text
stringlengths 127
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
This is a Japanese film but there is quite a bit of English also spoken in here. It's a pretty film, with nice visuals, featuring the scenic beauty of Hawaii.<br /><br />However, that was the only redeeming quality for me. The story was generally boring. Who wants to watch a young woman sulk for 90 percent of the film because her "picture" husband is a lot older than he advertised he was? Granted, that could be a bummer......but get over it!<br /><br />Only in the last 10 minutes does she do an about-face and become fond of him. By then, for most viewers, it was too little-too late. We'd fallen asleep by then. | 0neg
|
This movie was terrific and even with a less than convincing ending, it's still well worth seeing. The film begins as Claudette Colbert is about to marry Robert Ryan. When the minister asks if anyone has any objections, a guy jumps up and announces that Colbert CAN'T get married because she already is married!! Colbert insists this isn't true, but when they investigate they find that the Justice of the Peace and many others remember her wedding and there is even a signed wedding license! Slowly, it becomes apparent that Claudette's mind is slipping and people around her seriously doubt her sanity. Then, when the supposed first husband is murdered, all evidence and suspicion falls on Colbert.<br /><br />The film is an exciting mystery suspense film, as what I have so far described is only the first half of the movie. What follows is amazingly intelligent and captivating. Unfortunately, the conclusion, though, is a bit of a let-down, as the guiding force behind all this turns out to come "right out of left field"--and is baffling since it was so unexpected and impossible to guess based on the information given to the viewer. However, in spite of this, the film was so good, I can even excuse the limp ending. In particular, Robert Ryan did a great job as the "knuckle-busting" fiancé, though apart from him the other performances were also excellent. | 1pos
|
Prussic gas, a murderer donning a red clansman suit and hood wielding a white whip, and the murders of college school girls at the hands of paid convicts enlisted by a mysterious mastermind who keeps his face hidden within an office containing aquariums of turtles and fish. The inspectors at Scotland Yard, Higgins(IJoachim Fuchsberger)and his superior Sir John(Siegfried Schürenberg)certainly have their hands full with this case. It all seems to center around student Ann Portland(Uschi Glas), who, when she turns 21, is to inherit a great deal of wealth. The girls who are targeted share a room with Ann, but the reason for their murders remains a mystery SY's finest must figure out. The staff of the girls' dormitory all seem to be hiding something and certain members of the faculty are falling prey to the killer in the red monk robe disguise, talented enough to precisely strangle the necks of those attacked with the whip. Two prisoners are commissioned by a mystery man to use the newly created toxic gas created by a scientist murdered at the beginning of the film during what was supposed to be a monetary exchange for his creation. It's a clever scheme where a driver, Greaves(Günter Meisner)meets the convicts(..who hide in a barrel)who are assisted by a corrupt prison guard. Taken blindfolded to the secret room of the mastermind, he gives them orders on who to kill and how. Uncovering this operation is a top priority for Higgins and Sir John for it will lead them to the truth they seek in regards to the murders and why they are happening. Under suspicion are girls' dormitory headmistress, her author brother, a sweaty, incredibly nervous chemistry teacher, a snooping gardener, and the Bannister. Some are red herrings until they are disposed of, throwing the viewer for a loop each time until the real mastermind is discovered. The ending features multiple twists. <br /><br />Out of the Krimi films I've seen, THE COLLEGE GIRL MURDERS is the closest to a giallo with it's colorful killer, a convoluted plot yielding lots of surprises and potential suspects, & sordid shenanigans between adults and the college girls at the dormitory. I think you can also see the influence of James Bond on this particular Krimi film with the villain mastermind's secret hideout with an alligator pit(..which isn't used), the fake bible/water pistol, when opened, fires the gas into the face of startled victims, the Greaves' Royles Royce which has latches that cause flaps to darken the windows without revealing the passenger in the back seat, and the peep holes used to spy on the girls in their rooms and while swimming. Many might consider Sir John a liability due to his bumbling, buffoonish behavior and how he often undermines Higgins' abilities to get at the truth(..perhaps poking fun at know-it-all British inspectors who harm a case more than solve it)..I felt he was used as comedy relief, particularly with his attempts at psychoanalyzing suspects and potential victims, often misunderstanding what are told to him. Higgins, using the skills adopted over his years as an investigator, instead follows the clues/facts, often avoiding Sir John as much as possible. Capable direction by the reliable Alfred Vohrer who keeps the pace humming at a nice speed, and the screenplay is full of interesting characters and lurid content..the fact that so many of the adults surrounding the dormitory are suspect, any of them might be the one wielding the whip or calling the shots behind those murdered girls' executions. I'd say this may be one of the best(..if not the best)examples of the Krimi genre, for it keeps you guessing, always one more ace up it's sleeve..the revelations unearthed at the very end are quite eye-opening(..and, you even get a literal unmasking of the real mastermind pulling the strings to top it all off). | 1pos
|
I saw this a couple of nights back, not expecting too much and unsurprisingly it didn't deliver anything too exciting. The plot set up of a crew of vampire hunters (V-San, for vampire sanitation), going around in their spaceship periodically killing space vamps and rescuing people, is quite sound and had the film been handled better it might well have been something quite ace. Unfortunately after a fairly decent opening the sense of actual quality starts to drain away from the film, leaving something behind that, though vacantly watchable, is quite laughably bad. I don't expect anything too special from these films that pop up on the Sci Fi Channel and at least this wasn't one of their creature features with an atrocious cgi beast shambling about, but it was still pretty bad, mostly due to the writing and acting, but with a sterling contribution to the overall badness made by the horrible music. When the film opted just for a typical science fiction sounding weird noises approach to the soundtrack it did OK, but all too often hilariously bad soft rock intruded and pitched scenes into silliness. I would have tolerated the general cheesy acting and writing more were it not for the choice of music, which was a serious miscalculation, turning things from cheesy to lamely comical. Of the acting, Dominic Zamprogna was OK but bland as the nominal hero, whilst Leanne Adachi was pretty irritating as the tough girl of the vamp busting team and Aaron Pearl played another member who wasn't well written or interesting enough to make an impression. Though she didn't seem that good at the acting lark Natassia Malte did well through having a less irritating character than the others, and the fact that she is seriously nice to look at. The only serious name in the cast is Michael Ironside and he is underused though he does nicely, pretty amusing in a manner one suspects was intentional. He seems to have fun and earn his paycheck and his role is entertaining. The effects are OK on the whole, they are at least of the standards of the average science fiction TV show, and there are also a few scenes of blood splatter and a bit of fun gore as well. Things move along nicely, and I almost feel harsh rating this film badly, but then I remember bursting into laughter at regular intervals and realising that unless the film is an intentional comedy, which I don't think it is, then it simply doesn't succeed. Too much is lame, daft, unconvincing, its an OK effort I guess but it didn't appeal to me. Only give it a go if you really dig Sci Fi trash or unintended chuckles I'd say. | 0neg
|
Eytan Fox did it again : move the viewer's heart in a modest story taking place in an overwhelming mess. The movie also succeeds in describing so perfectly and subtly the atmosphere of the incredible city that is Tel Aviv.<br /><br />I was there a month ago and it is all there : the lifestyle, the relationships, the heart-beating city, the mess, the chock of utopian mindsets in the most light-hearted, blithe and oblivious megalopolis ever.<br /><br />Strongly recommend: it is a voyage for the heart and the mind, with an interesting perspective to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict.<br /><br />Nota Bene: There is central gay plot in the movie. If you do not think you are too gay-friendly, be prepared to be challenged and finally see it as "just love". (and don't worry: the chick is hot too!) | 1pos
|
I thought this movie had absolutely no moral. I mean, how would you feel if your fiancé left you on your wedding day for your cousin??? I would be heartbroken!! It's classified as a comedy but I didn't find it funny at all. I thought it just mostly found cheap laughs and took them. I normally love Julie Stiles movies, but this is an exception. Jason Lee stars in another disgraceful show, which once again proves that class and decent morals are not relevant in todays society. It had a complete lack of taste and I despise movies like this. I understand that people will defend this movie and it's morals because it is 'Just a movie', but I still stand by my mark that this bad behaviour shouldn't be allowed on screen. I'm not trying to say that if you enjoyed this movie, you are a bad person, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and parts of this movie were enjoyable, I'm just saying that in real life, people acting like the characters in this film were doing is shameful. | 0neg
|
An opium den, a dirty little boy (actually a midget), prostitutes galore, a violent fracas in a dive, a motel for sexual shenanigans, scantily clad babes with cleavage a lot, a boozer falling down the stairs, a racially mixed clientèle in a bar with Asians, Africans, and Anglos treated equally, does this sound like a film playing at the local shopping mall? Wrong. These are all scenes from a 1933 musical.<br /><br />The first half of "Footlight Parade" is preparation for a musical extravaganza which occupies the last half of the film. Chester Kent (Cagney) is about to lose his job and does lose his playgirl wife as a result of talking pictures squeezing out live stage musicals. His producers take him to see a popular talky of the day, John Wayne in "The Big Trail." Before each showing of the flick, a dance number is presented as a prologue. Shorts, news reels, serials, and cartoons would later serve the purpose. Kent gets the idea that a prologue chain would be the road to salvation for the dwindling live musical business. Kent is basically an idea man along the lines of choreographer Busby Berkeley. Could it be that Cagney's character is patterned after Berkeley? Could be. <br /><br />In preparation for the prologues, Kent learns that his ideas are being stolen by a rival. He uncovers the traitor, fires him, then unbeknown to him a new leak is planted in the form a dazzling temptress. His assistant, Nan Prescott (Joan Blondell - soon to be Mrs. Dick Powell) has the hots for Kent and is determined to expose the wiles of the temptress. A new singer from Arkansas College shows up in the form of Scotty Blain (Dick Powell) who turns out to be a real find and is paired with Bea Thorn (Ruby Keeler). The resulting three prologue musicals, which couldn't possibly have been presented on any cinema stage of the day, are as fresh and enjoyable today as they were over seventy years ago, "Honeymoon Hotel," "By a Waterfall," and "Shanghai Lil."<br /><br />Of special note is the song and dance of tough-guy James Cagney. Like Fred Astaire and Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Cagney's dancing appeared natural and unrehearsed, although hours went into practice to get each step just right. Not as good a singer as Astaire, Cagney's singing, like Astaire's, sounded natural, unlike the crooning so popular at the time. It's amazing that one person could be so talented and so versatile as James Cagney.<br /><br />Most critics prefer the "Shanghai Lil" segment over the other two. Yet the kaleidoscopic choreography of "By a Waterfall" is astonishing. How Berkeley was able to film the underwater ballets and to create the human snake chain must have been difficult because it has never been repeated. The close up shots mixed brilliantly with distant angles is a must-see. The crisp black and white photography is much more artistic than it would have been if shot in color. <br /><br />Though not nearly as socially conscious as "Gold Diggers of 1933," "Footlight Parade" stands on its own as one of the most amazing and outrageous musicals ever put on the big screen. | 1pos
|
This tender beautifully crafted production delved deep down bitter sweet into my being. The irreverent pupils, the life embittered bus driver and the teachers personalities present a subliminal debate as the story unveils. The adult characters all seem familiar, my teachers, my bus driver, each one of their opinions so plausible and well known. When a key incident happens on the bus we are sent on a circuit of viewpoints. All the time the babble of teenage energy is only just kept under control by the organisers of the trip. Mr Harvey is experiencing much pain throughout . He reminds me of war damaged teachers I did not understand when I was an irreverent pupil.<br /><br />Rhidian Brook and the producers deserve much acclaim for this well shaped British film. The acting unblemished, the scenes appropriate, it should be widely available yet does not seem to have been given the right opportunity. | 1pos
|
The comparison to Sleuth, the earlier stage-play-turned-film, is obvious and upon my first viewing I too thought Sleuth was better, but Deathtrap has, at least for me, many more repeat viewings in it than Sleuth.<br /><br />I purchased Deathrap in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart, figuring that it had Caine and the underrated Reeve and was worth the 6 bucks. It was one of the finest DVD purchases I could've picked up.<br /><br />It's one of those best-kept-secrets that movie buffs always are always delighted to discover. And it's totally worth repeat viewings.<br /><br />Though Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine turned in bravado performances in Sleuth, I was doubly impressed with Christopher Reeve as Clifford Anderson. Reeve, rightfully associated with his now legendary portrayal of Superman, stole the show in what should've been an Oscar worthy performance. I've always felt Reeve was a type-cast actor who didn't get much of a chance to shine outside of the Superman films and a few other flawed but entertaining films like Somewhere in Time, but this film shows that his potential was truly tapped and put to use, thank goodness.<br /><br />I absolutely relished Michael Caine's performance. He was glib, deliciously manipulative and sadistic. And watching him work with Reeve and Dyan Cannon was an absolute pleasure. In fact, it was thanks to this movie that I got into a "Michael Caine phase" and started renting as much of his stuff as humanly possible. <br /><br />As for Deathtrap, there's enough juicy dialogue in here to fill up its "memorable quotes" section. (Unfortunately, much of the dialogue would inherently spoil the immensely entertaining plot).<br /><br />It's really, really hard to talk about the movie without spoiling important plot points that are infinitely more fun to discover on your own. Needless to say, it's a must-see. But for me, it was the greatest and most rewarding blind purchase of all time.<br /><br />Repeat viewings are a must. <br /><br />And it deserves to sit alongside Sleuth on your DVD shelf.<br /><br />I'll leave you with this beautifully written quote from the film: "I wonder if it wouldn't be...well...just a trifle starry-eyed of me to enter into such a risky and exciting collaboration...where I could count on no sense of moral obligation...whatsoever." | 1pos
|
I am a big fan of old horror movies, and since I am middle aged, old to me is a movie made before 1970 with most being made in the 1920's to 1960's period. I am not a big fan of more modern horror movies, with one exception being Creepshow 1, which I thought was great. I could reminisce about the stories there but I really really enjoyed the monster in the box story with Hal Holbrook, and also the one about the really clean guy was a great ending. All the stories were great though. So why did I like them so much? The characters had some decent development, the lines were very plain about who was good and who was bad, the horror bits were heightened with a close up of a face aghast with fear, and the funny bits were really funny! This sequel is either greatly lacking of these elements or they are totally absent! I am writing this only having watched it partially because the movie was a complete waste of time and I turned it off to do other things like write movie reviews on IMDb.com, lol. When George Kennedy and an old Dorothy Lamoure get top billing it's telling you something.....4 of 10. Also, Romero's expertise is hard to find here, they must had told him to tone it down to a PG standard (I don't know what this was rated at but it looks PG to me), and that's not a good thing for a movie with nothing else going on. It's shown on the Encore cable channel if your dieing (yuck yuck) to see it. | 0neg
|
The Color Purple is a masterpiece. It displays the amazing acting abilities of Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey, and Danny Glover. Not only is Steven Spielberg the most incredible director of all time but his versatility shines through in this film. If you ever want to see what a movie can do watch this. It's a beautiful portrayal of one of the most moving stories of all time! | 1pos
|
I would have given it a one instead of a two, but I suppose it COULD have been worse. I guess the acting isn't all that bad, but the plot lacks anything even remotely close to interesting. It is a terrible movie!! TERRIBLE! Complete waste of time! I strongly suggest you do not watch this movie.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | 0neg
|
This movie was hysterical. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. I mean, it's not "Good Will Hunting," but was it supposed to be? I actually went into the advanced screening expecting a lot less and was pleasantly surprised. The comedy hits hard and is fairly constant. Amanda Peet is hot and awesome. The entire audience that I screened it with seemed to be enjoying the film as much as I did. | 1pos
|
This is one of the few movies I watched twice in the theatre. I really love this movie for its atmosphere and its telling of the life of tragic hero Esteban Trueba. He makes so many mistakes but gets a chance for redemption. Isn't this a rather consoling thought?<br /><br />When I watched it for the first time, I thought that after the won election, the movie would be over - I didn't know the book. So boy was I wrong when the dramatic climax was still to come! I was literally swept away by the sheer power of the last half hour of the film.<br /><br />Many people here utterly dislike this movie. I cannot understand that one single bit. Maybe those who read the book first are - as often with screen adaptations of novels - simply disappointed that so many things have remained untold, unseen, unexplained. But as a movie telling a touching story - the story of a family, the rise and fall of a man, the deep compassion of a woman, the strength of love and the insanity of hate (and conservatism) - this movie is simply splendid! Furthermore, the soundtrack is incredibly good and the cast is wonderful as well - especially Winona Ryder and Jeremy Irons.<br /><br />So definitely one of those films that cinema was invented for! | 1pos
|
This movie was awful. The ending was absolutely horrible. There was no plot to the movie whatsoever. The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones. Their performances were excellent! The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching. Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...or lack thereof. Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....well an actual movie...not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. There was nothing special about any of the characters. The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man. Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. When the movie ended, I sat amazed...amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. It never happened! The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. It wasn't even a story. The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time. That's it. It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation. How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)? The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...if you can even call it a movie. | 0neg
|
Bela Lugosi as creepy insane scientist who uses orchids to woo brides in order to steal life essence for aged wife. The midget in this film is hilarious!! A lot of freaks, plus a lot of padding and no plot makes watching this film a nightmare. I loved how all the pieces fell together in the end in typical Hollywood fashion. The story never gets interesting, and you feel helpless as you watch.<br /><br />Usually I'd score bore flicks like this one low, but the midget added just enough creepiness and entertainent to gain a couple more points. | 0neg
|
Even though we know how the story ends, this is a gripping fly-on-the-wall film that plays almost like a political thriller. During the calm before the storm, we meet Hugo Chavez as a charismatic, larger than life man who has an unbreakable connection with the mestizos who make up 80% of the population but have previously been shut out of Venezuela's political process and its oil wealth. He seems as devoted to them as they are to him. He travels the country at a hectic pace, reaching out to the campesinos, addressing huge crowds, hugging and kissing ordinary people, accepting letters on scraps of paper, and hearing pleas for help. The people are excited that one of their number has made it to the highest office in the land. There is an electric sense of hope and optimism that change for the better is coming to the festering barrios.<br /><br />But not everyone is happy with the situation. The pure-blood Castillian Spaniard elite who are a small minority but previously controlled all the wealth are full of bitterness and resentment. One of the most unintentionally hilarious moments in the film is when an Ann Coulter lookalike, at a residents' meeting in an exclusive gated community, complains of the mestizos, "they have no concept of struggle or sacrifice." Minutes later, a speaker tells the meeting to "beware of your domestic servants - they could be Chavez supporters." Duh! Of course they are.<br /><br />In a late night interview alone with the film crew, Chavez reveals something of his soul as he tells the story of his grandfather. He can be a sensitive, poetic person, though with an impish, even clownish, sense of humor (like we saw when he addressed the UN and called Bush the devil.)<br /><br />Then the storm starts to gather force as the coup organizers call for a mass protest and cynically manipulate their supporters into changing the route at the last minute and marching on the presidential palace, knowing it is surrounded by Chavez supporters and violence is inevitable.<br /><br />Another element of the plot falls into place as snipers on rooftops begin to fire on the Chavez supporters, some of whom fire back. The local equivalent of Fox News shows this return fire and claims that Chavez supporters are massacring protesters. Then the camera pulls back and reveals that there are no protesters - the street is empty! The protesters took a different route. Needless to say the footage of the empty street was edited out by the rabidly anti-Chavez private TV stations (who had been airing a constant barrage of propaganda calling Chavez mentally ill and sexually fixated on Fidel Castro.) Immediately after the coup, we see the ringleaders and their media propaganda masters openly bragging on TV about how they had manipulated the situation with reckless disregard for the lives of supporters and opponents alike.<br /><br />The filmmakers continue to be at the heart of this chaotic, fast-changing situation as the military coup surrounds the palace and threatens to bomb it. Chavez eventually surrenders to avoid bloodshed but refuses to resign and is whisked away to an offshore island where a plane awaits to take him - where? The US? How can the remaining cabinet members avoid arrest and defeat this heavily armed conspiracy of right-wing generals and ultra-wealthy businessmen who are closely linked to the Bush administration? Watch the movie and find out!<br /><br />If your only knowledge of Hugo Chavez and Venezuela is from the US media, then you know nothing. He is not an "unelected tyrant" and does not "rule by decree" - he is enormously popular, having been elected and re-elected several times with over 60% of the vote (something George Bush Junior has never achieved) and the devotion he inspires in ordinary Venezuelan people is ultimately the reason why the coup fails.<br /><br />This is an extraordinary film about an extraordinary man in an extraordinary situation. The skill of the filmmakers is in being unobtrusive and letting the story unfold through the voices of Venezuelans at every level from the barrio to the presidential palace, the tumultuous scenes, the chaos and confusion out of which a coherent whole emerges that is tense, riveting and moving. Not to be missed! | 1pos
|
I'm a Christian. I have always been skeptical about movies made by Christians, however. As a rule, they are "know-nothings" when it comes to movie production. I admire TBN for trying to present God and Jesus in a positive and honest way on the screen. However, they did a hideous job of it. The acting was horrible, and unless one is familiar with the Bible in some fashion, one COULD NOT have understood what the movie was trying to get across. Not only was the movie terribly made, but the people who made it even had some facts wrong. However, in this "critique", those facts are irrelevent and too deep to delve into. In short, the Omega Code is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen, and I would not recommend it to anyone, except for comic relief from the every day grind. | 0neg
|
Great actors, an oscar nominee actress, stunning scenery, good strong story line and more laughs than you can fit into my new handbag (and thats quite big). This film was brilliant. It was beautifully acted in the more serious scenes and the funny moments were . .well, side splitting. I have never heard a cinema audience laugh so much, and tears were streaming down my cheeks during the 'stoned ladies in the tea shop' scene. Well done to the British film industry and to Craig Ferguson whose magic ingredients have made sure this is one of my favourite films of the year, if not of all time. | 1pos
|
This is the second movie based on the life and times of ultra hung porn star, John Curtis Estes, better known as John Holmes. Boogie Nights is also roughly based on his life. Maybe someday someone is going to do a movie on the life of Tommy Byron instead.<br /><br />The problem is, that the story is not very well told. There are many Law & Order episodes that have more twists and turns than Wonderland, and the director never gets the criminal case going with any kind of gusto. Val Kilmer has two problems - he is not nearly as hung as Holmes is (and no prosthesis this time around, unlike in Boogie Nights), and he is much better looking than mope Holmes. <br /><br />The director does not introduce one single likable individual among the cast. The racist, immature lowlifes he hangs out with, or his wife, and the police don't get much in the way of characterization. <br /><br />The best part of the movie is Eric Bogosian telling Paris Hilton to "get lost". <br /><br />Having said all that, anyone interested in the sleaziest side of the porn business in the 1980s or true crime shouldn't miss it. | 1pos
|
Definitely one of the most witty and twisted who-dunnit I ever seen. Christopher Reeve and Micheal Caine were brilliant and kept me going through the whole affair. <br /><br />Very classy set pieces and the props really lend a sense of atmosphere to the proceedings. The minimalist feel works for the whole picture.<br /><br />My only complain isn't with the film itself but the lack of a decent widescreen edition of the movie on DVD. I own the fullscreen version (which proves I love the film enough to endure fullscreen presentation) but a awesome Deluxe or 'special' edition would most surely get my cash. | 1pos
|
a pure reality bytes film. Fragile, beautiful and amazing first film of the director. Represented Spain on the Berlinale 2002. Some people has compared the grammar of the film with Almodovar's films...Well, that shouldn't be a problem... | 1pos
|
Horror fans (I'm speaking to the over 12's, although if you're under 12 I apologise for what you might deem an insult): In short, if you appreciate having your imagination disturbed by well written, original storytelling, punctuated by unpredictable well planted scares, and delivered via convincing performances, then I can heartily recommend - AVOIDING THESE STEAMERS - made by directors who have apparently long since past their sell by date. It's no accident that almost every episode feels as if it were made in the 1980's. Not to put blame squarely on the shoulders of some of these old boys (or indeed the 80's) because where would we be without certain movies from the likes of Argento, Carpenter, Landis, Dante and Barker (Actually Clive, WTF are you doing in there?! Glad to see Romero had the good sense to give it a miss as I'm sure he was asked to partake...). More perhaps we should point the finger at creator Mick Garris whose credentials include the logic defying and depressingly ill-advised TV remake of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'The Shining'.<br /><br />Perhaps it is an indication of the state of television today. Are we so starved of good TV horror that we applaud any old sloppy schlock that the networks excrete onto our sets? Sadly, maybe so.<br /><br />Normally I wouldn't see the point of adding a comment that doesn't argue the faults and merits of a production, I'd just rate it accordingly. However, as this series is woefully lacking in any merit (with perhaps the sole exception of the theme tune) I write this as more of a warning than a review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. If you disagree with me then it's more than likely that you haven't seen enough decent horror. Perhaps the earlier films of some of these directors would be a much better place to start, but if these 'Masters' of Horror were being assessed on these works alone, they'd never have been allowed to graduate with even their Bachelor's degree. Unless of course they were studying for a degree from the University Of S**t. | 0neg
|
Mad Magazine may have a lot of crazy people working for it...but obviously someone there had some common sense when the powers-that-be disowned this waste of celluloid...the editing is el crapo, the plot is incredibly thin and stupid...and the only reason it gets a two out of ten is that Stacy Nelkin takes off some of her clothes and we get a nice chest shot...I never thought I would feel sorry for Ralph Macchio making the decision to be in this thing, but I do...and I REALLY feel bad for Ron Leibman and Tom Poston, gifted actors who never should have shown up in this piece of...film...at least Mr. Leibman had the cajones to refuse to have his name put anywhere on the movie...and he comes out ahead...there are actually copies of this thing with Mad's beginning sequence still on it...if you can locate one, grab it cuz it is probably worth something...it's the only thing about this movie that's worth anything...and a note to the folks at IMDb.com...there is no way to spoil this movie for anyone...the makers spoiled it by themselves... | 0neg
|
I was really hoping that this would be a funny show, given all the hype and the clever preview clips. And talk about hype, I even heard an interview with the show's creator on the BBC World Today - a show that is broadcast all over the world.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this show doesn't even come close to delivering. All of the jokes are obvious - the kind that sound kind of funny the first time you hear them but after that seem lame - and they are not given any new treatment or twist. All of the characters are one-dimensional. The acting is - well - mediocre (I'm being nice). It's the classic CBC recipe - one that always fails.<br /><br />If you're Muslim I think you would have to be stupid to believe any of the white characters, and if you're white you'd probably be offended a little by the fact that almost all of the white characters are portrayed as either bigoted, ignorant, or both. Not that making fun of white people is a problem - most of the better comedies are rooted in that. It's only a problem when it isn't funny - as in this show.<br /><br />Canada is bursting with funny people - so many that we export them to Hollywood on a regular basis. So how come the producers of this show couldn't find any? | 0neg
|
Okay, you have:<br /><br />Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!<br /><br />Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.<br /><br />Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)<br /><br />David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.<br /><br />and finally:<br /><br />Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.<br /><br />Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.<br /><br />So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?<br /><br />Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)<br /><br />First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"<br /><br />Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."<br /><br />Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.<br /><br />Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)<br /><br />And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."<br /><br />When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.<br /><br />To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.<br /><br />OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)<br /><br />Great drama. | 0neg
|
This is a great game! Okay perhaps it didn't have some of the features it was meant to have but Digital Anvil have still come up with a good game. There is a certain similarity to Elite(you can trade, pick up weapons and cargo off destroyed ships, go on missions)however this game features a heavily scripted mission. It is a great mission. The control system is different it uses the mouse! You basically fly you spaceship around a system and work your way up! The game features some pretty good graphics even through it was made in 2003. It should run well on even a modestly specified PC. The story features some great voice acting from John Rhys Davies, George Takei, Jennifer Hale(she appears in every computer game). Stick with the story it gets better and better as it goes on. There is even a race section, where you and an opponent have to race your spaceships around a course(it involves you going through rings). This section took me a while to beat. It adds variety to the game. Some sections are a little tough here and there but overall you can beat this game. The game has an active mod scene on the Net. Pick up some mods to extend the game. I haven't played any of the mods yet. <br /><br />Sadly a sequel to this was cancelled, a shame! | 1pos
|
*Wonderland SPOILERS* <br /><br />July 1st, 1981: five people, Ron Launius (Josh Lucas), Susan Launius (Christina Applegate), Billy Deverell (Tim Blake Nelson), Barbara Richardson (Natasha Gregson Wagner) and Joy Miller (Janeane Garofalo) are attacked while they're asleep and brutally hit on the head with steel pipes in their home at 8763 Wonderland Avenue, Laurel Canyon, LA. Only Susan survives.<br /><br />Main Suspect: John Holmes (Val Kilmer), former king of porn, owner of a 30 cm long dick, and now a hopeless addict.<br /><br />Two investigators, Luis (Frankie G.) and Sam Nico (Ted Levine), are investigating on the case and try to crack it with the help of a witness that claims to know that John at the very least took part in the murders, David Lind (Dylan McDermott), Barbara's boyfriend, and trying to get a witness report out of Dawn Schiller (Kate Bosworth), Holmes' 19-year-old girlfriend and from Susan, who sadly doesn't remember anything more than shadows about the night her husband's head was bashed in and hers almost suffered the same fate, and the name of Eddie Nash (Eric Bogosian), a major drug kingpin (who is always around ladies such as Barbie (Paris Hilton)), comes into light as a suspect planner of the Wonderland massacre.<br /><br />But what did happen that night? And could Sharon (Lisa Kudrow), John's wife, know something about it? 'Wonderland' is a taught, intense thriller, a desperate love story and a story of a man's sad decline all in one; there is a clever use of the 'Rashomon' technique (we see the events of that fateful day and night from the eyes of David, John, Dawn, Susan (albeit very briefly) and Sharon), a nice direction and a great script, but is mostly compelling for the performances, especially Kilmer's, who takes central stage with his hopeless, tormented, sometimes childish Holmes, Lucas', whose Launius is strangely alluring, Kudrow's strong Sharon and Bosworth's innocent Dawn.<br /><br />Wonderland: 9/10. | 1pos
|
I watched this because I thought there were going to be a lot of car chases and cool cars to gawk at. Guess I was lied to. This movie is very boring.<br /><br />The movie starts out Kip Raines(Giovanni Ribisi) sitting outside a Porsche dealership checking to see if they have the right car. When they confirm it's the right one, Kip gets a brick out of the trunk and chucks it at the window, shattering it. He gets the Porsche while his friend gets the keys. They start up the car and take off into the night. They deliver it to a warehouse only to have been followed by the police. So, the whole crew ditches all the cars and go their separate ways. Then, we get a glimpse of Memphis Raines. He is giving a little speech to a bunch of kids at a go-kart track. Then, he is confronted by Atlee Jackson(Will Patton). Atlee tells Memphis that his brother Kip is in deep *bleep*. Memphis is known as one of the most notorious car thieves in Los Angeles. Memphis heads to a junkyard and meets Raymond Calitri(Christopher Ecclesten). This guy threatens to kill Kip if Memphis doesn't deliver 50 cars within 72 hours.<br /><br />There are a few problems with this film: <br /><br />1.Story: The first 48 in-movie hours take place when Cage and Duvall are looking for a crew and planning everything out. The last 12 in-movie hours are a waste! <br /><br />2. The Cars: You see maybe 10 cars out of the 50 as the movie advertises. So, where are the other 40 cars? Why don't we get to see them? <br /><br />3. The Chase: The chase at the end of the movie was a joke. It was not suspenseful at all.<br /><br />4. The Dog: Somewhere in the movie, the dog eats the burgers and swallows three keys as well. This is impossible. The keys were flipped open. The keys would have severely damaged the dog's esophagus, stomach, and large intestines. The guys suggest giving the dog laxatives to help him poop it out. This won't work. The dog will get a lot of diarrhea but no keys. It was stated in Jackass after Ryan Dunne stuck a toy car up his rectum. Take laxatives, lots of diarrhea, but no car. Same case with the dog.<br /><br />5. The Cop During The Chase: When Eleanor breaks down for a few minutes, Nicholas Cage tries desperately to start up the car. You see a police cruiser behind him who isn't looking at his car at all. But, right when Nicholas Cage starts the engine up again, the police officer jerks his head to the right, sees the car, and immediately begins to chase after him. It is stupid. So, right when he heard the engine start, and saw the car, he knew that was the car he was looking for. How does he know it's the right car? He only sees the back of it.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is boring. There is no action. There are very few cars. The movie is stupid. I have never seen the original but I plan to.<br /><br />I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Get The Fast and Furious instead. | 0neg
|
this one is out there. Not much to say about it except that it deals with a rarely touched topic in films of beastiality. I can see why this film was banned for so long, the topics dealt within the film are still a little taboo for most of the world will say the eroticism in the film is well deserved and fits in with the mood of the film. It's a good film that is well acted and serves a purpose ...to shock the viewer and cross boundaries that we don't see to often in films. I came across this film on the net that I thought I might check out. I enjoyed the film as it is thought provoking and somewhat erotic at the same time. Something you don't rarely see in films today. | 1pos
|
George Cukor directs a brooding and cynical classic. The distinctive Ronald Coleman is at his best in this piece of Noir about an actor who loses himself in his roles. The acclaimed Anthony John(Colman)has driven his wife Brita(Signe Hasso)away with his highly fueled temper and erratic behavior. But the two manage to continue working together to please their audiences. Things begin to change as John is becoming bored with his career; he reluctantly agrees to play Othello. He gets deep into character as a jealous and murderous man. He begins walking a thin line between illusion and reality and ends up confusing his role with his own life and eventually kills his mistress(Shelley Winters),but has no memory of the dastardly deed.<br /><br />Colman seems faultless in this role. Winters is very impressive as the young woman determined to get away from her squalid life. Also in the cast: Edmond O'Brien, Ray Collins, Joe Sawyer and Whit Bissell. | 1pos
|
I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. <br /><br />The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.<br /><br />A definite see!<br /><br />I'd never seen an independent movie and I was really impressed by the writing, acting and cinematography of Jake's Closet. <br /><br />The emotions were very real and intense showing, through a child's eyes, the harsh impact of divorce.<br /><br />A definite see! | 1pos
|
What happens to washed up rock-n-roll stars in the late 1990's? They launch a comeback / reunion tour. At least, that's what the members of Strange Fruit, a (fictional) 70's stadium rock group do.<br /><br />Tony (Stephen Rea) has the concession on condom vending machines when he runs into the son of the promoter of a famous music festival. It was at that festival in the 70's that Strange Fruit broke up. The 70's are "retro" and the time is right to wide that wave. He sets off in search of the other members of the band.<br /><br />Part of what broke up the band was the death and replacement of Keith, the lead singer and brilliant song writer. The band was known for its excessive lifestyle and now they are all back amongst the working class from which they came. Beano, the drummer, played by Timothy Spall (who was brilliant in Secrets and Lies) is a layabout, the bass player is a roofer, and their lead singer is still a rocker. While he owns a huge mansion he has been forced to sell it, as his fortune has not lasted. Brian, the lead guitarist, is dead, so a young guitarist is hired to replace him.<br /><br />Somewhat reluctantly the band agree to give the reunion a try. Abandoning their day jobs, they begin to rehearse, and their manager approaches their label about reissuing their albums. But he wants them to start touring again first. And so they hit the club circuit around Europe. The club scene is not kind to these overweight, dated, old rockers.<br /><br />It is on tour that the film really starts to develop. All of the old conflicts rearise, with the figures of Keith and Brian hovering throughout. They all hang together because they are all in search of a second chance for the greatness that eluded them earlier. And they rediscover some of the interpersonal chemistry that made playing together so enjoyable.<br /><br />Still Crazy starts as Spinal Tap II but gradually becomes a more dramatically focused film, following the relationships of the band members. While it is still a very funny movie, it is the evolving characters, struggling to deal with the deaths of Brian and Keith and with their own personal demons, that make the film work. | 1pos
|
I wasn't aware of Steve McQueen in 1958. I only knew that I was extremely frightened about going to see this film. (I'd been devastated by the movie "Trantula" at age seven . . . but I was ten now). The 1st scene where the Blob crawls up the farmer's probing stick and engulfs his hand was enough to make me want to leave the theater. But I stayed and suffered through each of our monster's attacks. I felt such horror when Steve and his girl barely made it out of the doctor's office (poor doc), and even more when The Blob entered a movie theater and devoured a large portion of the audience . . . so many in fact that IT oooooozzzzzzed out of the front doors, too huge now to fit through just one. It seemed indestructible and unlimited in growth potential, and when it trapped poor Steve in a sieve-like diner, he seemed like a sure dinner to be. <br /><br />To say that the Blob was cold would be a modern day description, but in the end, better icy than scaring and mentally rupturing little kids.<br /><br />I remember walking home that evening with my uncle Nick, trying to act brave. He knew I was in trouble, and when I got into bed that night I could not only feel the Blob in the room, but when I summoned up the courage to look down at the floor, there the red pulsating, heart-like hungry dude sat, waiting for me to try and get up and go to the bathroom. It took months to recover. <br /><br />I'm 57 years old now . . . I've made it.<br /><br />Of course The Blob wasn't destroyed. | 1pos
|
We watched this on "The Wonderful World of Disney" on ABC last night, and I came to the conclusion that things must be tighter there at "the Mouse" than usual. <br /><br />Since this movie only runs 74 minutes, and they had to pad it out to 2 hours of broadcast television time, they had, and I'm not making this up, commercial breaks that lasted 6 to 7 minutes. And during these commercial breaks, they had another advertisement in the guise of a "TV show" hosted by the oh-so-annoying Kelly Rippa that loudly proclaimed the magical wonders of "Cinderella 2: Dreams Come True".<br /><br />Again and again, break after break, Disney took time out of the real movie to tell us, the loyal viewers, that we needed to get a copy of the sequel. Thank you, Disney, for doing us the service of creating a sequel to your beloved gem of a movie.<br /><br />Anyway, all this commercialism and cash-register-ringing made it a difficult task to get into the actual movie of "Cinderella", because by the time the commercials were over, I had forgotten where the story had left off.<br /><br />But of course, the original "Cinderella" still maintains its magic, and the story is still a good one, though we've all seen it countless times. It's a shame they had to cheapen it with all the marketing for what looks to be a lame follow-up. | 1pos
|
Strange, almost all reviewers are highly positive about this movie. Is it because it's from 1975 and has Chamberlain and Curtis in it and therefore forgive the by times very bad acting and childish ways of storytelling? <br /><br />Maybe it's because some people get sentimental about this film because they have read the book? (I have not read the book, but I don't think that's a problem, film makers never presume that the viewers have read the book). <br /><br />Or is it because I am subconsciously irritated about the fact that English-speaking actors try to behave as their French counterparts? | 0neg
|
Feeding The Masses was just another movie trying to make a little money off of the zombie craze that is going around, mostly due to the popularity of movies such as Land Of The Dead and the Resident Evil series.<br /><br />It starts at a television station, which is guarded by the military, and are reporting that The Lazarus Virus (zombies) are close to containment and the city will soon be free to do their business again. The problem is, this is totally false. Zombies are running rampantly and only a small minority of people are aware. Among them are Torch (William Garberina), the camera man, Sherry (Rachael Morris), the lead anchor woman (who for some reason is listed as playing Shelly on this website) and Roger (Patrick Cohen), their military escort. Torch and Sherry are against lying to the people but the station is being run by secret service (or some other government agency) and they are heavily censored.<br /><br />This movie gives itself a pat on the back on the box-cover saying "We hold FEEDING THE MASSES on a higher level than any o the three 'of the Dead' films by George A. Rombero." The source of that quote has lost ALL credibility with me.<br /><br />Let me just say that this movie is BAD. I don't mean bad like I was expecting more (I obviously was, though) but I mean bad in that I could not find any redeeming qualities in the film, whatsoever. The acting in all parts are either over done or too wooden. Did anybody remember their lines or are they reading off of cue cards? I can't even think of what the best part of the movie was or the best actor/actress. There really was not one. If I had to give a nod to someone, I would say Roger, the military escort was probably the most interesting character but that is really not saying much.<br /><br />I would have to recommend to pass on this movie, despite the box-cover looking pretty good (It's what originally drew me to the movie). 3/10 | 0neg
|
When John Singleton is on, he's *on*!! And this is one of his better films. Not quite as tight as Boyz-n-the-Hood, but close to it (and with much of the same stellar cast). This film was very well written, very well put together, and very well shot. There's very little to criticize, and most of my complaints are superficial (eg: where did Fudge get the money for 6 years of college and a lot of expensive stuff? No mention of a rich background... And why doesn't Professor Phibbs have an office? A professor of his stature *should* have one... And while we're at it, for an engineering student, hick or not, Remy's a pretty dumb character - I'd think that he'd have a bit more in the way of basic intelligence - he talks and acts like a total buffoon).<br /><br />But that aside, the film was very sharp. A good array of characters and points of view; and Singleton doesn't take sides in the story - many of the characters are unsympathetic, and he does a good job of interspersing the Panthers and Supremacist scenes together to show the folly on both sides.<br /><br />Much of the cinematography was excellent; I especially loved the scene where Kirsty Swanson gets intimate with Taryn and Wayne each scene spliced together really well. Also the Malik/Deja scenes were really well shot as well.<br /><br />The dialogue was a bit much at times; this film had a tendency to get *really* preachy at times, and it also tends to hammer the points it was making over your head when the points would be just as clear with out the bluntness (we really didn't need the US flag with 'UNLEARN' typed onto it, give some credit, we're not morons...). And to top it off, although *most* of the time Singleton uses melodrama quite well, sometimes it gets *way* too cheezy (like Deja's death, which is fine until she screams out 'WHY!!!' which simply ruined the entire effect and scene).<br /><br />But the acting, in general, was top of the line. Fabulous performances by Omar Epps (perhaps the best I've ever seen), Kirsty Swanson (who knew Buffy could act??), Michael Rapaport (surprised the hell out of me...after True Romance and Beautiful Girls I though he was a one-role actor), and of course Ice Cube and Laurence Fishburne are *always* outstanding.<br /><br />Downside? Jennifer Connelly was flat; though it's not completely her fault: her role was stereotypical and one-dimensional. Generic to the highest degree. And Tyra Banks, who had the role, was nothing short of horrid. She whined and whined and whined. Yet another in the long line of models-turned-actresses who failed miserably (though there are a few who prove the exception to this rule).<br /><br />Finally, the soundtrack! Wow! An amazing soundtrack (which is definitely worth buying!) which fits the film like a glove. Each scene has a twin song (although the Tori Amos songs started to *really* annoy me by the end...not her best work). Liz Phair, Rage Against the Machine, Ice Cube...how can one go wrong??<br /><br />All in all: a really good watch, a really strong cast, great script, great film. 8/10. | 1pos
|
This is a nice little horror flick that fans of indie films will really appreciate. It has good acting, lots of gore, and a decent plot. One will be reminded of movies like The Hills Have Eyes and Pumpkinhead. It's obvious that the budget was not all that big, but the film really makes up for it with atmosphere and solid performances by the actors, which seems to be lacking in a lot of today's big budget special effects-filled films. The film really moves along and there is excellent direction and good camera work. There are no wasted scenes, so the film's length is a bit short. In addition, it looks like the ending leaves an opening for a sequel, which would be very interesting as well. So grab some popcorn, turn down the lights and enjoy this one. | 1pos
|
1 out of 10.<br /><br />This is the kind of movie that you cant believe you just wasted 2 hours of your life as you see the credits role. I honestly think I could make a better Vampire movie.... and I know nothing. The only thing that does not just suck (harder than a Vampire) is Jason Scott Lee.... his character is at least a little bit cool, has some mystery, and kicks a little butt. | 0neg
|
I rented this on DVD and I kind of feel bad since Dawson and Lugacy are so earnest about it in the DVD comments. It's not a bad movie exactly, but it's one of those films that desperately wants to be a deep comment on human nature while not realizing that its story is practically a genre. Plus, it is a little simplistic about the issue in a lot of ways, and the characters' behavior often strains belief. I'd say its a film that you would get something out of if you don't have a lot of film/TV/literature/life behind you (to be honest, I've seen almost exactly the same story in horror comics even). Otherwise, its point has been made before and more artfully. And that gets to the big problem, which is that it really doesn't have much of cinematic interest to it besides the point. It ends up being a fairly bland movie overall that invests everything in the idea that the basic story will be shocking and compelling, and it doesn't really pay off. | 0neg
|
...........as I was when I saw this movie) I will never watch this movie again, not because it is a bad movie, but because it scared me so much! As I said, I was 14 when my English teacher decided to show it to us; the reason for this is that we had read an extract from the book.<br /><br />All the girls in my class were TERRIFIED when the Woman in Black comes through the window and floats over Kidd's bed, although, just before that there is something that also frightened us, which was when Kidd finds the toy soldier underneath his pillow, and he hears a child's voice say "It's for you". That scene still haunts me to this day, nearly 7 YEARS after I saw the film.<br /><br />If you are easily scared, AVOID THIS FILM!!!!!!!! | 1pos
|
Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...<br /><br />This isn't entertainment...this is hell.<br /><br />Hell.<br /><br />Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.<br /><br />It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!<br /><br />Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY! | 0neg
|
I caught this movie late at night on cable, and I was pleasantly surprised. I can only imagine the reason this movie was not better known, is because the subject matter is very disturbing. But if you can handle the sexual abuse topic, it is a well acted, suspenseful and very interesting movie. Both Richard Gere and Claire Daines are very good in it. And although the subject matter is not for the faint of heart, the movie doesn't go out of its way to be brutal either (like 8mm for instance).<br /><br />I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys serial killer and suspense type movies. | 1pos
|
This documentary makes you travel all around the globe. It contains rare and stunning sequels from the wilderness. It shows you how diversified and how fragile our planet can be. The polar bear's future is highlighted at the beginning and at the end of it. After all, its bleak future is closely linked with the consequences of global warming. This documentary is however a simplistic approach of such a serious environmental issue. It can nonetheless be easily seen by young children since it mainly remains descriptive. Scientists might well be disappointed as it is not a remake of Al Gore's documentary "An inconvenient truth" but frankly...what a description!!! A question may then arise: Isn't it worth preserving our world's beauty? Because this documentary proves that in 2007 such a beauty still exists despite the different pollutions. By living in towns and cities we tend to forget that we are part and parcel of this nature. All things considered this documentary reminds us that we own a common treasure called "EARTH". | 1pos
|
When I first picked this film up I was intrigued at the basic idea and eager to see what would happen. I'm a fan of animation and love it when it's successfully merged with live action footage. However, the animation in this film was about all I enjoyed. Although it must be said that the actors' performances were excellent. The visual look - including the animation - gave a wonderfully unnerving air to the piece. However this was quality of unease was lost amongst the overblown imagery, both visual and in the script, that you were practically hammered over the head with. Most annoying about this was the relative lack of importance to the plot. It seemed that the plot was shoe horned in at irregular intervals giving a stuttering effect that detracted massively from the flow of the piece. The voice overs from Felisberto - especially the one at the end - very much felt like a desperate attempt to fill in gaping holes in the plot which had been ignored in favour of side issues such as the whole ant thing (and even that wasn't properly addressed). I'm afraid the whole piece came across as, at best, a 'reasonable first attempt', by a teenager who has spent far too much time reading DH Lawrence. Not what you expect from seasoned film makers at all. | 0neg
|
I've watched this documentary twice - and although I'm an major movie buff, most documentaries don't hold my attention. This film however was mesmerizing. Almost every shot is perfect - saying so much more than an audio commentary (which this documentary does not have).<br /><br />The concept of this film is amazing, I can't praise it enough. Mardi Gras beads - who would have thought?? <br /><br />Amazing and excellent choices of interviews - film footage of a factory in China - the film makes you feel like you are actually there.<br /><br />I'm political aware - and I've read several books on globalization so there wasn't anything in this film that was a surprise to me. However, it's made me think so much. <br /><br />I wish so much too, that this world was a better place.<br /><br />A million kudos to the filmmaker - and thanks for making this film too.<br /><br />I wish everyone could see it. | 1pos
|
Gino Costa (Massimo Girotti) is a young and handsome drifter who arrives in a road bar. He meets the young, beautiful and unsatisfied wife Giovanna Bragana (Clara Calamai) and her old and fat husband Giuseppe Bragana (Juan de Landa), owners of the bar. He trades his mechanical skills by some food and lodging, and has an affair with Giovanna. They both decide to kill Giuseppe, forging a car accident. The relationship of them become affect by the feeling of guilty and the investigation of the police. This masterpiece ends in a tragic way. The noir and neo-realistic movie of Luchino Visconti is outstanding. This is the first time that I watch this version of `The Postman Always Rings Twice'. I loved the 1946 version with Lana Turner, and the 1981 version, where Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange have one of the hottest sex scene in the history of the cinema, but this one is certainly the best. My vote is ten. | 1pos
|
Claire Denis's Chocolat is a beautiful but frustrating film. The film presents a very interesting look at the household of a European colonial family living in Cameroon, giving the viewer an informative perspective on the lives of many characters and their interaction. However, the development of these characters is often maddeningly insufficient. For example, a central theme in the story is young France's inability to form strong relationships with others. Although this portrayal is executed flawlessly, notably in the way that Denis frames the story with scenes from France's return to her childhood home, the girl's lack of intimacy with the film's other characters makes it difficult for a viewer to invest much interest in her development (or lack thereof) as a protagonist. The general stagnation of the film's character development makes it difficult to become engaged in the loosely organized plot. The film raises a great deal of tension between characters, particularly between Aimee and the men in her life, but never fully addresses this social friction, leaving the viewer unsatisfied. The final few scenes are powerful but depressing. Denis's work is certainly interesting from an intellectual and historical standpoint, but if you are looking for a film with adventure or drama, Chocolat is definitely not the best choice. | 1pos
|
I won't describe the story, as that has been done elsewhere. We are great Clive Owen fans, and when our Netflix recommended the movie, we were intrigued. <br /><br />No wonder we had never heard of this "movie", because it was a BBC Television movie back in 1992. Hence, the poor production values, grainy image , jerky camera work and poor sound.<br /><br />But, you don't really mind the mechanics, because the story itself will put you to sleep. It's an interesting human story, but not at all compelling, and there is hardly any ending. You don't really care for the characters as their lives are as boring as your life watching this tedious movie. Save the two hours and do something to make the time more worthwhile. | 0neg
|
"A Guy Thing" tries to capture the feeling of "There's Something About Mary" or "Meet the Parents" but comes off more like it was edited up out of cutting-room rejects of those two films. Thankfully I rented it on a 5-day rental because I couldn't sit and watch more than 20 minutes at a time.<br /><br />The premise is decent and I liked the scenes where other guys automatically cover up for Paul's missteps (the checker at the Save-mart was great) but the script-writing is absolutely horrible. The dialog falls flat most of the time and just when you think that things are finally going to get on track some needless sight-gag is stuck in for no good reason. Plus how many toilet jokes does one movie really need?<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, slapstick humor is great when it's smartly done as in the other films I mentioned, but this movie simply misses the mark. Too bad as I love Julia Stiles (Ten Things I Hate About You was great) but even that couldn't help me sit through this terrible movie. Save your dollars and go rent "There's Something About Mary" one more time. | 0neg
|
A vampire's's henchman wants to call her after falling in love with a five-dollar hooker in this extremely low-budget horror-comedy. I can't explain all the positive comments on this movie. I'll chalk it up to mass hallucination, but it's disconcerting none the less. The one redeeming factor (and this is me being extremely generous here) might be the Grandfather who's the only semi-likable character in this whole mess. Don't waste your money, or time. In fact here's a word of advice, If Troma puts it out on DVD, but does NOT make it themselves, in all likelihood it's crap.<br /><br />Troma DVD Extras:Commentary with Omar and Kirk; second commentary with cast and crew deleted scenes; bloopers; troma interactivity; radiation march; Clip from "Terror Firmer"; Theatrical trailer ;Trailers for "the Rowdy Girls", "Teenage Catgirls in Heat", "Cannible: The Musical", and "Toxic Avenger 4" <br /><br />My Grade: D | 0neg
|
After seeing the credits with only one name that I recognize and that was the preacher in this film (Russ Conway), I did not expect much from this film and I was not disappointed. A man is planning on killing his new wife by convincing other people that she is insane and will take her own life. Unbeknown to the husband is that the plastic looking skull that he uses, in contrast, a ghost of a woman apparently his first dead wife has revenge on her mind and uses a real skull. A simple plot with a twist of irony at the end. If you are tired late one night and in need of sleep, this will help you to sleep that sleep. | 0neg
|
This is a very good movie. Do you want to know the real reasons why so many here are knocking this movie? I will tell you. In this movie, you have a black criminal who outwits a white professor. A black cop who tells the white professor he is wrong for defending the black criminal and the black cop turns out to be right, thus.
making the white professor look stupid. It always comes down to race. This is an excellent movie. Pay no attention to the racist. If you can get over that there are characters who are played by blacks in this movie who outsmart the white characters, then you shouldn't have any problems enjoying this movie. I recommended everyone to go see this movie. | 1pos
|
Three sergeants in the British army stationed in India, are sent out to stop an uprising of a tribe of murderers known as the Thuggees. One of the sergeants, Cutter, leads away from the camp in search of a golden temple and is captured by the Thuggees lead by the sinister Guru. Gunga Din, the regiment's water boy, goes back to the camp for help and the other two sergeants go after him, but are also captured. Now the major sends a full detail out after the three, but do not realize that they are walking into a trap set by the Thugees. It is though, Gunga Din who saves the day. Excellently made buddy film, even though it is today politically incorrect. Grant, McLaglen, and Fairbanks do give very humorous and thrilling performances with Jaffe very well in the title role and Cianelli very sinister as Guru. Rating- 10 out of 10. | 1pos
|
After all the crap that Hollywood (and the Indies) have churned out, we finally get a movie that delivers some scary moments. There are some clichéd moments, but I'm not sure it's possible nowadays to make an entirely original movie. There's not much new here...it's just done well.<br /><br />Make sure and pay attention, as the "subtle" scares come quickly and often. This is not a movie to watch while you're eating pizza.<br /><br />There's one very well-written red herring in this movie and, unfortunately, one very poorly-cast role. Cheri Christian just doesn't make an effective Julie (the wife/mother). For one thing, she's totally unsympathetic. I know, I know...she's just gone through a traumatic experience. But the viewer never gets to know her as she "normally" is and the relationship between her and her husband is rather discomforting (in an unintentional way). I think that the director had meant for us to have some sympathy for her, but I never did.<br /><br />Finally, a thumbs-up for the ending, which is both disturbing and satisfying. It could easily have been cheapened with a sound effect at the beginning of the end credits, but the director wisely resisted.<br /><br />This is not a masterpiece by any means, but it IS a good, old-fashioned scary movie...something that's rather rare nowadays. | 1pos
|
R O B O T J O X.<br /><br />Burn the master.<br /><br />Grotesquely horrible.<br /><br />No ending; no closure.<br /><br />Completely and utterly the worst movie ever made.<br /><br />Replaces "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" as the worst movie of all time.<br /><br />I hate this utterly unacted, unedited, unscripted, undirected, unproduced mess of a thing called "Robot Jox" - and I just found out - THEY MADE A SECOND ONE!?!? I apologize to Adma Sandler (Zohar the Beauticin) and Eddie Murphy (Pluto Nash) for hating their movies. This mess of a thing makes those movies only bad - not terrible horrible and grotesque like this thing. This is the only movie for which I have ever said this - REMOVE IT FROM NETFLIX - NOW!!! 10,000 out of 10 people found this comment helpful. | 0neg
|
Before I start, I should point out that I know the editor of this film. We've never met, but we belong to the same fanzine(those things which came before message boards), and we have talked on the phone, so I do have a bias here. Anyway...<br /><br />Somehow, it's ironic how while the "Rat Pack" culture of the late 50's and early to mid-60's made a comeback in the mid-90's, this movie, from the son of one of the original Rat Pack, and which was made in a similar fashion, was a flop. Not only that, it was a critical flop; I believe Peter Travers of Rolling Stone was the only one who did not savage this(he gave it a mixed review, as I recall). And while I don't think this is the greatest film in the world, and I am not a fan of the Rat Pack, or "cocktail," culture, I do think this is worth seeing.<br /><br />For one thing, this looks stylish, and moves right along. For another, the core performances are all good. Richard Dreyfus is surprisingly restrained here as the head gangster coming back from a sanitarium, and has a droll edge to him. Jeff Goldblum goes back to the quietly ironic performances he gave in his pre-blockbuster days, like THE BIG CHILL. And while Ellen Barkin is only required to vamp in this movie, she does it entertainingly. Admittedly, it's not a great film; the dialogue is mostly made up of puns, and a lot of them don't work(like the whole "Zen of Ben" speech). And Gabriel Byrne and Kyle MacLachlan are awful here. Still, I was entertained, and if you like gangster films, you might be too. | 1pos
|
Damn, was that a lot to take in. I was pretty much mesmerised throughout. It was pretty perfect, though I would say the editing had a lot to do with that. I can't believe this guy stayed on good terms with the lot of them (Anton especially) to get all of this footage without any serious... beef. The Dandy's did come off well-together, middle-class kids who took advantage of their situation (and rightly so!). I felt bad for Jonestown and especially for Anton, which maybe wasn't what a lot of other people felt. Great piece of film-making and great choice of subject(s). I recommend this to any music/film fan. You'll probably learn something about film-making. | 1pos
|
When I rented "Unhinged", I was expecting a gore movie. The box even claimed that the movie had extreme scenes of violence that were cut from the theatrical release (I now have serious doubts about this being released in the theater). After finishing the movie, I wondered how it could even receive a video release.<br /><br />The plot is as follows: A group of three young women on a car trip crash their car into a tree. These women somehow manage to make their way to a mansion, which contains an extremely sexist woman. Beyond this point, the movie is mainly composed of useless scenes that are intended to make the movie long enough for release.<br /><br />One of the things that makes this movie awful is the acting. Lisa Munson, who plays the main character, looks as though she is reading her lines off cue cards. The others acting is bad, but not nearly as bad as hers. Another thing that makes this movie bad is the camera technique. Many shots are taken by cameras attached to the ceiling. This gets very annoying as the movie progresses. On top of all that, there is very little gore, which makes the box very misleading. <br /><br />Don't waste your time on this one. My rating: 1 out of 10 | 0neg
|
This show is wonderful. It has some of the best writing I ever seen. It has brilliant directing by Dvid Trainer who also directed another smart television series called BOY MEETS WORLD.<br /><br />This show is with out a dought one of the greatest. Like THREE'S COMPANY, ROSEANNE, and the famous COSBY SHOW this will be on television for a long time to come.<br /><br />From it's perfectly crafted jokes to the great performances you would only dream of this is a wonderful show for people who lived in the seventies and the people who didn't. This show appeals to the young and the young at heart. A perfect show. | 1pos
|
Gayniggers from Outer Space is pretty much summed up by its name. Running only 27 minutes long, it describes a spaceship of gay blacks that come to Earth to free the men from women. While I see a little significance to the plot, it also is really illogical. Granted, its meant to be a comedy/spoof on society and science fiction. I found myself laughing several times, so it succeeds there.<br /><br />The special effects are horrible. When the spaceship is floating above the Earth, you can see stars zoom by for no apparent reason. The asteroids shown in the beginning look fake, the equipment on the ship is illogical, there are several misspellings in the text, the actors are unconvincing, the characters are messed up; in general, the whole thing doesn't take itself seriously. If you get past all the aspects that make it a bad movie, its very accessible and easy to see through to the end. Some parts are hilarious. But overall, the only thing that you are left remembering is that it was one of the most ridiculous concepts ever.<br /><br />Seeing that its a short film and has some funny aspects, its not the worst thing to see. But its illogical and holds little long-term value. I can't really recommend it; if you do watch it, do so for the unique concept, not the quality. | 0neg
|
I go to a lot of movies, often I bring my 5 year old son, I am so glad I did not bring him to this one. There are many references to sex and a skinny dipping scene, however, that is not the primary reason I would not take him to it. The trailers lead you to believe it is a light-hearted comedy; nevertheless, virtually all of the funny moments are in the previews. I kept waiting for it to get interesting, funny, or anything but serious; however, I nearly fell asleep as the plot-less story dragged on. I understand that dogs can be great company, that being said, the entire story focused on a poorly behaving dog that the owners were not savvy enough to train. If a human caused this much damage and mayhem that person would be banned. The worst movie I've ever seen with Jenifer Aniston or Owen Wilson, a waste of their talent. The best way to sum up this movie is, couple gets unruly dog, couple falls in love with dog, dog dies, couple sad. The End. | 0neg
|
Slasher films are often seen as the derivative, repetitive and frankly unoriginal. I happen to to be a horror movie fan, but this film was just so poor, words fail me. The script is severely lacking, the plot is ridiculous, the acting astoundingly bad. Just an all round stinker, that I wasted time of my life on. This had all the entertainment value of a 15th sequel to a film that was dire in the first place. <br /><br />Who greenlit this mess?<br /><br />I only liked two things in this movie. The first was the killer's mask - which was nice. The second was the Austrailian affinity with humourous profanity.<br /><br />Save yourself, and avoid this hideous mess. | 0neg
|
A great addition to anyone's collection.<br /><br />12 monkeys is a movie you don't see every day. It has excellent actors to go with a excellent story. This is not a normal role for Bruce Willis but he holds the role like he holds John McClane.<br /><br />The virus-kills everyone on earth and leaves a few hundred survivors story is not a new one but the story takes a fresh new direction on it.<br /><br />A man(Bruce)is sent back in time to get information on a virus which has wiped out most of man kind.<br /><br />The actors in this were awesome. I must give a mention to Brad Pitt who was hilarious as the mental patient James Cole(Bruce) meets in a mental hospital.<br /><br />The director did an amazing job on bringing us a disturbing picture of a future devastated by a man-made virus.<br /><br />The animals seen in the virus world made it feel like they run the world when humans are driven into underground facilities.<br /><br />This movie was excellent and must see and also its a must own.<br /><br />I very much highly recommend it.<br /><br />10/10 | 1pos
|
This movie was so poorly written and directed I fell asleep 30 minutes through the movie. The jokes in the movie are corny and even though the plot is interesting at some angles, it is too far fetched and at some points- ridiculous. If you are 11 or older you will overlook the writing in the movie and be disappointed, but if you are 10 or younger this is a film that will capture your attention and be amazed with all the stunts (which I might add are poorly done) and wish you were some warrior to. The casting in this movie wasn't very good, and the music was very disappointing because it was like they were trying to build up the tension but it didn't fit at all. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being excellent, 1 being horrible) the acting in this movie is a 4. Brenda Song is talented in comedy, but with this kind of movie, in some of the more serious scenes, her acting was laughable. When she made some of her "fighting" poses, I started laughing out loud. I think the worst thing about this movie is definitely the directing, for example, the part where her enemy turns out to be the person the evil villain is possesing, how her voice turns dark and evil, I think that was incredibly stupid, and how Wendy's (Brenda Song)teachers were all her teachers at school being possessed by monks, that was pretty ridiculous to. So to sumamrize it all, a disappointing movie, but okay if you're 10 or under. | 0neg
|
Now, it would be some sort of cliché if i began with the bit about the title, so i'll wait on that. First, this movie made me wonder why kids do stupid things like wander around in labs and break bottles. Then i realized it, this is a movie with a message, that message is beat kids and things like this won't happen. Things like what you ask? Things like a giant insectish monster growing up and causing a bit of mayhem before dying in the typical "kill the monster indirectly" fashion. Now, as promised... Blue Monkey... has nothing Blue in it nor any Simian of any kind. Now it snot like i was cheated or anything. The picture on the cover had a giant bug/crab/idiot/thing on the front chasing some screaming nurses. That kinda happened but i wanted apes! having just enjoyed MOST EXTREME PRIMATE a few nights before(half drunk on Cask and Creame's brandy mind you) i was in the mood for more monkey hijacks 80's style. Not so much. If you like snow boarding apes or blue things this movie is not for you. If you like bugs and good reasons to hit kids, rent this. | 0neg
|
Another movie that relies upon the trite, worn-out cliché of the mad scientist gone madder. The movie centers around a surgeon whose life's ambition is to bring the dead...back to life. I know, I know...you've never heard that one before! Of course, as all of these movies go, the experiment goes very, very wrong and creates a maniacal, bloodthirsty creature. For this promising setup, you'd think that it'd be at least a bit suspenseful. Wrong. Like many movies of this era, the idea is nice, but the execution and the script is mediocre. Not the worst horror movie I've seen (no, Abominator: the Evilmaker 2 still takes the cake)...but not one of the gems, either. | 0neg
|
A somewhat fictionalized biographical portrait of Abraham Lincoln's early years from Director John Ford, concentrating primarily on a trial in which the young lawyer defends two brothers accused of murder.<br /><br />The film offers an interesting portrayal of this important American figure and the film is well made, but seems somewhat incomplete without any of the great moments from his presidency or even his debates with Stephen Douglas. The obvious intent was to portray Lincoln as young man developing the attributes that would make him the great man he would become. But the result for me was that while I admired the portrayal it just wasn't as satisfying as I think it could have been with a greater scope.<br /><br />In the role of Abraham Lincoln we have Henry Fonda who effectively displays a quiet strength. Fonda's performance includes some gangly mannerisms' and other affectations which are fairly effective in presenting a portrayal of Lincoln, particularly when combined with some effective makeup and the costuming which occasionally is a bit to overt.<br /><br />The supporting cast is solid and surprisingly does not include that many of Ford's regular supporting cast (sometimes referred to as his stock company) but we do have Ward Bond one of the most prolific character actors in Hollywood. Bond has appeared in more of the AFI Top 100 Films than any other actor, both the original and revised list. He has also appeared in 11 Best Picture Nominees.<br /><br />The film features one scene that would seem to have inspired a quite similar scene in "To Kill a Mockingbird", where it would be done even better than it is here, even though that scene is one of the most effective in this film. | 1pos
|
Before writing this review, I went back and reread the reviews of others. This movie was a particular disappointment to me, since it features two of my favorite dancers, Gene Kelly and George Chakiris, boasts a score by the often wonderous Michel LeGrand ("Wuthering Heights," "Ice Station Zebra," "The Thomas Crowne Affair"). The dancing was stilted, unmotivated and unoriginal, the songs forgettable, the story a joke. Even the costuming was not particularly flattering. Only the photography correctly captured the proper mood and spirit. I'm glad other people enjoyed "The Young Girls of Rochefort," though I most certainly did not. | 0neg
|
This series could very well be the best Britcom ever, and that is saying a great deal, considering the competitors (Fawlty Towers, Good Neighbours, to name just two).<br /><br />What made Butterflies so superior, even to the best of the best, is that it did not just exemplify great, classic, classy and intelligent comedy, but it also expanded horizons, reflecting - flawlessly, gently, and at every detail - the great social change that was occurring in Britain at the time.<br /><br />I remember watching this show as a teenager and being in awe of everything about it. The lifestyle depicted was remarkable in itself. This was the first time I saw real people using cordless phones. And the wardrobe of all the characters was far removed from the goofy seventies attire still seen in North America at the time. Then there were the decors, shop fronts, cars. These people - even the layabout sons, with their philosophical approach to life and epigrammatic humor - were sophisticated. They were examples of the "New Europeans" that would come to have an impact on life and style throughout the world in the coming decade (1980s).<br /><br />Of course, the premise was strange and fantastic. The idea that someone who was living the suburban dream could be so discontent and restless was revolutionary, particularly to North Americans for whom happiness was always defined as money and things (sure the situation was depicted in American movies and TV, but not with the intensity of Butterflies or the movie Montenegro). And, if the premise was not surprising enough, the means by which it was expressed took it to the extreme. A potential affair that was not really about sex, or even romance? Butterflies dazzled many, but it must have left some people smacking their foreheads in disbelief... at the time anyway.<br /><br />Butterflies turned out to be - in so many ways - prophetic. It documented, ahead of its time - post-modern ennui, all-pervasive lifestyle, the notion of emotional infidelity, and generational disconnect and male discontent (portrayed perfectly by the strained father-son relationships). It is too bad this series has not been rediscovered in a big way, and all those involved given credit for creating a meaningful snapshot of a certain time and place, and foreseeing all the slickness and angst that was to come. | 1pos
|
I have to say that this is one of the best movies I have ever seen! I was bored and looked through the t.v. and found "Home Room" and it was already in about 5 min., but I got hooked. It was so interesting and moving. It shows what can happen in anyone's life. I give it a 10, more if possible. The director/ writer and actors did an amazing job. I think teens should watch this movie and will learn from it. It was great, drama, mystery, and more. I cried for hours! I think that the director/ writer should write more movies like this one. I loved it! I didn't even know about this movie, which is sad because it was so good. I wish it could go in the movies for more people to see. | 1pos
|
This movie was beautiful. It was full of memorable imagery, good acting, and touching subject matter. It would be very easy to write it off as being too sentimental, but that is the sentiments this type of a movie is trying to achieve. I was totally involved in the story's unfolding and presentation. There were a few cheesy shots, but such is to be expected in a religious propaganda film. The only complaint I can conjure is there wasn't a ton of details. However, this movie wasn't created to explain every element of Joseph Smith's life, ministry, triumphs, controversies, failures etc.; it was designed for a quick glimpse at a few highlights of one of the most amazing American and historical religious figures of all time. | 1pos
|
Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) comes to his son's place unexpectedly.His son Ben Kleinman (Paul Reiser) is quite surprised to hear that his mother, Muriel Kleinman (Olympia Dukakis) has left his father.Ben's wife, Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) and his three sisters try to find Muriel while Ben and his father go see a farmhouse that's for sale.But that's not the end of their journey.Their road trip turns into a long therapy session between Ben and his father.Raymond De Felitta is the director of The Thing About My Folks (2005).Paul Reiser is behind the screenplay and he has done a remarkable job.The dialogue between Ben and Sam is just amazing.And he did work with the script for twenty years so no wonder it's this good.Who would be better man to play the father than Peter Falk? Nobody, I can tell you that.And I really love the story on why Paul wanted Peter Falk for the part.Peter was an actor who made his own father laugh.And Peter certainly made me laugh in this movie.It's just hilarious when they go fishing.And how the old guy beats the younger one in the game of pool and then beats him with the stick.The movie is often very funny and I found myself laughing several times.But it can also be touching from time to time.You couldn't tell a story any better than it is told here. | 1pos
|
I haven't seen this, & don't plan to see this movie or any other that includes Lindsay......unless & until "poor little rich girl" straightens out her life for a 2 year period beginning with her most recent arrest in July 2007.<br /><br />In fact, I don't know anyone that has gone to see ANY of Lindsay's recent movies. I rather imagine 2007 will be the high water mark in her movie making career, until she cleans up her act. All of the recent publicity has only hindered her movie making career, if she has any further aspirations to make any more movies <br /><br />Up to this time, movie producers have actively sought Lindsay for roles in their upcoming production. Now, Lindsay will probably have to go to auditions & actually compete for ANY role. Her reputation is currently "poison" & quite possible could have a negative effect on box office ticket sales on any movie she is in.<br /><br />Sooooo....now Lindsay is going to have to deal with "not being wanted".....is she going to be able to handle this?<br /><br />I wonder if even Jay Leno will want to have Lindsay back on his TV Show?<br /><br />All of the foregoing is merely my OPINION. I have no inside information. | 0neg
|
this may not be War & Peace, but the two Academy noms wouldn't have been forthcoming if it weren't for the genius of James Wong Howe...<br /><br />this is one of the few films I've fallen in love with as a child and gone back to without dissatisfaction. whether you have any interest in what it offers fictively or not, BB&C is a visual feast.<br /><br />I'm not saying it's his best work, I'm no expert there for sure. but the look of this movie is amazing. I love everything about it; Elsa Lanchester, the cat, the crazy hoo-doo, the retro-downtown-ness; but the way it was put on film is breathtaking.<br /><br />I even like the inconsistencies pointed out on this page above, and the "special effects" that seem backward now. it all creates a really consistent world. | 1pos
|
Home Room deals with a Columbine-like high-school shooting but rather than hashing over the occurrence itself the film portrays the aftermath and what happened to the survivors, their trauma, guilt and denial.<br /><br />*Spoilers* The shooting itself is treated as a foregone conclusion, with no action footage other than the reaction of an almost teenage SWAT commando after shooting the high school killer. The film has three protagonists; the detective investigating the crime of which no guilty parties are left to convict and two teenage girls surviving the incident, played by a very young Erika Christensen and Busy Philipps.<br /><br />The two girls having nothing in common besides the shooting are put together because of it and the drama ensues.<br /><br />Erika Christensen, though only 24 has been around the block so much that film viewers are pretty much acquainted with her solid and reliable style of acting. Busy Philipps, three years older than Christensen and altogether unknown to me, blew me away with her overwhelming dramatic strength and screen presence. This girl was the part.<br /><br />It's a great movie and it connects to you with its intimate focus on the fragile yet growing relationship between the two traumatized girls. Gus van Sant's Elephant (2003) though good, seems almost superficial and paltry compared to Home Room when it comes to dramatic flair and acting. What I can see this film got very little screen time and exposure - so much more a loss for an equally traumatized America.<br /><br />Ten out of Ten | 1pos
|
This enjoyable minor noir boasts a top cast, and many memorable scenes. The big distraction is the complete disregard for authentic accents. The Spanish characters in the film are played by a Frenchman (Boyer), a Belgian (Francen), a Greek (Paxinou) and a Hungarian (Lorre)! And to top it all off Bacall is supposed to be an English aristocrat! Despite these absurdities, the performances are all very good - especially those of Paxinou and Lorre. But the scene in which Boyer, Paxinou and Lorre meet, and talk in wildly different accents, is a real hoot! And I guess, seeing as how they were alone, that they should actually have been speaking in Spanish anyway! It seems pretty weird that the Brothers Warner couldn't find any Spanish speaking actors in Los Angeles! Of course Hollywood has often had an "any old accent will do" policy - my other favorite is Greta Garbo (Swedish) as Mata Hari (Dutch), who falls in love with a Russian soldier played by a Mexican (Ramon Novarro). Maybe they should have got Novarro for "Confidential Agent" - he would have been great in Boyer's role or at least in Francen's (which would have saved greatly on the dark make-up budget). | 1pos
|
In terms of the arts, the 1970s were a very turbulent era. In literature and the visual arts, it was the closing of a great fifty or sixty year period of creativity that has yet to be restarted. In music it was a decade that many see as a low point, due to corporate rock and disco. On television it was a Golden Age for situation comedies, from The Odd Couple to the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to All In The Family, but in film it was even a greater period of creativity, in all genres, that saw the rise of the American auteur- directors like Robert Altman, Francis Ford Coppola, and Martin Scorsese- from the ashes of the old studio systems that had dominated Hollywood for over half a century. These directors wanted to craft literate, arts films for the masses, of the sort that had been staples in Europe since the end of the Second World War. Yet, the studios were trying to keep pace, with socially aware films of the sort not seen since the 1930s.<br /><br />But, unlike the films of the 1930s, starring actors like Jimmy Cagney and John Garfield (usually co-starring the Dead End Kids), that dealt with social issues in a gritty realistic way, or as realistic as one could get on a sound stage, the social consciousness of the late 1960s and early 1970s manifested itself most in science fiction films, which allowed the Left Wing of Hollywood to preach to the masses under the guise of what most considered little above comic strip entertainment. There was precedent for this approach, for several of the flying saucer films of the 1950s dealt with the political zeitgeist of the McCarthy era- most notably The Day The Earth Stood Still and Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. And the early 1960s saw Rod Serling constantly subverting the political conservatism of the time by casting social issues into science fiction settings on his classic sci fi television anthology show The Twilight Zone. Among the studio offerings of this time were the ecologically sensitive Silent Running; George Lucas's first film THX 1138, which dealt with consumerism, group think, and existentialism; and Logan's Run, which hammered away at Communism and state control versus the rights of an individual. Some of the film's references are quite heavyhanded- and reek of the then current Arab oil crisis and rampant inflation. A few jarred strawberries cost $150, and Soylent rations its assorted colored foods- Soylent Yellow, Soylent Red, and the new Soylent Green, reputedly made from 'the finest undersea growth,' in a manner not unlike the gas rationing of the time. Scenes of food riots are eerie echoes of the oil riots at many gas stations during the year of the film's release, and the scenes of crowding, and bodies, live and dead, lying all about are still chilling, as well as influential. A later film like Escape From New York is an obvious progeny. The rest of the script, by Stanley R. Greenberg, however, is rather pedestrian, and fairly standard for a dystopian flick, but Fleischer and cinematographer Richard H. Kline do a great job of filling the screen with interesting images and sounds, to spice things up. The use of soft, dimly lit visuals, murkily filtered, add a Stygian feel to the New York of the film, almost like a colorized version of Carl Theodor Dreyer's Vampyr. The only light in the film comes from artificial sources, and were it not for the fashion faux pas the film could truly seem timeless.<br /><br />The end of the film, where Thorn sneaks into the processing plant where human corpses are made into Soylent Green wafers, is both chilling, and oddly drama-less. In the end, the Soylent minions hunt Thorn down, but he survives long enough to utter the film's catchphrase to Chief Hatcher. Yet, one does not know if it is enough, for Hatcher has already been co-opted, and has a track record of taking the easy way out. Yet, that fact, and its ambiguity, shows that the film does not recapitulate its characters' dilemmas, and has a depth many later, better made films, sci fi or not, do not have. It is also why Soylent Green is still a film worth watching. | 1pos
|
A mediocre Sci-Fi Channel original picture. A little squirmish, but not much. The nuclear powered submarine U.S.S. Jimmy Carter is on a mission deep below thick frigid ice near the North Pole when it is attacked by giant super charged electric eels. A member of the crew (Simmone Jade Mackinnon)thinks she has devised a way to communicate with the monsters, but is not given much chance for vague reasons. Also among the crew are:David Keith, Mark Sheppard and Sean Whalen. This movie could have been somewhat better if the eels/monsters were not so cartoonish. | 0neg
|
Frank Sinatra was far from the ideal actor for westerns. He was a great actor, From Here to Eternity and The Man with The Golden arm are a proof of that, but he did not have the physique of a western hero, you identified him as an urban guy. But he tried to do his job well in Johnny Concho, the fact that the film was a failure at the box office was not his fault. I blame it on two factors: a) the story was too unusual, specially in the fact that Sinatra behaves more like a villain than as a hero throughout the movie. In a genre where people kind of expected a certain pattern, to break away from it the film has to be very good. b) the story is not convincing, it is hard to believe that a whole town will allow Sinatra to do anything he wants just because they are afraid of his brother. Also when a man shows him a special holster that will open sideways so he has not to draw the gun you wonder that if that will make him invincible, why all the gunfighters have not adopted it? I think that this film should not have been withdrawn, because any film with Sinatra is worth seeing, and in spite of its shortcomings it is still enjoyable | 0neg
|
An unmarried, twenty-something hick (played by John Travolta) leaves the farm and goes to Houston, where he learns about life and love in a Texas honky-tonk. At face value, it's a modern love story ... Texas style. There's gobs of cowboy hats, pickup trucks, neon beer signs, and references to big belt-buckles and rodeos. The music, if not Texas native, is Texas adapted, courtesy of the talents of Mickey Gilley, Johnny Lee, and the Charlie Daniels Band. And that Texas twang ... "y'all".<br /><br />The story and the characters are about as subtle as the taste of Texas five-alarm chili made with Jalapeno peppers. It's enough to make civilized viewers abort the film in favor of a genteel classic, one starring Laurence Olivier or Ingrid Bergman, maybe. "Hamlet" it's not. But "Urban Cowboy" is spicy and explicit, and I kinda like it.<br /><br />Technically, the film is generally good. The dialogue, the production design, and the costumes are all realistic; the editing is skillful. And both the casting and the acting are commendable, if not Oscar worthy. I would not have cast Travolta in the role he plays, but he does a fine job ... ditto Debra Winger. Barry Corbin and Brooke Alderson, among others, are good too, in support roles. But, the cinematography seemed weak. The film copy I watched was grainy, and at times suffered from a reddish/orange tint, a visual trait I have noticed in other films from the same time period.<br /><br />At first glance, the film does not seem to offer any social or political "message". But I would argue that when "Urban Cowboy" was released twenty-five years ago, it had rather prophetic implications. In 1980 the U.S. had all kinds of problems, not the least being American hostages held by Iran. In the minds of a lot of folks back then, the U.S. was being pushed around, bullied.<br /><br />This film, along with others of its time, offered something that Americans wanted to see in their political leaders ... toughness. "Urban Cowboy" is a very physical film. The characters in it may not be the brightest people on Earth. But, they're tough!<br /><br />Everything about "Urban Cowboy" is anti-intellectual. As a vehicle for cultural expression then, this 1980 film was one of several that augured a new get-tough era for the U.S. It started in 1980 with the election of Reagan. And that era continues to this day, with a President who probably will not be remembered for his intellect, but will be remembered for his toughness and aggression, traits that Americans seem to gravitate to as surely as Texans to five-alarm chili. | 1pos
|
One of John's Funniest, Eugene Levy is great in this one as well, Just wish the studio would figure out that this one needs to be on DVD, i have it on video tape, but feel that this film deserves DVD (and extras would be great) the Kung Fu Uuniversity (Kung Fu U) skit is so very funny, as is the entire film, also the scenes he has with his girlfriend and her family are great, this movie never seems to be on TV, but it loses most of it's hilarity when edited for broadcast TV, if you can find the video i would suggest you buy it (ebay is a good place to find a copy) I will keep my VHS until one day we get to see it on DVD. there are so many great movies out there that still have not been released to DVD, and this is one of them. | 1pos
|
Over the years, we've seen a lot of preposterous things done by writers when the show just had to go on no matter what, keeping "8 Simple Rules" going after John Ritter died comes to mind, but this is probably the first time I cared. The idea of having "That 70's Show" without Eric or to a lesser extent Kelso is ridiculous. They tried to cover it up with a comeback of Leo and increasingly outrageous story lines, but it always felt like why bother when you don't have a main character anymore. It just didn't really connect, it was a bunch of unrelated stuff happening that most of the time wasn't even funny. The last season felt like the season too much for every single character, simply because Eric used to take a lot of screen time and now we'd be smashed in the face by how stale and repetitive the rest of the characters were. Focusing on the gimmick that is Fez was thoroughly uninteresting and the character would simply stop working, because the whole deal was that he'd say something weird from out of nowhere, and you can't say stuff from out of nowhere when every second line is yours. They also brought in the standard cousin Oliver, only this time it just wasn't a kid. Whenever you heard somebody knock on the door, you started praying it wasn't Randy, please let it not be Randy. The deal with Randy was that he'd do really awful jokes, usually as Red would say, smiling like an ass and totally screwing up delivery and Donna would be in stitches. I think more than half of the last season was Donna pretending to be amused. The problems had started earlier though: what once was a truly great show with an equally great concept that for once wasn't about a dysfunctional family slowly got into the territory of soap opera. Everybody started being in love with everybody, emotional scenes were dragged out at nausea, with just one usually lame joke placed somewhere to divert attention that we were watching "As The World Turns". I'm guessing this was character development, but come on that was written almost as clumsily as the moral lessons from "Family Matters". To be fair, the last episode, also because it had a cameo by Topher Grace (a cameo in his own show), was really good, even if not that funny either.<br /><br />By the way, yet more criticism on Season 8: what the hell was with the opening theme? Not only did they use the same joke twice (a character not singing), Fez scared the hell out of me. Dude, don't open your eyes that far. But the first five seasons or so,among the best comedy ever broadcast. | 1pos
|
I don't hand out "ones" often, but if there was ever a film that deserved this sort of attention, it's "Gas!" This is self-indulgent crap that reaches for some of the ambiance of M*A*S*H and falls completely flat on its face in the attempt.<br /><br />I see what Corman was going for - Malcolm Marmorstein and Elliott Gould tried to reproduce Gould's deathless role in the original movie version of M*A*S*H with a similar plot (in the movie "Whiffs" - look it up here in IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073891/ for more information).<br /><br />Marmorstein and Gould got closer to the brass ring with "Whiffs" than Corman did with "Gas!" but didn't quite get there. Neither one of those films even got close to the success of M*A*S*H.<br /><br />What's wrong with "Gas!"? What isn't? No one comes close to really acting at a level above junior high school theatrics. The production values stink. Someone else here mentioned the magically regenerating headlights on a getaway car, and there's more of that lack of attention to detail. Nothing works the way it's supposed to in this film, and nobody cares.<br /><br />"Gas!" actually put me to sleep. It's not a sure cure for insomnia, but really close. On the Cinematic Sleep Induction scale, "Gas!" falls somewhere between "Last Year at Marienbad" and George Clooney's remake of "Solaris" (which itself was remarkable for being more boring than the Mosfilm original, despite that studio's seeming unfamiliarity with the idea of keeping the audience's attention by judicious editing).<br /><br />Judicious editing would have decimated "Gas!" to about twenty minutes. The result would be pointless, but no more so than the original film.<br /><br />Certain films are so bad that they have a compelling quality that makes them worth watching anyway. This isn't one of them. Don't waste your time. It's not even amusingly bad. | 0neg
|
"Bread" very sharply skewers the conventions of horror movies in general and "Night of the Living Dead" in specific and is constantly inventive. The production values are a little rough at times (it's a student film, after all), but it never loses sight of its goal to entertain. Hey -- George Romero liked it enough to include it on the remastered "Dead" video tape, laserdisc and DVD... that should tell you something. | 1pos
|
F*ck Me! I've seen some incredibly horrific movies in my time but this takes the p*ss!<br /><br />Honestly I can't express in words how bad this film actually is. Besides the plot that isn't really there, the comically crap acting, the hilariously dreadful excuses for zombies; You know what, I could go on all day. Every little thing in this film is either stupid, pointless, crap or embarrassing. I express to anyone who wants to watch this movie... don't!<br /><br />I'm ashamed to say, I have this on my rack. It's hidden away right at the god damn bottom of the huge pile. I couldn't even give this horse-sh*t excuse for a film away. That's how bad it is. | 0neg
|
Jim Carrey is back to much the same role that he played in The Mask, a timid guy who is trying to get ahead in the world but who seems to be plagued with bad luck. Even when he tries to help a homeless guy from being harassed by a bunch of hoodlums (and of course they have to be Mexican, obviously), his good will towards his fellow man backfires. In that case, it wasn't too hard to predict that he was about to have a handful of angry hoodlums, but I like that the movie suggests that things like that shouldn't be ignored. I'm reminded of the episode of Michael Moore's brilliant The Awful Truth, when they had a man lay down on the sidewalk and pretend to be dead and see who would actually stop and make sure he was okay. The results were not very promising, so it's nice to see someone in the movies setting a good example.<br /><br />Jim Carrey plays the part of Bruce Nolan, the nice guy mentioned above whose entire life seems to be falling apart. Or even better, it seems to be breaking up by the blows of bad luck like an asteroid entering the atmosphere (a little metaphor that comes up when Bruce miraculously finds himself a gigantic news story later in the film). Bruce is nearly 40 years old and all he has to show for it is a position as a news reporter of the sort that reports on such exciting news as the local bakery that's seeking to bake the world's biggest cookie. He's desperate to obtain the job of head anchor at the TV station, but he loses his cool on live TV when he hears that the job went to his rival colleague. You have to love how they time the revelation of this news to him seconds before his first live report. Needless to say, he loses his temper on live TV in one of the funniest scenes of the entire film.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman delivers a fantastic performance as the Man himself, displaying a God whose infinite wisdom is somewhat reflected through Freeman's massive talent as an actor. He is the kind of God who takes his job very seriously, but in such a way as to advise his followers (as well as the viewers of this movie) that there are times when you need to slow down and do some manual labor in life. I love his line that some of the happiest people in the world come home smelling to high heaven at the end of the day. There are a lot of people in the world (maybe more than our share in America) who are so absorbed by their money and their possessions and their jobs and everything that they completely lost touch with the natural side of themselves as humans.<br /><br />One of the biggest strengths is that the movie is able to provide great advice to people in general about improving their lives, and this message is clear and acceptable regardless of the viewer's religion. I, for example, tend to reject organized religion in all forms and I see God and Satan to be metaphors for different aspects of nature and human psychology rather than actual figures who ever lived or continue to live. But despite the fact that I don't believe that God exists as an entity overseeing the universe or as a janitor dressed all in white who mops the floors of his downtown office in his spare time, I was able to appreciate the messages that were delivered in this movie.<br /><br />Jim Carrey's movies display this fantastic evolution that ties them all together and makes the newer ones look even better just because you can see how far he's come. If you compare Bruce Almighty with movies like Ace Ventura (both of which I loved, by the way) or a lot of what he did before he got into film, it's amazing how far he's come. He has moved from cheesy TV comedy to cheesy comedic films to comedies that are truly intelligent and meaningful like this film as well as others like The Truman Show, Man on the Moon, and The Majestic (easily one of his greatest films ever). Jim Carrey has unmistakably moved from the cheesy comedy of his past to become one of the most important comic actors working today.<br /><br />Jennifer Aniston also once again provides an excellent addition to the movie (as she did in the side-splitting Office Space) as Bruce's girlfriend, who becomes increasingly exasperated by Bruce's growing stress about his life as well as his negligence to ask her to marry him. There is definitely some low-brow comedy in the film that doesn't really fit with the importance of the film's meaning or the quality of the delivery, such as the dog reading the newspaper on the toilet and the whole monkey scene, but it was definitely pretty nice to see Ace Ventura's friend Spike make a cameo appearance. As Stephen King very well knows, it's always nice to see familiar characters. It's almost like seeing family again.<br /><br />Bruce is endowed with the powers of God for a given period of time so that he can understand life a bit better, and he says a lot about himself when he uses the powers only for his own purposes rather than to help all of the people who pray to him. The thing I love about this is that, like I said before, religion is absent from my life, but I was able to watch this and learn a lot about myself as well by thinking about what kinds of things I would have done had I been endowed with such powers. The movie allows us to learn vicariously this way, which empowers the message even more.<br /><br />The scenes that involve the news station are easily the funniest in the entire film, such as the scene when Bruce loses his temper about the anchor position, the Jimmy Hoffa scene (who was conveniently buried with an original birth certificate and a complete set of dental records), the scene where Bruce's rival colleague is made to go nuts on camera, and my favorites, the ones at the beginning and the end involving the local bakery's cooking. The movie has plenty of time for Carrey to deliver some excellent jokes, such as when he says to God (who reveals that he's the janitor, the proprietor, the electrician, etc) that his Christmas parties must be real bashes, and to be careful about drinking, because on of him might need a ride home! I also loved the end when he says that behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes. A little too true, and as Gallagher would add, behind every great man is also an amazed mother-in-law.<br /><br />Bruce Almighty is one of the more memorable comedies to have come out for quite a while, and is probably the only directly religious that I can remember seeing that I am anxious to buy on DVD to add to my personal collection. It is a comedy written and performed in good taste, but with enough relatively low-brow humor to keep the kids entertained. This is a meaningful comedy for the whole family, which is becoming rarer and rarer these days. In a world that is about to be flogged with yet another American Pie film AND another Scary Movie (which are only scary because of their sheer barbarous idiocy), it's nice to see that there are still people making comedies worth watching. Don't miss this one. | 1pos
|
This is one of the all-time great "Our Gang" shorts. Spanky is at his very cutest and funniest, and the babies that he get's left to babysit are also hilarious. Tiny Spanky is coerced by the gang into watching all their little siblings. The opening shot of them all in baby carriages, being entertained by various things hung by the gang from fishing poles is a beautiful gag.<br /><br />Spanky's appearance wearing his huge toy knife when asked to babysit by the older fellows is priceless, as is his response --"Hey, where do you get that stuff -- I don't take care of no babies!" The tiny fellow saying "remarkable" throughout the film, all the beautiful sight gags, and Spanky telling the babies "all about Tarzan" add up to make this one of the best "Our Gang"'s you'll ever see. | 1pos
|
After hearing the word of mouth of just how bad this film is I took the plunge and bought the DVD. That said everything previously mentioned about this film is true. For a film that claimed to have a budget in the millions it just does not show on the screen at all. The list of problems with the film could drag on forever. Chief amongst them is the film is simply too long. It dragged on for a few minutes short of 3 hours. Nearly an hour probably could have been cut off the run time had the editor simply removed the overabundance of scenes dealing with nothing more then the main character wandering around aimlessly. <br /><br />Secondly, as many had pointed out from the "trailers", the special effects are anything but special. The tripods looked OK in a few shots here and there but beyond that everything was grade-Z 1970's or 1980's quality. Probably the worst effects of all were the horses, which stiffly tottered back and forth as they moved. The heat ray effects were laughable, as people were reduced to bones that somehow were still able to flail about without any muscles. Also pitiful was the Thunderchild sequence, in which the Thunderchild, described in the book as an ironclad ram, looked nothing of the sort. Instead it resembled a World War 1 era destroyer, complete with deck guns (which fired but had no visible crew), and torpedo tubes. <br /><br />The colors and backgrounds were just as bad as the effects. Most laughable of all was a scene early on in which the main character and his wife go for a nighttime stroll and he points out Mars to her in the sky. Well, the sky is black, but the views of the characters and the landscape around them is broad daylight. There is also a very sharp demarcation between the real landscape, bathed in full sunlight, and the fake black night sky with overly large fuzzy stars. To detract even further, the color of the scenes made no sense. In some they are bathed in orange light. In others green light. In still others it's blue light. In some instances the outsides are orange lit but the interiors of houses are green or blue. The frame-rate and camera is very shaky, giving everything a stuttering look.<br /><br />Finally, the acting is overall sub-par. One man portrays two characters who's sole difference was one lacked a mustache. This led to some confusion at times as to who was who and where they all were. The English accents, even to American ears, are outrageous. <br /><br />In summary, this movie could very well make a claim to being the worst film released in recent times. I have not seen Gigli or some of the other recent flops but this one, because of it's poor quality in every respect, must easily be worse then anything that mainstream Hollywood has put out. I would not be surprised if the movie makes it to the bottom 10 or 20 in the IMDb rankings. It's a pity that Mystery Science Theater is not still around. | 0neg
|
Some critics found this film bleak, but for me there was enough good humour and optimism to overcome this impression. For example, the quietly positive and stoic character of the daughter is the still centre of the film, often counterbalancing the unhappy aspects of the setting and plotline.<br /><br />The film is full of original ideas and characters, and the final outcome is not predictable: I felt it could've gone either way.<br /><br />By the way, many reviews I've read mention the effective use of black and white, but the print I saw, shown on the SBS TV network here in Australia, was in full colour.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
Sequels hardly ever live up to the original. This definitely proves true in this case. However, if you're a big fan of the original than definitely give this a watch. Although the camera work is lacking, Brian Krause's character is annoying, and the plot is clique, it's much more funnier than the first and that is what I find entertaining about it. <br /><br />Don't see this movie expecting the same performance as in the first film. Quite frankly it's a bit different. Rather than sitting in his cabin writing screenplays, Stanley is off in Hollywood trying to direct his dream project, Cabin by the Lake. This movie has a much different feel but it's still great to see Stanley back in action.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 6 out of 10. | 1pos
|
Honestly, I can't be bothered to spend my time writing about this milestone of cinematic incompetence - life is simply too short. What I will say is that, Alone In The Dark succeeds in only three things: 1. It will make you laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. 2. It manages to throw several useless plots into the air but dropping all of them.<br /><br />and<br /><br />3. It utterly disgraces the classic PC game on which it is supposedly based by being a complete failure in all aspects of film-making.<br /><br />Doctor Boll, if that is indeed what you are (I'm thinking proctology here), what on Earth are you doing in a director's chair? | 0neg
|
I love Memoirs of a Geisha so I read the book twice; it is one of the best book I've read last year. I was looking forward to the movie and was afraid that reading the book would ruin the viewing pleasure of the movie. I wasn't expecting the movie to be that bad. Some of the best part of the book was omitted from the movie and the characters were weak with Hatsumomo (Li Gong)been the worst. If I haven't read the book, this movie would be a little confusing and inexplicable. The Plot Outline of the movie states "Nitta Sayuri reveals how she transcended her fishing..." Did anyone see how or when Sayuri became Nitta Sayuri? Forget the movie and read the book. | 0neg
|
very few chess movies have been made over the last couple of years ,but this one is more than just a chess movie its a story about the need to be loved and the need to win it,John Toturro plays a psychologically challenged man ,nothing matters to him accept 64 squares and 32 pieces ,the game validates him as a person ,when he looses a game he looses the one thing that makes sense to him and John Torturro expresses this in a beautiful fashion,even the love of a woman was not enough to save him from his sad existence.It makes you wonder if there other Luzon's out there who obsess about the game,i am sure they are,if you are a chess enthusiast it won't hurt to watch it.Its an intelligent piece of work laid out properly and executed well,it achieves its objectives,unfortunately i doubt if there will be sequel. | 1pos
|
Just a regular Jason lee movie, There were some parts of the movie that were funny. The undertone of the move is to live life on the edge I guess. These are the types of movies that I think 14 year old girls watch at slumber parties. It was an all right movie. It is kind of one of those movies you have on in the back ground and look up every now and then to when something catches attention. I think That Julia stiles and Selma Blair are a good combination and would like to see them in a movie with a good story and plot. Its just kind of a boy meets girl movie. This is that perfect movie they would show on comedy Central. I am glad that I didn't see this movie in the theater, I would have been angry. But I guess that's why I didn't see it in the theater. | 0neg
|
Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.<br /><br />'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliché in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.<br /><br />Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliché. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.<br /><br />'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin. | 0neg
|
In my years of attending film festivals, I have seen many little films like this that never get theatrical distribution, and they end up in the $3 bins at WalMart. I just found DVD of Yank Tanks there, great doc, but how sad for it to end up as a rock-bottom remainder.<br /><br />I loved this film, wish I'd seen it at the cinema in it's everything. I'd have preferred that New Yorker Films had translated the title directly. It's good for Americans to stretch a little. If the film's title helps the US audience to explore random chaos, all the better. Cinema imitates life & visa versa.<br /><br />Also, I found it distracting that the subtitles put prices in dollars. Come on! The euro is not hard to figure out, make the gringo audiences do the math. Seeing a film, especially one shot in Paris, the viewer should not have the effect spoiled by being reminded: I am an American watching a movie and they are translating the Euros into dollars for me. <br /><br />Looking forward to seeing more of these actors and more from the writer & director as well. | 1pos
|
i love bed knobs and broomsticks so much that it makes me cry a thousand tears of joy every time i have the magnificent pleasure of seeing it. i would also like to reiterate the simple fact that i love it so much.too much some have said. i have 27 copies on video and i love them all equally. i also love anyone else who loves it. i love you. my favourite scene is the dance scene at portobello road. i have learned the dance moves and practice it everyday. i have some audio recordings of myself singing the song. if anyone can play the drums or guitar i am thinking of forming a bed knobs and broomsticks band.i hope to call it 'the knobs'. love me (liz) | 1pos
|
Oh the hilarity! Oh the joy! Another film that is so bad it's good! Or, so I thought. In actual fact, this one misses the "so bad its good" phase and goes, sadly, straight to the "could have been so bad its good, but they screwed it up and made it plain bad".<br /><br />For a start its way too long. Cut half an hour and it might have been more endurable. Then put in such ludicrous plots as "the man who is sabotaging the mission to save the Earth, because he has all the food stockpiled and he'll be rich if the mission fails!". Duh!. Or the "talking bomb" plot device last seen in Dark Star. Guess what....just like in Dark Star, the bomb has a malfunction.....hmmmm. Add in a dash of "we can't act our way out of a kindergarten play" and you have Solar Crisis in a nutshell.<br /><br />Light relief is to be had in the form of Jack Palance (or Jack Pants, as we called him in this flick), whose sole purpose in the film is to drive a kid around the desert and telephone the kid's dad to come pick him up....eventually. Between driving and phoning, Jack dispenses pointless drivel and leers and cackles a lot, but contributes little to the story, such as it is. In short, he's the best bit of the movie.<br /><br />My award for "The Most Ironic Line Delivered Straight-Faced" goes to Charlton Heston, who, when meeting his eldest son for the first time in ages, comments that his son looks a little "out of shape" whilst he himself is standing there with his gut bulging over his waistband and in dire need of a Captain Kirk Corset.<br /><br />Also amusing is the bad guy's top henchman, who has a bright white hairstyle that kept making me think of Andy Warhol, for some reason.<br /><br />Apart from these hilarities, there's little to recommend this movie. The ending is a sequence copied from (but mercifully shorter than) the end sequence from 2001.<br /><br />Tips for enjoying this movie more, if you are foolish enough to watch it, like I did:<br /><br />1. Any time the bomb speaks, imagine it's called Tarquin (Trust me, it works!)<br /><br />2. Whenever Chuck Heston is on screen and about to speak, pre-empt him by reciting a line from Planet of the Apes such as "Get your filthy paws off me!" or similar.<br /><br />3. Whenever the female lead is looking stressed (this is most of the time) keep hoping against hope that she's having an aneurism and will die soon.<br /><br />4. During the interminable "the ship's broke again" scenes, keep hoping the tech/engineer guys will spout a Scotty-ism like "You cannae change the laws of physics!" or some such crap.<br /><br />Other than that, do what it takes to get you through this one. I dozed off half way through and woke to realise I hadn't missed anything, nor had the plot (laughable though it is) advanced any. So don't worry about tuning out for a few, you won't miss anything. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits