Charles Boyer) - our former monk. She's soon at a hotel near a palm-treed oasis where she again sees our mysterious troubled man as he is stumped over what to do when confronted by a very seductive dancing girl. Domini becomes friends with him, though knows nothing of his past - romance soon to follow.<br /><br />This film is sentimental, melodramatic, and different (in a way, almost surreal and even a bit campy) - I found it to be quite fun and entertaining. The photography in this is really interesting - it is full of extreme facial close-ups and beautiful color shots of caravans of horses crossing the desert, silhouetted figures against a sunset sky. Marlene Dietrich gives a nicely done, though restrained, performance here and looks gorgeous. Charles Boyer - not usually one of my favorites - is actually pretty good in this, I think the part sort of suits him and he looks quite young and handsome too. Basil Rathbone is fine here, except given very little to do. Another great orchestral score by Max Steiner helps keep the drama rolling - all in all, a very enjoyable film. | 0 |
Perhaps Disney was hoping for another Mary Poppins but this is a very different story and while Angela is delightful she was a very different performer to the great Julie Andrews. Having said that Lansbury is perfectly cast and delivers a magical performance. There is something deliciously dotty about her character and she is given wonderful support by David Tomlinson. Tomilinson can carry a tune but he is certainly not much chop as a singer. It does not matter he was such a gifted actor you hardly notice. There are some great cameos from much loved stars of another time like Roddy McDowel who gives a winning performance and the much loved Tessie OShea who does very little but its nice to see the old gal again. Its also lovely to see Sam Jaffe and the king of English television Bruce Forsythe in small roles. The score has a couple of beautiful songs especially The briny sea and The age of Not Believing. The big number Portabello Road is stretched to the limit but it has plenty of theatricality. The effects look a bit cliché today but the scene with the German invaders being attacked by the wildest army in film is pretty impressive. The kids are not as annoying as other movies but one does struggle to understand what the youngest boy is saying. I loved the marching song of the home army. The home guard were very important to Britain and this is a warm tribute. The animation is delightful, much better than Pixar which I find grotesque. A warm happy film and its a wonder its not done on stage. | 0 |
This is indeed a funny show, done in a creepy sort of way, much like a Tim Burton film. It's worth a look, as it's far more creative than most of the shows this season. Best of all, it's not a 'reality' show. I'm wondering why the viewing public is so ready to accept shows like that (which lack creativity) and ignore wonderful shows like this that actually have a creative bent.<br /><br />While some decry the premise, I think it's really unusual. Much more enjoyable than 'Ghost Whisperer' and 'Medium'. I think it's the funniest thing on the tube since 'My Name is Earl'.<br /><br />Oh, and the narration and music are wonderful. If you enjoy shows that are a bit off the beaten path, I'd recommend it. It's not as strange as Twin Peaks was, but it's got a serious kink to it. | 0 |
I never saw this movie until I bought the tape last year. I was enthralled and entertained. It has all the elements of what I love to see in a Sci-Fi story, in a book or on the screen. There's social commentary, speculation, and a good story.<br /><br />There's something eerie, and amusing, watching a 1936 view of the 'distant future' of the 60s and 70s.<br /><br />I think it's a must see, and not only for Sci-Fiers. | 0 |
Another one that slipped by the radar of most anyone. This little B produced gem is so full of new ideas in an old genre and so absolutely refreshing and inventive, that a dreadful feeling about the lack of cojones in today's cinema slowly overtakes your body. The final set piece is so innovative in its setting and style that it prefigures everyone from Tarantino to John Woo. Oh, and if you think 'dying lines' are all cliche, wait for the dying line of FF. A piece of dialogue that could have torn you with laughter will take your heart. A true pleasure. Seek it and see it. You won't be sorry. | 0 |
I saw this film in a Cinema-Club in Germany in 1970. Most of the attendees were from the local private school at which I was teaching. I had seen a few Godard films previously while I lived in France, and, though they hadn't been my favorites, I could at least make sense of them. Being able to speak French helped.<br /><br />The fairly innocuous beginning of 'Le week-end' soon turned into a kaleidoscope of images, very well, maybe too well photographed, that soon made no sense to me. For me, films, like books, must have some clear sort of meaning. This didn't for me. I suppose I'm not 'into' artsy films. Images still haunt me from the film. To this day I refuse to eat rabbit meat, well-loved by the French. Those who've seen the film might realize why. Yes, the theme of materialism came through, but the cannibalism, the car wrecks, and all the other scenes of destruction and horror only sickened me. I'm not sure if I walked out before the end, but I certainly felt like it. I promised myself that I'd never watch another Godard film, and I haven't and never knowingly will.<br /><br />My rating: nothing. It was the most disgusting film I've ever seen. Others may have been more inept, silly or stupid. I've forgotten those while scenes from this one will haunt me forever. | 1 |
'Why?'<br /><br />That simple question had to be on the lips of every single New Yorker during the 12 months of terror that David Berkowitz created in 1976-77. That same one word will surely become the same perplexing question 22 summers later as people exit theaters exhibiting the trite and exploitative 'Summer of Sam'.<br /><br />Director Spike Lee attempts to weave the story of a pack of misguided thugs searching for the celebrated psychopath -- who paralyzed New York City for over a year -- with a stark and graphical depiction of the killings, the demons inside Berkowitz's head and the frustration of a futile NYPD manhunt. He presents an ensemble of despicable losers who hear their own 'barking dogs' as they live lives devoid of love, honor and humanity -- no different than Berkowitz. Lee browbeats the audience in nearly every frame with 'not one of us are what we seem to be'. Often a critic of the white establishment, Lee perpetuates the stereotype by including a scene where Mira Sorvino, playing a newlywed with a cheating husband (John Leguizamo), hopes to have oral sex with a black man 'in the back of a big black Cadillac'. An Italian Mafioso tells a black detective that the famous Willie Mays' over-the-back center field catch was 'lucky'. Lee even makes sure to deliver the racist musings of one middle aged black woman who declares 'I'm happy it's a white man killing all these white people because if it were a black man killing all these white people - there would be the biggest race riot in NYC history.'<br /><br />Other than an outstanding opening pan shot of an arrival at a disco (reminiscent of shots from Martin Scorcese's 'Goodfellas' or Orson Welles' 'The Third Man'), this film has no soul, purpose or passion. He parades characters on the screen bereft of human decency. Although we learn nothing about the true victims of this horrible spree, Spike Lee seems to be saying New York City got what it deserved during that frightening, boiling summer over two decades ago.<br /><br />'How could anyone wreak such havoc on his beloved city?' 'How could someone show such hatred toward his fellow man?'<br /><br />Are these appropriate questions for Berkowitz or Lee?<br /><br />You decide. | 1 |
The movie starts off with Reeve (Ekin) and his assistant fighting same vampires. This scene is probably the best out of the entire movie. The rest of the movie unfortunately is cheesy, highly unrealistic and a Buffy the Vampire Slayer ripoff. The ending also sucks big time.<br /><br />Some moments such as the scene where Gypsy and Helen (played by popular Chinese duo band Twins: Charlene & Gillian) fight over a stuffed teddy bear are particularly cringeworthy. The storyline is also lame, surely they could have come up with something more scary than a book called 'Day for Night'.<br /><br />Some good parts though. Jackie Chan and Anthony Wong make the movie bearable with their comical roles. However, the good bits just end there. Charlene & Gillian (from Twins) have never been able to act well and annoy you to pieces and 'the friendly but wussy vampire' role was unfortunately given to Edison Chen who is a talentless pretty boy. <br /><br />Rating: 4/10 -- | 1 |
I enjoyed the acting in this movie. Except for the sister. She reminded me of Janice on Friends. I could never quite believe she was anything but obnoxious. <br /><br />My main problems with the movie were the anticlimatic ending and the execution scene with the sister and brother-in-law. The guy falling out of the exploding car? Maybe if his hand had been blown off and he ran to the mute for help and she kissed him and rushed him to a hospital, maybe then I could have gone for the ending. I think somebody needed to die in the execution scene. Mainly the brother-in-law. He was such a pain in the ass anyway. Or maybe the sister needed to accidentally kill the guy who saved the mute. I could have even bought into the brother-in-law killing the hero and the ending being the two sisters being put in snuff films. <br /><br />It is worth watching again and as I always say, it is much easier to be a reviewer instead of an author. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.