review
stringlengths 41
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
This must have been an embarrassment to every member of the entirely African-American cast. Every derogatory, disparaging stereotype of the black American community is featured prominently. I won't reinforce the insults by listing them here, except to mention chickens, watermelons, and dice.<br /><br />One good song by Ethel Waters (and a couple of bad ones), and the fantastic singing and dancing talents of 8-year-old Sammy Davis bring the total up to something below 1 on the IMDb scale. | 1 |
The arrival of an world famous conductor sets of unexpected events and feelings in the small village. Some people are threatened by the way he handles the church choir, and how people in it gradually change. This movie is heartwarming and makes you leave the cinema with both a smile on your lips and tears in your eyes. It'a about bringing out the best in people and Kay Pollak has written an excellent script based on the ideas he has become so famous for. The actors are outstanding, Michael Nyqvist we know before but Frida Hallgren was an new, and charming acquaintances to me. She has a most vivid face that leaves no one untouched. Per Moberg does his part as Gabriella's husband almost too well, he is awful too see. One only wish the at he would be casted to play a nice guy one day so we can see if he masters that character as well.<br /><br />This is a movie that will not leave you untouched. If you haven't already seen it, do it today! | 0 |
I watched Pola X because Scott Walker composed the film score and I admire his music a lot. Frankly, I expected a somewhat pretentious and possibly incoherent French movie. I was wrong. The vision of the film quickly managed to engage my attention to the fullest - starting with the opening sequence, which shows black and white footage of military airplanes throwing bombs at graves at the sounds of music and Scott Walker's beautiful wailing voice. The film explores the identity crisis of Pierre (Guillaume Depardieu - a brilliant choice for the role) and his consequential (self-)destruction. The story is divided into two parts the first depicts Pierre's carefree life in a beautiful house in the French countryside and the second follows his utter personal disintegration after he abandons everything and moves to Paris to live in squalor with his supposed half-sister. Both parts contain some amazingly stunning photography the first very colorful and bright, the second utterly gloomy and nearly apocalyptic - adding up to a true aesthetic feast. Pola X is a fascinating and quite unique movie experience. | 0 |
Despite its rather salacious title, this is a light teen dramedy. Unless you're an old coot, you'll probably find it likeable. It isn't so good on developing characters or situations smoothly, though. When you view it, you get the feeling that you've been running back and forth to the kitchen even if you've been sitting down watching the whole time. This is one of those films that counts a great deal on your liking the characters, and they are appealing enough. Jennifer Connelly is the heartthrob of many, I know, but I've always liked the more obscure Maddie Corman. The teens get most of the screen time without a lot of intrusions from those pesky grown-ups. Is it just me or did most of the young males look an awful lot alike? | 0 |
With so many horrible spoof movies, this is sadly a breath of fresh air to the genre. Compared to classics like Airplane or the Naked Gun, this is awful, but compared to recent spoof movies like Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie, this is very clever and original. Don't get me wrong, though, this was not a good movie in any way. I laughed a few times, and there are a few inspired gags, but any pop culture reference falls flat on it's face, as does most jokes in the movie.<br /><br />Lambeau Fields (David Koechner) was a bad coach in the past, but now he's brought back to teach college football, and this time he'll do a good job. His wife (Melora Hardin) is feeling distant from him and his daughter is dating a football big shot to spite her father. Spoofs of various recent movies come into play, as do a lot of sight gags and nonstop stupidity.<br /><br />The best parts of the movie are the gags not relying on reference to recent movies. Spoofs of Radio, Rocky, Dodgeball, Friday Night Lights, Invincible and many other sports movies are not funny in the least. It's mainly the smaller gags that get a few laughs, like a bizarre crotch scratching scene, or a chewing tobacco spitting joke. These little throwaway giggles cannot carry the movie, and by the end, it's hard to watch. The last 20 minutes are grueling to sit through.<br /><br />The characters are surprisingly developed for a sports spoof movie, however, I'm sure the characters were built on clichés from the genre. Nonetheless, they're not too bad. David Koechner can pull lead actor in a movie off. Too bad they gave him so much crummy material to work with. Matthew Lawerence has fine comedic timing in a not always so comedic role as a ballet dancing football player with a cross dressing father. Carl Weathers rounds off the cast, once again playing in a sub-par sports movie (Not the Rocky movies...Happy Gilmore!) Overall, this is a goofy comedy. At times, it's funny, but more often than not, it's just very annoying and predictable.<br /><br />My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG-13 for language, sexual humor and drug humor. | 1 |
Great documentary about the lives of NY firefighters during the worst terrorist attack of all time.. That reason alone is why this should be a must see collectors item.. What shocked me was not only the attacks, but the'High Fat Diet' and physical appearance of some of these firefighters. I think a lot of Doctors would agree with me that,in the physical shape they were in, some of these firefighters would NOT of made it to the 79th floor carrying over 60 lbs of gear. Having said that i now have a greater respect for firefighters and i realize becoming a firefighter is a life altering job. The French have a history of making great documentary's and that is what this is, a Great Documentary..... | 0 |
This movie suffers from the fact that for years Hollywood had no clue as to how to package Jackie Chan for the masses. His low-budget Hong Kong movies were all fast-paced kinetic thrillers that highlight his amazing gymnastic skills and talent for light comedy. His early Hollywood films stuck him in the same movies that were being packaged for Stallone or Chuck Norris. There is nothing about Chan's character in this movie that requires the character to be Asian except for his being the star. In his Hong Kong films Chan is never dull, with the movies being one rapid-fire martial arts sequence after another, but 'The Protector' is lifeless throughout. Danny Aiello isn't given much to work with either and the lacking chemistry between the two probably is more a result of the script and direction than how the two actors got on together. Both have been better in worse movies. The best thing about the movie is the Hong Kong settings. The worst part is the appalling way that Jackie Chan comes off so colorless and drab. It wouldn't be until the made-in-Canada 'Rumble in the Bronx' that the west would finally figure out how to make a good Jackie Chan movie. | 1 |
<br /><br />This movie sucks big time. It reminded me of the movie Resurrection (Christopher Lambert), which i also found extremely boring. And 'Semana Santa' is in every way an even poorer movie.<br /><br />Only fine one in the cast doing something for this movie is Alida Valli. Alida is one of the grand old ladies in european movie history. I loved her maniacal looks in 'Suspiria' and 'inferno' (Dario Argento). I will not spend more time dealing with this movie. I will say another good thing about this movie...use it if you want to fall asleep very quickly... | 1 |
Bottom-of-the-Freddy barrel. This is the worst film in the series, beating 'Freddy's Revenge' for that title. A cheap-looking (with mediocre special effects), incoherent mess, with Freddy turned into a punster. He has one or two cool lines, but that doesn't save this illogical and sloppy sequel. | 1 |
This is a great movie to look at, since it so nicely directed by Andrzej Wajda but at the same time I wished the movie would had some more depth in it, in terms of its story. It's an historically relevant movie about the last days of the French revolution but yet the movie forgets to focus on the character's motivations making the movie perhaps a tad bit too shallow to consider this a brilliant and relevant movie to what.<br /><br />Somehow it doesn't make the movie any less great to watch though. It's made with passion and eye for detail. every aspect about the movie is good looking, such as its settings, costumes and camera-work.<br /><br />Also the story still works out as powerful, though at the same time it could had been so much better and more powerful with a just bit more character development and insight historical information. Guess if you're completely familiar with the French Revolution and the stories of Danton and Robespierre in particular, this movie will be a perfect one for you to watch.<br /><br />It's somewhat typical for a French movie to tell a story slowly and subtle, without ever stepping too much in detail. Often this works out charmingly but in this case the movie could had really done with a bit more depth. Other than that, this movie is still one fine example of French cinema, despite the fact that it's being directed by a Polish director and stars lots of Polish actors in it as well.<br /><br />Gérard Depardieu is great in his role, though the movie also decides to concentrate a lot on many other different characters. The movie perhaps has a bit too many characters but each and every performance is a great one, so this doesn't really ever become a big complaint, other than that it slows done the story a bit at certain points.<br /><br />A great movie that could had been brilliant.<br /><br />8/10 | 0 |
Recap: It's business as usual at Louche's casino in Tanger. The casino is about to close and prepares for a big transaction the next day. The owner Louche and some staff leave for the night, leaving Modesty in charge. Suddenly a troop of armed gangsters storm the casino, shooting wildly. Unknown to Modesty, they have already killed Louche, and are now after the money hidden in the vault. But no one present, and still alive, at the casino knows the code to open the vault. The vault itself is heavily booby trapped with explosives so the assailants can't blow the door as planned. Suddenly Modesty finds herself eye to eye with the gangsters' leader Miklos in a game of roulette with their lives in jeopardy.<br /><br />Comments: This is a review written with no connection what so ever with other published media about Modesty Blaise, as I have neither seen nor read any of it. The first point I like to make is that this is slightly wrongfully classified. Foremost I thought this was a thriller with a battle of wits between Modesty and Miklos as the main plot. Sure, there are some bursts of action but they are not really an integral or important part of the story.<br /><br />As already mentioned the main plot and the main suspense-filled scene, is the game between Modesty and Miklos. It's an innovative and intriguing way of revealing the background of a character, and in doing so much of the story takes place outside the casino at a much earlier time. Someone said that it is almost like a pilot for a TV-series, and the feeling is that it might indeed be used as such. But, I felt it was a much better way to introduce a character than many other have done. I was in no way disappointed in the lack of action, instead I enjoyed this game, the history much more than a simple action movie.<br /><br />I think the two main stars, Alexandra Staden and Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau did very well. Staden especially portrays Modesty very well, and really carries this confident and talented character.<br /><br />7/10 | 0 |
have just got back from seeing this brilliantly funny film.<br /><br />granted, part of the reason i loved it so was because i could point out people and places i knew ('i walk there everyday!', 'i work there!', 'i've had drinks there!', 'hey! that's our postman!' etc...). but, still, if you're out for a 'feel-good' with a bit of spice (excuse the pun) - this is just the right answer. relationships, culture and, most importantly, love are all woven together within the plot.<br /><br />with preston (where the film is set) recently being made a city, it is good to see this work featuring the place and adding to the feeling of uprise. it is also a brilliant representative of the many cultures in this part of the north.<br /><br />fabulous! | 0 |
I watched this flick yesterday and I have to say it's the finest horror film made for $36,000 I've ever seen (Sorry Steckler) The film is definitely worth seeking out if you are a zombie fan. This movie reeks of soul and atmosphere. Some of the shots of the zombs are the best ever committed to film. VERY creepy looking dusty webbed corpses slowly shamble to their screaming victims. Brrrrrrr.<br /><br />Hot saggy Canadian women with sexy accents will keep you preoccupied before the HORROR rears its undead corpse eating head. This film entertained from start to finish. I couldn't ask for more than that. My only complaint is that is was too short. | 0 |
This really is a great movie. I don't think it has ever gotten the recognition that it deserves. I have bought this movie on VHS and DVD. The special effects were ahead of its time. The story was WAY cool. The pace was very steady. If you haven't seen it, you definitely need to check it out on DVD if possible. | 0 |
The screen-play is very bad, but there are some action sequences that i really liked. I think the image is good, better than other romanian movies. I liked also how the actors did their jobs. | 1 |
The film gets my stamp of approval. The scene in the museum demands acting without dialogue. This is one of the most interesting and unique scenes in the history of film. Dickinson's character Kate is very well developed and her performance is felt throughout the entire film. The best work Angie Dickinson did since Point Blank! | 0 |
I find it terribly ironic that 'left wing' Hollywood continues to hedge its bets, making these awful lukewarm movies that neither condemn the war on terror nor embrace it.<br /><br />If you're a Sixties survivor and a committed pacifist, and you're hoping for an all-out condemnation of war like BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY or ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, this movie will really feel like a rip off. None of these soldiers actually question this war, or any war, or the idea of war. They just gripe about having to do another tour.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you're a patriotic American who wants to see a story of courage and honor, this movie will really feel like a rip off. None of these soldiers loves America, or even loves the service. The way they pout and sulk makes them come across more like suburban teenagers than blue collar tough guys. It's not WE WERE SOLDIERS, and it's not SANDS OF IWO JIMA. It's not even mindless action, and the war scenes are less RAMBO and more BUFFY.<br /><br />Ryan Philippe so completely cannot carry this kind of movie. Though he's devastatingly sexy, in a rough trade, men's room, bisexual sort of way, it's hard to picture him as a slow-talking' Texas boy who wants to stand up and be counted. This is no Sgt. Croft in Mailer's THE NAKED AND THE DEAD. He's more like Joel in Truman Capote's OTHER VOICES, OTHER ROOMS. He can't sell you on the idea that he's been in combat and done his bit, OR that he wants his woman and wants her right now. He fizzles on the battlefield and in the bedroom scenes, looking as if he would much prefer to bend over and take a good stiff attack from the rear. | 1 |
This is a very good, under-rated action/drama/and slightly historical movie.<br /><br />The basic story concerns Rob Roy's borrowing of 1000 pounds, its theft, and the problems it causes for his family and indirectly his clansmen.<br /><br />Cunningham( Tim Roth) is an amazing villain and character in this story. Brutally cold and if you watch his face he seems to be able to turn his eyes off and look completely evil.<br /><br />Rob Roy (Liam Neeson) is excellent too, but i think the writers used the word 'honour' 1 too many times.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is strong, and the whole movie is very well acted and filmed.<br /><br />The Action is exciting and the sword play very realistic, but not too gory. The story is good and you really want Rob to win.<br /><br />All in all just shy of a classic. | 0 |
This is a Hollywood film. The credentials of those involved are not revolutionary. This film will not change the world. However, it is well-made, well-plotted, and well-acted, which counts for a lot.<br /><br />It's the cat-and-mouse story of a disgruntled former-CIA assassin who feels betrayed chasing a Secret Service agent who was protecting John F. Kennedy when Kennedy was killed in Dallas. The agent has been understandably troubled by this failure during the subsequent years of his career and when the movie picks up in 1992-or certainly in contemporary America, this would-be assassin Mitch Leary (John Malkovich in a tour-de-force of creepiness in which he gives a transformative performance) has been consumed with frustration and anger and decides that he is going to assassinate the President. He imagines he has common cause with Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood at his cool, calm, good-naturedly grouchy best) who he believes should hold a grudge as he does because the Warren Commission, blamed Horrigan-unfairly, Leary believes-for the assassination of President Kennedy. The tension is ratcheted up through some phone calls from Leary to Horrigan-Leary wanting to keep Horrigan close but not to betray his location and plans.<br /><br />Rene Russo is excellent as Lily Raines a fellow agent with whom Horrigan develops a grown- up relationship. It is nice to see a relationship between two equally competent peers (even if Russo is a fair deal younger than Eastwood at the time of filming). Russo is a calm, capable agent who is able to go toe-to-toe with the quick-witted Horrigan in friendly banter. It is a nice part for Russo, allowing her to play the role of a capable professional woman and not just the default romantic interest of the older man. The acting by the leads, Wolfgang Peterson's competent direction, the thoughtful use of music in plot development, and excellent cinematography make this a film I can watch over and over. | 0 |
i don't know why, but after all the hype on NPR i thought this was a new movie.....all the best footage has been used for BBC docs and NatGeo projects that you have seen if you are interested in nature programs...it has been repackaged with sappy narration and over-dramatic music for Disney to take advantage of Earth Day-there are great moments, and it is always nice to listen to Darth Vader.......oops,........... James Earl Jones speak, but I had hoped for a ground breaking movie , considering the new camera technology used in the making of this film......it has been sanitized for a child audience, so one can actually see better footage for free on youtube ....i feel that we are due for something as ground breaking as Koyannisquatsi (sic) and this movie is certainly not it | 1 |
This is an extremely long movie, which means you may become very bored before it becomes interesting, but its length provides opportunity for its characters to find permanent attachment in your sympathies.<br /><br />If you are moved by the guilt of the loathsome you will find it particularly heart-wrenching, because it is a story that finds its heroes among the evil and the weak. If you can love a monster you'll cry for Magnus Pym, the spy who betrays everyone - notably his country, his friends and family - a man who has also been manipulated and moulded since childhood by those same people.<br /><br />There isn't one truly likeable character in the entire story, not one loyal, 'moral' personality to sympathise with. But watching the whole thing without the help of a tissue would be quite remarkable.<br /><br />I really enjoyed it in the end. Well worth it for people who like inciteful movies about baser human character. | 0 |
Gordon Scott with his well coiffed hair, hourglass figure and weird pidgin English has to be the worst of all the Tarzans. As for the other actors in this mess, they're on a par with any 4th grade elementary school drama class. I've seen Used Car Dealers in TV commercials who can act better. They make Clayton Moore look like Laurence Olivier! And where does Jane (the dull Eve Brent) get her lipstick and eyebrow pencils in the jungle? I realize these were made for kids but Wow! The plot line seemed OK but the director should have required more from his actors. I realize even the Weissmuller films have a few flaws but this one seemed so 'low budget'. | 1 |
I expected to enjoy a romantic comedy featuring Hip Hop, but was disappointed on many levels. First of all, the story is so badly recycled as to make it almost unbearable. Second, the setting, acting and story are not very authentic or believable. Third, there are a lot more good black actors to choose from than these standard picks. How about some originality? Third, there were very few Hip Hop songs played in entirity - if any. None seemd really central. Overall, film was a great disappointment, but the editing style was very interesting and almost made the film worthwhile. | 1 |
This is, without a doubt, one of my favorite Columbo episodes ever. The acting is very well done, the music is very catchy, the script is ingenious, and the direction is fabulous.<br /><br />Peter Falk, who acts brilliantly in every Columbo episodes, acts particularly well in this episode.<br /><br />Also, great performances from Stephen Caffrey, Gary Hershberger, Alan Fudge and Robert Culp.<br /><br />The ending is absolutely brilliant and I love the way Columbo describes it.<br /><br />This is a Columbo movie that WON'T, go amiss. | 0 |
The title has many meanings - the boxing ring, where differences and grievances are fought out, a wedding ring, where Mabel feels trapped and Jack feels his troubles will be over and the cause of the trouble, a ring-like bracelet that Bill gives Mabel as a love token. <br /><br />Former professional boxer, Danish Carl Brisson, was given his start in films by Alfred Hitchcock in 'The Ring'. A very young Ian Hunter, who went on to have such a long career in movies, plays Bob Corby, who catches the eye of a pretty girl, Mabel (Lillian Hall Davis) at a fun fair. She happens to be engaged to 'One Round' Jack Sander (Carl Brisson) but that doesn't stop her flirting with Bob. Bob is persuaded to go 'one round' with Jack. He goes several rounds and wins - he is a professional boxer and he and his manager have come to the fair to find out if Jack is as good a fighter as they have heard. He offers to take Jack on and Jack goes off, along with his boorish trainer (the great Gordon Harker) to make his fortune with plans to marry Mabel when he makes good. Jack wins his fight and marries Mabel the next day, but the deep attraction that she and Bob feel for each other is still there. Jack is suspicious and puts everything into his training so he can fight Bob for his wife.<br /><br />At last a boxing movie where the hero doesn't go off the rails - Bob behaves himself and does everything he can to be a champion - if only Mabel acted in the same way!!! She has left him for Bob - and the fight at the end is a mighty one. It is intensely realistic - it occupies the last 20 minutes of the film. From being raw and enthusiastic, Jack is almost knocked out - then between rounds, reuniting with Mabel, gives him the courage to triumph. The question is why would he even want her back - from the start she thought nothing of starting an affair with Bob - why wouldn't she do it again?<br /><br />The film is loaded with symbolism. Jack, shaking hands with the promoter, changes to Mabel's hands accepting a bracelet from Bob. When Jack puts the ring on Mabel's finger, Bobs bracelet slips down her arm. At the end Jack sees Mabel's reflection in a ringside water bucket and that gives him the confidence to go on. This is an excellent film that will not disappoint you.<br /><br />Highly Recommended. | 0 |
This is a disaster-movie, in both meanings of the word. Every character, every role, every conversation, every twist, everything in this movie stinks big time. It's a shame to see Dennis Hopper's talent wasted in this dreadful movie. I can give you 100's of examples but see for yourself.<br /><br />Or rather : don't. | 1 |
This movie is somehow showing 6.2 stars, It seems inconceivable that the director has that many relations. I am at a loss to explain this.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs. You have only a certain number of hours on the Earth, don't waste 1&1/2 of them on this retarded steaming heap of Guano!!!<br /><br />There is no story as apparently the director 'wrote' (and I'm guessing with a blunt orange crayon) the next day's script at the completion of the day's shooting. The 'story' has been called whimsical, no it is aimless, there is maybe enough 'story' to fill a commercial. Don't you hate ads?<br /><br />Now while both leads can act they obviously decided not to here. And similarly the writer/director can actually both write and direct as evidenced by his next work 'Toy Love' <br /><br />So to recap, even if you get this movie for free, even if you're paid to watch it avoid it.<br /><br />To paraphrase Monty Python's Search for the holy Grail, 'Run flee!' | 1 |
I first saw this movie in the night program of one of my favourite TV channels.... I was hooked from the very first minute. Nothing is as it first seems, lots of suspense, great acting from Mr. van Dien, and I did not mind the 'heat' in it one bit ;-) ... and, best of all: You are in for a surprise ending!!! | 0 |
Do not waste your money or time. Terrible movie. Bad acting, plot all over the place. Really, really bad acting. Man, this movie is just plain bad. I shut it off at 7 minutes. The script is bad, the directing is bad, it seems to me that a high school group got together to do a project for their drama class. Yes, it's that bad. The acting is not convincing at all, mind you I saw only 7 minutes of it. How this movie made it to DVD, is beyond me. <br /><br />It should have been left in the editing storage room. I saw the cover and thought it was pretty cool, I sure's heck won't do that next time :_) | 1 |
This one started excellently. The photography and audio are the best I've experienced in years (okay, months). Especially the use of 'warm' and 'cold' colours in single sequences is astonishing. Also, making Jennifer Lopez whisper most of her lines is an idea in itself, but I'm not sure what Singh wants to accomplish with that.<br /><br />Now for the minuses. The screenplay was awful. Lopez's part turned out to be irrelevant or totally worthless to the plot. She seemed to star the movie only to sell herself and the pic. The three beds seemed just too obvious. The baptizing of the child Carl was a psychologically too underlined way to embark the motive which Carl 'worked' under. And so on..<br /><br />Anyway, the movie had great way of showing where Singh comes from. Why is it that the most talented directors seem to emerge from India nowadays? | 0 |
This film is about British prisoners of war from the World War II escaping from a camp in Germany.<br /><br />I find 'The Wooden Horse' disappointingly boring. The subject could have been thrilling, suspenseful and adrenaline fuelled, but 'The Wooden Horse' is told in a very plain way. It's a collection of plain and poorly told events, with no suspension and thrill. The first half plainly tells how the prisoners of war dug a tunnel, but the events are so plain, with not enough blunders and close shaves to make me on edge. The latter half of the film is even worse, they are just moving from one place to another without any cat and mouse chase. And could the characters talk a bit less and have more action in an action film! I am disappointed by 'The Wooden Horse', it wasted the potential to be a great film. | 1 |
Well to do American divorcée with more money than brains buys a rundown villa in Tuscany. (Much more money; whilst having to dicker over the price, she subsequently manages to cook sumptuous buffets for her workmen and wander around Italy indefinitely with no job or apparent means of support.) Interminable boredom and the inevitable Italian lover ensue; this is a chick flick in the most pejorative sense of the term. Lane acts like an unskilled clueless teenage ingénue throughout - which dynamically clashes with her seriously fading looks - along the way smashing into a variety of (mostly Italian) cardboard stereotypes, dykes, divas, senile contessas and gigolos among them. Bloated with unnecessary scenes, the most ridiculous being a clumsily inserted and pointless recreation of the fountain scene in 'La Dolce Vita'. (A similar conceit was used in an effective and appropriate narrative context in 'Only You', Norman Jewison's vastly superior ode to Italy and romance). 'Tuscan Sun' may be the most vacant piece of cinema of the last decade, despite its admittedly well-lensed panoramas of Italy. Bonus negative point for the extraneous lover parachuted in at the last minute to provide requisite Hollywood ending for its targeted audience of Oprah-brainwashed housewives. Avoid at all costs, unless, of course, you view Oprah and Dr. Phil as pinnacles of intelligent discourse. | 1 |
A flesh-eating octopus, where does that guy Boaz(what the..?) Davidson keep getting inspiration? Anyway,even for the low,low standards of both the giant sea animal who kills people-genre and me,this one is just beyond awful.The octopus is one of the lamest,laziest,weakest monsters I've ever seen.I think he just ended up in the (ahum)East River because Sea World got sick of him.The actors can be seen repeatedly helping the octopus choking them.Bunch of idiots,that way he'll never learn!You guys want all the other giant killer octopuses(that's the correct plural,by the way)to laugh at him?Meanies.<br /><br />Up to stop the octopus are wind,razors that are hard to handle and also special sea agent Nick Hartfield and his partner,who will retire in a week but first has to be eaten by the octopus.Hooray,octopus won the fight!A couple more and he's going to evolve(the scars in my mind stay).Nick of course tries to help him by not doing a damn thing(doesn't he have a gun or something?)but no,that magically doesn't help either.<br /><br />Okay,enter sea cop's love interest Rachel Starbird.Is this based on some comic book or something?Anyway,together they try to stop the octopus by walking in the park.They hope this helps,cos it's the 4th of July in a couple of days,and the octopus might join the party.And you don't know what he's like when he's drunk.Rachel then gets a school bus from out of nowhere to make sure this movie won't end while Nick feeds the octopus some more sea cops.<br /><br />But all's crappy that ends crappy,Nick manages to blow the octopus to bits a couple of times,and a bunch of children who happened to be there cheer and laugh.You know,on tummy-vision,this would probably get an R.In real life,I'd say all ages but I kinda like all ages so my final idea is:Suitable for absolutely nobody.There's no sex,no gore,no nothing.Now forget this movie ever existed.Join the club. | 1 |
One thing I have noticed about British horror movies from the 1970s is that they don`t hold up to repeated viewing THEATRE OF BLOOD is a case in point as are all those Amicus anthology movies . Add THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR to the list <br /><br />Much of the drama of this movie revolves around the build up of a plot revelation at the end . Once you know what the revelation is this becomes a rather flat film . It does open with a fairly good hook but after that we`re treated to long boring sequences of two old ladies making small talk . Correct me if I`m wrong but how many people watch a horror movie expecting a couple of old ladies making small talk ? The only sort of interest to be found in THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR is the anti-smoking stance . Some people have mentioned that this is an anti-war or anti-military film but watch carefully and you`ll see that everytime a squaddie lights up for a fly puff he gets killed . Rather strange considering attitudes to smoking weren`t nearly so hysterical as they are nowadays | 1 |
It's always a pleasure to see characters in a movie who are wholly good-hearted and well-intentioned, even when they're surrounded by those who are neither. The film's moderately silly premise is that the conservative, religious Franklin family (mother, father, teen boy and girl) are involved in an accident wherein the parents and brother have a near-death experience during which they meet Jesus, a pleasant but somewhat exasperated soul who removes from them the burden of 'original sin.' When they return to their lives, many of their views and attitudes have changed, much to the consternation of the daughter, who didn't share the experience. The religious side is, I think, presented with a good balance, from the good (Jesus) to the starkly awful (those of his 'followers' who are obsessed with the sins of others and utterly oblivious to their own). It's a movie to make you think, give you a few good laughs along the way, and leave you with the pleasant feeling that the world just might be a nicer place than you think it is. | 0 |
Okay, I struggled to set aside the fact that in selling EVP as real the movie was basically lying to me from the get-go. I reasoned that hell, I don't believe in vampires but I still liked Dracula so I could live with this.<br /><br />However, even with that accepted the movie is just not very good. It's competently made and acted, but it doesn't really capture you at all. There are several 'jump' moments, and I just looked at them and thought 'yeah, I didn't expect that' without actually jumping in the slightest.<br /><br />Also the resolution doesn't make sense. If the force behind this is capable of doing the things it seems to be, then why the hell does it need to use a proxy? Plus, the end caption was absurd. They obviously put it there as part of the 'give the movie credibility by claiming it's all real' thing, but for that to work it really needs to be at the start. But they can't put it at the start because then they give the plot away... sticking it in at the end just made it stick out like a sore thumb. | 1 |
I heard an interview with the main actor who said that the film was not intended to be a horror movie but he himself would describe it as mental horror. I strongly subscribe to that.<br /><br />It is not clear why he travels to this place, but everything there is monotonous, no bright colors, no honest smiles, nothing personal. Everything is ordered and everyone seems to be satisfied living this kind of life. Our 'hero' though from the beginning seems to be misplaced and feels it himself. <br /><br />What makes this film so important and good is the remarkable similarity to life in many large cities or even countries nowadays. You have to function, you are not supposed to let your colleague know your weaknesses, you show off on your wealth, your car, etc., and most of all you lack the true love of life that children have. Naturally, in this film you see neither children nor old people - they simply do not fit in a society of strong workers.<br /><br />I would recommend this film to everyone - and make sure that this utopia does not come true! | 0 |
This is a really dumb movie. It could be fun with the cool looking aliens and the country setting, but it just isn't.<br /><br />Some aliens hear the broadcast of War of the Worlds when a small country radio station plays it on Halloween. They come to Earth to kill humans, but instead of killing, they make people their slaves and act goofy. The front cover of the film shows these aliens riding surfboards in space...not really what they do. These aren't party aliens, they are stupid cartoonish idiots with annoying high pitched modulated voices. The alien with the most tolerable voice also happens to be the Jack Nicholson rip-off alien who always wears his sunglasses. Other than the aliens, the acting is terrible. The writing is obviously meant for children, because every character is written like a kid.<br /><br />This is a dumb movie, that only children will appreciate, maybe.<br /><br />My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 100 mins. PG for mild language. | 1 |
If there's one thing that annoys me most in seeing a bad film, it's seeing it done by experienced film-makers who ought to know better. This 're-imagining' of Planet of the Apes could have used some imagination, to say nothing of essential elements of character development. Nova, the girl in the original Planet of the Apes, was a better developed character than Daena in this version, for all that she does not say a single word. One certainly expected a lot better from Tim Burton, a man who has hitherto combined an incredible visual imagination with intelligence, wit and humour, all of which were notably absent from this production.<br /><br />There were problems in basic plot development. The first big mistake was allowing the humans to talk. This was the fundamental difference between apes and men that made *all* the difference in the original film. Even while he was mute, his ability to communicate was what marked out Heston's Taylor as being different from the other humans. In the current film, Mark Wahlberg encourages the (talking) human slaves to revolt, but there is no overpowering reason for them to have not revolted and reclaimed their emancipation already. They are dexterous tool-users and have the ability to communicate in order to form plans, something mute humans can't do. It needs no man to fall from the stars to save them. Indeed, since he comes from a technological civilisation and finds himself in a pre-technology era without (at first) any gadgets to help him, it is Wahlberg who ought to be at a disadvantage, not the humans who are used to living there.<br /><br />It was sad to see Helena Bonham Carter working so hard to generate some kind of spark between herself and that unresponsive brick wall Mark Wahlberg. Her best scenes were with the villainous Tim Roth.<br /><br />The humans were practically ignored until they were needed in the third act, at which point Daena started showing some actual interest in Davidson (Wahlberg), and a young boy suddenly changed from part of the background to a feisty gung-ho freedom-fighter. This was poor character development. (Estella Warren, in particular, looked as if she would have been capable of a great deal more than she was given in the script). Wahlberg's puzzlement at the end as to what these humans see in him was certainly shared by me, as he has scarcely interacted with the humans throughout.<br /><br />Creating the apes: half a plus point and two minuses: Ape make-up was excellent on the males, particularly Michael Clarke Duncan who has incredibly expressive eyes (which was why he was so good in The Green Mile), and the makeup design allowed him to use them fully. But the ape females looked like nothing on earth, neither ape nor human. The minuses were the ape jumps which looked about as realistic as Flash Gordon's rocket: jumping apes looked as if they'd just been fired from a catapult, they had none of the long-limbed grace of genuine apes. Secondly, the poor sound mixing - when the gorillas roar it is quite clearly dubbed from some animal, probably feline, making them sound ridiculous and unrealistic.<br /><br />In the original film, the various 'human' things the apes do and say are handled as light relief ('I never knew an ape I didn't like.' 'Human see, human do!'). Here, the apes just talk matter-of-factly exactly as 21st Century humans do, and there is no humour in it at all. The only genuinely original idea was Ari writing with her feet.<br /><br />Nothing made me cringe more than the 'V-Ger from Star Trek' moment near the end of the film. First of all, the apes had apparently been able to read Roman lettering in the distant past, for them to know the name of the Forbidden Zone in its partly concealed form. Secondly, the mysterious inscription giving the name is merely covered with sand which Wahlberg just brushes away, something any ape could have done centuries ago. This moment was, for me, far worse than the much-maligned ending of the movie.<br /><br />Things of that nature, however, are typical of most science fiction movies of today. Back in the '60s and '70s, they generally didn't have the budget to make convincing futuristic sets, but they dealt with genuinely original themes and ideas which were truly science fictional. I'm thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the 1967 Planet of the Apes, THX1138, Soylent Green, Silent Running and the 1972 Solaris. The first Planet of the Apes even utilised the only scientifically valid and physically possible method of travelling forward in time. However, this film includes just about every bad science fiction cliché going: space storms, anomalies and worm holes straight out of Star Trek; the planets of the solar system and their moons apparently all visible together as large globes (in reality from any one planet, all other bodies, even their own moons, are just points of light); a conventional rocket powered shuttle travelling from Saturn to Earth in a matter of minutes instead of years; two-thousand year old equipment firing up and fully working the minute the hero presses the button. To say nothing of a conveniently bulletproof internal glass door. In a contemporary setting, you'd have to explain *why* it was bullet proof, but because it's 'science fiction' you don't have to!<br /><br />Overall, Burton's most disappointing film. | 1 |
There are so many 'Hollywood' movies made now that are not only torture to watch, but also have no bearing on anyone's life, whatsoever. Granted, movies don't always have to have deep meaning, but it's nice to know that there are still film-makers out there who care about telling 'human' stories. I won't give away the premise of this brilliant film, however, the screenplay is surely one of the more complex and memorable ones I have ever seen in my life, and I'm a 32-year-old film buff too! Bug ranks top ten on my list of favorites, which includes: On the Waterfront, Sunset Boulevard, and Black Narcissus, to name just a few. This 'moving' movie should become one of your favorites also- that is, if you have a heart! | 0 |
I have to admit when I went to see this movie, I didn't really have high expectations. But even with my low expectations I was totally and utterly disappointed...<br /><br />Basically Luke Wilson is a hot shot who tends to go out with slightly crazy girlfriends. There's slight mention of a girl stalking him but that's pretty much it for that character. Which i don't quite mind cause it would probably be just as underdeveloped as the rest of the movie.<br /><br />So while on a subway Rainn Wilson (who i actually liked before this movie) convinces him to talk to a 'hot' girl, Uma Thurman. This is strange to say the least, as everyone can clearly see that Uma Thurman does not belong under the category of 'hot'.<br /><br />Rainn Wilson's performance is also far from 'hot'. Normally I'm all for his acting, but even he couldn't salvage this movie. His character was jumpy, unrealistic and rather annoying. You could never tell if the writers were trying to make him the comical token closet gay guy, or just desperate. It was almost painful.<br /><br />But anyway, someone steals her purse as she goes to leave the subway, and Luke Wilson being the charming savior he is runs after the robber. Now we all know that Uma Thurman is the superhero, or 'G-Girl' as they like to call her in the movie. It still baffles me as to what the 'G' stands for, but we'll leave that for the message boards to debate.<br /><br />The sex scenes I assume are supposed to be funny, but I find myself asking who has sex like that? They nearly throw the bed through the wall because of Uma Thurman's 'passion' let's say. It makes my head hurt, but not in the 'I'm thinking really hard to understand this' way.<br /><br />When Uma insults Anna Faris, calling her a 'whore' I had no debate with that. Apart from the fact that she can't choose movies properly, she can't act and relies souly on the fact that she's blonde and typical.<br /><br />Overall I would've walked out of the theater if i hadn't paid $8.75 to see it. The characters are typical and have absolutely no chemistry, especially Uma Thurman. Someone should let her know that just because you move your head a lot doesn't mean you're acting.<br /><br />Also, the script and storyline could've used either a lot of work or a match and some lighter fluid. I actually started to feel embarrassed for the actors, and their dying careers. Overall, if you value your money, and your self respect do NOT waste your time with this pathetic attempt at a movie. | 1 |
EARTH is a must see for children and adults. My son had great fun watching all these funny birds and ice bears. We can learn a lot from this movie and we should be proud on our great treasure on earth. There are some animals in danger to disappear. Exactly that problem should prevent all the authorities of our planet. <br /><br />This documentary offers many exceptional pictures that I have never seen before. Then it is well accompanied by a heavenly music. The director did a great job here that gets high respect. Nothing can stop me and my family to give EARTH the highest rate. I hope so much that the stuff will create a sequel. | 0 |
I have yet to read a negative professional review of this movie. I guess I must have missed something. The beginning is intriguing, the three main characters meet late at night in an otherwise empty bar and entertain each other with invented stories. That's the best part. After the three go their separate ways, the film splits into three threads. That's when boredom sets in. Certainly, the thread with the Felliniesque babushkas who make dolls out of chewed bread is at first an eye opening curiosity. Unfortunately, the director beat this one to death, even injecting a wild plot line that leads nowhere in particular. Bottom line: a two-hour plot-thin listlessness. If you suffer from insomnia, view it in bed and you will have a good night sleep. | 1 |
Catherine Zeta-Jones and Aaron Eckhart star in a 'romantic' drama about an uptight chef played by Zeta-Jones, who ends up carrying for her niece when her sister is killed in a car crash. While she's out taking care of family matters she's replaced by Eckhart.<br /><br />Unfunny maudlin tale with no chemistry between the leads (she's a dead fish and he's okay, but not much of anything). Watching this I was wondering why anyone would want to see this since Zeta-Jones' character is so unlikable. Come on she's so obsessed with cooking and being the best all she does is cook for her therapist or talk about food. Ugh. I won't use any of the numerous puns that come to mind. I couldn't finish it. | 1 |
This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It's supposed to be a remake or update of 'The One-armed Swordsman', by Chang Cheh. The ham-fisted direction and crappy fight choreography mean that the fight scenes aren't even worth watching. The script tries desperately hard to seem serious, but is full of cliches like, 'And I knew then that nothing would ever be the same again...' or 'If only I'd known what a heavy price I would have to pay.' Ugh! And who is that girl who plays Sing? Someone find her and have her eliminated!! She's awful. If you like Chinese martial arts movies, you'd be better off with Lau Gar Leung. This stinks. | 1 |
It happens often, while growing up, a Hollywood movie impresses a youth. It not only lasts a lifetime, but inspire him to study ancient cultures as a career. Such was the case, with the 1954 film entitled 'The Egyptian.' Audience were awed with the sets, costumes and great acting of this film, so much so, other films soon followed in like vain. This is the story of a young Egyptian boy who was left parent less soon after he was born. With such a dubious beginning, it is not hard to wonder why he will spend his life, asking questions. The boy Sinuhe, (Sin-oh-way) which means, 'He that is alone'(Edmund Purdom) grows to manhood and continues asking why, even as he graduates from The School Of Life to become a physician. During his formative years he acquires a lifelong friend named Kaptah brilliantly played by (Peter Ustinov), and Horemheb (Victor Mature) who raises from a simple officer of the guard to Commander of the Armies. His life offers everything from a quick rise in social status to condemned criminal, to outcast, a wondering healer, and eventually to a station in life he never expected. Fine acting goes to Jean Simmons as Merit, Michael Wilding as Akhnaton, Bella Darvi as the temptress, Nefer, and John Carradine as a memorable Grave robber. Tommy Rettig, plays Thoth, the son of the Egyptian. In his final years, 'He that is alone,' finally discovers the answer he had been seeking all his life, which he bequeathes to his son, now in the care of his lifelong friend. Excellent Film! **** | 0 |
'Five Fingers of Death' is a classic of 70's kung fu cinema. As the film that 'broke out' HK cinema to the west, this is a must see for any serious fan of the genre. It's also a damn entertaining film, with hard-hitting, non-stop action, solid and mostly believable fight choreography and great over-the-top 70's era dubbing ('Oh I see ... so you want it THE HARD WAY!! HWAA!!').<br /><br />'Five Fingers' is an eye-for-an-eye revenge tale ... and I mean literally, eye for an eye! It's great to see Lo Lieh portraying a hero. He played so many great villains later in his career - including Pai Mei in the classic FIST OF THE WHITE LOTUS, which was one of the characters Tarantino used in creating the Pai Mei of KILL BILL.<br /><br />My only complaint is that I wish there was a better quality DVD - mine looks like it was a VHS transfer. Overall this is a great film - don't miss it!<br /><br />Bart Blackstone Film Club - Hollywood, CA | 0 |
Visually stunning and full of Eastern Philosophy, this amazing martial arts fantasy is brought to you by master director Tsui Hark, the man behind some of the best films Hong Kong cinema has produced. The special effects are beautiful and imaginative. The plot is a bit on the cerebral side, but is a refreshing change from films that treat their audience as if they were morons. If thinking is not your forte, however, this may not be your movie. Maybe you should go see the latest from the Hollywood studio's no brain club, but if you are looking for something more, he's where you will find it. | 0 |
I had always wanted to see this film and the first three-fourths proved I hadn't waited in vain. But what the hell happened in the end? I mean, don't get me wrong, I liked the film. It definitely made me nostalgic of the realistic, unique NYC of the 80s that we have lost thanks to Giuliani. But it's missing another half hour! | 0 |
Robert Altman's 'Quintet' is a dreary, gloomy, hard to follow thriller where you finally give up after awhile because it's so complicated.<br /><br />I remember seeing this at my local twin on opening weekend with a full house. By the time the picture ended it was less than a quarter full. Never have I witnessed such a mass exodus without there being an emergency to drive people out. That should tell you how bad it is. I believe it to be the worst film ever made involving such major talent in front of and behind the camera. | 1 |
I saw the capsule comment said 'great acting.' In my opinion, these are two great actors giving horrible performances, and with zero chemistry with one another, for a great director in his all-time worst effort. Robert De Niro has to be the most ingenious and insightful illiterate of all time. Jane Fonda's performance uncomfortably drifts all over the map as she clearly has no handle on this character, mostly because the character is so poorly written. Molasses-like would be too swift an adjective for this film's excruciating pacing. Although the film's intent is to be an uplifting story of curing illiteracy, watching it is a true 'bummer.' I give it 1 out of 10, truly one of the worst 20 movies for its budget level that I have ever seen. | 1 |
Some people loved 'The Aristocrats' and others hated it, frequently walking out in the middle. Reactions to Eddie Izzard aren't likely to be that extreme -- if you can handle a transvestite comedian (who says he likes girls) and has a vocabulary that makes, shall we say, enough use of the 'f' word that his program would be one long beep if presented on network television. Many of Izzard's fans are so devoted that they see no flaws whatsoever in his performances. On the other hand, I thought this show was occasionally flatter than Izzard's chest but also more often than not funny and, in spots, absolutely hilarious. He has a way of connecting references from routines early in the show to his later routines. He's not a story teller. He's not a joke maker. He's not a frenetic fantasist like Robin Williams. He plays around with ideas, some of which work and some of which -- a routine with the San Francisco cable car and Alcatraz, for instance -- are completely unfunny. He has a way, however, of moving gracefully past the flopped routines and extending the ones that connect. I gave this performance a 7 and might be persuaded to raise it to an 8. But a 10? No way. | 0 |
Very suspenseful, surprisingly intelligent film about five medical students flatlining themselves and then being resuscitated to share their experiences of death and what lies beyond. Joel Schumacher directs with some skill - creating some very eerie scenes as well as particularly beautiful ones. The visions of death are not what viewers might expect nor is that which awaits us all when we go - thanks to screenwriter Peter Filardi who really did an outstanding job coming up with this story. While the creativity of the story is impressive, the story has many holes as well, particularly in the logic department and believability factors. Notwithstanding all of that Flatliners is a good effective film because of the script, the direction which again is very surreal at times, and the acting which brings four very talented actors and William Baldwin together. This core of actors acts and reacts off each other very nicely. Keifer Sutherland does a very impressive job as the head of the group - the one who comes up with the idea to die and be born again. He also manages to portray a man- a young man - with a damaging, destructive secret from his past. Kevin Bacon is fine as the most pragmatic and skeptical of the group. Oliver Platt is really good as the voice of reason and human fears. Platt has some really good lines and plays the paranoia well. Yes, Julia Roberts is here too and very good. the actors do best though by playing off each other and making us believe they are such good friends. I was duly impressed with much of Flatliners but more than anything else the story affected me the most. The scene with that dog hobbling around the street just one of those powerful images evoked as were many of the 'flashback' scenes. | 0 |
The young Dr. Fanshawe(Mark Letheren), an avid archaeologist, is dispatched by his Museum boss to the large country home of Squire Richards(Pip Torrens), where his task is to find provenance for and catalogue the collection of antiquities and curios belonging to the recently deceased father of the Squire. The Squire is surprised by the arrival Fanshawe, he hadn't been expecting him for another week, but none the less welcomes him and gets his only servant, Patten (David Burke..of Dr Watson fame), to show him to his room, as Fanshawe must stay over for some days in order to finish his rather large task. Patten it would seem is not the friendliest sort and seems to resent the extra work that Fanshawe's visit will entail, the large empty house providing an endless amount of cooking, cleaning and maintenance for him. Fanshawe is a fussy sort, very neat and precise with everything having its place, whether they be his clothes or his books and papers and he is rather disgusted by the dirt in his room. Needless to say he is rather eager to begin his work, but unpacking he finds his binoculars have been damaged in transit, so he asks the Squire for a replacement pair, The Squire who is a modern thinking man but also it would seem rather uncultured with such matters, is also eager to get rid of the clutter around the house, so he obliges and walks Fanshawe to the top of the hill so that he can survey the estate and the surrounding villages, there the Squire directs him to points of interest, including Gallows Hill, where locals were hung for their crimes and misdemeanours, his interest is also taken by a local abbey which the Squire describes as a ruin, but Fanshawe can see through the binoculars that it clearly isn't, he investigates further and pays a visit to the site of the abbey and is shocked to find that there are but a few stone remnants? Fanshawe doesn't have too much time to think about this conundrum as he darkness falls he feels he is being watched, he feels a presence, he begins to see moving shadows in the woods, startled he runs home. Over dinner he imparts details of his harrowing day to the Squire, Patten overhears the story and suggests an explanation for it..The Binoculars! they used to belong to a local man called Baxter, whom it would seem collected bones and skulls from Gallows Hill, boiling them up for some concoction or other, Baxter had disappeared mysteriously one night, the late Squire had acquired his belongings, including a mask made out of a skull and some old etchings of the area. These etchings fascinate Fanshawe as they portray the Abbey he seen through his binoculars, but he learns that the abbey had been destroyed during the reign of Henry VII and so it would be impossible for Baxter to have drawn the sketches, never the less they are signed and dated by Baxter to the recent past so he concludes that the binoculars have some special power. That night he has horrifically vivid dreams, when he wakes, he sets off with the binoculars to have a closer look at the abbey through them, what he finds surprises him but has he put himself in perilous danger by doing so? Fanshawe finally becomes trapped in his dangerous obsession, as darkness falls the Squire and a search party go in search of the now missing archaeologist, they are alerted by dozens of loudly cawing crows circling above Gallows HIll, they quicken their speed, but will they be in time to help or save Fanshawe from his destiny? The Ghost Story for Christmas series of films made by the BBC sadly ended its initial run of films in 1978 with The Ice House, they were for the most part based on the work of the great M.R. James. In 2005 and 2006 the series was revived briefly and thankfully A View from a Hill also marked a return to the work of James, whose ghostly writings have haunted many generations of readers. Director Luke Watson being new to the series might have worried fans of the older films, but he returns to the period setting abandoned by the later films which immediately sets the tone for a great Ghost story, his direction is assured as he stays true to the mood of the masters works and gradually builds up the fear factor to a terrifying climax, all the while keeping what the viewer sees to a minimum, thus upping the tension and mystery. The Autumn countryside provides oodles of atmosphere, the falling leaves and low lying sun providing an unsettling backdrop for the sinister events to come. The cast it must be said are all superb and are perfectly cast in their respective roles. The idea behind the binoculars is simple but very effective, the use of a man made object to see supernatural beings and events that the naked eye cannot see, may even have influenced Álex de la Iglesia in his film La habitación del niño (2006) of the following year, with which it bears striking similarity. I had heard mixed reviews of this particular film, but i must say i found it at all times intriguing and it even raised a few hairs on my head and gave me a few shivers, something that doesn't happen much these days, i think any negativity surrounding the film can only be attributed to its pacing, which to my eyes is perfection but to modern audiences it will be seen as deathly slow. Plenty of time is given, even within its brief 40 minutes running time, for character development and plot expansion and i must say its a new favourite of mine and certainly one of the better films of the decade. | 0 |
My best guess is this piece of work will come out on DVD sometime before Christmas.<br /><br />This movie was terrible. The time line jumps all over the place. This wouldn't be so bad if it left some suspense for the end. It was entirely predictable. Bitch girls pick on outcast, outcast wants to know why they hate her so much, bitch girls die a terrible death, outcast girl goes home and looks crazy. Outcast girl brought evil spirits with her, makes neighbors go crazy and kill each other. Creepy kid understands what's going on. Oh, and the younger sister not being good enough for Mommie, sick mother sending younger daughter to bring the golden child home. <br /><br />To be fair, there were some great moments here and there. First of all, Sarah Michelle Geller's character dies in the first few minutes. Definite plus. Didn't see that one coming. I didn't expect the wife to pour bacon grease on her husband's head, either. If the movie had kept up those kind of thrills, I would have loved it. The beginning showed so much promise. <br /><br />I was disappointed because I enjoyed the first one. It made me jump, I didn't expect most of what happened, and though I questioned some of the movie, it was still a fun watch. I didn't watch any previews for this the sequel, because I wanted to be surprised. I was, but in the wrong direction. | 1 |
I can agree with other comments that there wasn't an enormous amount of history discussed in the movie but it wasn't a documentary! It was meant to entertain and I think it did a very good job at it.<br /><br />I agree with the black family. The scenes with them seemed out of place. Like all of a sudden it would be thrown in but I did catch on to the story and the connection between the families later on and found it pretty good.<br /><br />Despite it wasn't a re-enactment of the 60s it did bring into the light very big and important landmark periods of the decade. I found it very entertaining and worth my while to watch. | 0 |
I liked Top Gun. It held my interest. Predictable plot, decent character development and story line. It is pretty similar to High Noon in that the town people appear weak and scared to stand up to a villain. This movie has some quality actors who really did not get a chance to share all of their talents. Also some of the actors did not receive credit for their roles. Denver Pyle was a good looking man in his younger days. John Dehner, Rod Taylor are outstanding in their roles. Sterling Hayden did the best that he could with poor material. It is hard to imagine him as a gunslinger. Laura, played by Karen Booth, was a nauseating character. She seemed flattered that two men may have been fighting over her. Ugh. Finally, How can people travel without luggage? Especially women. | 0 |
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Some bunch of Afrikkaner-Hillbilly types are out in the desert looking for Diamonds when they find a hard mound in the middle of a sandy desert area. Spoilers: The dumbest one starts hitting the mound with a pick, and cracks it open. Then he looks into the hole and sticks his head in and SURPRISE! something eats him. The other two dimwits are not seen alive again. Scott Bairstow looks like a Pizza Delivery boy but he plays some kind of expert scientist with a medical degree (which means he should be about 35 years old, minimum). Bairstow is supposed to join Camp C and help them find diamonds. The truck that picks up Bairstow to take him to Camp C has a handful of the kind of weirdoes that usually populate movies like 'PITCH BLACK' 'THE THING' etc. The truck happens to drive across the first truck and they decide to investigate (how come that truck did not see the other truck when they were driving to pick up Bairstow, since they were travelling the same road??). So they find the eaten bodies, and there are some decent special effects relating to bones with little bits of flesh on them. The main lunatic in the group, Karl, decides that they must find the killer. So the truck drives around in the desert following some tracks, and eventually it has an electrical short and the crew is stuck in the desert. The dumbest guy in this group had picked up a bunch of bones using his jacket to carry them around. When he takes a nap (wearing the same jacket) the creatures eat him alive, and another guy runs over and sticks his arm into the goo and that dummy loses his arm too. Sounds exciting so far, except that a few minutes later, Dr. Bairstow realizes that the creature is really hundreds of thousands of ants who are using the bones to hold each other together so they can travel to a new hive (because the miners cracked open the old hive). Now, last time I checked, ants could move around on their own, without having to kill people in order to use the bones for structure. If all they need was something hard, they could have put a bunch of sticks together and used those to create a form. The whole story is really, really dumb, and the ant explanation is the only one given. The rest of the movie is just about the group getting killed off until they find the new ant-nest, and kill the ant-brain (sort-of), and the hundreds of thousands of ants then walk away on their own itty-bitty feet. There is a spare ant-brain found (off-camera) and sent back for analysis thus creating a reason for a sequel. | 1 |
Anderson's animation easily rivals that of Pixar and goes well beyond most anything I've ever seen Disney do. While some say the story is a bit too abstract, I find it a thought-provoking and refreshing change from the exaggerated characters and bumbling animals typically found in animated shorts. It's an interplanetary version of CASTAWAY! Anyone who has left the safe harbor of home and gone off to a lonely, frightening place by themselves, will readily identify with this forlorn microbe. Excellent work, Mr. Anderson!<br /><br /> | 0 |
His significant charisma and commanding presence are about all that keep this afloat, but Fred Williamson has done far better urban action films including many of his later, vid-released fare. The big studios' Williamson films of the early-to-mid 70's rarely had the punch of their mid-level counterparts, and this is a prime example. Clumsy action, little violence, and the PG rating is nowhere near questionable. Worth a look for Hammer completists in any case. | 1 |
When I saw the preview for this movie, I figured to myself, 'here's another dumb TV movie that's written with the thought and complexity of a soap opera,' but when I saw it I was surprised. Tiffany-Amber Thiessen stars (and proves that she can indeed act if given the chance) as a woman who falls in love with and marries a man (Now and Again's Eric Close) but begins to lose trust in him when a series of rapes begin to take place in her community. At first, she is blinded by his assurances that he is innocent and her love for him, but as time passes she continues to be suspicious of him.<br /><br />While this sounds like the set-up for another boring melodramatic TV-movie, it is really much better than that, because the characters are well-acted by Thiessen and Close, and the movie's script allows them to be much more complicated and intelligent than you'd expect; these aren't just caricatures or cardboard characters that exist only to move the plot along but real, three-dimensional people, and we find ourselves really caring about them. And the movie is smart enough that it is able to provide an exciting, involving climax to the story without resorting to dumb action scenes, mindless cliches or cheap melodrama. Instead we share in the main character's inner conflicts and fears, and are given a realistic portrayal of how she might be able to resolve them and do the right thing.<br /><br />If you get a chance to give this one a look, please do so. It's production values are not exactly top-notch (it is a TV movie, after all), but if you can look past that, there is an excellent story to enjoy. | 0 |
this movie is certainly worth a watch. it's full of action. it's also humorous. you'll laugh until your stomach hurts if you watch this movie. this movie also includes lots of hi-tech things hence the name gen-y. i recommend you to watch the prequel of this movie which is gen-x. | 0 |
American movies about war and Nazis simply cannot be good. They can not refrain from becoming idiot and following an agenda. All Nazis are bad, crazy, too proud, and Americans are so modest yet so capable and sensible and human. Come on, stop this bullshit. The main character says something like 'by this trial, we have to make aggressive war a crime'. Is America a peaceful nation with its world #1 $420 billion 'defense' budget (#2 China with just $51b)? Is it simply spent in this without any... ROI? Why portray America as a peaceful nation when it isn't? I deeply dislike movies with an agenda - they throw art to hell and try to persuade us into believing something. Hollywood should put a label on movies, just as record companies have that 'parental advisory' label. We should have a 'bullshit advisory', 'propaganda advisory' or a 'politically correct advisory' label on some movies. This is one of them. | 1 |
Simply put, I was amazingly disappointed. I'm a huge fan of Asian Horror, and I can watch unoriginality (I myself enjoyed 'The Red Shoes' and 'Phone'), but this was just poor.<br /><br />The movie has a lot of elements that are very high-quality: the photography is eye-catching, the visuals are cool, the directing is inspired, the acting is pretty good, the music is easy on the ears, and the CGI is incredible. But, since this is a horror film, we are expected to be scared, which just won't happen with this film. As with most South Korean horrors, this is unoriginal almost from beginning to end: there's the trademark long-haired vengeful female ghost, ominous clumps of thick, black hair and puddles of water, and near the end, a twist that *almost*, but not quite makes sense out of the whole thing (the twist is easily one of the best qualities). And to the viewer's irritation, when the film isn't recycling (at times, so exact that it could easily be dubbed plagiarized) imagery from other movies, it's making you jump. A lot. And by jumps, I don't mean things jumping out or anything, just VERY loud noises and screeches in the soundtrack used to make the audience jump six feet in the air (there's even a few 'made-you-jump' moments that are simply infuriating). And when it is not ripping-off other movies, it's boring, and hard to sit through.<br /><br />And it's a shame, because 'Ryeong' could have easily been really good, and it has everything to make it good, but its the annoying overuse of completely predictable loud noises and jump scares that eventually ruin the movie. A perfect example of how good it could have been: there's a moment when one of out characters is looking at a corpse, and without a sound, the corpse looks back. It's wholly predictable, but the use of silence in that scene is brilliant. And unfortunately, that's as scary as the movie got for me.<br /><br />Admittedly, 'Ryeong' has a few good features, and even a couple jumps that aren't as predictable, and do work. There's a very good and sad back-story used to explain the events, and the twist is pretty unpredictable. Those are the only things that separate the film from any other Asian ghost/horror film. But the problem with these is, even though they do work, they have been used before (J-Horror fans will easily realize the big reveal was inspired by 'A Tale of Two Sisters'), and it takes the back-story a good fifty minutes to get going.<br /><br />So in the end, 'Ryong' really seems like a truly wasted opportunity. Tae-kyeong Kim hoped that the plot twist and other good features act as diversions, so the audience won't notice the huge flaws. But he failed, and well... We noticed everything.<br /><br />My rating: 4/10. | 1 |
Lisa Baumer (Ida Galli) is the adulteress wife of a big businessman who inherits $1million life insurance when her husband is killed in a plane crash while on a business trip
.initially she is suspected of being responsible as her husbands will had recently been changed and so she has an insurance investigator Peter Lynch (George Hilton)and an Interpol agent on her tail just to be sure. Baumer travels to Athens, Greece to cash in her inheritance, but insists on having it in cash...a dangerous turn of events. Lynch who's identity is now known to Baumer tries to protect her against a lover of her husband Lara Florakis who nevertheless along with her henchman Sharif tries to kill them both for a share of the money that she deems she is entitled to. And this is where our Masked killer starts his/her brutal killings. Lynch as is customary with our hero is at first suspected by the Greek Police and is warned not to leave Athens by Police Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli a familiar face in Giallo and Spaghettis). Lynch is then aided by the gorgeous Cléo Dupont (Anita Strindberg) a local journalist who helps him investigate the killings.To say any more could ruin the film for anyone who has not seen it, so suffice to say there are enough red herrings and most of them plausible to keep Mystery/Thriller fans happy in this story driven Giallo.The No Shame DVD has a superb transfer with both English and Italian soundtrack. It also has a very catchy score just for good measure by Bruno Nicolai that will stay in your head for a while....all in all a first rate Giallo. | 0 |
Once in a while in Indian cinema there comes along a movie like Sholay that changes the way the audience perceives a good movie. And den just once in a while(hopefully) we have a RGV ki Aag that breaks all the standards and creates one of its own. A standard so low, it can never be broken. Ram Gopal varma manages to take a melting pot of talent and create a dish so stale u can smell it from a distance. To take a classic like Sholay and assassinate it is totally unforgivable and I can't believe he almost called the movie RGV ki Sholay. Although Sholay had a lot of folklore elements in it, the movie managed to build on its plot by merely defining the characters so distinctively that they lived on forever. What Aag does is take these characters and mess them up so badly u'll need a contest to pick the worst. The realism element is totally missing and what the movie ends up providing is a bunch of 'actors' parading along in a plot less and seemingly unrelated set of events. One star for this film is a ridiculous waste of a vote. its time for RGV to wake up to the reality of his failure and conjure up another 'different' plot that can be categorized under cinema. | 1 |
Have just seen the last episode, No 32, (though the site says only 30 episodes were made) and I must comment on the fact that this series was really very good and I would thoroughly recommend it to anyone who enjoys crime/cop stories. Supposedly all 32 were based on fact with information at the end of each episode of the court sentences imposed on the perpetrators of the crimes, this has at times been a gritty, well acted, believable and dare I say, entertaining series. The fact that the powers in Denmark decided to disband the unit was almost unbelievable as they did their work so well and in the series at least, never failed to 'get their man'! It's a definite 10/10 for me. | 0 |
Watched this when it was first screened and then missed it when it disappeared of British screens. It showed a different side of Old Australia that we need to see more of. Good juxtaposition of old hand and young turk. Then the realism of the hard out back was fantastic. It was sadly missed. This show was a cold look at the old way of looking at Australia. Hard living and hard working. The young idealist clashing with the old practical head. Real Politicka fighting with the young upstarts of New Labour. To add modern political vernacular.<br /><br />This show was the first of its type that I came across that did not try to do a tourist job on Australia. It was a great showing of the realistic <br /><br />come documentary realistic type of show. Some good films were out at the time doing a similar job. It would be great to see more of this type of TV come from Australia for it has been sadly missing this last twenty years. for all we have been fed is the soap pulp of varying quality. | 0 |
My wife invited my son and I to watch this on cable TV on a lazy Saturday evening, thinking that it might show an unusual role for Juliette Lewis. On this promise, at least, the movie delivers: her character is ineffectual, adhering to nearly every slasher-type horror movie cliche. As does the movie. A cataloguing of its studied adherence to them would be an exercise in recall of something I hope to quickly forget, so I won't make one. Basically, this is a whodunnit, heavy on the red herrings: everybody appears guilty, rather than just the two one suspects from the beginning. The 'rule out the logical and obvious, and what's left is it' rule of bad horror movies works well on this one. The only surprise to have any impact on me was its final snagging of the indeterminate ending cliche: will Jane keep her appointment with her attempted rescuer, who will tell her the (obvious to the audience) identity of the 2nd conspirator, propelling her into another round of hysterical victim-play. Mercifully, I will never know. | 1 |
Begotten is, no doubt, someone's attempt at originality, but, what we have here is art in its most morbid, grotesque form, so, for that, Begotten has my respect, but, to be realistic, it makes no difference what this abomination is about, but for the record...<br /><br />In the ultimate in incoherent horror, we begin in an unknown time, in an unknown place. Right off the bat, we are plunged into the psychotic nightmare that is Begotten, a god is, seemingly depressed, mutilating himself with a razor, I mean, really trying like hell to end it all, it takes a while (why wouldn't it?) After this ultra-morbid introduction, something is happening, something is rising from the corpse, say hello to Mother Earth. What does she do? Well, she gives birth to a thing. The thing would have probably preferred to stay in the womb, but that's life. The psychotic nightmare realm of Begotten welcomes the thing the only way it knows how. The thing, along with Mother Earth is mutilated by unknown, hooded, assailants, with evil intentions being the only clarity available. From this point on, things drag as they've never dragged before. Interesting, grim images, with a totally decent soundtrack, is the high points of the remainder. Not to give the impression that I don't recommend this evilness, because I do, but only once, and only for people with an appreciation for the dark side.<br /><br />From my description, it may appear that I don't 'get' Begotten. Trust me, I get it, and yes, Begotten is art if I've ever seen it. Everything in this film, regardless of how unrelated it may seem, is significant. That, perhaps, is the only thing that makes Begotten art. With that said, most of us require some form of entertainment value, and this is coming from someone who enjoyed The Chooper. Probably the most intriguing first five minutes, I've seen in a film, but let's be realistic, the next 7 hours and 55 minutes would put one in a coma, that is, unless it's just meant for some kind of psychedelic purposes, in that case, never mind. But, how would one rate such a uniquely boring masterpiece? Depending on how much your attention span can take, It should be either 1 or 10, any other number just wouldn't make a statement. It hurts to do this, but as far as entertainment value goes, Begotten just ain't it. 1/1 | 1 |
I remember Devil Dog playing on TBS almost 20 years ago, and my older sister and her friends watching it and laughing all the next day. It's not that bad for a made-for-TV horror movie, but it is derivative (mostly of The Exorcist) and businesslike, for lack of a better word. It won't blow you away with artful cinematography or great acting, but it's not a waste of time, either. It's the kind of movie you watch to kill a couple of hours when you aren't in the mood to think too hard.<br /><br />However, if you go into the movie looking for some laughs, you won't be disappointed. The early scenes, with Lucky the Devil Dog as a cute little puppy with Children of the Damned eyes are hilariously non-threatening, and the climactic blue-screen effects of a giant black dog (with horns!) are pretty side-splitting. And keep an eye out for the cloaked Satanist in Maverick shades toward the beginning.<br /><br />Not a great horror film by any stretch of the imagination, but I wish they still made stuff like this for TV. | 1 |
Darr (1993) was an incredible movie. In my opinion, it is one of Bollywood's finest. The movie itself triggers feelings of sympathy, fear, confusion, happiness, and sadness. Shahrukh's role was unbelievable, in fact he gave obsession a new face. Juhi Chawla's innocent and girlie character contrasted greatly with Shahrukh's fiery and passionate character. Sunny Deol's role made the 'good guy' role seem like the 'bad guy' one. The fact that Shahrukh, not Sunny, captivated the audience's attention proves that everyone has that helpless inner drive to pursue something that's not really in their hands. Even though the movie is several years old, it surpasses any recent one. The song 'Tu Mere Samne' was full of passion and meaning. His personality fit the role perfectly. He should seriously consider re-starring in a similar film. | 0 |
This film is a Pia Zadora special! When viewing it, I was reminded of the classic cartoon showing a Hollywood starlet; in urgent need of another role but afraid of becoming typecast for 'B' movie or soft porn roles; who says at her casting session 'Well of course I do not normally do roles requiring nudity, but if it is artistically necessary for the film...............'. This recollection brought up a very naughty image of a similar cartoon showing Pia at such a session saying 'Well of course I do not normally take any roles requiring actual acting, but if it will really give me sufficient exposure to enhance my status as a sex symbol..................'. This is probably grossly unfair, the rather sordid tale is the fault of Harold Robbins book; considering the nature of the story Pia's exposures certainly do not receive undue attention, and perhaps Pia (who once won an acting award in Butterfly) is deliberately satirising her part rather than attempting to act in an almost unplayable role. Critics usually point first to the actors as the problem whenever a film proves disappointing, but this is grossly unfair; the scriptwriters and director are far more often the guilty parties. The real problem with 'The Lonely Lady' is that the screenplay, like the original book, looks for sensation rather than substance, and nothing can help with this. <br /><br /> The screenplay for this film is abysmal, but whether the story could have been filmed more successfully with a better script, tauter directing and really competent acting must remain a matter of personal judgement. As it was released, my viewers rating for it would depend upon whether I am assessing my personal opinion, or assessing to what extent the film succeeds in providing what it aims at doing. My personal rating for it would be two out of ten; but to some extent this film probably provides exactly what its sponsors intended, and judged on this basis a quality rating of four out of ten would be reasonable. Being in a charitable mood, and wanting to make it clear that I am not blaming Pia for my disappointment, I will give an IMDb rating of four. | 1 |
Paul Schrader and his brother Leonard wrote Mishima, and in so doing, clearly drew parallels between the life of Yukio Mishima and his work. The film is divided into four sections: beauty, art, action, and the fateful day when Mishima held an army general hostage and spoke to the garrison, only to have it ridicule him and his Bushido ideals of the samurai code. Mishima committed ritual seppuku on November 25, 1970, and he planned it as a meshing of beauty, art, and action. Schrader edits scenes recreating that day with three different scenarios from Mishima's novels: Temple of the Golden Pavilion, Kyoko's House, and Runaway Horses. The moment of seppuku is perfectly realized in relation to its shocking climax via pulling back the camera while simultaneously zooming in. <br /><br />Black and white sequences are intermingled with the colorful moments depicted in Mishima's novels. The black and white scenes represent memories from Mishima's childhood and youth. Schrader correlates some of these autobiographical moments with scenes from the novels that often parallel Mishima's real life, such as his stammer, development of his bodybuilding obsession, and his fostering of the samurai code. Each of the three themes of beauty, art, and action is exemplified in the chosen depictions from the respective novels. The color sequences are reminiscent of early, stagy Technicolor films, giving the film, perhaps, an intended surreal quality considering the subject matter.<br /><br />Ken Ogata plays the real Mishima with unfailing determination, headed to the general's office on that fateful day and resembles the real Mishima. Schrader took tremendous risks with this film in focusing on the novels he did and with tying them thematically to both Mishima's personal life and his literary ambitions. The editing of the film between the three main sections of November 25, 1970, the black and white growing up segments, and the colorful novel scenes clearly point to the deliberate intersection of these elements of beauty, art, and action in Mishima's life. At times, it is difficult to follow, and there may be little to recommend for the uninitiated viewer. *** of 4 stars. | 0 |
My jaw fell so many times watching this flick, I have bruises. Okay, granted, I really wasn't expecting the quality of, say, The Others or even Thirteen Ghosts (the new one, which was just dreadful and is still head and shoulders above this insanity). Someone else noted the thin characters...I wouldn't call them 'thin'. 'Thin' implies there might be something to them. How about almost non-existent? In no particular order we have: The Girl Who Will Scream; The American Who Will Figure It All Out; The Macho Guy Who Will Just Bull Through Everything Until He Gets Killed: The Wise Black Man Who Will Die Early; The Extra Guy Who Is There To Die First; The Extra Woman Who Is There To Play Tough. That's it. That's your character list and that is what they are and what they remain from beginning to end. If they were 'thin' they might, at least, change a little bit from beginning to end. But they don't. Well, okay, the American guy decides he's going to stay with the fieldwork at the end and the Screaming Girl goes back to wherever she came from. That's the change. Other than that, they all act according to their assigned roles and rarely betray any real emotion when they finally meet up with the menace.<br /><br />Now, the producers get props for an original menace, I will say. I had understood the story was going to be 'Tremors' but with ants instead of giant worms. I give the writer credit: these are very cool, very scary ants and what they do with bones is excellent. (The first time the 'bone snatcher' appear, I admit I jumped a few feet.)Unfortunately, the very cool concept becomes Alien in the Desert very quickly. We get a lot of commentary on ants that may or may not be true, but we don't get much of the mythology on which the menace is based. And we get every monster movie cliché ever made. People go into places they know they shouldn't and when they have no compelling reason to. Moronic characters try to hinder our heroes and die for it. One character does double duty as 'scientist who doesn't want to kill the monster but study it'. A Very Cool Gadget is introduced only so the American can tell everyone something about ants that, gee, I hope everyone knows anyway. Then the gadget is broken. Our heroes run out of the one thing that can keep the menace at bay. And then there is that final, annoying moment when we know the menace is still with us--and wonder exactly what and how the hey the hero or heroine came by it. It completely renders everything that went before as useless and false.<br /><br />Three stars for the cool use of ants and bones. Nothing at all for clichés, clunky dialogue and dim bulb characters. | 1 |
This film was not nearly as much of a chore as I expected it to be. There are a few seconds of brilliance in this somewhat idiotic hardcore UFO conspiracy paranoia-fest. Most of the acting is mediocre, but fairly typical for 1970s-style stuff replete with pregnant pauses. A photographer and a model witness some strange goings-on in the woods and soon fall victim to these same goings-on. Flying saucers are spotted, more people disappear - but is it the aliens or our own government's ultra-secret group of cover-up guys? Soon enough, a reporter and a 'UFOlogist' (apparently modeled on the character of the writer-director) are drawn into this unraveling fiasco and become the target of the ultra-secret agents who are as menacing as they are improbable and witless. Then the fun really begins.<br /><br />The movie, predictably, makes about as much sense as the average UFO conspiracy theory, but should be commended for taking itself so seriously. The camera work is OK for a low-budget film, the pacing is pretty good, the script is silly and absurd, and there are continuity issues which are fun to look out for. What are the few seconds of brilliance I mentioned? Honestly, I can't say much you without writing a spoiler. Suffice to say that the end of the film is, at least, worth fast-forwarding to if you can't take the middle. | 1 |
It's always nice to see Angela Bassett getting to do a role that she can really sink her teeth into. She is at times intense, funny and even sexy in her role as Lena, a 'colored' woman forced to make a home on a desolate mudbank just outside of Cape Town, South Africa. Danny Glover is also good in a not entirely sympathetic role as her partner, Boesman. Willie Jonah gives a finely nuanced performance as the stranger that discovers Boesman and Lena's new living area. It's not often that you get a chance to see an intelligent film dealing with mature themes. Although it is based on a play, the late director John Berry (who also directed Claudine) opens the material up by having the film shot in the widescreen Cinemascope format. He also keeps things visually interesting through the creative blocking of actors and by showing us things only mentioned in the play. Just like Diahann Carroll in Claudine, John Berry may have directed Angela Bassett into an Academy Award nomination. This is definitely a film worth searching for. | 0 |
The film begins with Vincent Price about to begin his performance as a magician. However, mid-way through the very successful show, the police come and shut him down. It seems that his old boss had cheated him out of the tricks Price had created--even those he made on his own time at home. As a result, Price justifiably kills the evil man. The problem is that while the viewer understood why Price killed and most probably thought this was a GOOD thing, because Price was a bit mad, he just couldn't stop at one (sort of like eating Lay's Potato Chips).<br /><br />The film was full of very creative and spectacular magic tricks (including a huge circular saw and a crematorium for the shows), great plot twists as well as exciting action. One thing you can't say about this film is that it is dull. While it's also far from subtle, it is fun throughout, though and well worth a look.<br /><br />Had I never seen Vincent Price's version of HOUSE OF WAX, I probably would have liked THE MAD MAGICIAN a lot more and scored it an 8 or 9. That's because while THE MAD MAGICIAN is a wonderful film, it's highly reminiscent of the film that preceded it (HOUSE OF WAX). The bottom line is that since HOUSE OF WAX was so successful, the formula was re-hashed in the follow-up film. Both were made in 3-D, both have a plot where Price has every justification to kill but he can't stop once he's committed the first and both are great fun to watch. The biggest differences, and there are few, are that HOUSE OF WAX was in color and was more of a horror film and THE MAD MAGICIAN was definitely more of a mystery.<br /><br />My advice is to see this film AND HOUSE OF WAX (the Price version only). They are both terrific 1950s horror films. | 0 |
I'm sure that the folks on the Texas/Louisiana border must have had a a good laugh or two when Paramount's B picture unit inflicted this one on the war time public. Very simply the area along the Sabine River where the film opens is cotton country just like the rest of the Deep South or at least the Deep South was post Civl War. No big cattle empires there, they're much farther west in Texas, farther than Richard Dix and Preston Foster could ride to set up their empire.<br /><br />The film begins with the two of them partners in a riverboat and when Leo Carrillo tries a theft of their services by not paying them for hauling his cattle, they keep the cattle. And that's the beginning of the big Ponderosa like ranch they start.<br /><br />Along the way Foster marries Dix's sister played by Frances Gifford and feuds with his much smaller neighbors. They also have some further run ins with Leo Carrillo.<br /><br />Anyway, us easterners who like westerns usually don't bother with geographical trifles and it's still a good western from the production mill of Harry Sherman who produced all those Hopalong Cassidy westerns for Paramount. The climax is a blazing, and I mean that literally, gun battle that should have maybe been used on an A production.<br /><br />But I wouldn't have any but western fans look at it. | 1 |
'Please, don't kill me! I'm just an actor!' 'Can you play dead?' It's difficult to describe this show. It's like a crime dramedy. Where the bad cop is an ass. Literally. What's great about the show is some of Assy's perfectly awful one-liners. Cracking out such gems as 'Adios, Blimp,' Assy Mcgee provides some great laughs at points. Sadly at other times, the show seems to drag along at a slow pace, making it almost hard to watch. This is definitely the kind of show you'll love or hate, there's essentially no middleman. It's not the best show on {Adult Swim}, but it has some strong points. It's worth looking into just to see if you enjoy it. I know I did. | 0 |
i didn't enjoy this movie at all.for one,i just found it crude and vulgar,for no reason.i also felt it's misogynistic(against women.)also,the movie really doesn't appear to be about anything,and i didn't find any of the characters likable.really,the there doesn't seem to be any point to it all.maybe i'm missing something,but for me,this movie is pretty much a waste of time,when i could have been doing something more productive and enjoyable.like using my face as a pin cushion.James garner is in this thing,as are C.Thomas Howell and Shirley Jones,and James Cromwell.all are wasted here,and i'm sure this was a low point in each of their respective careers.Jennilee Harrison(from the later years of Three's Company)is also in the movie,and it is nice to see her in a non ditsy role.but other than that,she can't rise above the mediocre script.for me,Tank is a 3/10 | 1 |
Let's see where to begin... bad acting; I'm not sure if I'd even call it that, as it more along the lines of a no-effort script read. The actors didn't even seem to be into their parts and seemed quite lifeless and listless. Sure there was a scene or two with nudity, but that couldn't save this movie from it's lifeless characters.<br /><br />To call the main character a rapper is an insult to the people who actually do. The lyrics had no rhythm or flow and seemed more along the lines of senseless rants.<br /><br />Budget? Did this movie even have a budget? It seemed like they used less money than I've seen in a home-shot YouTube video. Bad lighting, props, poor sound post production. Bad special effects, if you want to go so far as to call them that. Story could have been good if the people actually seemed interested in making it so, but there was no life to this flick; I don't care who directed it.<br /><br />I've seen some really bad flicks in the past year and this one is definitely at the very bottom. Don't waste your time or you'll be wishing you listened to this unbiased review. Check the ratings, you'll see the 1's are rapidly outpacing the fluffed 10's with hardly anything in between. Wish I would have looked a little closer before wasting my time. What a suck-fest! | 1 |
I don't know why all the previous comments are approval of this movie. IT IS , well not by far but...,THE SUCKIEST MOVIE I'VE SEEN LATELY, full of clichés, bad acting, actually no...very bad acting and has a silly plot...If I would have seen it in a cinema I would have walked out after the first 20 minutes. I f you hate somebody , make him/her watch this movie...that's how bad it is. A girl who has an imaginary boy/friend that gives up a relationship with a real one because her imagination is jealous....but i think it figures...she takes after her parents who also have some mental issues...plus the character who is supposed to be I think the laughing stock of it, the thing that should make you laugh, cal's room mate is a serious nut case and just makes me feel sorry for him...and the whole movie | 1 |
Jon Good's Wife (simply one of the worst titles for a film ever), or The Red Right Hand (another absolutely awful sounding title that means nothing & has no relevance to the film) under which I saw it, is set in 'Salem, Massachusettes 1978' (incidently the year I was born which was quite possibly the best thing to happen during those 365 days) where five old college friends meet up for a school reunion, gay-boy fagot Roger Mather (John Kuntz, is that surname for real? Just say it out loud...), Martha Alden (Kim Brockington), Rebecca Lawson (Jenna Stern) & her boyfriend Jake Stabler (John Doe), Alan Hobbes (Michael Kevin Walker) & his wife Sandy (Megan Rawa) plus John Good (Marc Ardito, why is the spelling of 'John' different in the title?) & his wife Sara (Abigail Morgan). From the word go there is an uneasy tension in the air & when someone mentions their 'missing' friend Calef (Jason Winther) lots of unpleasant memories come flooding back. Then comes the phone calls, the mysterious nose-bleeds, hallucinations & guilt as the true horror of the events all those years ago finally comes to light...<br /><br />Produced, executive produced & directed by Kurt Gioscia who also wrote the thing & Kurt St. Thomas who gets the art direction credit too & if that wasn't enough they both act in the film as well! Personally I thought Jon Good's Wife was awful, I mean she can't cook or anything! Ha ha ha, only joking! Seriously though I didn't think much of the film overall, for a start it's pretty slow going & the entire first 30 minutes is solid snooze material of the reunion consisting of lots of catching up with each other & dull character building exposition. The film never explains itself, what's with those weird nose-bleeds for god's sake, the mysterious phone calls, the almost inconsequential death of one of the group that might or might not be natural & what the hell was Sara all about? She comes across as some nosey, sex crazed, dirty talking, shameless, bitter blackmailing know-it-all whore who apparently sleeps with just about every man she meets! Some of the dialogue she spouts wouldn't be out of place in a porno & it just seems totally at odds with the rest of the film which plays out more like a drama than the horror/thriller it was supposedly meant to be. Then there's the ending, if there's a worse way to end a film then to just leave literally everything hanging in the air with no closure whatsoever I have yet to see it. The whole thing was very predictable as well, I mean is anyone watching this not going to know that when they all mention their friend Calef went 'missing' there wouldn't be more to it?<br /><br />Directors Gioscia & Thomas make an infuriating film, on top of the predictability & annoying climax there is a retrospective narration by Alan which I simply don't understand as he has no more or less significance than anyone else & at what point in time is he narrating from? The reasons behind this narration is never made clear or elaborated upon. There's no tension because the whole things so by-the-numbers.<br /><br />Technically the film is OK but nothing special & some of the locations & clothes didn't look particularly authentic to me, this never convinced me it was taking place during the late 70's. The acting was alright & what about actor John Kuntz last name? I suppose if his wife was standing next to him we could describe them as a couple of Kuntz, right?!<br /><br />I really didn't think much of Jon Good's Wife (a blow up doll would have been better! Ha ha ha) & I'm not sure who it would appeal to. Forget about any gore, horror, violence, scares, atmosphere or excitement, in fact forget about everything that would have made this film watchable because it ain't here. Not recommended. | 1 |
Jason Connery is not an actor; he is the son of an actor. His Macbeth is the worst I have ever seen. Oh yes, he murders king Duncan, but he also kills William Shakespeare. His wife is even worse. Please, give me Polanski's version on DVD, so I can forget this monster. Jon Finch, Orson Welles, Laurence Olivier, there you have ACTORS! | 1 |
Before Last Call w/ Carson Daly, my local NBC affiliate aired much more worthwhile programming after Late Night w/ Conan such as second city TV, 3rd Rock From the Sun & Carline in the City reruns, and some stand up comedy. These days there is nothing worthwhile to watch because all I get to see is Carson Daly and his awful show. He is not a comedian, he is not an actor, he does not deserve to be famous because he isn't a good speaker nor comedian.<br /><br />On his June 21st show, he tried to use an internet meme called the 'Rickroll' on his show. He failed hard. That event confirms that Carson Daly is awful. | 1 |
This happy-go-luck 1939 military swashbuckler, based rather loosely on Rudyard Kipling's memorable poem as well as his novel 'Soldiers Three,' qualifies as first-rate entertainment about the British Imperial Army in India in the 1880s. Cary Grant delivers more knock-about blows with his knuckled-up fists than he did in all of his movies put together. Set in faraway India, this six-fisted yarn dwells on the exploits of three rugged British sergeants and their native water bearer Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe) who contend with a bloodthirsty cult of murderous Indians called the Thuggee. Sergeant Archibald Cutter (Cary Grant of 'The Last Outpost'), Sergeant MacChesney (Oscar-winner Victor McLaglen of 'The Informer'), and Sergeant Ballantine (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. of 'The Dawn Patrol'), are a competitive trio of hard-drinking, hard-brawling, and fun-loving Alpha males whose years of frolic are about to become history because Ballantine plans to marry Emmy Stebbins (Joan Fontaine) and enter the tea business. Naturally, Cutter and MacChesney drum up assorted schemes to derail Ballentine's plans. When their superiors order them back into action with Sgt. Bertie Higginbotham (Robert Coote of 'The Sheik Steps Out'), Cutter and MacChesney drug Higginbotham so that he cannot accompany them and Ballantine has to replace him. Half of the fun here is watching the principals trying to outwit each other without hating themselves. Director George Stevens celebrates the spirit of adventure in grand style and scope as our heroes tangle with an army of Thuggees. Lenser Joseph H. August received an Oscar nomination for his outstanding black & white cinematography. | 0 |
I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.<br /><br />Who knows: 'Witchery' may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a 'big name cast' (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).<br /><br />But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways. <br /><br />Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from 'The Exorcist', 'The Omen', 'Ten Little Indians' and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.<br /><br />No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their 'all'. <br /><br />From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.<br /><br />And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought 'Mark of the Devil' was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....<br /><br />Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.<br /><br />No stars. 'Witchery' - these witches will give you itches. | 1 |
MONSTER - He was great; I loved the special-effects which created this monster which looked like an updated version of 'The Creature From the Black Lagoon.' The scenes with this beast roaming the land and capturing people ranged from good to jaw-dropping.<br /><br />SOCIAL COMMENTARY: Much of the story takes place in the quarantine area as the doctors (under orders from the government) state that SARS-like disease is out there. In a nutshell, we get the familiar government cover-up story. You know, I expect this Liberal paranoid mindset with Hollywood films always painting our government as corrupt, but it looks like the Koreans are copying the format, and it's very tedious. In here, it takes away from the excitement and suspense of this 'monster.' It just drags the film down. The main family featured in the film has to watch from a distance while the young girl in their family, presumed dead, was hauled off by the creature.<br /><br />MORAL: A typical 'don't pollute the water' message because this is what can happen - a horrible mutated monster. This used to be the anti-nuclear bomb message from the 1950 when radiation caused giants ants, spiders, fish or whatever in those schlocky sci-fi films. Now its 'environmental issues' that are the focus.<br /><br />THE HUMOR This was mostly stupid. I normally laugh at slapstick but this wasn't funny. I don't know if the Korean sense of humor is that pitiful, or the film was purposely trying to be ultra-corny with a take on the old 'Godzilla' movies. Let's hope it's the latter.<br /><br />TRANSFER - The video transfer was good. This was a sharp-looking picture and sound was decent with a lot rear-speaker crowd noise. I watched this in Korean with the English subtitles. That might have been a mistake as the Korean guttural voice sounds got annoying after a half hour.<br /><br />OVERALL - This had a promise but turned out to be a big letdown and even boring in too many spots, which is inexcusable for a modern-day monster film. Two hours was WAY too long for this story. How this film drew record crowds in Korea I don't know. They must not have much in the way of films to enjoy and support. | 1 |
I was hugely impressed with this movie, if for nothing else than for the comedy. It might not be the edgiest, wittiest humor at all times, but I found it appropriate to every scene.<br /><br />The flow of the film is certainly a bit jumbled, almost confusing sometimes, but that is how the characters feel. Sometimes, we're watching a bit of slapstick and other scenes revolve around a decisive discourse on relationships. This might be a bit frustrating to certain viewers, but it brought me closer to the characters' dilemmas of irregular chaos.<br /><br />The acting is great from everyone. I'm a huge Andy Richter fan, but I wasn't head over heels for his part like everyone else seems to be. He did very well, but Julianne Nicholson and Lauren Graham stole the show for me, both in their respective ways. Jay Mohr performs as expected, if you've seen him in other films. I've always liked him.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is very funny and offers some nice foundations for a few types of relationships. When it comes to relationship questions and problems, some films try to surprise. There's nothing surprising about the conclusions offered here, but it's entertaining to watch them be revealed throughout the film. | 0 |
'Spaced Invaders' is one of the funniest movies, I´ve ever seen. I don´t understand, why this movie didn´t get better critics, it´s funny, harmless and sweet. I first watched it, when I was 11, and I really fell in love with it... 2 days later, I got it on VHS :-P Till today, I´ve shown it to many friends, and they all liked it, but nobody knew the movie before. I think, that´s the problem, nearly nobody knows it, so nearly nobody can like it... This movie never got a real chance, that´s sad, 'SI' has really the potential of a comedy like 'Monsters Inc.' or 'Spaceballs'. Ok, enough displeasure - What I really wanted to say, is that, if you ever want to laugh your head off, watch it! Even if you don´t get mad about it, it´s worth watching! --> Prepare to laugh, earth scum! | 0 |
Guys and Dolls has to be one of my favorite musical movies ever. It is a very fun movie to watch and nothing more. it embodies what people have forgotten about musicals-musicals were made to entertain, not to to preach. Nowadays we have Rent and Chicago which are great musicals and good movies but they fail to bring us solid entertainment with no strings attached. The only thing that bothered me in the movie was Marlon Brando, the guy can't sing! It was very annoying to listen to him sing and talk when I couldn't understand him. If it weren't for Marlon I would have given this 10 stars. Guys and Dolls provides old-fashioned entertainment that we rarely get these days. Watch it to have a good time!! | 0 |
Was curious to know the name of the Tuscan village where the filming in Italy was done. I know the villa's name: Villa San Girolamo, however, would like to know the exact location in Tuscany. The cinematography is excellent and it would be wonderful to visit that area. I would also be interested to know what the location of the desert shooting is as well. Travel extensively in Europe and Africa and would am interested in visiting the areas that the book and film were about. Please e-mail me with any information on the sites that any one might have. We would be very grateful. And if any one knows if the villa in Tuscany is still habitable, that would be awesome as well. I await any information and I thank you in advance for your time. | 0 |
After watching about half of this I was ready to give up and turn it off, but I endured to the end. This is a movie that tries to be a romantic comedy and fails. The acting is poor---much worse than the acting in 80s T&A movies.<br /><br />There are several attempts at humour that fail miserably and the movie is 100% predictable. Perhaps if you are a teenager this movie will hold some appeal, but for those that have seen many movies, you will know how the film turns out after the first 10 minutes. The rest of your time will be spent in agony waiting for the ending credits to roll.<br /><br />Don't waste your time watching this. | 1 |
This movie is all about blaxploitation, there is absolutely no plot at all. A pimp stops some bad guys with his kung fu hoes to try to get his nightclub back. Rated R for Strong Language, and a brief sexual situation. | 0 |
sammo has to have a 10 out of 10 for this movie as it has everything. great story, great fights, great characters and great cameos.<br /><br />this film sees dick wei take on billy chow and chong fat. sammo takes on lau kar leung in a casino, sammo loses the fight but what a fight it is full of high tempo action and elements of comedy thrown in.<br /><br />some great and touching moments in the film, lam ching ying pops up in a cameo and gets killed off - gutted.<br /><br />the end sequence will have you reaching for the rewind button, as its one of the best end fights I've seen. sammo takes on loads of guys and ends up squaring up to billy chow. | 0 |
SHALLOW GRAVE begins with either a tribute or a rip off of the shower scene in PSYCHO. (I'm leaning toward rip off.) After that it gets worse and then surprisingly gets better, almost to the point of being original. Bad acting and amateurish directing bog down a fairly interesting little story, but the film already surpasses many in the 'Yankee comes down South to get killed by a bunch of rednecks' genre because it is actually shot in the South.<br /><br />A group of college girls head to Ft. Lauderdale for summer vacation and are waylaid in Georgia by a flat tire after getting off the main road. (Note to Yankees: stay on the highway when you go to Florida.) Sue Ellen (Lisa Stahl) has to pee so she heads into the woods. When she finally finds a good spot to do her business she witnesses the local sheriff (Tony March) strangle his mistress (Merry Rozelle) to death. (Note to Yankees: do not wander off into the woods when in the South; not because you might witness a murder, but you may run across a marijuana plantation.) This is the point where the story, not the movie, actually comes close to being good.<br /><br />While Tony March will never have to practice his Oscar speech, his Sheriff Dean becomes a creepy facsimile of a normal guy torn by what he has done and what he must do. Tom Law is likable as Deputy Scott and is as authentic a Southern deputy as I've seen since Walton Goggins (Deputy Steve Naish) in HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES.<br /><br />A few scenes in the movie are worth the mention. The girls stop at a BBQ in South Carolina and display their racism when a big black guy checks them out. Sue Ellen runs into a barn to hide behind some hay bales and in a shockingly realistic moment a large snake is hiding in the hay with her.<br /><br />And in the strangest scene, Sheriff Dean makes like he's about to rape Patty (Carol Cadby) and tells her to take off her clothes. Dean has turned the radio up to drown out the noise of what he's about to do. The preacher on the radio needs to go back and read his Bible. His sermon is about how Jezebel is saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. I feel sorry for this preacher's flock. Jezebel was in the Old Testament a few thousand years before Christ was born and by no means is she one of the five people you are going to meet in Heaven. | 1 |
This movie pleasantly surprised me. It has a touching, slightly off-center approach that never loses your attention. This is a movie I never heard about, but if you want a 'sleeper', this is it. Great writing, production, and acting. I highly recommend it for audiences who want something thoughtful. Nick Nolte, Sheryl Lee and Alan Arkin are marvelous. Why wasn't more made of this movie? | 0 |
I absolutely LOVED this movie as a child. I can't seem to find it anywhere! I was mentioning it to some friends just the other day, and not a single one of them remembers it! Can anyone help me out? My older sister vaguely remembers it. There was also another movie I remember that was half live action and half animation, but I can't remember the name of it. The characters were animated and the background was real...I seem to remember it being about a kangaroo, and I believe the setting of the film was in Australia. I'm going out of my mind trying to obtain copies of these films that were such a memorable part of my very enjoyable childhood. Edit: I searched IMDb for this other movie and found out it's called Dot and the Kangaroo! All I had to do was type in 'kangaroo' in the search bar under characters, and the name of the movie in the list was like a bell going off! MAN, I love IMDb! Thanks! | 0 |
There is something about Pet Sematary that I never felt anywhere else. Maybe the fact I was a kid when I first watched it made this experience so memorable. But as I keep watching it over and over again, it never gets old, and I never get bored. From the opening credits with that creepy opening song to the very chaotic ending, there is something insane, sad and scary at the same time, and it keeps ringing in your head: sometimes dead is better! <br /><br />I don't think it would be useful to relate the whole story again. All you need to know is it starts from point A (the most perfect situation for a happy American family) and step by step drowns to point B (which is, believe me, the very end of all joy). The music is perfect, the story makes sense, the special effects are cool, and the Pet Sematary is the last place on earth I would be. Like I said, sometimes dead is better! | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.