review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
This is one of my two or three favorite Stooges shorts, and undoubtedly Christine McIntyre's best performance with the trio. She is good in a number of other shorts, but here she is absolutely brilliant. Her singing is not funny at all, in fact it is downright beautiful, but the plot is constructed in such a way that the singing enhances the humor rather than detracting from it. We listen to McIntyre sing the entirety of Voice of Spring no less than three times, but it never gets old, partly because we don't tire of her voice, and partly because it blends so well with the Stooges' antics. The use of operatic soprano in a comedy is reminiscent of Kitty Carlisle's role in the Marx Brothers' 'A Night At The Opera,' but the singing is much more a part of the comedy here than in 'Opera,' and McIntyre (perhaps more in other performances than here) exhibited a comedic talent of her own that Carlisle never did. The Stooges' buffoonery, McIntyre's singing, and a well-constructed plot combine for 5 out of 5 stars. | 0 |
Just like everybody else have said, the acting is awful, no story or whatsoever, poor directing. About the SFX, the 360 degree, matrix style shooting, 1 shoot is stupid enough, but for each characters. I mean come on gimme a break. And what's up with all those video game scenes, just to remind us it's a 'video game adaptation'? Jesus, they should have fired whoever think up this idea.<br /><br />0.00001/10 | 1 |
This film, though ostensibly a comedy, is deadly serious. Its subject is Imperialism (with a capital I): how Britain, foolishly, humiliatingly, tries to convince itself that it's still a great power after World War II. At home, the Empire is run by amiable dolts, benevolent Tories who are so in-bred that they can't distinguish close relatives; the Offices of Government consist of long forgotten archives (a dig at Orwellian paranoia?), inhabited by indolent rats, and ante-rooms wherein lounge bored synacures, reading popular novels.<br /><br />Abroad, Britain clings to the old pomp; but pomp out of context looks threadbare and silly, especially when its embodied in bumbling twits. Carlton-Browne is an unsentimental picture of decline, with none of the lachrymose rot that marred the supposedly anti-imperialist Jewel in the Crown.<br /><br />The film is also about the Cold War, bravely admitting that it's a dangerous farce, whose participants deserve mockery and contempt, not fear and respect. It's about how colonialism, characterised more by neglect than tyranny, destroys the colonies it deserts, robbing them of amenities, power, and, most importantly, self-respect, leaving them vulnerable to the machinations of dangerous cowboys.<br /><br />It's the seriousness, of course, that kills it. That's not to say that weighty subjects can't be treated in comedy - The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek, Dr. Strangelove and The Life Of Brian have all proved that. Indeed, one might suggest that serious themes should only be treated by comedy - it allows for a clearer-eyed view.<br /><br />The problem with Carlton-Browne is that every situation must have a significance beyond the merely comic, so that it becomes weighed down and unfunny. In the three films mentioned above, much of the comedy arises from character reaction to an extreme situation, not the extreme situation itself. Here, the script is too poor to sustain rich comic characterisations, and some of the greatest comedy talent ever assembled - Peter Sellers, Terry-Thomas, Raymond Huntley and John le Mesurier - are criminally wasted.<br /><br />Terry-Thomas, sublime so often, shows that he couldn't handle lead parts, and that he needed to play sneering, arrogant bounders, not brainless toffs. The music is made to carry much of the comedy, but its heavy irony only draws attention to the lack of hilarity on screen. (To be fair, unlike the majority of British comedies of the period, which were stagy and underproduced, the Boultings often try to make their points through film itself, by montage and composition) Only Huntley manages to raise genuine laughs, and that's by essaying a character he could have played in his sleep.<br /><br />None of the Boultings' farces have dated well - they're never thought through enough. Although Carlton-Browne revels in the decline of the Empire, it also seems to be anti-democratic and militaristic. I'm sure this wasn't intended, but these blunders are bound to happen if you allow worthy intentions to take precedence over comic intelligence and film form. | 1 |
Well, I only caught the tail end of this film on HBO, just the final 10 minutes or so, but I must say that it contains probably the most laughable depiction of distance running EVER put on film! I'm a serious distance runner and a dedicated fan of the sport, and I've sat through many painful demonstrations in movies before. However, nothing could have ever prepared me for what is shown on screen in the final 10 minutes of this movie, it literally defies belief! The depiction of the runners is even more ironic considering that African runners completely dominate the sport, and they are elegant and graceful. The female protagonist shuffles along like an overweight pregnant woman, and her 'highly trained' male supporters are no better. Well into the race this alleged world class runner is surrounded by pudgy, overweight people, many of whom are WALKING! I find it interesting that the director decided to have her lead the female competition, yet near the end she is shown passing people who look like they're staggering along on two broken legs! Are we to believe that this amazing stellar athlete has only overtaken a crippled person at the very end of the race? Maybe the director just thinks that female runners can't run faster than 12 minute miles, and he has obviously never heard of athletes like Paula Radcliffe or Tirunesh Dibaba.<br /><br />Even if you aren't a running fan you'll be astonished by the insanely inaccurate portrayal of running, and this movie is only watchable as unintentional comedy. Here is a note to the director: The next time you decide to make a movie about a sport, it might be worth it to hire at least one person who actually has observed that sport in action. | 1 |
Naach A more detailed review can be obtained anywhere else in the web. This one is a good portrayal, although I do not agree with it entirely. Taran is a commercial guy and hence views from his angle only.<br /><br />Ram Gopal Varma (RGV, seems like a political party) has created a marvel in Rangeela, so this one seems like a pale reflection of that one in some parts... I'm not even going to compare Urmila and Anthara.. both are good! The former has better acting talent, although the latter is catching up nicely.<br /><br />Anyways, I like Anthara's character. She is true to her art, not touched by any unnecessary emotion and definitely not too practical. She is a dance scientist, actually she is so sure of her theories that even comparing her to a scientist would offend her. Hey.. Donald Trump.. maybe you gotta ditch Melania, here is Anthara and you've already built a Taj Mahal... ain't this easy? Abhishek on the other hand is a practical fellow, who wants money, power, fame, etc. Hence these two albeit were struggling to get a break into the film industry, cannot get along, given their different styles and approach to life. This is very typical, but what I like about the movie is that it says what an Abhimaan would say in its total runtime, in one scene! What's new? This movie takes a different angle to the film industry and how different people get into it. There is always something different about RGV's movies, this one is different too, it is way too slow for his standards. In parts, it drags one almost to sleep.<br /><br />Noticeable It is tough to notice anything other than Anthara in the first half of the movie. I think this skin show was necessary for the dance sequences involved :-) Also, looks like Anthara is a pro in Yoga, she is way too flexible, almost like a Prabhu Devi. Aby Baby is improving as an actor with every movie. I am sure his filmstar blood is paying off rich dividends. The title song was really good, the music overall was above average. | 1 |
**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br />Whenever fans of bad movies congregate for more than a few minutes, a name that invariably comes up is that of Larry Buchanan. This amazing director has given us remakes of other turkeys (ZONTAR THE THING FROM VENUS), cheap-jack crime dramas like A BULLET FOR PRETTY BOY, and tawdry conspiracy flicks like DOWN ON US and GOODBYE NORMA JEAN. THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a humdinger to say the least. Overlooking the fact that Loch Ness is extremely long and narrow, Larry filmed this howler on a wide and round California lake. Early on, the film boasts some dazzling (for the budget) underwater photography and creates some atmosphere in spite of itself. Then it degenerates into windy dialogue uttered by no-name actors with lapsing Scottish accents, not to mention a soundtrack that will do nothing for the much-maligned bagpipe. At one point, campers sing 'You Take The High Road, I'll Take The Low Road,' just to throw in one more Scottish cliche. If Scottish people ever decide to jump on the Political Correctness bandwagon they'll sue Larry Buchanan over this film, his surname notwithstanding. The monster looks like a giant papier-mache puppet and it makes the dragon in Beanie & Cecil look terrifying by comparison. In one unforgettable scene Nessie takes to land and, to evade some patrolling soldiers, the fifty-foot long critter tries to hide behind a tree-and the soldiers don't see it! THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a true mind-boggler that must be seen-several times--to be believed. | 1 |
I happened on 'Shower' in the foreign film section of my local video store and passed it over several times since from its cover it looked like a farce or comedy. I then lucked into a copy to purchase at economical price and am happy for my luck. 'Shower' is the story of three(3) men, a father and two(2) adult sons, each coming to terms with life changes as the world around them also continues to change in modern China. As with many 'foreign' films, the Chinese culture itself is one of the most interesting facets of this movie.<br /><br />Beyond the fascinating characteristics of the local, Chinese color giving the setting to this story, is the difficult yet touching relationships between the men and a sole woman involved in the story, all set against the backdrop of a village bathhouse.<br /><br />The family's story moves from estrangement to understanding and made me glad I came to know these people. Added to the main story are the numerous small characters, bathhouse customers, and their individual conflicts and friendships. 'Shower' is a film one walks away from smiling and touched by its warmth and humanity. | 0 |
Many animation buffs consider Wladyslaw Starewicz the great forgotten genius of one special branch of the art, puppet animation, which he invented almost single-handedly . . . and, as it happened, almost accidentally. As a young man Starewicz was more interested in entomology than the cinema, but his unsuccessful attempt to film two stag beetles fighting led to an unexpected breakthrough in film-making when he realized he could simulate movement by manipulating beetle carcasses and photographing them one frame at a time. This discovery led to the production of Starewicz' amazingly elaborate classic short THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, which he made in Russia in 1912, at a time when motion picture animation of all sorts was in its infancy.<br /><br />The political tumult of the Russian Revolution caused Starewicz to move to Paris, where one of his first productions-- coincidentally? --was a dark political satire variously known as 'Frogland' or 'The Frogs Who Wanted a King.' A strain of black comedy can be found in almost all of Starewicz' films but here it is very dark indeed, aimed more at grown-ups who can appreciate the satirical aspects than children, who would most likely find the climax upsetting. (I'm middle-aged and found it pretty upsetting, myself.) And indeed, prints of the film intended for English-speaking viewers of the 1920s were given title cards filled with puns and quips in order to help soften the sharp sting of the finale.<br /><br />Our tale is set in a swamp, the Frogland Commonwealth, where the citizens are unhappy with their government and have called a special session to see what they can do to improve matters. They decide to beseech Jupiter for a king. The crowds are impressively animated in this opening sequence-- it couldn't have been easy to make so many frog puppets look alive simultaneously --while Jupiter, for his part, is depicted as a droll white-bearded guy in the clouds who looks like he'd rather be taking a nap. When Jupiter sends them a tree-like god who regards them impassively the frogs decide that this is no improvement and demand a different king. Irritated, Jupiter sends them a stork.<br /><br />Delighted with this formidable-looking new king who towers above them, the frogs welcome him with a delegation of formally dressed dignitaries. The Mayor steps forward to hand him the key to the Commonwealth as newsreel cameras record the event. To everyone's horror, the stork promptly eats the Mayor and then goes on a merry rampage, swallowing citizens at random. A title card dryly reads: 'News of the king's appetite spreadeth throughout the kingdom.' When the now-terrified frogs once more beseech Jupiter for help, he loses his temper and showers their community with lightning bolts. The moral of our story, delivered by a hapless frog just before he is eaten, is 'Let well enough alone.'<br /><br />Considering the time period when this startling little film was made, and considering the fact that it was made by a Russian émigré at the height of that beleaguered country's Civil War, it would be easy to see this as a parable about those events. Starewicz may or may not have had Russia's turmoil in mind when he made 'Frogland,' but whatever prompted his choice of material the film stands as a cautionary tale of universal application. 'Frogland' could be the Soviet Union, Italy, Germany or Japan in the 1930s, or any country of any era that lets its guard down and is overwhelmed by tyranny. It's a fascinating film, even a charming one in its macabre way, but its message is no joke. | 0 |
This is a very chilling, and for the most part, a well thought out drama. I am very impressed at the film, not just for the plot and superb acting, but that such a unique movie was made. Most movies involving a spy or a war are filled with a slick talking Brit or a mighty battle, but not this. This isn't about this kind of war, its about the war between a man and his position in life, an American spy in Germany, posing as a supporter of an evil no one will ever forget. When the war is over, Campell thinks he will come home as a hero, but his true heroic stance must remain a government secret. Going back to America, Campell meets Nazi supporters as well as Nazi haters, providing for interesting conflicts, both internally and externally. Nolte more than pulls off the role, and fits the plot quite well for what it's asking. | 0 |
Though not a fan of Sam Rockwell, I was surprised when I saw his name in the credits in the opening of 'Joshua.' Heck, I wasn't even aware he was in 'Joshua' until I started the movie. So it goes without saying, I was watching the movie on the basis of the movie, not the leads. A sort of 'Rosemary's Baby,' 'The Omen' or any other demonic kid movie 'Joshua' was billed. Unfortunately, it fell flat. Slow, incredibly slow, and flat. Yet, I continued on to see how this would all resolve, hoping beyond belief, the ending climax would shed some light on the subject. Okay, I admit, it did (a wee bit) but what a stale closing. And what a low-low budget movie, or at least that's how they designed it. A person falls you don't see the drop, you see someone lying down in what appears to be blood. A person gets hit by a cab you don't see it, you see someone complaining, holding a bike up. I'm not sure if this is called 'style' or laziness or simply, lack of funds for special effects. We have a 'rich' family with a crazy mom, a workaholic father attempting to balance everything, a kid Joshua, who may/may not be the antichrist and a new born baby girl who cries a lot. She cries as much as we see how many days she's alive and what was that about? Are there rats above or is it Joshua? Is his mother nuts? Is Joshua crazy? Is he merely jealous of the newcomer to the family? Is he going to grow up to be Michael Myers? Or does he drive his family to the brink? I don't think so. They were nuts prior, and no 'so-called' acting could make me believe otherwise. Unfortunately, barely any questions were answered, barely any open doors shut. I'm sure that might have been the idea, but for Pete's sake, give me something. Anything. There are plenty better kid-gone-wild movies to explore. Joshua's more like the Mini-Me of the antichrist. | 1 |
I'm in Iraq right now doing a job that gives plenty of time for watching movies. We also have access to plenty of pirated movies, this gem came along with 11 other movies, and this is easily the worst I've seen in a long time. I've seen a few other reviews that claim this movie doesn't take itself too seriously, but really, I think that's a cover up for the fact that its horrible. It's not tongue in cheek, the writers really thought they were improving on the movie Blade. This movie is just one notch above Vampire Assassin, which if you haven't seen, i recommend. At least that movie is so unbelievably bad that you'll laugh harder than you thought possible. This is right at that cusp of no redeeming qualities what so ever. from the bad acting, to cliché visual (ie opening credits), to the adobe premier special effects. they couldn't even get blanks for the guns, which may have to do with where the movie was filmed, but if you're going to use effects, make them close to accurate. as for the cast, it seems like they just went to a tae bo class and picked up the first not to ugly chick that walked out. Once again, like Ron Hall in Vampire Assassin, don't let stunt folk act, they can't. Also, the comment about this being a 'return of old vampire movies'...no, it's not. This is exactly what all new vampire movies are about. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Blade, Underworld, they're all about some super star fighting the vampires. This is the newest vampire genre, with bad blood, fake screams, and cheesy over acting. obviously anyone who wrote a good review about this is somehow connected to the movie, or friends of the cast. But what do I care, I paid 33 cents for it. Anyway, to wrap this up, someone in their first semester of film school decided to make a movie, I give them credit because it's better than I could do. Of course I also know I can't make movies so I don't try. I do know how to watch movies though. I work 12 hour nights, 6 days a week, I've seen several thousand in the year I've been out here and this was so bad that half way through i was hoping for a mortar attack. | 1 |
I'm desperately trying to stay awake while watching the movie Solomon Kane. I have about a 20 minutes to go. If it gets any better, I will come back here and let you know, but somehow I doubt that will happen. Solomon Kane looks like it is based on the video game Dark Watch, and it sounds like it is based on the video game Legacy of Kane, but unfortunately neither is true. I hear it is based on some comic book or graphic novel or pulp fiction or something else that I have never heard of, but whatever it is based on, there is nothing original in this excruciatingly boring movie. The atmosphere is stolen from the movie 300, which wasn't that great in the first place. The tedious overacting takes itself so seriously that it's nearly hypnotic, and to be clear I mean that in a bad way. The plot is practically non-existent: violent guy trying to be nonviolent meets friendly family, friendly family is murdered, violent guy becomes violent again. All the characters are stereotypes taken from Waterworld or Book of Eli or The Hills Have Eyes or, whatever, just choose another apocalyptic slash fantasy slash wizardry movie that you have seen and there you have it. Someone, somewhere, said, this is how to make a movie: use a blue filter to make everything look mysterious, add plenty of slow motion shots of horse hooves splashing in murky puddles, add snowflakes hovering around while two boring characters are speaking to each other, and oh yes rain pouring down dramatically to distract from the fact that nothing is really happening, and don't forget the black silhouettes walking toward us with fire blazing behind them, and lots of torches burning, and of course blurry fight scenes during which it's not clear what is actually happening because we don't have the budget for the gory special effects so just throw in the sound of metal clanking, and, oh, by the way, don't let any character live long enough for the audience to understand them, relate to them or sympathize with them, and cross fingers, hope that fans of sword and sorcery films will eat it up, even though it is complete doo doo, and go straight to video, do not pass GO . . . | 1 |
Well, maybe the PC version of this game was impressive. Maybe. I just finished playing the PS2 version and it's pretty much a complete mess.<br /><br />There are a couple elements that are okay or promising. I'll mention those first because it will be over quickly. First, the idea of a historical GTA-like game is a great one. The game Gun was a historical GTA-like game and unlike Mafia, Gun was excellent. I'd love to see a game set during Mafia's era done right. Next, the storyline is well written. The story makes sense, it has dramatic arcs, it uses an unusual device (with much of the game being a backstory) and it's interesting. Finally, some of the graphics--especially those used during cutscenes--are impressive. Mafia's designers seemed to focus on getting the graphics right in the places where GTA skimped on that effort, especially the characters. Unfortunately in many other areas, the graphics kinda stink, and I'd much rather have excellent gameplay than impressive-looking characters.<br /><br />The gameplay is what sinks this title so low. First off, the controls and camera absolutely suck. That has to be the first focus of any game developers. You can't release a game where the controls and/or camera suck. Number one, there's no reason that the player's character, Tom, can't have his full range of motion controlled by the left analog stick. Unless it's absolutely necessary, and it hardly ever is, I hate the set-up where the left stick moves the character in a 'strafing' way and the character can only turn using the right analog stick. Here, it's not only unnecessary, it makes most of the simplest actions a challenge. For example, Tom has to climb on a couple missions. But the game is designed so poorly that you have to frustratingly keep manipulating both the right analog stick and the camera, and then press L1 every time you need to climb, or Tom will descend instead.<br /><br />Next, I've never seen a worse fighting system. The first problem is that you can't auto-aim or lock on to any targets. At one early point, the game seems to tell you that you can use L2 or R2 to lock on to targets, but that never worked. So to focus on any enemy, you have to struggle with the stupid right analog stick and try to keep adjusting both the character's orientation and the camera, which tends to drift to the wrong angle or make Tom disappear all the time. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot to death.<br /><br />Next, if you're touching or almost touching an enemy--and that's certainly going to be the case for hand to hand combat or when using melee weapons, the fighting system--which primarily consists of tapping or holding R1, is completely useless. Enemies can pummel you almost in a bear hug, but you just can't move unless you back off. So close fighting tends to consist of you yanking on the left analog stick, yelling at the character to move away, which it won't do 50% of the time, then tapping R1 as much as you can before the enemy gets too close again and makes R1 useless. And if the enemy changes their angle to you in the meantime, you're also going to struggle with the right analog stick to get your character oriented in the right way and to get the camera in position so you can see anything. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot again, and your only option will be to try to move the character away again. My fights often consisted of making Tom run circles around an area like a comedy film, hoping that I could gain enough time to struggle with the analog stick and get a couple shots in before being at the AI's mercy again. So much for realistic fighting.<br /><br />And the same problems and more exist when trying to fight with guns. If you're touching someone, half the time the controller just won't allow you to fire off a shot, yet they can still riddle you full of holes. Additionally, there's no auto-aim, and the aiming system is ridiculously sensitive, even with the sensitivity set to zero under Options. Gunfights tend to consist of you hopelessly trying to aim or move away while the enemy puts shot after shot into you. Luckily or not, damage seems to be recorded almost randomly. It can take one to ten shots or more to incapacitate any character, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. You can put five shots into an enemy's head and near point blank range and they'll still return fire and hurt you. Yet, the game designers seemed to care enough about realism than they built a recoil into your aiming system, so after shots with powerful enough guns, your aim will float off target, and you'll have to fight with it again.<br /><br />As for the celebrated graphics, except for the characters and textures that you're close to, they're actually pretty disappointing. The distance always seems mostly empty, and there are often expanses of flat colors and textures nearby when you're driving. The city wasn't very well designed. It's not varied enough, and there aren't many interesting things to see or do. The cars seem slow and they're difficult to control. They also all drive about the same. Some have mentioned the music, but that was also pretty nondescript. A much better job could have been done on that end. Also, as many others have mentioned, the load times are ridiculous and constant. They tend to be over a minute long, and they occur between and in the middle of everything--even races.<br /><br />Overall, the Mafia port to PS2, at least, seems to have been very rushed. The game feels and plays like an incomplete hack job. | 1 |
The 1977 animated-live action hybrid version of Gulliver's Travels (or rather 'Travel,' since he only gets as far as Lilliput) didn't get much of a release, and it's not too difficult to see why. Michel Legrand comes up with some catchy tunes, but they merely inspire lyricist Don Black to the likes of 'One simple fact remains/No-one here suffers from growing pains.' Richard Harris once again over-indulges in his passion for excessive makeup, toning down the eyeliner for far too much foundation this time in an effort to hide the fact he's at least 25 years too old for the role, but at least he (perhaps inappropriately) reduces his larger-than-life tendencies for a performance made up mainly of patronising whispering. The Belgian animation looks only slightly better than early morning French children's TV, but Peter Hunt's film is not nearly as bad as it sounds the use of real model sets for the animated characters harks back to Max and Dave Fleischer's 1939 version while a couple of moments of Swiftian satire do remain - although it's definitely aimed at the youngest of children. | 1 |
In the beginning of this film, one of the commentators says that he was told that he has two strikes against him: he is black and male. But in addition to that, he has a third strike: he's gay. 'You're going to have to be stronger than you ever imagined,' he is told. 'Paris is Burning' is a documentary about gay black and Hispanic men who are tranvestites or transsexuals.<br /><br />The miracle of 'Paris is Burning' is that director Jennie Livingston takes a subject that could have very easily become a freak show and allows the people in it their humanity. We learn their views of homosexuality, men, women, their hopes, their disappointments, their dreams. Some of these dreams are so unattainable it's tragic. Many of the people are seriously in denial;<br /><br />This is not a film for everyone. There are shots in this movie of nude transsexuals. If you have a problem with homosexuality, then this movie isn't for you. But if you do see this movie you'll realise 'Paris is Burning' isn't really about men wearing women's clothes, it's about a group of people who are routinely marginalised and put down by society at large, and what they do to get a sense of community in their lives.<br /><br />I've watched this movie four times since it was released in 1991, because it says so many things: it's a commentary about materialism in our culture, about gender roles, about rich and poor people, about the media and what it celebrates, about fame and adulation. 'Paris is Burning' is one of the most humane, and one of the saddest, movies I've ever seen. | 0 |
I still wonder why I sat through this entire thing. It only had about 3 minutes of actual entertainment, the rest of it was just a total bore. The acting isn't that great and the action scenes are soooo cheesy it's not even funny. I kinda wish I could say something good about this film but I can't think of anything right now. There probably was somethings in it some can enjoy but the ending of it is gotta be the dumbest idea ever. What type of person would get a little toy remote controlled helicopter with a burned in machine gun in it to assassinate the President? This idea could have never been done in the first place let alone have anyone dumb enough to try it, I guess the writer must have been to obsessed with the toy car scene in The Dead Pool but actually tried to make this look serious. | 1 |
It is amazing what you can see if you wake at 2 am and turn on the telly. I didn't know they showed films like this. I immediately thought of Roger Corman, who reused locations for movies or used other films locations for his own movies.<br /><br />The makes of this film could just move the camera angles and add some time and they would have an XXX film.<br /><br />There was no story, just minimum dialog that led to stripping and sex. I bet there wasn't 100 words in the whole film, but there sure was a lot of very large busts and hot lesbian action. There was male/female action too, but it was only about 25% of the movie.<br /><br />Another interesting thing came to mind in watching this film that may interest those who are buying hi def DVDs. Sony refused to license Betamax to adult film makers and adult films came out on VHS. You can guess what happened to beta max as the adult film industry makes millions of videos. Sony has again refused to license Blu-ray to the adult film industry and they have just signed a deal with Toshiba. You can guess which high def system will disappear. | 1 |
In sum, overlong and filled with more subplots than swiss cheese has holes! The director and co-writer says he wanted to mix genres - in this case drama and comedy. Well, at least here, these two mix like vinegar and oil. To boot, the comedy is not very funny and juvenile. Additionally, the film is not really realistic. Liberties are taken regarding the legal system in committing French Citizens against their will and the apparent ease of absconding with drugs in French Hospitals. I watched this film on my big screen TV at home and found myself shouting at the film to move on. Eventually toward the end I fast forwarded the final long speech one of the main characters makes to his ex-lover's son. By that time I was worn out by the preposterous confused plot that deals with a dead lover, marriage of convenience and a nutty ex-lover. At times the plot diverts to the families of the two main characters and then reverts back to one of them - either Ismael or primarily Nora. To the detriment of the audience, viewpoints keep changing from Nora and Ismael, her ex-lover confined against his will in a psychiatric hospital. There probably are two potentially interesting films here neither of which are well developed. The epilogue does not really wrap up many of the sub-plots and seems to want the viewer to believe Nora somehow will find happiness although given her circumstances in real life the chances are equivalent to a snow ball's chance in hell. The actors do their best and are appealing, but this is not enough to overcome all the glaring faults of poor writing, editing and lack of focus. | 1 |
Generally I like horror movies, but unfortunately this fell out of the one pound bargain bin into my friends hand. We sat down to watch it, ready to be scared and ended up spraying food everywhere we were laughing so much. The concept isn't that bad, but why they decided number ten in the series would be lucky I don't know. The worst thing about the movie is the actors. The camera work was poor, the special effects are actually not bad if I am being generous, but overall the story failed to connect on any levels because the actors were as effective as a small lump of badly charred elm. They were wooden beyond measure, especially a foppish young actor who was fifteen years too young to be taken seriously as any kind of government agent. He looked more like a public school boy in fact. There was a really amusing sex scene where he looked like he was bobbing for apples as a busty lady rode on top of him and later his nappy sized underpants were hysterical, but then I remembered it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. I'm desperately wracking my brain to find something positive to say about this movie apart from the occasional flash of breasts, but there simply isn't. Let's hope ten was the lucky number and they don't do another one, I'm not sure my ribs could take it. | 1 |
David Webb Peoples meets Paul Anderson...if it already sounds weird to you, then you are right, because it is.<br /><br />Peoples is known for his scripts with moral implications of what is right and wrong, the value of life, etc... He covered these issues in Bladerunner, Unforgiven, and pretty much in all of his screenplays there is something along those lines.<br /><br />Paul Anderson's first successful movie was a violent thriller. Not surprisingly so have all of his other movies! And here is a violent thriller with moral implications!<br /><br />Peoples' script is quite apparent in the first half of the movie. Soldiers trained from birth, taught to kill, and never had a normal life. They are replaced by better, genetically engineered soldiers and Todd, one of the original soldiers, is left on a planet and left for dead. There he must cope with a group of refugees, some want him to stay others hate him and there is an interesting drama here. BUT THEN...<br /><br />...The bullets start to fly as the new soldiers move onto the planet for a military exercise and try to kill all the people. Big, violent, loud action ensues and Peoples' script turns into an Anderson action-fest. It is hard to believe that the script was originally written that way, but the end product is better then I expected. Entertaining, somewhat, though admittedly not very, thought-provoking, and exciting once the action starts. 7/10<br /><br />Rated R: a lot of violence | 0 |
A truly excellent look at the world and the realities of being a heroin addict. The movie is one that will hit much too close to home to those who were involved in the drug culture and have knowledge of what being(or being around) a heroin addict really is. Good movie, which will never truly be outdated. Excellent performances by all involved and the minimalist set is Preminger's way of showing how bleak a JUNKIE'S world can become. Worth a look--an education of sorts. The golden arm is a worried look at the truth of the underground life of pain a junkie lives in. | 0 |
Without a doubt the most impressive recent gay oriented film I've seen. C. Jay Cox hit the nail on the head with this one. The way he handled the issues surrounding faith, family and sexuality were very well done. Casting was perfect. Wes Ramsey did a fantastic job at pulling off the character of Christian and Steve Sandvoss will knock your socks off in the role of Aaron. Both brought an incredible amount of realism to the roles and the impacts these issues have on young gay men. As a gay man who grew up in a very religious environment (though not Mormon)the identification with Aaron's character was phenomenal for me. Strongly recommend this film to anyone, faithful or not, who is interested in how young gay men have to deal with family and friends in an oft times unfriendly world. By the way, the music in this film rocks! Another great job by C. Jay Cox. | 0 |
Can they possibly get any worse than this? Probably. But after all Steven Seagal gets to do what he does. Well kind of; this time instead of mortally wounding the bad guys he just wounds them. By reputation of being a bad ass agent Seagal is hired to deliver a special package from France to America. But it is not an easy task with so many people trying to intercept and foul up the mission. The fights just don't have enough bite and the big bangs are just big and that's all. Anna-Louis Plowman seems to be the only cast member not to appear wooden. Also in the cast are: Jeffery Pierce, Max Ryan and Harry Van Gorkum. Don't put all the blame on Seagal for this clunker. | 1 |
I had the opportunity to see this last evening at a local film festival. Herzog introduced the film and did an hour long Q&A afterward.<br /><br />This is a brilliantly done 'documentary'; Herzog explained afterward that he does not consider his films to be true documentary since facts sometimes camouflage the truth. Instead he scripts some scenes and ad-libs some to introduce a new element that may have been missed if he followed the original story outline.<br /><br />Little Dieter, unlike Timothy Treadwell, is a real person that you fall in love with; you cheer for him, you feel the anguish that he feels. You admire the sense of humor and joy for life that he exhibited here 30 years after he was taken into captivity by the Viet Cong. You are disappointed to hear afterward that Dieter passed on not too long ago.<br /><br />As in most Herzog films, the imagery is breathtakingly beautiful with a wonderful choice of background music. Especially a scene of battle taken from archives of the Viet Nam war but fitting the story line of Dieter.<br /><br />The core of the film has Dieter return to the hellish jungle where he was a POW and he re-enacts his journey with some locals. Harrowing for us to watch, I can't imagine what he felt as he was bound again.<br /><br />One of the better films to depict and discuss the nightmare of the Viet Nam war. It should serve as a lesson to us all. | 0 |
The Sopranos is probably the most widely acclaimed TV series ever, so naturally my expectations were through the roof, and yet the show surpassed them. I love the mafia and crime genre in film and I enjoy following the compelling stories set in these worlds, but this is so much more. 86+ hours of material gives the story a chance to not only be one of the most thrilling and unpredictable mafia/action stories, but also to be a great family drama, a shocking character study, a laugh-out-loud comedy, a brilliant psychological examination dealing with the nature of good and evil, and an intellectual arty collaboration of representative dreams and hallucinations all in one. David Chase's epic series manages to accomplish all of this and more, and cements HBO as the closest TV can get to cinematic perfection, paving the road for a number of other series to continue blowing audiences away.<br /><br />Realism is present when it is needed, but Chase's decisions to depart from it for effect on occasion for 'dream episodes' and the like only adds more layers to the series. Chase--along with a strong writing staff including Matthew Weiner and Terrence Winter, future creators of Mad Men and Boardwalk Empire respectively--turns New Jersey into an intricate universe full of the greatest cast of characters I've seen on TV.<br /><br />James Gandolfini domineers the show as Tony, one of the most groundbreaking characters on TV ever. Tony adheres to half of the mobster stereotypes from pop culture, but he defies the other half entirely, and through his family interactions and his therapy sessions with Dr. Melfi (Lorraine Bracco, with whom he has a considerable chemistry that ensures that the therapy scenes always have a completely different feel to the rest of the show), we see nearly every side to Tony Soprano and learn that he is more of an everyman than one would expect.<br /><br />Edie Falco matches the power of Gandolfini's performance as Tony's wife Carmela. From her mixed feelings about Tony's lifestyle, to her suspicions about murders, to her torment over Tony's cheating, to her own thoughts about infidelity, Carmela runs the gamut of emotions throughout 6 seasons and Falco makes her the prime vehicle for the non- mafia viewers to have eyes into such a corrupt world. Scenes between Tony and Carmela provide some of the most heartwrenching and painfully realistic drama ever seen on television.<br /><br />The supporting cast is almost as phenomenal, and a wide array of characters populate the cast over all six seasons, somehow without any redundancies. Nancy Marchand steals the show as Tony's overbearing mother Livia, an insight into Tony's personality problems and panic attacks. The familiarity of Marchand's incessant complaints is almost gruesome since she takes the character so believably far. Michael Imperioli is Christopher, Tony's protégé, whose various poor choices lead him down a road that is painful to watch but brilliantly executed. Drea De Matteo plays Christopher's girlfriend Adriana, and is so well- meaning and loving that the dark arc her character takes as she gets too involved with Christopher's career. Tony Sirico is Paulie, introduced as the ultimate mafia stereotype and a source of comic, but eventually he becomes one of the most sympathetic and complex characters on the show, and nobody plays true anger better than he. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />Familiar faces such as Peter Bogdanovich, Jon Favreau, Ben Kingsley, Lauren Bacall, Will Arnett, Nancy Sinatra, David Strathairn, Robert Patrick, Hal Holbrook, Burt Young, and Eric Mangini make appearances over the course of the show, while names as notable as Joe Pantoliano, Steve Buscemi, and Steven Van Zandt have regular roles as main characters in the series. There are 50+ great characters with powerful arcs, and the excitement and tension never let up in any of the various subplots throughout the show.<br /><br />Comedic elements and entire episodes filled with brilliant hilarity dilute the powerhouse dramatic intensity of the series, which is so multipurpose that for one reason or enough, the credits of nearly any episode left me somewhat bewildered. The Sopranos is the most powerful and addicting series I have seen overall, and its highs are so mindblowing that I would have to call it my favourite show in spite of arguable lows (most of which I disagree with).<br /><br />Whether you love or hate the ending, or what you make of it is irrelevant: the discussion it has created is an achievement in itself. The iconic nature of the entire series makes it an essential part of television history. There are multiple elements for anyone to love and marvel at in this show, so if you're thinking of watching something else instead, do yourself a favour and fuhgeddaboutit. | 0 |
I saw this regurgitated pile of vignettes tonight at a preview screening and I was straight up blown away by how bad it was. <br /><br />First off, the film practically flaunted its gaping blind spots. There are no black or gay New Yorkers in love? Or who, say, know the self-involved white people in love? I know it's not the love Crash of anvil-tastic inclusiveness but you can't pretend to have a cinematic New York with out these fairly prevalent members of society. Plus, you know the people who produced this ish thought Crash deserved that ham-handed Oscar, so where is everyone? <br /><br />Possibly worse than the bizarre and willful socioeconomic ignorance were the down right offensive chapters (remember when you were in high school and people were openly disgusted with pretty young women in wheelchairs? Me either). This movie ran the gamut of ways to be the worst. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing -- all spanning every possible genre ever to concern wealthy white people who smoke cigarettes outside fancy restaurants. <br /><br />But thank god they finally got powerhouses Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson back together for that Jumper reunion. And, side note, Uma dodged a bullet; Ethan Hawke looks ravaged. This, of course, is one thing in terms of his looks, but added an incredibly creepy extra vibe of horribleness to his terrifyingly scripted scene opposite poor, lovely Maggie Q.<br /><br />I had a terrible time choosing my least favorite scene for the end of film questionnaire, but it has to be the Anton Yelchin/ Olivia Thirlby bit for the sheer lack of taste, which saddens me because I really like those two actors. I don't consider myself easily offended, but all I could do was scoff and look around with disgust like someone's 50 year old aunt. <br /><br />A close second place in this incredibly tight contest of terrible things is Shia LaBeouf's tone deaf portrayal of what it means for a former Disney Channel star to act against Julie Christie. I don't mean opposite, I mean against. Against is the only explanation. I realize now that the early sequence with Orlando Bloom is a relative highlight. HIGHLIGHT. Please keep that in mind when your brain begins to leak out your ear soon after the opening credits, which seem to be a nod to the first New York Real World. This film is embarrassing, strangely dated, inarticulate, ineffective, pretentious and, in the end, completely divorced from any real idea of New York at all. <br /><br />(The extra star is for the Cloris Leachman/ Eli Wallach sequence, as it is actually quite sweet, but it is only one bright spot in what feels like hours of pointless, masturbatory torment.) | 1 |
I had borrowed the three Sarah movies from a friend, and had watched them while sick in bed during one weekend. I thoroughly enjoyed every one of them. I enjoyed how the last movie gave a glimpse of what Caleb and his sister were like when they grew up. In addition, I liked the carry-through of the 'Billy-boy' song that first was heard during the credits of the first movie, the title 'Sarah, Plain and Tall.' However, the one thing in Winter's End that I didn't like was the youngest daughter. She was a very cute little girl, but she just had too much spirit and looked like a brat compared to the other kids, even compared to talkative but still good-natured Caleb when he was younger. | 0 |
When I saw the film for the first time in the early 1970s, I was in awe of this film. Visually it was stunning and the events on campuses in Europe and USA made you relate with what Antonioni was trying to say so well visually in the final 15 minutes of the movie: blowing up in your mind the 'tyrannical' establishments and big business interests. The repeated blowing up of the beautiful house in the middle of a desert, the lead female character enjoying the natural stream of cold water, painting a plane in psychedelic designs (even the staid British Airways did it a few years ago) are some of the images that were copied by advertising personnel all over the world for decades. Even Pink Floyd increased their fan following after the film was released.<br /><br />You see this film some 30 years later and you begin to wonder why the same film has lost its appeal. Today anti-establishment films have more substance--facts, documentation, fine performances, and superb screenplays. Antonioni seems to be out-of-date; a flawed genius. Even viewing Antonioni's 'Blow Up' today gives you the similar feeling that he is passe.<br /><br />'Zabriski Point' has to be evaluated for what it was when it was released. It was a great film if you were to see it on a wide Panavision screen as opposed to the dwarfed TV screens. The visual and aural (Mick Jagger, Kieth Richards, Pink Floyd, et al.) allure of the film still remains. The lead pair were not great actors but they were cute and natural. One of them (Mark Frechette) died in prison in USA extending the reality of the non-conformist values he personified in the film.<br /><br />Today, Antonioni seems out of 'sync.' But watch carefully and you will appreciate the muted sounds of the regular actors--Rod Taylor, G.D. Spradling, the ladies at the swimming pool, the cops at the air-strip. The real sounds in contrast are from the non-conformists. Antonioni was relevant 30 years ago but his grasp of the medium cannot be questioned even today. He knew what he was doing. | 0 |
Well it is a good movie. However, you have to admit that Van Dame's movies haven't been so great lately. On the other hand if you are a hardcore van Dame fan you should watch this as there is a huge improvement with fighting scenes. Also What i really liked is the music beautiful music. am sure this will kill time if you are action fan. As for Isaac Florentine the director of Undisputed 2, i don't think he did a good job as he did with Undisputed.I cant wait when one day Van Dame's movies hit the cinemas before the DVD. Maybe, one day:).<br /><br />In the end it worth the watch if you got no other action movies to watch, this could make your hour and half fun. | 0 |
It was difficult to sit through this horrible heretical adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. Apparently Matt Frewer was cast because he is tall and skinny. His skull-like face made for a good zombie in the Dawn of the Dead remake, but as Sherlock Holmes he looks like a scarecrow. Not only does Frewer have a lanky lackadaisical walk that is hard to watch, but he looks uncomfortable in the stereotypical Holmes overcoats that he is wearing. Not only that, but while the coat is gray twill they apparently could not find a matching cap. So his cap is black and it looks shiny as if it were made of polyester. Whatever the cap was made of, it looked very new and artificial. Jeremy Brett occasionally wore those traditional outfits, but Brett did not have to dress-up like Sherlock Holmes in order to look the part. Frewer on the other hand is painful to watch. Even in the full 'Holmes' outfit, he does not carry himself like Sherlock Holmes.<br /><br />Frewer's cadaverous face grinning all the time as he spouts on and on in a very bad 'Upper-Crust' British accent is painful to see and listen to. To say that Frewer is overacting is an understatement. After he finishes each sentence with some kind of nasal hum, he then sneers as if that were some kind of British trait. When I started watching this I thought it might be a comedy featuring Wishbone, the Jack Russell Terrier. I thought Frewer had been cast as some kind of foil for Wishbone. But sadly, there is no dog in this movie except for Frewer. Wishbone would have made this movie a lot better.<br /><br />Not only does Frewer's version of Sherlock Holmes never stop talking (in that awfully artificial British nasal accent), but he is much to friendly and kind. Frewer is always smiling at the witnesses he talks to, and he is so polite and courteous that he could be teaching at a Charm School instead of being a Sleuth. Perhaps since this is a Hallmark Channel production, they are trying to make a children's version of Sherlock Holmes (Wishbone was better at that, too) that was kindler and gentler. Whatever the point of Frewer's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes, it is flatter than a pancake, and easily the worst version of Sherlock Holmes that I have ever seen (including the previous worst, by Charlton Heston).<br /><br />Overall, the tone of this film is awful. It reminded me of a typical episode of Barnaby Jones or Murder She Wrote or Diagnosis Murder. All the suspects over-acted suspiciously and glared at the victims before they were killed. Holmes and Watson are explaining every clue to each other during the entire movie. Even on Murder She Wrote there is less exposition.<br /><br />This Sherlock Holmes does not even compare very well to Jim Rockford of the Rockford Files and it is miles below Columbo. The awful dialog is probably the fault of the writer. It is obvious that who ever wrote this script has very little familiarity with Sherlock Holmes, especially the BBC version with Jeremy Brett. This movie has all of the atmosphere of an episode of Little House on the Prairie. The fact that the actors seem to be smirking when they enunciate their lines in their fake accents does not help.<br /><br />The only minor bright spot is Ken Walsh who plays Doctor Watson with some dignity. Walsh does not ham it up compared to Frewer, and when he is often interviewing witnesses, his demeanor and conversational style are much more natural and credible. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is amateurish, and the visual clues they give by glaring and making faces at each other (to show they are suspicious) is something that I had not seen in any modern movie. | 1 |
THE CAT O'NINE TAILS (Il Gatto a Nove Code) <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Cromoscope)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(35mm and 70mm release prints)<br /><br />A blind ex-journalist (Karl Malden) overhears a blackmail plot outside a genetics research laboratory and later teams up with a fellow reporter (James Franciscus) to investigate a series of murders at the lab, unwittingly placing their own loved ones at the mercy of a psychopathic killer.<br /><br />Rushed into production following the unexpected worldwide success of his directorial debut THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE (1969), Dario Argento conceived THE CAT O'NINE TAILS as a giallo-thriller in much the same vein as its forerunner, toplining celebrated Hollywood actor Karl Malden - fresh from his appearance in PATTON (1969) - and rising star Franciscus (THE VALLEY OF GWANGI). Sadly, the resulting film - which the ads claimed was 'nine times more suspenseful' than 'Bird' - is a disappointing follow-up, impeccably photographed and stylishly executed, but too plodding and aimless for general consumption.<br /><br />Malden and Franciscus are eminently watchable in sympathetic roles, and cinematographer Enrico Menczer (THE DEAD ARE ALIVE) uses the wide Cromoscope frame to convey the hi-tech world in which Argento's dark-hearted scenario unfolds, but the subplot involving Euro starlet Catherine Spaak (THE LIBERTINE) as Franciscus' romantic interest amounts to little more than unnecessary padding. Highlights include an unforgettable encounter with the black-gloved assassin in a crowded railway station (edited with sleek assurance by cult movie stalwart Franco Fraticelli), and a nocturnal episode in which Malden and Franciscus seek an important clue inside a mouldering tomb and fall prey to the killer's devious machinations. But despite these flashes of brilliance, the film rambles aimlessly from one scene to the next, simmering gently without ever really coming to the boil. It's no surprise that 'Cat' failed to emulate the runaway success of 'Bird' when released in 1971.<br /><br />(English version) | 1 |
Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.<br /><br />The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.<br /><br />Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.<br /><br />There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.<br /><br />This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other. | 1 |
This film screened at the American Cinematheque's Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood on April 7, 1999. It was described in the American Cinematheque schedule as follows:<br /><br />'TOMORROW IS ANOTHER DAY 1951, Warners, 90 min. Steve Cochran's an ex-con who's never been with a woman. Ruth Roman is a dime-a-dance dame with no use for sappy men. A hotel room, a dirty cop, a gunshot - the perfect jump-off for a fugitives-on-the-run love story. This virtually unknown noir is Felix Feist's masterwork, packed with revelatory set-pieces. Cochran was never more vulnerable, Roman never sexier. Imagine GUN CRAZY scripted by Steinbeck - it's that good.'<br /><br />I just saw this film, and I agree with every word of the above description. | 0 |
An interesting period picec showing us what was amazing in 1938. Gosh, Ma, a fake accident ring suing for $25,000!!! I guess projected into the 21st century it would amount to a lot of money. The acting would amount to pure 21st century ham. Nice to see the president as a hard-working newcomer. | 1 |
As a Christian, I found this movie to be completely embarrassing. The actors sucked, the writing sucked, the cinematography sucked, and the story was so typical. I couldn't say this is a great witnessing tool, because I'd be too embarrassed to show any of my unsaved friends. Hollywood has much better stuff, and that's because they invest the best into it. Christians put out sh*tty work and think it's OK because 'it's for the lord'. In the old testament, people spent huge amounts of money to bring offerings to God. David (or Saul.. I don't remember) spent what would be equal to about $50 Billion in todays money on building a temple for God. But these days, spending what would appear to be about $30,000 tops on making a movie to 'witness' to people with is just pathetic. It's the person, not the product that affects someone. Don't waste your time trying to convert your friends with this waste of an hour and a half. If you want to make a positive impact with people, show them movies like The Matrix, American Beauty, Braveheart etc.. movies that have something to say and actually get it into you. | 1 |
Looking at these reviews and seeing all these high ratings leave me to believe that large amounts of red corn syrup will please just about any brain dead idiot. This movie is beyond useless. All the cliché's of a slasher film without any substance. I am sure I could go in to details about the movie but why bother when you can sum it up? Obviously everyone wants Mandy Lane and she apparently wants none of the guys. Throughout the movie you will see this.<br /><br />When she stops being friends to the typical boy trapped in friend-zone loser, he goes ballistic and when she goes on a road trip to the middle of no where (of course) he begins to hunt them one by one. Sounds decent so far right? But what made this movie suck beyond belief is when you find out that not only is her loser friend the killer but she is as well.. The plan was beyond ridiculous. Lets together kill all our friends and then kill each other. They give no reason why they wanted to do this and given Mandy Lane's 'Goody Too Shoes' demeanor it makes you scratch your head even more as to what is actually motivating these characters to do anything they are doing. It's sad.. this movie had lots of potential but the director or writer apparently can't relate to the audience in anyway. | 1 |
Another hand-held horror means another divisive movie that fans should still seek out and make up their own minds about.<br /><br />Imagine a cross between The Blair Witch Project and The Grudge and you're close to the overall content of this movie. It's another videotaped horror but this time most of it is edited together in readiness for a video doc that was never completed by a supernatural investigator who disappeared.<br /><br />I certainly had a feeling of dread while watching this movie (does anyone do dreadful better than our Asian friends?) but the creepy moments, the genuinely creepy moments, were sadly a bit fewer and farther between than I had hoped. I also felt that I was two or three steps ahead of the investigator when apparent 'revelations' appeared throughout so I certainly can't recommend this as highly as [*Rec].<br /><br />Having said that, it would be remiss of me not to highly recommend any film that goes on at length about ectoplasmic worms, contains at least two subtly spooky ghost moments and made sure that I had to put the lights back on for a while when the sun went down.<br /><br />Check it out if you have been enjoying some of the other hand-held genre releases of late. And the finale is a hair-raising doozy.<br /><br />See this if you like: The Last Broadcast, Pulse, Angel Heart. | 0 |
For all the hoopla, respect and recognition this film gets from Kung Fu historians, it still lacks glaringly in a couple critical areas: action and fight scenes. But I must say that the plot is probably the best and most original I've ever seen in a martial arts film. Five Deadly Venoms without a doubt is a must see, not only that, a movie you can watch again and again; but I also must say that after watching it you feel it could have been even better. It somehow leaves you wanting something, you want more. The producer Chang Cheh sets up the storyline beautifully for a potential masterpeice but doesn't follow through with giving us more of the action we want. The fighting styles in the movie really captures the viewer (Centipede,Snake,Scorpion,Lizard,Toad) and they are shown, but battles are noticeably short. The Toad and Snake styles are particularly intriguing and should have been showcased much, much more, in fact the Toad is killed off by the middle of the movie. Interestingly enough with this movie, the absence of constant action or fighting leads to development of a great plot, this is one of the few kung fu films where you are really interested in the storyline and care about the outcome. This movie has a dark and vicious tone to it and you are drawn into the vibe. Sinister weapons and torture tactics are used throughout the movie and adds to the movies feel. To start off the movie and to introduce the Poison Clan producer Chang Cheh takes us to a grimy dungeon. The ending fight scenes are certainly good but seem muffled and somehow you expected more. Still though this movie is one of Shaw Brothers best and is quite enjoyable. My overall impression of the movie would conclude with this: The styles the fighters used are merely shown to us and not showcased in detail, sad thing is , the director had the goods for something extraordinary right at his fingertips and didn't expand on it. I am left wondering what could have been with this movie, still one of the best though. 8 out of 10 on the scale. | 0 |
Why does this piece of film have so many raving reviews? <br /><br />This is amateurish, unfunny and annoying.<br /><br />The only memorable thing here is the corny title song. <br /><br />The production values are low and the 'comedic' (if you want to call them that) ideas are weak, they seem like leftovers of leftovers from SNL that even they would not dare to have put on the screen.<br /><br />I'm beginning to thoroughly mistrust IMDb ratings. <br /><br />This is light years away from Kentucky Fried Movie - not even in the same Galaxy.<br /><br />It's not even possible to write 10 lines about it.<br /><br />OK, another good thing: ugly street scenes and ugly people - something one doesn't get to see a lot in todays TV and Movies. | 1 |
This movie travels farther on 8 gunshots, 2 kisses and 100 clichés than should be possible. Yet it still works. Brilliant.<br /><br />As I was driving home from the theater, I tried to figure out how it got away with movie staples like the pages of a novel manuscript blowing across a beach or the impossible series of fortuitous coincidences without the entire audience standing up and screaming, 'I've seen that a million times before! And you've pushed beyond the edge of believability!' But the actors were so enchanting and the screen so filled with believable extras that I forgot to care. A friend who saw it with me said it transported him to Paris so perfectly that he was disappointed when we left the theater and realized we were still in Indiana.<br /><br />Overall, a romantic-comedy-thriller with subtlety, wit and elan. | 0 |
midnight madness is the ultimate scavenger hunt movie for all time. michael j fox and paul reubens make respective pre- fame appearances. laughs abound everywhere and the intrigue of who will emerge victorious at the end of the great all-nighter will keep you on the proverbial edge of your seat. a true must see! | 0 |
This is a very realistic movie. It's the most realistic I've seen on urban youth. The actors were great. I will look out for more films by Gomez. I had never heard of the film until someone mentioned it recently. I bought it on DVD. I was impressed. I haven't seen anything come close to life as I know it in Philadelphia. This comes real close - in fact, one scene where there is an accident (I won't spoil and give details), reminded me of a nearly identical situation in Philadelphia. At first I thought Gomez took the scene from that real-life event, but then I realized that he made the film a few years before that situation. I also agree with the point that this film didn't try to broaden its appeal by putting in Hollywood crap. Gomez also directed 'Laws of Gravity' - I am eager to see it. | 0 |
What a outstanding movie is this i have not words to describe. i don't know how come the rating of the movie is 7.3 it should be 9.3 but anyways no one else can make this movie and the acting by Akshay is just outstanding the second half of the movie makes u cry and the movie has a really good unexpected ending which makes the movie perfect. you should watch this movie once, i think twice well it's up to u. Anyways i love this movie and it's not just sad and funny but it also gives u a really good meanings and what u should be doing so i think this is one of the best movie in the bollywood history. but i know the people has deferent chooses so ya. the only thing i don't like about this movie is the music well the background music is good but the songs are not good enough i think the music would be better if A R Rahman would be the music director but anyways we can't do anything about that so ya. | 0 |
By 1971 it was becoming more and more obvious that Hammer film studios were on the way out . HANDS OF THE RIPPER is a case in point where even the idea smacks of desperation - The spirit of Jack The Ripper posses his own daughter ! Yeah okay no one was expecting a documentary but this plot seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for stupid premise and you do find yourself questioning why on earth the producers brought Jack The Ripper into the story . Was this to give the movie a snappy title ? <br /><br />The production values are unimpressive and the cinematography gives the whole movie a cheap TVM feel but you know you're not going to be watching a classic Hammer horror as soon as the title starts because the music is laughably inappropriate . I think the composer was trying to make the theme tune haunting and touching but the music resembles something out of a soppy romantic movie . I will give the cast some credit as they do take their roles seriously in what's a far from serious movie <br /><br />I didn't enjoy this film much and it instantly reminded me of the Phantom Raspberry Blower Of London Town from The Two Ronnies which I'd been laughing at in the weeks before I saw this | 1 |
Video Vault By Shawn K. Inlow<br /><br />My Architect: A Son's Journey 2003 - Nathaniel Kahn Not Rated: 116minutes Vault Rating: 7<br /><br />What a thing to be fatherless. 'My Architect: A Son's Journey' follows Philadelphia filmmaker, Nathaniel Kahn, as he desperately seeks answers from his father, the renowned architect, Louis I. Kahn, dead these 30 years.<br /><br />Louis Kahn died in a train station in 1974 and left behind more than one family. The funeral service, when the filmmaker was just a boy, was, shall we say, an unpleasant surprise.<br /><br />We find that Nathaniel only knew his father en passant, from his sporadic visits with his mother, whom, we are told, he loved deeply. This movie is about a boy seeking his father and perhaps himself by visiting his work, as if the magnificent structures hold some secret. <br /><br />To be sure, Louis Kahn was a gifted architect, but 'architect' is a cold word. The man was a sculptor on a grand scale who spoke of his craft in airy terms of silence and art.<br /><br />Among his notable works, explored lovingly in the film, are the Salk Institute (1965), The Kimball Art Museum (1972) and the monumental capitol complex in Bangladesh (1983). The portion of the film where Nathaniel first visits Dhaka, Bangladesh, finds the work, but not the man.<br /><br />The film benefits greatly from having much footage of the very public man as he worked in New York City and as a professor at Yale and the University of Pennsylvania. Many of Khan's contemporaries and collaborators also help flesh out the filmmaker's ghost- father.<br /><br />Even so, the viewer seems not to come to a particularly satisfying place. The answers Nathaniel Khan is looking for seem hollow. Not good enough.<br /><br />In scenes where the director meets with his half sisters, both from different mothers, one can feel the tensions of the years, the slights and hurts. One might expect them to burst into anger, but only the camera saves them from hostilities. Each of these children has visibly lost something.<br /><br />It might be pointed out that Khan, who seemed a driven perfectionist, never became rich. Instead, he became noteworthy. It was as if he sacrificed his family for his art. This is a crushingly sad and great thing.<br /><br />April 28, 2005 | 0 |
I'm a horror/gore movie freak and this flick was so bad, I felt embarrassed for not only the 'actors', but also the director and the poor sap of a producer who actually put his money up for this schlock.<br /><br />From the title, you'd expect some great carnage, somewhat of a storyline and at LEAST some direction or dialog. Instead, you get what looks like a slightly more violent and sexual Three Stooges episode. At least I laugh at the Three Stooges. While watching this crap, I turned another TV on and started watching Howard Stern until something interesting happened.<br /><br />Needless to say, I kept watching Stern.<br /><br />Watching this 'film' I realize that I could produce a film with three monkeys, 2 DV cameras, $50 dollars in loose change and a broken PC. This film is my inspiration to get into no-budget film making. Watch this movie if you dare, but be warned...there is a lot of nothing in here but a whole lot of talking and very little action. This makes 'KaZaam' look like a Meryl Streep film.<br /><br />I'm sure Germany didn't ban it due to sex or violence. Other countries need to take heed. | 1 |
*****THIS REVIEW MAY HAVE SPOILERS - but that determination would be negligible in such a classic and well-known story*****<br /><br />The CINDERELLA story ranks as my favorite fairy tale. The world will never have enough of this wonderful tale.<br /><br />The problem is that everyone wants to tell their own version of the tale. This cannot work if the story deviates or attempts to throw some interesting ideas together with some magical photography and scrumptious looking production designs with poor direction and editing.<br /><br />This Cinderella story is more like an Ugly Duckling that never hatches or rather, is never transformed into a swan.<br /><br />All the production value that money can buy, cannot purchase good cinematic timing and dramatic development - or good acting.<br /><br />The entrance of Cinderella at the ball as so poorly done, there was no drama of anticipation nor excitement of discovery.<br /><br />The writing made me very nervous, too. The Prince Charming was the most undesirable of memory. Why would any girl want to marry a boorish, self-absorbed prince who disliked women? <br /><br />Turner's turn on the Stepmother role was an embarrassingly painful showing that demonstrated one-liners more than acting nuance.<br /><br />Even the Cinderella part held little interest or sympathy.<br /><br />Perhaps only one sentence will describe this attempt: So cheaply '90's,<br /><br />What MUST be mentioned and mentioned in shameful excess is the glorious photography, matte work and production design. It was a pleasure to peruse the landscapes, sets and settings as the story unfolded.<br /><br />For some Cinderella storytelling, go for two gems:<br /><br />1) Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella Musical with Lesley Ann Warren. Even with the obvious stagey TV - 60's look to the sets, this is the best version on celluloid - bar none. An all star cast makes every effort to provide the highest entertainment. Engaging, diverting and memorable writing and music. This is the classic.<br /><br />2) Ever After- this Drew Barrymore gem maintains the historical perspective, alters the story line but not enough to derail the effective development of the salient points of this classic tale. The characters of the principals and of all of the supporting roles were written smartly and acted well. | 1 |
I loved this movie. First, because it is a family movie. Second, because it offers a refreshing take on dealing with the news of HIV in a family, with far less hysteria than what I have normally seen in the movies. The brothers are very close, yet are not judgmental. Their desire to protect the youngest brother is noble, but not needed in the end. I understand that Leo's choice on how to deal with his treatment may not have been the most popular one with people, but I believed it was the right choice for him. I can't believe that this was a french television programme. It had great production values. I gave this movie a ten, and I think you will too, once you have seen it. | 0 |
When I read the back of the DVD case, I thought that it sounded really interesting... so... I had my mom throw it into the pile of movies in the '4 for 20 dollars' section at Blockbuster. When we got home and popped in the movie... twenty minutes into it, we found ourselves turning to each other going 'this sucks. Let's put in something else.' I'll admit, a few of the lines from the friends at the café made us smile a little bit. But come ON, at least get some decent actors! Every once in a while in a movie, if the acting is bad and the movie isn't going at a painfully slow pace and actually seems interesting, I can gut it out and get a few laughs at how they're over(or under)doing their lines. But I can only take so much. Crying scenes looked like the actors were having hysterical fits of laughter, there was no delivery for their lines... amateur doesn't even come close to the acting in this film.<br /><br />Anyone who came on here saying that this film was good had to have been on some REALLY good drugs while they were watching the movie. It's the most pointless thing I've ever had the displeasure of watching. DO NOT WATCH OR BUY THIS MOVIE!!!!! | 1 |
Undoubtedly the funniest movie I have ever seen. It's definitely worth the fourteen minutes it takes to watch. I will never look at my kitchen appliances the same way again. Bob Knickerbocker deserves an Oscar. 'Relax, kid. It's only a movie' | 0 |
Anthony Wong stars in both this and the original (far superior) Untold Story, but the similarities stop there. Wong doesn't reprise his role obviously, and instead plays a bumbling policeman who gets involved with a rather suspicious female, Fung (1994's Miss Singapore, Paulyn Sun) who's a repressed nut-job, sure. But her tame jealous 'wanna be with a guy who's with a girl' killer is no where near as compelling as what Wong played in the first one. The movie itself seems tired and by the numbers. Yeung Fan as the physcho's love interest's unfaithful girl tries to keep one from total boredom by stripping down whenever possible, and Sun does have a nice ass, but even that can't save this dud.<br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Mei Ah DVD Extras: Sub-titled interviews with Cheung Kam Ching & Paulyn Sun; Anthony Wong filmography; a very brief synopsis; Theatrical trailer for the film; & trailers for 'Chinese Erotic Ghost Story' and 'Twenty Something' | 1 |
William Castle is notorious among horror fans as the B-grade director of the 1950s and 60s. His gimmicks, his cost-cutting techniques and his unique vision are legendary. It comes as no surprise, then, that someone (Jeffrey Schwarz, who's made countless documentaries) would finally take the time to devote a documentary to his greatness. Such is 'Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story'.<br /><br />I had a general understanding of who Castle was, having seen some of his films over the years. I knew nothing about her personal life, his goals and ambitions. This film really fleshed out the man and gave me a fuller appreciation for the devotion he had for the craft of film-making and his contributions to the horror genre. The movie depicts Castle as rival to Alfred Hitchcock, with Hitch being the artist who wins praise while Castle is the carnival barker who gains cult notoriety, but much less respect. He is an icon to all second-rate directors out there, which is why it's not surprising that John Waters is featured prominently in here. (Joe Dante and Stuart Gordon also have sizable roles.) <br /><br />His gimmicks were what drove his fame, and the documentary takes great pains to explain them, which is crucial for those who are too young to remember. The rudimentary 3-D of '13 Ghosts' (see separate review), the buzzer in the seat for 'The Tingler' (see separate review), money back guarantees for 'Homicidal'... watching these films now outside the theater, we can judge them for their content (which, personally, I still enjoy) but we cannot fully appreciate what audiences once felt.<br /><br />The climax of the film is when Castle goes from cult director to Hollywood producer. Having bought the rights to 'Rosemary's Baby', he is put in a very special place for negotiating its film release. Hoping to direct, he is sidelined to producer in order to make way for new director Roman Polanski. While at first disappointed, this proves to be one of the best opportunities of his lifetime -- a hugely successful film, and a job he excels at. Who better to control the purse of wild artist Polanski than a penny-pinching Castle? This was to be his crowning achievement, though sadly the film is more often connected to Polanski than Castle.<br /><br />The remainder of his years are played out, and we are given personal reflections by his daughter and niece. Across the board, everyone seems to have nothing but praise for the man. Somewhere along the way, he surely upset one or two people, but you would never know it from this film. And I find that find -- this is a celebration of Bill Castle's life, not 'E! True Hollywood Story'. Fans of the genre would do well to pick up a copy of this work.<br /><br />I would personally recommend picking up the William Castle Collection, which has not only this but eight of Castle's films in it, with plenty of special features. Even this documentary comes with an audio commentary so you can hear how Schwarz was personally affected by Castle, and have Castle's daughter Terry giving a running reflection of her experiences with the different films and remakes. It's almost a whole new film. | 0 |
An interesting idea (four African American women crushed under society's boot heel take their revenge by robbing banks) is ruined by F. Gary Gray's horribly slow direction and an excruciating script (by Takashi Bufford and Kate Lanier) full of unintentionally funny moments. Instead of delivering a pointed commentary about the role of urban women struggling to stay afloat in a world where men cruelly abuse and humiliate them, Gray, Bufford and Lanier prefers to pummel their unsuspecting audience with highbrow notions of operatic tragedy. It's melodrama at its worst. Gray has his actors linger over every tired line and John Carter's lazy editing refuses to pick up the slack, choosing instead to keep his camera trained on the performers' bemused faces. And bemused they are: although actors such as Jada Pinkett, Kimberly Elise and Vivica A. Fox have some raw talent (Queen Latifah is the fourth and as an actress she's an excellent rapper), they need a surer hand than Gray's to guide them and as a result they come off as shrill and uncomfortable in front of the camera. Steer clear. | 1 |
This movie captures the absurd essence of an overbearing American patriot actor -- one that believes his work (and politics) are as crucial to the American people as the opinions of the President himself. Alan Bates captures this mindset perfectly as Michael Baytes, and I will immortally remember Bates as this character. This is a movie for Canadians and Americans alike. It is a valuable piece of cinema, that which is able to take its audience through the magic of making a film and reveal just how easy it is for the producer and director to lose complete control to the will of the actors and innumerable outside forces. Wonderfully, 'Hollywood North' does not suffer from the subject that it portrays: Peter O'Brian directs with precision and complete control, and commands both the serious 'behind-the-scenes' portion of the movie, and the movie-within-the-movie, 'Flight to Bogota' with clarity and insight. If you are at all interested in the wit and strength of Canadian cinema, 'Hollywood North' is a great place to start. | 0 |
I guess by the time I saw this episode, I had seen enough Twilight Zones to have it figured out ahead of time. There is this odd assemblage of characters who find themselves at the bottom of a cylinder. They are fine until an overzealous soldier shows up in their midst. It is his prime directive to escape and so he garners the forces and puts them to work to reach the top of the cylinder. There is much discussion about purpose and reason and speculation on their pasts, but no one can remember anything. They represent different jobs: a piper, a ballerina, a clown, a man in a tattered hat. Why are they there? It leads to an adventure and is resolved at the end, but I guess I had a pretty good idea before it all happened. | 0 |
This was pretty inevitable. This movie borrows from 'The Core' and from the film it borrowed from, 'Armageddon', and the films it borrowed from and so on. Except this time there's Luke Perry too. This films version of the familiar save-the-world plot involves super-earthquakes beginning in the Pacific Northwest and extending too the whole ring of fire. Its soon determined that everybody on Earth just might be doomed. So the military and some scientists build one of those high-tech drilling machines to go inside the Earth and fix things (it just wouldn't be as much fun if they didn't have to go somewhere like space or inside the planet). There's even a line the tries to make the journey into the Earth sound more impressive than the journey into space (like the one in 'Armageddon'). It's a Sci-Fi Network movie, so the script is paint by numbers disaster movie. There is in-fighting between scientists and military guys, there are rock-melting lasers, people die and sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and above all, there are (weak CGI) special effects. Not original and not all that entertaining. This is a movie to watch when you have nothing to do, particularly if you've got beer. | 1 |
Hi, I have to say you got some wrong information about the series here. The main author was Richard Carpenter, he created the series. Later on there were some other authors but they only did a few episodes.<br /><br />The first director who did most of the series (I think complete series 1) was Ian Sharp who created the distinct look of Robin of Sherwood.<br /><br />Clannad did indeed see some of the material and they read the scrips. I know this for sure because Richard Carpenter told it on a Con in England last year.<br /><br />I think this is a masterpiece of Television-Entertainment, because it has great characters and cast, good costumes and great story lines. For me still one of the best TV-series ever! | 0 |
Michael Caine's character has problems. He's a plain, nearsighted, insecure man in his mid-40s. He's married but his wife doesn't seem to love him anymore. He has a poor relationship with his only daughter. But his most immediate problem is that a stunningly beautiful young woman, played by Michelle Johnson, is pursuing him too ardently, kissing him, groping him, and trying to initiate sex at every opportunity. What's the poor fellow to do? <br /><br />This movie should be taken out of the Comedy section and placed under Science Fiction. Only an intergalactic brain chip can explain the actions of Michelle Johnson's character. Let's see - 3 billion men in the world - she can pretty much have her pick - she goes with an clumsy, aging loser. This goes beyond a middle-aged male fantasy into something so delusional, you just hope that everyone involved voluntarily submitted to therapy.<br /><br />There's not really anything funny here. There are some quick attempts at wit from Caine, who often seems to playing Hawkeye Pierce more than a new character. Joseph Bologna is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Michelle Johnson is no actress - she has one crying scene that wouldn't pass muster in a high school play - but she is beautiful and she does take her clothes off. So buy the DVD, skip to scenes 4 and 9, and forget the rest. | 1 |
I normally love Jackie Chan movies but this one was terrible. There are only 2 or 3 fight scenes all of which are up to normal standard more or less. The bad thing about this movie is it focuses a lot on car chasing/racing. The car chase isn't so bad (though not as exciting as fighting) but the car racing at the end is exceptionally boring. Basically it takes all of things that make a Jackie Chan film a Jackie Chan film and leaves out everything except Jackie Chan. Even the traditional outtakes at the end lack their usual humour.<br /><br />I suppose to a certain extent it was made worse by the fact I saw one of those horrible dubbed versions. I usually try to see the subtitled version...I wish I could understand Chinese.<br /><br />I've only seen one Jackie film worse that this one and that was one of his early forays into Hollywood films that didn't turn out so well.<br /><br />Avoid unless really curious or a lover of motor sports. | 1 |
Being a huge fan of Bergman I had to search literally years to find this movie (at a price less than $60 I mean) and finally bought it a few weeks ago. The basic premise of Bergmans films are the relationships between the characters and how they deal with trying situations. This film therefore is the same yet it is different because the setting is far different than most of the Bergman films the I have seen.<br /><br />It is set in wartime and the heros are caught in the middle.<br /><br />It is riveting from start to finish and it once again proves that Liv Ullman is one of the best actresses of the 20th century. A must see. | 0 |
This movie is possibly the cheapest, cheesiest, and poorest sequel ever made.<br /><br />Yet, it is the funniest and most idiotic movie by Disney, and will guarantee laughs at the sappy stories and lame plots from start to finish.<br /><br />It's a group of short stories that seem like bad fanfictions.<br /><br />*SPOILER ALERT* The first one's all about Beast and Belle being petty over a pathetic argument. Then, three loser new characters decide to patch things up by forging a letter of forgiveness to give to Belle. Part way through this little episode, Belle has wall eyes, which made my siblings and I laugh so hard. Then, she and the Beast fight more over the letter... and later learn the meaning of forgiveness. How old are they??? Certainly old enough to know the meaning of forgiveness.<br /><br />Then, the next one's all about Lumiere being the world's biggest dope when it comes to romance. This coming from the man who could woo anything female. And they make FiFi a psychotic villainess who tries to kill Belle, and winds up getting off scotch-free by the end of it. What a message to send the kids!<br /><br />Then, the next one's all about Mrs. Potts being angsty. And the next one after that's all about Beast becoming overly possessive of a bird, to the point where he just seems downright silly.<br /><br />The animation's so ugly, it kills. There are at least 100 mistakes you can plainly see... and the coloring is awful.<br /><br />Belle's a simpering sap who blubbers whenever something goes wrong. Plus, she's petty and very different from the usual Belle.<br /><br />And the side characters are annoying... (I mean, Cogsworth and Lumiere fight almost all the time. I know they did that in the movie, but it was overdone in this.)<br /><br />But the worst character is Mrs. Potts. She's ruined in this. I can't even describe it. Just buy it and see for yourself.<br /><br />I give it a 1/10 for the sap, but I give it a 10/10 for comedy. | 1 |
This is, without a doubt, the most offensive 'chick flick' I have seen in years, if not ever. The writing & characterizations are so riddled with stereotypes that the film verges on parody. Before walking out of the theater an hour and five minutes into this disaster, we were subjected to the following themes: having a baby will solve all of your problems, 'performer types' are miserable messes, & musicians can't be good mothers unless they toss their dreams for a more conventional lifestyle. What a waste of a talented cast & some great-looking sets & costumes. When Natasha Richardson told Toni Collette that unless she lives a more mainstream life, she'll end up - shudder - 'alone!', I felt queasy. I can't believe this movie made it to theatrical release. It's the sort of fare one expects from those 'women's' cable channels that I always pass right by when channel-surfing. I am female and over 35, so I should be part of this film's target audience, but boy, does 'Evening' miss its target. | 1 |
Oh Mr. Carell! How far you've fallen! After a glowing moment in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, Steve Carell's choice of films is beginning to contrast starkly with what has come since. Although THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN was entertaining, it was dwarfed by his 'Sunshine' character. Hoping to find something that'd get me to spew popcorn from my nose, I decided to rent EVAN ALMIGHTY and see what possible guffaws might await me here. Not much...<br /><br />Given the trite and clichéd script, the entire film felt forced and unemotional. Poking a bit of fun at flagging family values and the current U.S. administration's take on the environment, Evan Almighty also tries to put a profound biblical moment into humorous terms but fails miserably.<br /><br />Nearly every person on Earth knows the story of Noah and The Ark. God's wrath was sent down with 30 days and nights of rain which flooded the entire planet while Noah, his family, and two of each of His creatures on Earth rode out the wetness in relative comfort via the gopher wood ark. It was a huge moment in human history (if you believe the biblical text).<br /><br />So why would God appear to one man and ask him to build an ark that would only carry the world's animals for a few minutes after a dam break? The simple answer is that He never would. Too much emphasis was given to U.S. government policy and not enough on world events, making Evan Almighty a terribly myopic and Ameri-centric film. Although designed as a comedy, it really never reaches anything approaching belly laughs. Maybe a few grunts and a smile, but little else.<br /><br />John Goodman (CARS) pulls in another forced performance as the despicable Congressman Chuck Long who's only goals are to create development opportunities on protected national land holdings. Even the strong presence of Morgan Freeman (10 ITEMS OF LESS) as God can't help mop up this soaking wet disaster-of-a-film.<br /><br />The only funny moments are between Carell and the animals, especially as Evan learns what animal magnetism is REALLY like. Birds literally flock to him. Sheep herd around him. Lions take pride in being near him (please forgive the puns).<br /><br />The special effects were fun to watch but were brief (with good reason). The 'flood' was interesting in that the Ark was obviously guided by His hand and shoved in just the right direction.<br /><br />But other than that you're in for little more than an insult to common sense and intellect. | 1 |
Filmfour are going to have to do a lot better than this little snot of a film if they're going to get the right sort of reputation for themselves.<br /><br />This film is set in Glasgow (although only a couple of secondary characters have anything approaching a Scottish accent). The premise, about people who's lives are going nowhere, who all meet up in the same cafe in the early hours of the morning as they have night jobs, COULD have made for a really funny, insightful, quirky, cultish film. Instead we have a group of self-obsessed saddos and a plot which has been so done to bits I'm suprised it hasn't been banned. X and Y are friends. X is sleeping with Z. Y sleeps with Z as well. Oh you figure it out.<br /><br />A total waste of time. Painful dialogue - it sounded like something that a group of 16 year olds would have written for a GCSE drama project. The female character was completely superfluous - just written in as a token female in the hope that women would be cajoled into seeing it.<br /><br />If you're the sort of thicko lad who laughs at beer adverts and can usually be found wandering round in packs shouting on Saturday nights in nondescript town centres then you will love this film and find it 'a right laff'. Everyone else, run, don't walk away from this sorry little misfit.<br /><br />And one question, when the group left the 'boring' seaside town (Saltcoats incidentally although they changed the name on the film), to go back to Glasgow, WHY did they do it via the Forton motorway services at LANCASTER which is in England? | 1 |
Kirk and crew land on a lonely planet where the sun is about to explode. They intend to evacuate the inhabitants but find the place deserted except for a Mr. Atoz who operates some sort of high-tech library. Despite trying to get a straight answer from him about everyone's whereabouts, Atoz is indifferent to their questions and insist they must quickly 'make a selection while there is still time'. They have no idea what he's talking about but wander about looking at the hand mirror-like disks on the viewers and they see images of the planet's past. Then, while a disk is in the viewer, Kirk runs through the doorway and is magically transported back in time to what on Earth would look like the time of Louis XIV (the 1660s). When McCoy and Spock follow, a different disk is in the viewer and they are sent to an ice age hell. All too late they realize that the library is a time travel machine and repository.<br /><br />While Kirk's visit is pretty short and not all that exciting, Spock and McCoy's is much more eventful, as Spock falls head over heels for Mariette Hartley--who was sent to this awful place as a punishment. The scenes with Spock are exceptionally interesting and very atypical of the normally logical guy.<br /><br />Spock's departure from the norm, the wildly inventive script and very diverse locales make this an exceptional episode--one well worth seeing.<br /><br />FYI--Ian Wolfe, the excellent character actor, played Mr. Atoz. I am a huge fan of older films and have seen him as a supporting and bit player in countless films in the 30s and 40s and he looked almost exactly like he did in this episode from 1969. Interestingly enough, despite looking ancient, he lived on another 23 years--dying at over 95 years of age!! | 0 |
Directed by Jacques Tourneur (Cat People, Out of the Past, Night of the Demon) and written by Phillip Dunne (How Green was My Valley) Anne of the Indies is a quite interesting adventure pirate movie. Its main character of captain Anne Providence is based on a real woman-pirate Anne Boney who actually lived and sailed through 18th century's Atlantic.<br /><br />The film begins with the sea battle where Anne's (Jean Peters) pirate ship attacks a trade ship that was on its way to Europe from the South America. As a result a treasure of great value is captured along with a handsome French officer Pierre La Rochelle (Louis Jourdan), who is taken prisoner. Anne ends up falling in love with him and apparently her feelings are reciprocated but it's only till she sets him free when she discovers that he has a beautiful young wife Molly (Debra Paget) with whom he pretty much in love with. Anne begins planning revenge on both of them but in an unexpected twist of fate ends up making a great sacrifice in order to save them instead. The pirate movie cliché figure of `Black Beard' also makes his appearance here, this time played by Thomas Gomez.<br /><br />Though Anne of the Indies probably appears to be no more nor less than a revisiting of pirate movie clichés, it still has its classical moments in beautiful visuals and sea battle sequences filmed in Technicolor as well as in some aspects of the story and most of all in personal touches in directing of all of it by Jacques Tourneur. 7/10 | 0 |
...the last time I laughed this much. It's a testament to the talent of Rowan Atkinson that he has managed to create a comic character with several layers and a clearly defined personality - without hardly ever speaking a word. The whole success of the program rests on Atkinson's shoulders, but he carries it with ease. Despite the fact that the show only ran for one season, anyone even vaguely in touch with pop culture recognizes the rubber-faced social 'tard, so great is the talent and effort put into the performance. At times exasperating, at times lovable, Mr Bean is an innocent, unlucky chap who also happens to be evil incarnate. The brilliance of this character cannot be put into words, you have to see for yourself.<br /><br />The show gets almost too depressing at times, like in the infamous New Year's Eve sketch, or when Bean celebrates his birthday by going alone to a restaurant, offering himself a congratulatory card signed by himself, and being served a stake he doesn't quite fancy. Still, there are times when you can't help but feel impressed by the inventive methods by which Bean gets himself out of trouble, like when he disposes of said stake in numerous clever-ish ways, or when he changes into swimming trunks without taking his trousers off first! Whatever your reaction to Bean and his unorthodox lifestyle, you're bound to throw fits of laughter while watching. <br /><br />Finally, I'd like to point out that although 'Bean' is classified as a program for children, it is just as enjoyable for any grown-up with a sense of humour. Because the more 'adult' jokes will go over the heads of the little ones and the intelligent slapstick (yes, there is such a thing) is funny no matter what age you are, 'Bean' is the truest definition of a family show. This is justly a classic and it always brightens up my day. | 0 |
This film was great.<br /><br />The plot was preposterous.<br /><br />The action sequences contrived.<br /><br />But, provided you can lighten up enough to laugh, it was a throughly thrilling romp combining Keystone Cops and the Lone Ranger.<br /><br />The baddies were more silly than bad. The good guys weren't too good. The black actors played normal characters rather than black stereotypes.<br /><br />The inclusion of a baby added a good touch. Sympathy might have been a little difficult otherwise. <br /><br />I have to disagree about the acting. It was, on the whole, very good. I really wanted to punch Judge Reinhold.<br /><br />And, after all, isn't that the mark of a really good movie, wanting to punch Judge Reinhold? | 0 |
<br /><br />What more can you ask for? A great screenplay based on one of the finest plays of the latter half of the 20th century, two fine emotional performances by Courtney and Finney, a realistic vision of war time london, a great supporting cast. This film takes you on an emotional rollercoaster through humour, sadness, loss and fulfillment. if you are in the theatre it is even more effective. This is a true 10 on the rating scale ! | 0 |
From it's uninspiring title to the flat acting performances, Curdled is very much an unremarkable film throughout. The film has gained some fans by way of the fact that Quentin Tarantino's name is attached to it, and the silly and out of place nod to the Rodriguez/Tarantino flick 'From Dusk till Dawn'. These things do not make a great movie, however, and this is more than evident all the way through 'Curdled'. The film suffers from an all too obvious lack of ideas, and it tries to mask this with murders that are meant to be stylish and events that are supposed to be disturbing. The Mexican music score that accompanies many of the sequences in the film is obviously meant to be cool, but it's becomes annoying very quickly; especially as aside from the fact that the lead character is Mexican, it doesn't fit with the tone of the movie. The film's plot is typically offbeat and it follows a gorehound who, because of her obsession with grisly murders, takes a job with a firm that cleans up murder scenes. It sounds boring and it is.<br /><br />William Baldwin is the only 'name' on the cast list, and even he doesn't make an impression. He hasn't been given anything to do in the movie and aside from talking to his victims and standing around trying to look menacing, he's pretty much wasted. Angela Jones, or rather; the taxi driver from Pulp Fiction, takes the lead role as the murder obsessed young woman, and it is always clear that it's her involvement with Pulp Fiction that won her this role, not her acting ability. She may have been good enough in her small role in Tarantino's masterpiece, but she doesn't have the talent to lead a film by herself. She looks lost and out of place for the majority of the film, and if it weren't for her Latino accent; she wouldn't convince the audience that she's a weirdo on any level. Curdled is a one hundred percent-proof piece of forgettable trash. Films like this often win themselves praise for invention or black comedic antics; but this one fails on all levels. Whether you're a Tarantino fan, William Baldwin fan, horror fan or just a movie buff; this is one to miss. | 1 |
Love it, love it, love it! This is another absolutely superb performance from the Divine Miss M. From the beginning to the end, this is one big treat! Don't rent it- buy it now! | 0 |
When this movie was first shown on television I had high hopes that we would finally have a decent movie about World War I as experienced by American soldiers. Unfortunately this is not it.<br /><br />It should have been a good movie about WWI. Even though it was made for television it is obvious that a real effort was made to use appropriate equipment and props. But the writing and directing are badly lacking, even though the makers of this movie obviously borrowed freely from quite a few well made war movies. War movie clichés abound such as the arrogant general who apparently does not care a flip about the lives of his men. When will Hollywood realize that, even though there have been plenty of bad generals, most combat unit generals have seen plenty of combat themselves and are not naive about what the average grunt experiences? The first part of this movie appeared to be 'Paths of Glory' with American uniforms. Except that 'Paths of Glory' was emotionally gripping. Later on there was Chamberlain's charge (except uphill) from 'Gettysburg' and even the capture of the American soldier by a ring of enemy soldiers from 'The Thin Red Line'. But in 'The Thin Red Line' the soldier was alone when captured. In this movie a ring forms around the new prisoner in the middle of a battle.<br /><br />If this movie used a military adviser they ignored him. Even though the actors (and I never could forget they were actors while watching) mouthed military tactics I didn't see very much of it. The American soldiers would stand up to be shot while the Germans attacked. And the infamous Storm Troopers, who were apparently blind, appeared to use no tactics whatsoever in their attack. In the real war, the tactics were what made storm troopers so effective. But the silliest scene was the attack of the German Flamethrowers. In this scene the German flamethrower operators walked in a broad line towards the defending Americans. If that had been real they would never have gotten close enough to use their flamethrowers before they had all been dropped by the defender's bullets.<br /><br />Okay, so most war movies are unrealistic when it comes to the tactics shown. But it is still disappointing. But what really turned me off to this flick was the typical anti-war anti-military angle that movie makers seem to think is important. True, war is hell. But most American soldiers, even though they grumble and gripe, tend to believe in what they are doing and can be rather gung-ho about it. My Grandfather served in World War I. And even though he died four years before I was born I have been told how proud he was of his service. | 1 |
I've bought, ' The Feast of All Saints,' and it's not truly a horrible movie, but a lot of things could have been better. It had a lot of historical value, played out by very talented actress/actors, and it's not an everyday occurrence that actors can play out such a role and have it be somewhat believable. There were some parts that were a little mediocre and confusing, but I wouldn't say that the entire movie was horrible. Once you think about that, capturing 1800's New Orleans, and making something out of it, it pretty hard, and much harder to get actors who can strongly signify those parts. But the only big problem I had with the movie was that most of the actors who did play the free people of color, were mostly light skinned Africans, not very universal in casting others who weren't light skinned; one of the old Creole stereotypes that still exists. Whomever did the casting could have picked a wider variety when it came to hue, despite many Creoles are color conscious.Rather picking actors that looked near white in a sense, could have been more thought out.The actors did a great job, the script could have better written, and overall I found the performances were very believable. | 0 |
SPOILERS<br /><br />A buddy of mine said NEXT MOVIE was the best Cheech & Chong flick and went out of his way to have me borrow it and THE BLUES BROTHERS. NEXT MOVIE has no plot, has no pacing, really has no anything of what defines a movie ... but it is funny. And for what it is worth, Cheech and Chong show some heart.<br /><br />Well, in this little paragraph I put in the plot, but being that four-fifths of the movie, nothing happens that would usually start a story. I will just say that Cheech 's cousin shows up.<br /><br />Was there no other funnier moment when Chong made Cheech drink the pee twice? What about the rooster? Was that Pee-Wee Herman's first movie appearance? You would have to watch the movie yourself to enjoy it. I don't think NEXT MOVIE has strong enough balls to make it awesome, but the movie has heart and hey, my buddy let me borrow it so it gets a 7. | 0 |
many people have said that this movie was not a good movie, at a horror perspective i agree, it was not very scary, it did have some gruesome ways of torture yes (hooks going where they shouldn't) but not scary. but it was a good movie at a comedic stand-point, i thought it was hilarious, such bad acting from dee snider with his stupid theological questioning and every second word he said came out as 'what is____, define______', then the angry mob at his house with one of them holding a sign saying 'we're not gonna take it' (which is a song from his band twisted sister. but i think the part that made me laugh the most was the one guy's wife that was dead and dee snider was holding her up and making her dance, when i saw that i broke out in tears... so i would not recommend this for avid horror lovers, but for those who love horror for its comedy i recommend this movie 100% | 0 |
Kids - of whatever age - do not want to know about their parents' sex lives. And grown-up children are often seriously baffled and disconcerted by any evidence that aging parents possess an active libido. Lastly, many moviegoers are very uncomfortable watching a dowdy, frumpy widow who would pass unnoticed almost anywhere discover her aching capacity and need for raw passion with a handsome man half her age.<br /><br />'The Mother' is a provocative look at a scarcely filmed reality - a woman who isn't ready to stay home, watch 'the telly,' and vegetate after her husband of nearly three decades, and a controlling, dominating chap at that, packs it in with a massive heart attack.<br /><br />May (Anne Reid) and her husband have two children, each dysfunctional in his or her own way. The male son lives with a beautiful wife who may well be driving him to the Bankruptcy Court with her extravagant commercial venture. Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw), is a teacher with aspirations of succeeding as a writer. She's attractive, not pretty, and she seems to have a close relationship with mum - at first.<br /><br />Back at her house after burying her husband, May determines to not stay there. Rejecting typical widowhood with its legacy of boring days and no adventure, she goes to stay with Paula who has a young son. Paula's boyfriend, Darren (Daniel Craig), is a ruggedly handsome contractor who seems to be taking an awfully long time to complete an addition to May's son's house. May is quite taken with hard-drinking, coke-sniffing Darren whose treatment of Paula ought to have alerted May that he was, for sure, a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Cads.<br /><br />What follows is a torrid affair between Darren and the besotted and now bubblingly alive (dare I say reborn?) widow. The love scenes are graphic but take second place to amateur artist May's pen and ink sketches of their trysts which then play a role in the enfolding drama (or debacle, take your pick).<br /><br />The theater in Manhattan was packed for today's early afternoon showing with well over half the audience in the range of May's age. That some were shocked or disturbed to see her disporting herself with erotic abandon in the arms of a much younger man is an understatement. <br /><br />This blindingly honest look at an older woman's awakened passion after decades of dutifully obeying her husband's desire that she stay at home and raise kids (she also mentions he didn't like her to have friends-what a guy) surfaces a number of issues. While May's dalliance with Darren doesn't constitute incest, there are real psychological dimensions, and issues, with a mother bedding her daughter's lover. And Paula isn't made of the stoutest stuff to begin with. The affair, once disclosed, allows the peeling open of the mother-daughter relationship which, from Paula's viewpoint, left something to be desired. Ms. Bradshaw is excellent in the role of a daughter who wants her mother's support as well as her love-she hasn't been dealt a terrible hand by life but it isn't a bed of roses either.<br /><br />May is strong in her resolve to both acknowledge her sexuality and expect, indeed demand, a future of happiness. But she is also inescapably vulnerable. She's fishing in uncharted emotional waters. Who controls her relationship with Darren and why are difficult issues for her to understand, much less resolve. In her sixties, she's still a work in progress.<br /><br />'Something's Gotta Give' recently showcased mature sexuality but in an amusingly antiseptic way assuring no viewer would be discomfited. After all it's Jack Nicholson and the always beautiful Diane Keaton cavorting in the world of the rich. And to insure that no serious psycho-social issues were explored, Keaton's young girlfriend, Amanda Peet, daughter of Keaton, not only blesses the match but insures that the audience knows she and her old(er) would-be lover never hopped into the sack.<br /><br />No easy out here. Anne Reid's inspired performance forces discomfort on some while drawing respect from others. Her naked body bursts with sexuality for some and appears absurd as an object of physical attraction to others (the comments of audience members leaving today reflected all these views).<br /><br />Kudos to director Roger Michell for tackling a fascinating story with verve and empathy.<br /><br />9/10. | 0 |
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict persists and while the world may be aware of the violence surrounding the division of the two countries, few have a clue to the other aspect of the division - the group of people who want peace and work toward eradicating the separation. Eytan Fox, in THE BUBBLE ('Ha-Buah'), has created a much needed alternative viewpoint of the schism, electing to tell a story that contains some fine humor, a lot of love, and a taste of brutal reality. It is a window into a situation that begs for understanding.<br /><br />In Tel Aviv three close friends are roommates: Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), a beautiful young woman with strong opinions; Yali (Alon Friedman), a very 'out' gay young man who works in a popular café; and Noam (Ohad Knoller), a handsome, somewhat shy fellow who, in addition to his day job in a music shop, is a member of the National Guard and therefore spends his free time serving as a guard at the city's checkpoints. It is during one of these guard duty weekends that he meets a young Palestinian named Ashraf (Yousef 'Joe' Sweid), and a mutual attraction occurs. The three friends decide to 'stowaway' the illegally present Ashraf (whom they nickname with an Israeli name) and while Ashraf and Noam settle into a love relationship, Yali hires Ashraf at his café, and Yali and Lulu both proceed to find love interests, too. All goes well until Ashraf must return home for his sister's wedding. Though in Tel Aviv Ashraf has been able to be openly gay with Noam, life is far different in Jerusalem: Ashraf is told he must marry his sister's groom-to-be sister. In an attempt to rescue Ashraf from his fate, Noam and Lulu disguise themselves as French reporters to gain access to Ashraf. In a moment of supposed seclusion, Noam and Ashraf are discovered kissing by the groom-to-be, and this act gives cause for blackmail in order for Ashraf to remain 'in the closet'.<br /><br />While the young people in Tel Aviv are dancing at an event to raise attention for peaceful coexistence, an attack occurs in Jerusalem - one that has grave consequences not only immediately, but also in the revenge mission Ashraf must now assume. The ending is tragic on many levels and it underlines just how serious the problem between these two countries is.<br /><br />The acting is so very natural that from both the comedic and the tragic aspects the audience completely believes in these beautiful young people. The story finds the right balance between the serious and the lighthearted and it is this balance than makes Eytan Fox such a fine writer/director. More people should watch this important and very fine film. In Hebrew, Arabic, and English with subtitles. Grady Harp | 0 |
I have rarely emerged from viewing a film with such a warm, happy feeling. I felt as if I had been out with really good friends and had a wonderful time! I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The acting was superb, although I would have to mention Bill Nye in particular as giving an absolutely faultless performance. Bill is an excellent actor and would love to see him in more films. Timothy Spall and Jimmy Nail are also favourites and always love to see them as they give such a solid performance. And Billy Connolly, as always, totally gorgeous. It was a wonderful ensemble performance from all concerned. Such a refreshing experience to see a well-written, superbly acted and good-looking movie. | 0 |
I like Tom Hanks, and he is one of few actors who will draw me into the theatre regardless of any misgivings I may have concerning the film. I worried about Mr. Hanks return to 'light comedy' as this is the arena where he made the transition from TV to film- remember 'Big'? Well, 'Charlie Wilson's War' is not light comedy. It is political satire, and extremely well-written political satire at that. The script is the star of this film, and the word-smithing by Aaron Sorkin is some of the best on offer this year.<br /><br />Mike Nicols holds the entire escapade together, delivering a film that zips along in a very quick 90 minutes (timing is everything in comedy, and nothing is ever funny if it drags). Nicols' choice in sets and lighting are also very reminiscent of '70's and '80's TV, a move used deliberately to root the piece in period.<br /><br />The return to the use of model work and stock photography over digital special effects also enhances the retro look and believability. Note to the production designers in your choice of stock footage: I know the difference between an F-16 and a MiG, and a Bell and a Hind. But that may have been part of the joke, too.<br /><br />I saw this film in Philadelphia. It was interesting to watch and listen to the audience NOT get the historical references to their own history. History tends to repeat because the recidivists have forgotten what happened the first time around.<br /><br />Kudos to both Mr. Hanks and that chameleon Phillip Seymore Hoffman. Sorkin's script is brought to life by these actors, and the entire production team is on the top of their game.<br /><br />Heartily recommended. | 0 |
This is the first Woody Allen film I've found not worth watching. I think Woody has tried many different genres to interest results but this movie just left me irritated and bored. The music is lovely but don't bother watching this hopeless mock-umentary. | 1 |
I don't think I've ever gave something a 1/10 rating, but this one easily gets the denomination. I find it hard just to sit through one of his jokes. It's not just that the jokes are so bad, but combine that with the fact that Carson Daily has zero charisma, can't set up or finish a punchline, and you've got a late night comedy recipe that will really turn your stomach.<br /><br />I have watched the show, never in its entirety, but many times still. It just creeps up on me after Conan. I usually watch a minute or two just to see if Carson daily is still the worst talk show host ever.<br /><br />Actually if you ever do see him interviewing a guest, it's just that, an interview. I feel so sorry every time he has a guest on and their confused smiles try to mask their body language that's screaming, 'get me the hell away from this freak!' I do recommend watching the show, not for a laugh, but to ponder, how he got on the air and what he's still doing there. Watch as much as you can, I think you will find its complete awkwardness...interesting. | 1 |
Kiera Nightly moved straight from the P&P set to this action movie... she could hardly have chosen to remake her image more dramatically. A great success in Love Actually and as Lizie in Jane Austen's classic, she is, once again, 'having a go'. Just as her bikini clad warrier woman in King Arthur was more skin than muscle, it is difficult to imagine this delicate frame standing up to a bounty hunters life... but then this is exactly what Domino Harvey (the real one) did, and I (being one of Nightly's biggest fans) believe she carries if off.<br /><br />Stuff....<br /><br />* 90210 (for the non American world) is the post code of Beverly hills in LA, where all the film stars live. * Domino Harvey father's mostfamous film was Manchurian Candidate (which appears in the film). * Domino Harvey died of a drug overdose in her bath before the film came out in June 2005, after having been arrested for drug dealing. She had just completed the negotiation for some of her music to be inlcuded in the film. * Kiera Knightly alludes to Domino Harvey's sexuality in her interview with Lucy Liu.<br /><br />If you find this film a bit far fetched, then check out Domino Harvey, as the facts are more amazing than the fiction. | 0 |
IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF THIS FILM PLEASE READ THE BOTTOM OF THIS DESCRIPTION: First telecast by CBS on November 30, 2003, the made-for-TV Finding John Christmas is a sequel to the previous year's A Town Without Christmas, with Peter Falk reprising his role as versatile guardian angel Max. Valerie Bertinelli plays Kathleen McAllister, a divorced small-town nurse whose depression... over the fact that the hospital ER she maintains may be forced to shut down because of a $100,000 debt is briefly lifted when she spots a newspaper picture taken by photojournalist Noah Greeley (David Cubitt). The picture shows an act of bravery performed by Noah's firefighter brother Hank (William Russ), who mysteriously left town 25 years ago and hasn't been seen since. Hank would like to quietly slip back into town without explanation or fanfare, but this proves impossible when Noah's newspaper posts a $50,000 reward to identify Hank, known only to the public as 'John Christmas.' And there's something, very, very curious about that photo: It also shows a Santa Claus suit seemingly floating in midair without an occupant. That elusive 'Santa' is of course the angelic Max, who pops up now and again throughout the story in a variety of guises to solve problems, dispense advice, tie up loose plot strands--and even share a musical duet with Kathleen's talented daughter Socorro (Jennifer Pisana).<br /><br />INTERESTED IN HAVING A COPY: WRITE TO ME HERE: [email protected] | 0 |
I have recently watched this movie twice, and I can't seem to understand why the h*ll the makers made this pile of crap. I mean, yes, It gives a great impression of Hitler's environment, and I mean the way they reproduced Austria in the late 1890's, WWI and the Inter-war period. What I can't understand is why they pictured Hitler as a 100% pure evil, mad, unreliable, mentally unstable freak. He was after all a very thoughtful, loving and intelligent man who of course had his dark sides, no doubt about that. But why in heaven's name portray him in this way? All of his positive aspects have been cut out of the scenario, leaving nothing but a very propaganda-like portrait of a man who had the biggest influence on modern civilization ever. Yes, he threw Germany into the devastating 2nd World War. Yes, he was racist, and yes he was at times menially unstable especially at the end of the war. All true. But again; why the hell did they plain LIE to the public? To warn us?<br /><br />I absolutely don't think this movie was a warning. The true danger of Hitler and the Nazi's was the fact they were able to rise to power at moments of severe global weakness. The fact this evil was so recognizable yet so embraced by almost every German alive (not to mention Austrians and a LOT of other people) makes it a warning to modern civilization, NOT the fact Hitler was such a 'weirdo'. If it would have been like the makers make us believe - I would have been convinced that the German people were retarded. A man like the one in this movie would have never gotten anywhere near party leader - not to mention ReichsKanzler. <br /><br />4/10 | 1 |
I've finally seen THE INCUBUS after waiting 20 something odd years to see it and well, it surely wasn't worth waiting all this time to see it. THE INCUBUS is strictly by-the-number horror film: unseen killer/monster is raping and murdering women in a small town. <br /><br />The film goes like this: movie opens with killing; then blah blah blah; more blah blah blah; then another killing; even more blah blah blah; continuing with blah blah blah; yet another killing (surprising, huh?); blah blah blah, etc...<br /><br />The film is totally predictable from beginning to end. Even the stupid 'big' red-herring used throughout the movie wouldn't convince a 5 year old. And I figured out the secret identity of the incubus the moment I saw the character, so when the 'shocking' surprise ending arrived, I wasn't shocked or surprised. In fact, it was so funny that I kept on chuckling days after I saw the movie. It's so silly!<br /><br />Anyway, the film is so by-the-number that the 'rock band' sequence is one of the few stand-out moments in this dreary flick. It's a stand-out scene not necessarily because it's good but because it's so funny and pointless: the movie playing on the big screen shows a rock video-like moment with a guy in red leather pants getting his obviously fake long hair cut, all of this edited with scenes of a girl who is being attacked in the movie theater's washroom by the incubus. The best thing I could say about this film is the cinematography, which I actually liked. But aside from that, there's almost nothing worth mentioning about THE INCUBUS, except that it's unintentionally hilarious. | 1 |
I don't know why, but for some sick reason, I think since I've been on the Disney sequel binge, I decided to just go ahead and see 102 Dalmations. The first movie that was a remake of the Disney cartoon classic starring Glenn Close as Cruella De Vil, it seemed like a sure hit, but it was just a bomb. I think the reason why these movies don't work is because 101 Dalmations, the original, was a cartoon, it just worked better and was more appealing to the kids as well as adults. This was not really that fun because it's adults running around trying to act like cartoons instead of just actual human beings, I understand they're trying to make sure that it's appealing to the kids, but it's ridicules to see the way these actors are behaving in the film. And 102 Dalmations's story isn't really that good.<br /><br />Cruella De Vil has been in prison for a while, but things change when she is proved that she now loves animals and is a pleasant human being. But her reputation is now damaged as a puppy-napper, but she buys a man's dog shelter and is all of a sudden is being loved by everyone and it looks like she's changed. But when she sees her probation officer's Dalmatians, she goes crazy and starts seeing spots, and she looses it. She's back for revenge on puppies and is still determined to get that Dalmation coat she's always wanted.<br /><br />Glenn Close is such an amazing actress, very under rated, but her taking on Cruella De Vil, she's good, but let's face it, this movie made the fun villain just more of a silly nut case. Also, as cute as the puppies were, it just works more for the animation, it sounds stupid, but it's just not as believable without the cartoon and their personalities being in the mix. I wouldn't really recommend 102 Dalmations, it's alright, but if you agree that the first movie was just a waste of time, this is just the same thing.<br /><br />2/10 | 1 |
The movie plot seems to have been constructed from a disjointed dream. There is not enough realism to hold the viewer's interest. The Vermont Farm scene was a failed opportunity to show the way farms were set up and farm families lived which would have been interesting and entertaining. There was little if no research into the whiskey bootlegging trade of the period. The costumes of the Canadians looked like something from the French Revolution, totally unbelievable. The fiddle playing was good and of the time period but Chris's motions while supposedly playing were unbelievable. The owl's appearance was a never explained mystery and the train disappearing into thin air was too much. I couldn't understand how a live trout got frozen into the ice and why two men in the wilderness without food would release the trout, a good food source. | 1 |
Good Lord, what were they THINKING??!!!!!! Here is your spoiler warning, even though I don't think it'll really matter. You won't be seeing this piece of trash anyway.<br /><br />A group of handpuppets go chasing after a group of really stupid people, who go on a really stupid hunt for them to try and kill them, and the puppets complicate things by letting them live out their really stupid fantasies. In other words, the whole thing is really stupid.<br /><br />You KNOW it has to be bad when even Mike and the Bots can't save something!! And they didn't! I know, some of their lines were funny, like what to add to the sign 'HIT' and the hand comments, but, geez, this was pretty dang sad.<br /><br />All I can say is DO NOT WATCH THIS PIECE O CRUD. IT IS NOT WORTH YOUR EYES. | 1 |
i found the film a bit predictable and boring but i am 14.<br /><br />i was really annoyed with my little cousin as she was very hyper that day so i saw a film on the Disney channel and put it on and told her to watch it.<br /><br />she is 6 and she loved the film, some bits she didn't get like the ending but i didn't get that either y was Eddie the star of the video shoot i thought it was Jordan's video?! but she did enjoy it. <br /><br />i noticed the mistakes such as at the end Jordan was not actually playing the guitar, but she never. <br /><br />it is definitely a film for if you are seriously bored or 10 and under.<br /><br />it calmed my cousin down well.<br /><br />although all she did was sing for the rest of the day then. | 1 |
I really liked this quirky movie. The characters are not the bland beautiful people that show up in so many movies and on TV. It has a realistic edge, with a captivating story line. The main title sequence alone makes this movie fun to watch. | 1 |
Recently finally available in DVD (11/11/08), Severo Pérez' film...and the Earth Did Not Swallow Him (1994) is based on one of the most highly regarded and discussed novels in Chicano literature. Tomás Rivera's ...y no se lo tragó la tierra/ ...and the Earth Did Not Devour Him (1972) is still generally acknowledged by many critics and serious readers as the classic Chicano novel. Originally written in the Spanish characteristic of South Texas and also translated into English, Rivera's novel continues as an indispensable presence within the Chicano literary landscape. <br /><br />Perez' film, originally made as a highly-rated American Playhouse PBS production has taken some time to be released in DVD. One can only wonder about this matter because its high quality is not an issue. The film, and now DVD, however, remains, so far as I know, the only cinematic adaptation of any Chicano novel and clearly is a tribute to Earth's incredible staying power. This cinematic version also strikes an exceptionally deep-rooted nerve that is, I maintain, both specifically ethnic, yet also generally universal. Doubts about Earth perhaps might have arisen because it is too 'ethnic,' too alien from a basic American mainstream, too much a 'foreign' art indie, too limited in economic resources. Yet, Perez in his version of art, in my opinion connects very effectively, artistically, and creates a sharply-etched portrayal of a Chicano migrant collectivity that focuses on daily family life. As far as a production done with relatively limited economic resources, its lovely cinematographic work and haunting music go much beyond its available funding. Simply viewing the film makes manifest this film's (or DVD) artistic value.<br /><br />Briefly,
.and the Earth did not Swallow Him portrays in a neo-naturalistic way the plight, the suffering, and the despair of Chicano migrant laborers as they follow the crops northward from South Texas to Minnesota in 1952. The local priests bless the beat-up, overstuffed vehicles of these Chicano laborers who can no longer find work in the area and must follow the agricultural trail of the migrant worker northward. This Chicano collectivity, like the depression-era Joads in Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, forms an epic tide, driven by economic need, a survival instinct, and anguished despair, and ultimately a barely flickering faith. A tribute to these people of the earth, a collective hero, the DVD is centered on a focal family, and most especially emblematic is a young protagonist within the family, a boy, perhaps twelve or so. This work then, also, functions as a bildungsroman. Ultimately, the viewer's sense of identification is generated through the experiences, subjectivity, and the struggles of the protagonist. Poverty, alienation, child labor, illness (sunstroke and a pregnancy death), discrimination, school absenteeism (the boy's escapism from the bullies of discrimination is spent lying down in a lovely, peaceful cemetery) are laid bare as matter of factyet, also symbolically. Worse still, the problematic conflict between the youngster and his mother goes beyond socio-economics and political conflict, into deeper realms of psychology and metaphysics. In a desperate but artistically rendered struggle, the youth battles his mother, an archetypical Mexican-American traditionalist, a representative of god's will, content with prayer, resignation, consolation, and acceptance. The rebellious youth cannot believe in a god that would permit such evil and suffering to be visited upon them. How can God be so cruel, he asks, since his little sister is certainly purely innocent, as to come down with serious illness in the fields? At this point, the boy must overcome obstacles even more daunting than poverty and discrimination. The issues now include death, doubt, and despair, and lack of meaning. And he has few resources available to himstrength of character, his own will power, his intelligence, and a powerful survival instinct. In this desperate, but artistically rendered struggle, the unnamed youngster, the central figure, feels the necessity of his enduring, of his achieving a heightened sense of meaning, and, the viewer hopes, a renewed and strengthened Life Force that can serve as an inspiration to Chicanos and others.<br /><br />This stark battle makes use of a plot device just touched on by the original work to tie the episodic work together: missing immigrant laborers from Mexico who leave no trace upon their death, although this DVD deals not with Mexican but Mexican-American migrant laborers A highly existential work: anguish and despair; a quest; a focus on a Project; and redemptionall under the auspices of free will in spite of the deterministic socio-economic and religious circumstances.<br /><br />Perez has a long list of credits basically as a documentary filmmaker. His many awards are confirmatory. The producer Paul Espinosa is also well-known and has been likewise honored for his work. The 1994 film, in fact, won and deserved a number of awards: first place, audience favorite at the Santa Barbara Film Festival in 1995; first place at the Cairo Film Festival; and a number of other well-deserved awards.<br /><br />In my opinion this film and DVD, Earth, by Perez is the best Chicano film that has been made. | 0 |
Parasomnia has an interesting premises, but the story is poorly done without any tension or even a logical approach. The cast in unconvincing, even Patrick Kilpatrick, who played great roles in movies like Scanner Cop 2, Open Fire, Under Siege 2 and Eraser. The rest of the cast is unknown (and not very good) with the exception of Jeffrey Combs. (Herbert West from the great Re-Animator trilogy). But he can play roles like this in his sleep (which is a little what he does here). The main problem is that the actions of the characters make no sense at all. The story is rather dull and predictable with cheap computer effects mixed with some gory scenes, especially at the end.<br /><br />This could have been so much better, I do not get the good reviews on this one. It is below average really. | 1 |
As a study of the frailties of human nature in the context of old age, this film is without parallel. It is, quite simply, brilliant. Full marks to everyone - from the scriptwriter to all involved in the finished product. You can only marvel at the perceptions inherent in the characterisation of the two ageing performers. | 0 |
Sometimes it's hard to define what separates a successful, delightful comedy from one that falls flat. In this case, the contrived plot about a spoiled rich girl who schemes to take her nieces away from the Greenwich Village 'bohemian' who is raising them, only to fall for him herself, is not promising. And nothing in director Leigh Jason's filmography suggests that he was an overlooked major talent. And yet he must have been responsible for creating a relaxed, happy atmosphere on the set that was faithfully recorded on film.<br /><br />He also had the good sense to cast this movie properly. The one small flaw is Miriam Hopkins in a part that Ginger Rogers would have been perfect for. Hopkins is efficient but brittle, lacking the warmth and sexiness Rogers would have had. She is further hampered by a pair of bizarrely long and sooty false eyelashes that are sometimes a distraction. But a very young and very handsome Ray Milland couldn't be better in an exuberant, uninhibited comic performance of great charm.<br /><br />And better than that, particularly for New York City residents, is the Hollywood depiction of Greenwich Village in 1937. Though completely synthetic and idealized, it remains recognizable to a contemporary viewer. Art director Van Nest Polglase created an amiable jumble of mews apartments and ramshackle shared backyards that is the perfect backdrop for this picture's collection of artists, strivers, smart-alecks and wannabes. Best in the supporting cast is Guinn Williams, bringing sweetness and light to his role as a prizefighter-sculptor-dressmaker, suggesting the self-invention and fluidity (sexual and otherwise) of life in the Village. Even more refreshing are Betty Philson and Marianna Strelby playing the little girls. Plain, intelligent and full of humor, these girls seem like real human beings and are nothing like the professional child actors of the time.<br /><br />Of special interest are a couple of memorable comic set-pieces: Ray Milland's vacuum cleaner demonstration to a woman with a howling baby is played with more spontaneity than one expects (the baby and his contortions are marvelous 'found' moments) and a phony domestic 'play' in a department store window that degenerates into a free-for-all is also fun. The movie slides slowly downhill with a straight-faced custody trial and then never quite gets back on track when the action moves to Long Island, but this movie is still worth a look. | 0 |
Secret Sunshine marks the return of director Lee Changdong to the film-making world after a multi-year absence. Having three critically acclaimed films already under his belt, he recruits now veteran thespian Jeon Doyeon and her considerable (Cannes-winning) talents for the primary role of Lee Shinae. What follows is a journey through one woman's tragedy and an exploration of her coping mechanisms.<br /><br />One of the things that becomes apparent while watching Secret Sunshine is that it doesn't really care to follow any specific genre, but rather picks up genre traits when necessary to convey what it's trying to convey. The story itself follows Lee Shinae as she moves with her son to the city of Milyang (whose Sino-Corean translates to Secret Sunshine). She moves to Milyang in the aftermath of the death of her husband as it was his hometown, so the film is born from tragedy. And you think things might just get better as she opens up a piano shop and encounters a bit of a bumbling nice-guy mechanic Jongchan (played by Song Kangho). But this isn't a romantic comedy.<br /><br />As we (and Jongchan, doggedly) follow Shinae as she encounters Milyang and the fate that it has in store for her, the cracks in her armor quickly become apparent. She is a troubled woman trying to grasp onto her own strength to overcome tragedy and we watch as she finds that it's not enough. Secret Sunshine still manages to follow a mostly Aristotelian dramatic arc, but pulls back on the catharsis, which might confound some viewers, especially the ending, but the novelistic symbolism present in the name of Milyang, the discussions of sunshine and the imagery used in the film very well left me satisfied, once I started to think over the film some more.<br /><br />Ms. Jeon is rather impressive throughout, especially considering that if the role were any less well played, it would've quickly turned into a rather painful melodrama, but she captures the nuances of Shinae's attempts to deal with her losses with a layer of subtlety. Mr. Song has a much smaller role in this film than other films, but he performs adequately, appropriately giving stage to Ms. Jeon. Technically, the film is well done in a classical sense. No flashy aesthetics are employed here--the director is clearly trying to let the story tell itself. I think my only real complaint, and one that might not be able to be fixed, is that despite all the time we spend with Shinae, there is a bit of distance between Shinae and the audience (or at least, me). I think some of this stems from the nature of the work, because if total empathy were pushed, then we wouldn't be able to see the problems that Shinae has objectively. On the other hand, I never felt moved along with Shinae's plight, despite her many tears and increasingly erratic behavior.<br /><br />All the same, the film still stands quite impressive, especially in that it stimulated me to think about it, the further meanings present in it and its ruminations on tragedy, coping, self-deception, isolation and faith stuck with me well after the credits had finished running. Propelled by a strong lead performance, I honestly didn't notice its 2.25 hour runtime. And that says something. Well done. 8/10. | 0 |
I had noticed this movie had been on Cinemax a lot lately, so this morning, I decided to watch it. I had just finished the Infiltrator, which is a great movie, and I thought this looked good as well. From the description the cable had, atleast. This film was awful. It's slow, the pacing is horrible, it feels as tho it lasts 4 hours. There's no real plot to speak of...agh! How can anyone say anything good about this movie. Rickman is good...but he always is...the other two characters work well, but there's no real story to support any of it. After 2 hours, and you sitting there wondering what on earth is going on, where on earth is the plot- it ends with a surprise that frankly just made me sick. Don't bother with this one. | 1 |
I can't believe anyone liked this movie. I've seen a lot of low-budget indie films, but this one absolutely sucked. Low budget doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. Horror doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. There was nothing scary about this movie at all. It was just a gore-fest, and a particularly disturbing one at that. The acting was average, considering they were all unheard of actors, but the story was pathetic, the dialog was pathetic. The movie tries to come off as 'artistic', or something. This is not one of those really great indie films that cost only thousands of dollars to make, but are incredibly well done. This was nothing more than an excuse for some extremely sick people to put their perverse obsessions on film. Other reviews here also said that the soundtrack sucked...that's because most of it was written by the same person, and some of the songs were written by one of the writers of the movie. There were no redeeming qualities to this movie at all. A complete waste of my time and money. | 1 |
Normally i would applaud a movie that tries to do something different or original in a genre. It is obvious that this movie is some sort of parody on ninja movies. And i really did my best to enjoy the movie. But I just couldn't. The jokes aren't funny enough! (I've seen my share of Japanese movies. And most of the times I like and understand the humor used in those movies. 'Red Shadow' is just silly!)The characters that are portrayed in this movie know that this isn't a serious movie and show that all is about the fun. Look at the characters from parodies like 'Hot Shots' or 'Scary Movie'. Everything they do on the screen is done with a straight face and never fall out of character! And because of this, certain scenes become funny and hilarious. In 'Red Shadow' the actors never achieve that. The shadow ninja's supposed to be very skilled and deadly. Sadly the actors don't do their best in convincing us of their talents. They don't do things with a straight face. The jokes would have worked better if they did! The bad choreography of the action scenes also damaged the viewing experience for me. I like humor in martial arts movies as long as the action is good. 'Red Shadow' just fails in that department. So what is left to be enjoyed. Well,the music (techno) was uplifting. It had to be as the action it self never is exciting. And there are some short dramatic scenes that are good but simple. The use of humor,lack of story and depth make me think that this movie is meant for children. But I do wonder if children actually would like this movie. Waste of time! | 1 |
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie's Island Adventure (2003) Randy Quaid, Miriam Flynn, Dana Barron, Jake Thomas, Sung Hi Lee, Eric Idle, Fred Willard, Ed Asner, D: Nick Marck. Embarrassing direct-to-video flop has oafish Cousin Eddie and family on an expenses-paid vacation to the South Pacific by his boss, hoping the dunce won't sue his company after being bitten by a smarter lab monkey! Idiotic spin off can't measure up to any of the Vacation films (even European Vacation!), with a question of whether or not the filmmakers thought the script was actually funny. Not even Quaid, Willard, or Asner can make it remotely watchable. 83 min., Not rated. * | 1 |
THEIR PURPLE MOMENT <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Silent<br /><br />(Black and white - Short film)<br /><br />Two luckless nightclub revellers (Laurel and Hardy) are unable to pay their bill, provoking violent retribution from a hot-tempered waiter (Tiny Sandford).<br /><br />Typical L&H scenario, less substantial than some of their best work from this period, but worth a look nonetheless. Stan takes center-stage this time round, caught up in a financial dilemma after holding back part of his wages to fund a night on the town, only to find out - too late! - that his aggrieved wife (Fay Holderness) has replaced his stash with worthless coupons. Some of the prolonged closeups of Laurel as he slowly becomes aware of the unfolding disaster reveal his genius for characterization and mime. 1920's morality is represented by Patsy O'Byrne, playing a hatchet-faced busy-body who takes great joy in alerting L&H's respective spouses (Holderness and Lyle Taho) to their husbands' bad behavior. The ending fizzles, but the movie still has much to recommend it. Directed by James Parrott. | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.