text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Oh how awfully this movie is! I don't know if it is a horror film or a drama, cause the story and the both genres are not established very well! The story is not moving, it is slow, boring, and sleepy from the beginning to end. This movie really bores me! But I really liked the camera work, it is authentic, fresh and clear, the acting is great too, the little boy was the great performer in this movie, but it hasn't made me to jump from my seat. But this movie makes me grab a pillow, lay on the bed and sleep until the credits roll...<br /><br />Boring! Not worth watching! I tell you, this movie sucked!<br /><br />1/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Way back at the dawn of human civilization cavemen sat around and made lame jokes, hit each other over the heads with what ever they could grab, and women were never seen and apparently at one time had tails. These cavemen lived in a geographically diverse region with a cockatoo, a camel, a monkey - but no women. This film tells of the "hilarious" misadventures of seven(or so) cavemen - having burned their land with the new discovery of fire - moving on by water to a new land where they find this woman with the extra appendage. Along the way we get such "great" moments of comedy like a fat cavemen swallowing a frog that keeps croaking in his stomach. A monkey throwing rocks at their heads. A man swallowing a mouse to get the frog in his stomach. The obligatory "gay" caveman. The list could go on and on. This movie is the very definition of cinematic dreck. I was bored from the onset and it only got worse as the cavemen bobbled around hitting each other, making poor jokes such as puns on the word perch, hitting each other, and mauling poor Seta Berger who looks like she lost a bet to a producer to appear in this nonsense. She is indeed one of two bright spots in this film. She isn't much of an actress so you have to guess why she is an ass-et? The other "bright" spot is the music. As soon as I heard the score, I said to myself that it sounded very familiar. I had never heard the actual score but the music was unmistakably that of Ennio Morricone. It's a nice score and the best thing in an otherwise crude, boring, lewd, unimaginative, and ridiculous film essentially about a group of Moes finding a woman for the first time and, first wanting to eat her like some animal, being taught what she could do. Awwwwh! Sorry, I'm stifling a yawn as I relive the plot! The end of the film has some 100 or so mostly naked women on screen with all the erotic feel of pulling a scab off your knee. This movie was painful to sit through and offers nothing of any real merit whatsoever. The fact that it spawned a sequel doesn't surprise me as it offers that one thing which will prick viewer interest - tail.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'd have little to add to bowlofsoul23's bull's-eye comment here. But as the first Brazilian (born, raised and living in Rio de Janeiro, in a neighborhood just a few miles away from the favela of Vigário Geral, depicted in the film) to comment on U.S.-financed "Favela Rising" here on IMDb, I get mixed feelings: on the one hand, it's good that the dire situation of Brazilian favelas are getting more attention from filmmakers and the media, both from Brazil and abroad, since local governments seem to have given up a long time ago. One the other hand, it's incredibly frustrating that "Favela Rising" turns out to be such a missed opportunity for enlightening Non-Brazilian audiences on the issue, because first-time directors Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary (who are from the U.S. and, understandably, neophytes on the matter) turn the biography of AfroReggae group leader Anderson Sá into a glamorous canonization in this superficial, one-sided, under-researched and misleading documentary. Good intentions, muddled results. "Favela Rising" looks like a TV-ad, is shallow as a prime-time TV interview, and biased as a promotional video.<br /><br />"Favela Rising" feels uncomfortably phony for a Brazilian viewer, and not only because of its hype visual treatment of a bleak reality, and its misplaced feel-good happy- ending. "City of God" is an obvious reference here, with COG actors Leandro Firmino and Jonathan Haagensen cameoing for no apparent reason other than "hype". "Favela Rising" is, allegedly, a documentary about the AfroReggae group and its leader Anderson Sá, but beware: when you see the scenes shot in favelas overlooking the beautiful Rio shore line, you might as well be warned that Vigário Geral (the home of AfroReggae and Anderson) is located in an area of Rio far away from ANY beach. Strange choice of location, to say the least.<br /><br />"Favela Rising" is probably confusing for non-Brazilians, who won't know many of the interviewees (and the film won't tell them either) and will have to wait for the closing credits to find out that many of the songs on the soundtrack are NOT by the AfroReggae Band (though you'll get suspicious when you start to hear Pink Martini, of all people!). They won't know either that important issues were simply left unmentioned: why does the film push the notion that AfroReggae is a one-man project? Why not acknowledge the many partners who supply it with substantial financial and logistic support, like Rio's City Council, private Brazilian corporations, multinational recording companies and international NGOs, without which AfroReggae might not even subsist? Why not state clearly that Vigário Geral is still plagued by violent drug wars, and that its dwellers still live in constant fear of attacks by traffickers and cops? Why not state clearly that many of the archive footage clips showing police violence and corruption did NOT take place in Vigário Geral? HOW and WHY did the kid Richard Murilo finally join AfroReggae? WHY on freaking earth wasn't he interviewed once again at the end of the film?<br /><br />As for Anderson himself, the film leaves a lot of loose ends for the viewer: what's the story about Anderson having "two" mothers? Is the baby he holds in his arms his son? Why is he inspired by Shiva? Is he a Buddhist? Why does a Candomblé woman appear on the beach when the films mentions Anderson's "miraculous" recovery from the accident? Is he a Candomblé follower? Why not let him explain the contradiction of starting a group that fights drugs and simultaneously praises Bob Marley? If AfroReggae is also a pride-building movement for black people from favelas, why are the girls in the AfroReggae band limited to booty-bouncing routines? No, you won't get any answers to these questions either.<br /><br />Instead, the filmmakers are interested in turning Anderson Sá into a composite mix of pop-star, Malcolm X, Gandhi and Christ (check out that last image of the statue of Christ the Redeemer atop Corcovado hill, immediately after showing Anderson "miraculously" walking after his surgery). And that's the WORST thing the filmmakers could do to Anderson and his cause: turn him into a special CHOSEN one (by the time they show his surgery scar, you're ready to believe it's a mark from God). <br /><br />Because what's remarkable about Anderson -- who's the most ordinary guy you could ever meet -- is that he helped change his environment NOT by being "special" but by copying and adapting winning projects (like the Olodum movement in Bahia, among others) to his own community, with strong support by friends, artists, intellectuals, politicians, businessmen and the media. If you're not fluent in Portuguese you probably won't notice that Anderson isn't particularly bright or articulate (unlike his sharply witty partner José Junior), as much as he isn't particularly talented as a singer, lyricist or musician. Yet his "ordinariness" might have been the film's true "inspirational" core: to show that ANYONE with idealism, perseverance and steady support can in fact contribute significantly to his or her community, no need to be Jesus incarnate. Because what really matters is the movement -- AfroReggae -- not the guy, see? Haven't we had enough of personality cult? <br /><br />By the end of "Favela Rising", you probably won't know much more about Rio's favelas than you did when you walked in -- you'll just have SEEN what some of them look like.
| 0 |
negative
|
An old high school teacher of mine used to brag that he'd seen every movie EVER made, so one day a friend of mine and I decided to make up a movie called "Pacific Inferno". Later, we got into an argument whether the lead role was played by Carl Weathers or Billy Dee Williams. Our teacher found the argument interesting, so he came up to us and informed us that the lead role in "Pacific Inferno" was played by Jim Brown. We thought he was trapped in a lie, that was until we went to the library and discovered that "Pacific Inferno" was in fact a real movie. This incident forced me to rent the movie... it's horrible. Our made up movie had a better plot than this piece. Weathers and Billy Dee would have been much better in the picture.
| 0 |
negative
|
Just watched on UbuWeb this early experimental short film directed by William Vance and Orson Welles. Yes, you read that right, Orson Welles! Years before he gained fame for radio's "The War of the Worlds" and his feature debut Citizen Kane, Welles was a 19-year-old just finding his muse. Besides Vance and Welles, another player here was one Virginia Nicholson, who would become Orson's first wife. She plays a woman who keeps sitting on something that rocks back and forth courtesy of an African-American servant (Paul Edgerton in blackface). During this time a man (Welles) keeps passing her by (courtesy of the scene constantly repeating). I won't reveal any more except to say how interesting the silent images were as they jump-cut constantly. That's not to say this was any good but it was fascinating to watch even with the guitar score (by Larry Morotta) added in the 2005 print I watched. Worth a look for Welles enthusiasts and anyone with a taste of the avant-garde.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw this movie many years ago and it has never left my list of all-time best films ever made. When I first watched it, I was just beginning what has become a life-long passion for justice. It gave an interesting perspective of the death penalty and also gave me a few things to think about.<br /><br />When you have a cast like this one, you are right to assume it is going to be nothing short of fabulous. This is, by far, the best role I have ever seen Sean Penn play (along with I am Sam). He nails the role, doesn't glamourize his actions while doing so. He manages to maintain a level of debauchery throughout the movie that I think was very important. Up until the very end, he does not try to be seen as anything more than what he is. He is a sick man who regrets his past, but still makes excuses for it. He ends up able to redeem his sense of self-worth as much as a convicted (and guilty) murderer can through the aid of Susan Sarandon's character, Sister Helen Prejean. Her character taught me about good will towards others without making me forget how horrible a person's actions can be and without making excuses for them.<br /><br />The supporting cast was also top-notch. I was surprised to see a small cameo of Jack Black in this film given the funny-man he has become today! I loved this movie for both personal reasons and just because it was a work of cinematic art. And, in my opinion, this is one of the rare exceptions when the movie far out-did the book.
| 1 |
positive
|
These guys combine low-brow with low-budget. It's glorious.<br /><br />Look- if you want Bergman, rent "7th Seal" or something. If you want to see gross-out humor and exploitation sex, this is the one.<br /><br />I think Jane Jensen as Julia makes it all watchable. She can actually act (really well), she's a complete dreamboat, and she doesn't seem to feel above it all.
| 1 |
positive
|
Yet another in the long line of "Don't" films of the late 70's and early 80's yet this one is much more than that. This film is a highly underestimated low budget schlocker with a twist. It has the grainy quality and bizarre soundtrack that is typical of horror films of the time period but it's the highly underestimated performances of the surprisingly talented actors/actresses that make this movie good. A young nurse arrives at Dr. Stephens' progressive mental hospital right after he has been murdered by one of his patients and all is not what it appears to be. It seems Dr. Masters, a rather ambitious female doctor, has taken over his duties and begun to implement her own ideas. Each of the patients take on their own unique personalities and have their own personality traits and flaws which make for highly entertaining interactions. There is the nymphomaniac, the crazy old crone, the woman with an unhealthy obsession with infants, and a man who has reverted back to his childhood among others. There is also a strange little twist to this bizarre story that later finds the young nurse trapped inside the asylum with the patients running around loose and bodies piling up. If you are a fan of cheap 70's sleaze than this is the film for you!
| 1 |
positive
|
This review contains what might be a spoiler if you never read the book or saw the cover of the video box. So if you want to approach the movie not knowing anything about it, except that I like it a lot, stop here...<br /><br />The production values are not first rate, but the acting between the leads is, and they give the romance between them more life than Shute does in his novel (although I generally prefer the novel). My very faint objections to the film as opposed to the book is that the film dumbs-down some of the relationships with secondary characters, and between the lead characters in a scene toward the end of the film, to provide for some not at all realistic dramatic tension and as a general plot device. All this is handled much better in the book, with the result that I find the end of the book quite a bit more touching than the end of the movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's really not worthy of a 'best picture' consideration, but as entertainment goes, it does the job! This is one that I've watched, with pulse quickening every time, at least a dozen times.<br /><br />Most of these actors were unknown at the time this was done, and we can recognize them from other work. Those that don't have current name recognition probably don't want it.<br /><br />This was a fun ADVENTURE. Sort of like The Little Rascals if they just had to be serious.
| 1 |
positive
|
OK, here is the deal. I love action movies and generally have no problem suspending a great deal of disbelief over plot holes or other implausible actions. However, this movie went far beyond minor flaws and went straight to the ridiculous. Let me get this straight. The police send a notorious gangster and cop killer (along with a number of other prisoners) on a bus with a grand total of two guards. They then are forced to stop at a precinct where precisely two cops are working, one of which is a day away from retirement and the other is a burn out. Apparently the building was about to be shut down so somehow the police decided that everyone else in the entire precinct got the night off for new year's eve. Right. But wait, it gets better. Gabriel Byrne shows up to take out Fishburne before he can rat him and other dirty cops out. (although we never find out anything about their relationship or dealings). Interestingly, the cops launching the assault on the precinct are in full SWAT gear with night vision goggles, assault rifles, the whole nine yards. Later on they even bring in a helicopter with MORE people in full gear. I'm not a cop, but I'm pretty sure you can't just waltz out of the station with an entire swat platoon worth of equipment without someone asking what you are doing. And the police helicopter??? In the supposedly terrible winter storm??? Also, no one near the precinct happens to hear or see this major siege going on with flash grenades and heavy rifle fire going off? I mean seriously, come on. I know this is set in Detroit, but even there it would raise suspicion on a supposedly top secret mission. I also love the fact that they find a Tommy Gun in the evidence room and somehow the gun still works and has bullets that are still intact and usable.<br /><br />I could live with some of these problems if there weren't other glaring issues also. For one, the opening couple minutes of the movie are shot nicely in a very frenetic and hyperactive way and I thought was going to set the tone for the rest of the movie. Unfortunately I was wrong. The remainder of the film has no sense of pacing or tension or drama. The "characters" don't relate to each other in any way which is probably largely due to the fact that they aren't particularly interesting. There isn't enough interesting action to make this a good action movie, and there isn't enough character development/storytelling to make this a passable thriller/drama. The "relationship" between Hawke/Fishburn is the only thing that the director even tries to make interesting or intense. Oh and by the way, the final scene in the wilderness? Uh, I thought this was in the middle of a run down industrial section of Detroit and suddenly we are in the woods?? The acting isn't terrible in this movie, it is just that the directing and writing are atrocious. I really enjoy some of Hawkes, Fishburne, Byrne, Dennehy's other movies but this one is terrible.
| 0 |
negative
|
Wow. I've never seen nor heard of this film. It just came on tv (2:00 am) and I am in complete awe. Setup: a bunch of rich fat cats are out golfing. One knocks a ball into the rough. It lands by a NINJA!!!! A tuxedoed man walks over to pick the ball up. The ninja grabs it. Crushes it in his hand. Man pulls gun. Ninja pulls blowgun. Ninja blows dart into gun barrel. GUN EXPLODES!!!! This is just the beginning of the greatness, people. Everyone must see this movie. 10 big ol fat stars from trusty.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Don't Torture a Duckling" is one of the coolest Italian horror films I've ever seen, and I've seen my share. To call it a giallo is a little misleading because it's not really a typical murder mystery. It's more of a straight horror movie.<br /><br />Complete with one of the most brutal and gory scenes ever in a movie this old, Fulci's twisting and turning film oozes with a creepy ambiance and an old school Italian feel. The setting is perfect: an old Italian village. The music is ridiculously perfect. The finale is genuine and original.<br /><br />After seeing "Don't Torture a Duckling" you really have to wonder how Fulci's later stuff got so off beat. I like all his stuff, but he strayed. Maybe he figured he already did it...Because with this film, he hits the bullseye.<br /><br />I'd recommend this film to anyone who thinks that Dario Argento owns the giallo genre. Fulci beats him with this one. <br /><br />10 out of 10, kids.
| 1 |
positive
|
I never figured out what the attraction of Karen Black was. She always had those beady eyes and kind of an odd look about her. She seemed to often be eccentric or cast as the "other" woman. In this one, she is the psychic adviser and expert on the occult to a crummy producer of bad commercials as he learns astral projection. He is a mean sucker, even without the new baggage. Apparently this is the avenue to immortality, because if you get good at it, you can inhabit the bodies of future generations. I believe Star Trek had a plot like this with Jack the Ripper hanging on for several centuries. Anyway, this guy is really dangerous. He has a nice family and makes them miserable. He begins to murder friends, just because they have an unkind comment for them, or he doesn't like them. You can see the ending coming from the back row in left field. It's a very harsh, humorless movie. Most of it must be taken as truth. Why are some called but few chosen? I found it long and not very satisfying.
| 0 |
negative
|
Ya know, I have no idea how everybody else's teenage life was, but this does not reflect the folks I knew and hung around with let alone, myself. And just in case if you're wondering..NO..we weren't pristine/clean cut/Pat Boone type teens. (If there was ever such a thing!!!!)<br /><br />Look, I'm NOT saying being a teenager is easy. The better, well actually the BEST teen movie of this time is "Fast Times at Ridgemont High". Now those kids I knew and were as realistic as it got back then (and maybe now).<br /><br />This was crap. This was a low rent version of Fast Times and even then it didn't do much for me. It had a few moments, but not enough for me to recommend this, or even claim "this is how it was for teens back in 1982". I couldn't relate. The lead girl (girls) did nothing for me and please if they really wanted to keep their virginity, they would have, in which case, this film would not have been made. Pure crap and a bad staple to be left behind as a time-capsule cinema for teens/young adults in the early '80's.
| 0 |
negative
|
I wasn`t expecting much with HARLEM NIGHTS but I wasn`t expecting it to be as bad as it was . Without doubt the worst aspect is the obscene language , it really is awful the amount there is in this film and before anyone accuses me of being a wimp let me point out two things...<br /><br />1 ) Amongst my fave films I would include GOODFELLAHS , PLATOON , RAGING BULL while my favourite movie of all time is APOCALYPSE NOW<br /><br />2 ) My all time favourite American television show is the HBO prison drama OZ <br /><br />so you see films and television shows with massive amounts of swearing don`t normally bother me but the problem I had with HARLEM NIGHTS is to do with the fact it`s supposed to be a comedy but it seems the production team came to the conclusion that an audience laugh everytime someone ( Especially if that someone is black ) says a rude word and decided to subsitute funny situations with swearing all the way through the film hoping to get a laugh. Well I thought I`d never start laughing and I didn`t
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw FAREWELL TO HARRY at the Plaza Theatre while in New York city and was quite taken. The performance of William Hall Jr. is tremendous. This is a movie for the classic movie goer. Garrett Bennett's direction reminds me of early Barry Levinson and Robert Redford's work. The movie seems to transcend the typical independent film. It has a soul and a visual power that is quite unique. I saw this with a small audience (400) who were captivated from the moment of the first credit to the last and although I wasn't out and out crying (like the lady next to me) I do have to admit I had a little watering in the eyes...<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
Thomas Hardy is one of my favorite authors. Some truly wonderful movies have been made from his novels ("Far From the Madding Crowd," "Tess of the D'Urbervilles," "The Mayor of Casterbridge"), and I had high hopes for this one. The Hallmark-Hall-of-Fame-ification of "Return of the Native" totally wrecked it. The cast was terrific, the photography excellent, but the script was dismal and the direction positively ruinous. People walked up to people, said lines, walked away. A meager excitement developed when Clive Owen and Catherine Zeta Jones (very young, very beautiful) exchanged a bit of flesh-pressing, but even Clive, who is a superb actor, couldn't save it. It was awash with the usual Hallmark "romantic" strings background music and pretend bumpkins offering plot exposition, and what could have been dynamite turned out to be awful. The richness of the above three movies was commpletely absent.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Labyrinth of Passion"--with the possible exception of "Matador "--is Almodovar's best film. It displays his unique personality at its best and least-censored, before he started going more mainstream. Almodovar is just about the only modern director that can approach Preston Sturges' wonderful brand of lunacy. It's pointless to try and explain what the movie is about, the real point being Almodovar's willingness and skill in taking his situations to the outer limits of sanity, and sometimes of plausibility and taste as well.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one of my favorite "Capra-esque" comedies. This movie is just meant to be enjoyed, not deconstructed, microscopically analyzed. It's not religious commentary. It's fun. It's fantasy. The surprisingly negative comments (IMHO) reflect a level of expectation that professional film critics have led us to think must be a part of every movie.<br /><br />Others have described Travolta's role (it's the reason you'll watch the movie over and over) and the excellent supporting cast (including Sparky!).<br /><br />Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; sometimes a movie is just fun.<br /><br />Enjoy!
| 1 |
positive
|
This was the most uninteresting horror flick I have seen to date. The premise is glaringly forgotten after about 1 minute. The acting is terrible. The scariest thing about this movie is when the two guys kiss, yuck! What were the film festival judges thinking when they gave this garbage a 'best film' notation? The only reasons I didn't turn this movie off were to see what NOT to do as a filmmaker, and if the paper-thin plot line could really keep going on as is was. I was not disappointed by this latter notion. There wasn't even a single bit of nudity or gore to keep the kiddies interested! Also, I thought it was tacky to use about 3 minutes of "Resident Evil 2" in the movie... Was that supposed to be filler? 'cause it was the goriest and most interesting part of the movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Harmony Korine. I'm not sure what he was trying to do with this film. If it was to turn my good day feeling into a night of disturbing memories than I guess he succeeded.<br /><br />I know that there were big questions raised in this movie like, who are we really, what are we here for, is there really a God. All great questions, But I really don't think that is funny when you have the questions along side such tragedy. I'm all for real life being portrayed but come on. It's never funny when a wife is being raped, someone killing themselves (and family and friends find the body) and people die for unexplained and unnecessary reasons.<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie was the location it was filmed. There is a lot of beautiful places.<br /><br />I'm not a film student or even know all that much on the subject I admit this, but I do know that when I leave the theater with a feeling of disgust, then it was not a film I would recommend to anyone.
| 0 |
negative
|
Okay wait let me get this street, there are actually some morons on this site who reckon this is one of the better if not the best Halloween sequel. I even read someone saying it was just as good as the original. Pah what nonsense don't believe them I've watched every Halloween and clearly unlike some people knows what makes at the very least a good horror movie and this shower of S is one of the Worst horror movies i have ever seen in my life. Frankly if i was John Carpenter i would sue the person who wrote this either that or go around to his or her place with a hunting rifle. Seriously Halloween sequels in general are nearly all rubbish, two was crap, three was stupid, four is alright, five is well five, H20 alright, Resurrection painful. Yet, in many ways i find this to be the worst of a very bad bunch of sequels. Why? Well let me just embark on some kind of rant not so much a review but a mindless rant on why Halloween 6 the Cure of Michael Myers is one of the most abysmal movies i have seen in a very long time. OK where should i start, ah yes the plot oh boy the plot. Basically the plot is a heaped together mess containing cults, signs of Thor and some other crap. It's just stupid it really is, the film tries to be flashy and intelligent yet, its heaped together in such a horribly made way. Why does Michael Myers got to have a reason for killing people? Simple enough explanation Micahel likes to kill his relatives that would suffice, but no we have to have a man in black and mysterious cults and signs of Thor and utter crap. God its so bad it made me want to cry it really did, the writers have tried to add to the character of Myers but have actually managed to do the entire opposite. Apart from wearing a mask and a boiler suit < which is a completely different colour by the way, Myers just isn't the same guy from the original or even two, heck maybe even four. Thats another thing why has Myers become a Jason Voorhes parody? I thought it was meant to be the other way round, yet Myers is so similar to Jason, all he does is endlessly kill people in gory ways. In the original he teased his victims took his time and as a result the whole thing was far more suspenseful. In this he just walks around hacking people to death. I mean in the space of Half an Hour we had equalled the amount of kills in the original it was just ridiculous. Oh and Myers in this seems to have a really big head, i mean its huge and hes put on loads of weight. What else is crap, oh yeah the return of Tommy Jarvis thats pretty bad, in fact all the characters in this film are crap bar Dr Loomis of course. I can't stand the little kid, i wish he had got it he's really irritating. Our Heroin is boring and not interesting. And her whole family are a terrible bunch of actors. The mother is rubbish, the brother is bad and the Father i mean was this his first part or something? He was like a cartoon villain for gods sake he was actually more evil than Myers < By the way his death is one of the most abysmal i've ever seen i think even Friday the 13th wouldn't come up with something so entirely laughable. What else is rubbish oh yeah Tommy Jarvis, don't know the name of the guy but he really can't act, he tries his best to be serious and all that but i just wanted to laugh at him. I wish he had died in fact if everyone had died it would have been quite good really. There is Dr Loomis a horribly aged and dieing Donald Pleasence by all account. Despite him being on his last legs Pleasance is still the stand out in the brief amount of time he features. Its such a pity that such a corner stone of this franchise had to say farewell in garbage like this. What else is rubbish, oh yeah the bit where the radio DJ gets it. Firstly how the hell did Michael manage to get in that van when five minutes ago he was in his house? Secondly it was just a pointless kill which may boost the body count but is just another peace of nonsense which adds to the drivel that is this film. Its in fact that death which said it all for me in that it was pointless a lot like this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
Do you know what farmers spray on fields ? That's right - Manure , so when the BBC decided to make a much hyped conspiracy thriller about GMOs and farming what we got was some of the smelliest manure the BBC has inflicted upon its audience <br /><br />!!!! SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />FIELDS OF GOLD opens with a bunch of masked scientists in a lab where a female scientist ( According to the right on trendy BBC all scientists are women ) announces " A new strain of wheat that will save the third world from hunger " then the story switches to another equally bland scene . If you're going to make a thriller of any type shouldn't you open with a hook that grabs the audience ? DOCTOR WHO was brilliant at this as was THE X- FILES while 28 DAYS LATER opened with a hook that took place in a laboratory. I guess someone at the BBC didn't think this thriller needed a hook because the viewers had trailers stuffed down their throat for weeks in advance <br /><br />As the ( Not very exciting ) story continues a couple of journalists ( One's a drunken man with morals lower than Bill Clinton and Dubya Bush combined while the other is a female journalist full of virtue ) investigating patients at a county hospital who might be getting bumped off via " Mercy killings " . It's at this point things start getting confused as the female journalist is threatened by MI5 spooks and the first episode ends with the main MI5 spook getting murdered <br /><br />The second episode reveals that the patients at the county hospital have actually been dying due to being infected with a VRSA superbug . This is when things go totally hay wire . All throughout FIELDS OF GOLD the audience have been led to believe the intelligence services and the company shown in the opening sequence have been behind the deaths - But they're not . It turns out the bad guy is an organic farmer who has been manufacturing the VRSA superbug in his bedroom and the story ends via THE MATRIX camera work with the drunken male journalist setting fire to a field ridden with VRSA thereby spreading the superbug throughout the land <br /><br />I find it impossible to say a good word about FIELDS OF GOLD . At the time of its broadcast I was both a member of the Scottish Green Party and Greenpeace . I have since renounced my time in the environmental movement but even now I am somewhat offended by how environmentalists are portrayed here and to have the bad guy spreading a fatal genetically engineered virus as a warning to the dangers of genetically modified organisms is very silly. It's a bit like a CND member letting off a nuke in London to warn of the dangers of nuclear war . I was also slightly offended as to how the male characters were written as being bastards while all the females were highly intelligent and morally superior to men . There's also other problems with the script especially with regard to VRSA . If unlike the scriptwriters you take the time and trouble to research VRSA you'll find it's entirely different from what is seen here . Oh and if you set fire to diesel it doesn't explode like napalm . Perhaps the worst criticism of the script is that it resembles JEEPERS CREEPERS structure wise whereby the last ten minutes contradicts most of what has gone before . Where as JEEPERS CREEPERS only lasted about 90 minutes FIELDS OF GOLD lasted twice that length so is doubly irritating and illogical<br /><br />As a footnote environmentalism never makes a good theme for a thriller ( Anyone remember those Steven Segal movies ? ) and it's about time TV and film producers realized this
| 0 |
negative
|
One of the worst shows of all time. The show would begin with smart ass ed comments to each other that would be totally off the wall and uncalled for. The fat computer geek was unbelievable, the bible thumper, the bad-ass girl, who are these actors??? Never heard of any of them except Cole who was totally unbelievable in the part. Every time he opened his mouth you expect to hear, "you see kids..." Pulling the plug was a mercy killing for this horrible show. The stories were as unbelievable as the actors. Lame would be the best way to describe it. Somehow this show makes a slug like Ice-T more believable as a cop, and he wrote the worst song about cops ever recorded.
| 0 |
negative
|
After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program "Nightline", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.<br /><br />To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.<br /><br />As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of "Gilligan's Island" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for "Homefront". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical "frightened / angry black family". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.<br /><br />In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.<br /><br />Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was one of the worst films I can remember seeing. I am sure I have seen worse, though, if that mitigates me slamming it.<br /><br />The humor isn't funny, there are stupid stereotype jokes that, again, aren't funny. I was a captive audience on a plane and viewed this film. It was a complete waste of time. I enjoyed Martin in earlier films, but not this one. Same for Queen Latifah, she was excellent in Chicago and in Set it Off she was good too, but this role was horrid.<br /><br />I mostly credit the failure to the bad writing of the script. I feel strongly you can't save a formulaic, unfunny script with decent actors, this movie as a case in point. Still, all involved should have been wise enough to not participate in this film. I am just amazed that something so bad can get greenlighted, made, released theatrically, and promoted.
| 0 |
negative
|
There I am sitting at home in the morning, suddenly my brother flips on what appears to be the stupidest looking movie i have ever seen. Considering it was the 70's and special effects weren't to sharpe, this movie just about equaled the definition of crap. The stupid monsters, the stupid story line, and the stupid setting made this the worst movie I have ever seen. So bad in fact I didnt even finish it, I made it up to a certain point then proceeded to see how long I could go without putting a rope around my neck and hanging myself. (im just kidding haha) AWFUL MOVIE
| 0 |
negative
|
An interesting and involved film about a "lifer" just trying to live out his days peacefully. Elements of the main character appear in Michael Mann's later films, like Thief (1981), Heat (1995), and so on. You can see this one at the UCLA Instructional Media Laboratory-- one of the only places in the country that has copies readily available to the public. It's a great one!
| 1 |
positive
|
While it's not "perfect", it's close. Love Barbara Stanwyck, SZ Sakall, Sidney Greenstreet, Dennis Morgan, Robert Shayne (Superman's police chief), the housekeeper, the waiter at Restaurant Felix, and the judge......I can go on and on. This movie has been part of my family's holiday tradition since I was a youngster, and my children grew up with it, too! "The baby swallowed the watch" was always my son's favorite line.<br /><br />Sexy Barbara Stanwyck in pants and gowns stole the show along with the cuddly, funny S. Z. Sakall. Dennis Morgan has a few great songs, too.<br /><br />I highly recommend this movie and suggest you skip the remake (blah).
| 1 |
positive
|
There is really no way to compare this motion picture to any other movie because no one has ever made anything like it and no one ever will. And it really should be seen in a theater to be fully appreciated. At the very least it deserves to be seen with a great sound system.<br /><br />I saw this movie on the day it opened in 1968, my senior year in high school. I went because I like science-fiction and wanted to see a "space" movie. Remember this film was made before the first moon landing.<br /><br />There we sat, waiting for it to begin. But, SURPRISE! There was no cartoon, no coming attractions. The theater owner at the Cooper Theatre for some reason chose to play "The Star-Spangled Banner" with the lights still up so we all stood, never did that at a movie before or since and then sat down again as it ended. Then the theatre went completely DARK and the strange overture began with the blank screen barely visible.<br /><br />The overture ended and my seat began to VIBRATE as the blue screen with the MGM lion appeared, along with the first deep bass notes, and then my senses were overwhelmed, hearing "Also Sprach Zarathustra" for the first time in my life. The ride had just begun.<br /><br />(I highly recommend you watch this opening, this film, in a DARK room with your subwoofer turned up as high as possible to get the effect I felt in that theatre.) Of course, it took quite awhile before we got to outer space and the movie that followed was anything but a science-fiction movie. INTERMISSION came (a good thing, highly under-rated and unused these days) and we all looked at each other in wonder, caught our breath, and then the ride resumed, wilder than before.<br /><br />I saw it 7 more times within the next year, always in a real full size theater, like all theaters were before multiplexes. I might have been "high" once but I didn't go to see it again and again because I was "tripping". I went because I knew I was seeing a work of art. It was SO DAMN BEAUTIFUL; the sound that you could feel in your bones followed by terrifying silence; the sights unimagined and unimaginable; the affection for HAL turning to terror. And of, course, WTF was Kubrick really trying to get across to me? Years and years and many more viewings later, I understand it as well, I think, as I ever will. Read someone else's comments if you're looking for someone to explain it to you or search around the web, you'll find "explanations", that's not my purpose in writing these comments.<br /><br />What I hope to do is encourage you to watch it patiently, enjoy it's beauty the way you would enjoy watching a sunset while listening to the most beautiful music you know of (e.g, Gayne Ballet Suite or the Blue Danube); savor it like you would a wonderful meal, sip it like a fine wine; look and listen for the clues and the hidden symbols that ARE there. And then draw your own conclusions. Stanley Kubrick WANTED to SHARE some things with you that he found beautiful and he wanted you to think about where you. a human, came from and where you're headed.<br /><br />If that's too much work for your brain, and you can't see and hear and ponder the beauty and mystery of Kubrick's film, then, pardon my bluntness, but your life is about as meaningful as that of a tapir or a pre-monolith ape. If you want mindless escape, this isn't for you.<br /><br />But if you like sunsets, thunderstorms, harmonies in music, mysteries, and sensuality and can have an open mind this film will add something to your life.
| 1 |
positive
|
Finally, I can connect the dots between Return of the Jedi and Phantom Menace. We see here where Lucas lost touch with what made the original Star Wars films great and began to descend into the plot less tripe that ruined episodes 1-3. This film is more like one of those cheesy low-budget 80s swords and sorcerer films than anything worthy of being associated with the Star Wars saga. As with the Jar-Jar character, this seems targeted at children (and the toy market). The battle scenes are particularly bad. It was depressing to see Sian Phillips' incredible talent go to such a waste, after her classic performance in I, Claudius.
| 0 |
negative
|
Try as I might, I just simply couldn't get into this one. Perhaps it was the washed out tones; perhaps it was the drawn-out approach--I'm not really sure, but though this was by no means a "bad" movie, I didn't really find it to be very much of an "effective" movie (words that I understand are so much more arbitrary than their common uses).<br /><br />So, basically, the deal here is that a series of adolescent boys' deaths sets off an investigation and anxiety in a small provincial town, triggering a witch hunt. What do the boys' death have to do with the mysterious, sexy woman who has appeared in town? Is the crazy hermit woman involved? Is it voodoo? The story is a mixture of crime drama and horror as the various townspeople are all suspect and corpses keep appearing while bloody violence ensues.<br /><br />Good enough, but to me, most of it fell a little flat. Oh, it had it's moments... the one boy walking in on a beautiful naked seductress was pretty good, and the scene where the fathers beat the hermit was a bitter commentary (even if the effects themselves failed, considering her skin seemed to peel off as if they were whipping her with red-hot irons).<br /><br />My biggest issue was the ending. I've already put spoiler tags on this review, but BE WARNED, HERE'S THE BIG SPOILER: I don't believe it. I don't believe that a priest could convince himself to kill young boys for becoming sexually aware without some hint of that psychosis appearing earlier, with other boys, with a history, or some other personal affect. The movie didn't really earn its ending. END SPOILERS.<br /><br />Nonetheless, Fulci is a big name and I'm more than certain there's an audience out there for this. I definitely need to check out more that he's done, because this may have been a poor introduction. Most Italian giallo is hit-or-miss anyway, so I'm waiting to see what else this guy can do before writing him off.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
| 0 |
negative
|
Rs.30/- is all I paid as rent for the DVD of the movie and believe me it is not worth it.<br /><br />Bollywood directors think that showing fools is funny? well it is not. Please grow up.<br /><br />Here goes a dialog from the movie -'AGAR TUM LADKEE KO IJJAT DOGE TO LADKEE TUMHE APNI IJJAT DEGI'.<br /><br />Plot is useless, criminals and police alike running after fools. That is it. BHAGAM BHAG.<br /><br />Well it lived the title, I had to run away from it. :) I switched over to Star Movies and watched Home Alone 2 instead, and had a good laugh.
| 0 |
negative
|
I am surprised that so many comments about this film are positive. Having read the book several times (and all the other historical novels by Mika Waltari) there is no way to say much good in this film. If I forget the origins of the story I might consider it a reasonably good epic. Of course to bring such a brick of a book to the big screen is a task not to be envied, but it could be done with class. I can't understand why even the name of Nefernefernefer had to be shortened to just Nefer. I love Peter Ustinov as Kaptah and Marlon Brando probably would have made a better Sinuhe but the overall attitude is too Hollywood to ever make justice to the book. Mind you Mika Waltari left the Premier of this film in the middle of the showing. That's how much he liked it.
| 0 |
negative
|
My family (two 40-somethings, an 8 year old and my 71 yr old mother) saw this at a sneak preview on April 29th. We all enjoyed the movie very much. The story was a good one, and knowing it was based on real-life events made it that much more enjoyable. Luke Wilson was a hoot (pun intended) to watch as was Tim Blake Nelson. And seeing Neil Flynn play something other than "the mean janitor from Scrubs" was nice. The kids in movie did well and I'm sure they will all appeal to a certain demographic on the heartthrob level. The visuals were just lovely and the Jimmy Buffet music added to the "Florida feel". OK, maybe the story was a little too neat and well packaged for some adults, but hey, who cares? I can't compare it to the book, I honestly hadn't heard of it until the movie came out. <br /><br />It was just a NICE movie and it had a good message. Plain and simple.
| 1 |
positive
|
Forget all those sappy romantic movies involving notebooks and lip-locked couples who somehow manage to go to the great beyond together after a screen lifetime of over-simplified unrealistic romance. Forget all those shameless "dog gives its life to save its family" flicks (although I have to admit that I have a soft spot for them myself). Forget Ricky Schroeder already displaying his propensity to overact at a tender age (now that one WAS shameless!).<br /><br />This TV-movie, which unfortunately never seems to get aired anymore, is the all-time champion of tear-jerkers, hands down. And a well-written and well-acted story to boot. Ann-Margret took a big chance in taking this role. Nothing flamboyant or sexy about her here, and that's a monumental achievement in itself. Based on a true story, she plays Lucile Fray, a terminally ill mother who chooses to struggle till her dying breath to find good homes for her ten children, instead of leaving them in the hands of unpredictable government agencies. Frederic Forrest does a great job as her husband, the good-hearted but unreliable breadwinner whose crippling arthritis and personal demons make him unable to care for the kids.<br /><br />The film takes us through Lucile's heart-wrenching process of interviewing prospective parents and then watching her kids leave home. It also gives us the perspective of the children themselves, and of the father - grieving over the tragedy taking place now and the one sure to follow, and frustrated over his inability to do more. The scene in which the youngest of the children (Steven)is taken to his new home is the most heart-breaking I've ever watched. Now, I grew up as a "hopeless romantic", and have spent the many years since then growing myself a harder, more cynical shell. I usually find more to mock than to empathize with in the sentimental cinematic tripe foisted upon us these days. But this gem from the early 1980's still slays me.<br /><br />I really wish that someone with a lick of marketing sense would release a DVD version of this drama. Among the special features one needs to include the Emmy Awards telecast the following year. A-M was nominated for this role, but the award for best dramatic actress went to Barbara Stanwyck for "Thorn Birds." In what has to be one of the greatest moments in what is now a truly drab awards show, Stanwyck broke into tears during her acceptance speech and gushed out, "Ann-Margret, I love you!", which brought Ann-M to tears.<br /><br />One final note. The IMDb rating for "Who Will Love My Children" is 6.4 as of this writing. However, over 75% of the ratings are in the 8-10 range (mostly 10's). Whatever kind of handicapping system this site uses to modify the overall ratings of the movies listed by IMDb, it completely misses the mark on this one. This one is the "weeper" of all time, and a darn good TV-movie to boot.
| 1 |
positive
|
Blind Date (Columbia Pictures, 1934), was a decent film, but I have a few issues with this film. First of all, I don't fault the actors in this film at all, but more or less, I have a problem with the script. Also, I understand that this film was made in the 1930's and people were looking to escape reality, but the script made Ann Sothern's character look weak. She kept going back and forth between suitors and I felt as though she should have stayed with Paul Kelly's character in the end. He truly did care about her and her family and would have done anything for her and he did by giving her up in the end to fickle Neil Hamilton who in my opinion was only out for a good time. Paul Kelly's character, although a workaholic was a man of integrity and truly loved Kitty (Ann Sothern) as opposed to Neil Hamilton, while he did like her a lot, I didn't see the depth of love that he had for her character. The production values were great, but the script could have used a little work.
| 0 |
negative
|
To soccer fans every where -- stay away from this movie. It was so baaaaddd! Lame acting, lame script, lame soccer and no directing! I rented this movie during my stint in Asia and was appalled that this was considered one of the better Singaporean films. It was just nonsensical and thoroughly boring. There are thousands of rich, exciting stories in Asia. Why write a bad story about over the top and stereotypical Singaporeans?
| 0 |
negative
|
Having seen, and loved this film in Australia, I was very keen to get me paws on a copy. I got one on DVD back in the UK only to find that it's a very different edit.<br /><br />The domestic Australain edit I saw is snappier. The UK ,and I presume European, edits spends a lot longer on the narrator played by Jimmy's dead brother.And in truth belabours that and few other points to no real benefit.<br /><br />It is not a serious criticism, but the Oz edit is just brisker and I think more assured.<br /><br />I can't say why they felt it needed expansion for the overseas market?<br /><br />So careful about which one you go for.<br /><br />I went for both.
| 1 |
positive
|
This was Chaplin's first all-talking picture, and the results are mixed. The movie is a biting satire of Hitler and Mussolini, their henchmen and their fanatical way of life, especially regarding the persecution of the Jews. It was daring and forward for 1940 and must have made a lot of people squirm.<br /><br />When compared to Chaplin's earlier works, this is quite pale in comparison. The sweet, funny style of his silents, in my opinion, is far superior to his first talkie. There are lots of meaningless bits that drag on. If this was a silent, it probably would not have happened.<br /><br />I find one of the funniest moments to be the musical barber moment and the globe dance. One of the most touching moments is, obviously, the speech at the end.<br /><br />The Great Dictator is an effective and at times moving film that is a very big part of both Chaplin's history and movie history. It is flawed, but Chaplin is in great form.
| 1 |
positive
|
ok we have a film that some are calling one of the best movies ever..but i'm sitting here thinking hell the f!, the storys sux{ which there is no story], the diolouge is quite plain, artisticly nothing great!, and the acting is nothing real out standing, so if you want to pretend to be arty say you like it, but if you have a real view say you don't like it or if you did explain why!
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the award that made me lose all respects for the Hugos.<br /><br />If such a "distinguished" panel can't see or care about the obvious story-telling problems of Battlestar Galactica, then what worth is their award? The answer: not much.<br /><br />Award-winning shows should be examples of creativity and excellence, neither of which are in evidence in BG, in this episode or any other that I've seen.<br /><br />Shooting in drab video is not "artistic", it's just cheap. Shaking the camera is not "creative" it's vomit-inducing and lazy as can be.<br /><br />All BG has shown is how corrupt most award-giving "academies" really are and how easy it is to buy awards with a lot of PR money.
| 0 |
negative
|
I think this movie is amazing but there is one problem. there is one song that i want to find but cannot find it. it starts on about 18 minutes just after the coach has said "what are u the runt of the family", and then looks at the fat kid takes his hat off then he says go, the song that starts there, i would like to know what it is? Does any 1 no email me please or add a comment.It Starts Zaga Zow, Ziga Zow something along those lines. I just think it is an amazing dance track i would love to have that song so that i could use it in my break dancing lessons. It starts when they are jumping and running over the orange fast stepper things which are used in football training to help you run faster
| 1 |
positive
|
Cliche romance drama movie with very simple plot but very good cinematography and script.The screenplay,directing and acting was also good.The flow of the movie is kind of manipulative in order to bring the audience to tears through the excellent love music and circumstance which works but later on after the movie,makes one feel raped in a way.Jones makes her character very memorable and lovable though.A deeper story could have reaaly taken this movie to a higher level but still,the movie delivers for it's genre.Only for hopeless romantics,big love story fans,big soap drama fans,50's Cinemascope cinematography fans and fans of the lead actors.....
| 1 |
positive
|
I was really beginning to enjoy this show. It just started out slow and it wasn't given the chance it deserved. It is summertime so many people are not at home watching television. I know there are a few talent and singing competitions but I enjoy them as do many other. believe it or not when American idol is done for the year I miss it. Even though this was not American idol I thought it had potential. I feel bad for the singers on the show who wee really starting to grow on me. I wish they would reconsider and put the show back on. I think it was a hasty move to cancel. My only complaint about the show is I did not care to much for the judges.
| 1 |
positive
|
I really enjoyed this both times I watched it. And both times, I walked away thinking about it, and the "morals of the story" a great deal. I agree with another reviewer in that the movie is not centred around the sci-fi aspects you might expect from an alien-on-Earth movie, but rather is about the human condition. The characters in the psych hospital provide a great insight in to that, and how they go from hopelessness to hope. This movie has touches of sadness to humour to sympathy to the final "is he or isn't he". That final question was well handled and even though some might argue you don't know what happens in the end and the question goes unanswered, I feel it is done in far more detail than something wishywashy like say, the movie Ronin (with Robert De Niro) where you never find out what's in the box and feel very frustrated because of it. I highly recommend K-PAX. 8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Wow. I thought, Eskimo Limon was the most awful and embarrassing first-sex movie ever. But I had forgotten that Germany always tries to compete. In this case, the well-known German film producer Bernd Eichinger was successful in producing even worse crap. Harte Jungs is stupid, not believable and predictable, and above all: not funny. It's almost a tragedy that so many kids went to see this in Germany (and, I'm afraid, also Austria).<br /><br />Tobias Schenke, 19, looks too nice to have no girlfriend and too ripe to be 15, and his character is too dumb to be true. Schenke tries real hard to make us believe that he doesn't know ANYthing about sex, but that doesn't help. Harte Jungs seems to be made by someone who watched Al Bundy and took him too seriously.<br /><br />The best actors in the movie are Sissi Perlinger and Stefan Jürgens who play Schenke's semi-liberal parents. Perlinger and Jürgens are stand-up comedians who are not particularly talented in movie acting. Still, their performances are the `best' and `funniest' in comparison.<br /><br />A complete failure.
| 0 |
negative
|
Mickey Rourke is enjoying a renaissance at the moment... and fair play to him. I always liked his image and his acting ability in such fare as Angel Heart and Johnny Handsome. You know what you are going to get with Rourke - mean, moody, dirty. But this film gives you much more - and you don't want most of it.<br /><br />First and foremost - this whole thing just doesn't make sense. Rourke is a hardened IRA killer who after killing a bus-load of schoolchildren flees Ireland for London. He is on the run from the cops and from his own Army comrades. He has also vowed to never kill again. It looks like the bus full of kids finally did it for him.<br /><br />However, when he gets to London he is tracked down by a local mobster (Bates - looking like his eyebrows and hair came straight off a Burton's dummy) to kill his main competitor in turn for £50,000 and a boat trip to the US. Rourke reluctantly agrees to do it but is seen by a priest (Hoskins) and confesses the crime to him in the confessional in order to keep the priest's mouth shut. He figures it is better than killing him.<br /><br />A wealth of things arise here which just don't add up : <br /><br />1. Why pick Rourke to off your competition? As is illustrated by a scene whereby an employee is pinned to a wall by a couple of heavies with what look like awls - these London guys are tough enough anyway to do their own killing.<br /><br />2. Not only that but the Mobster gets a guy to follow Rourke and witness the killing with his own eyes. Why didn't that guy simply kill the competitor and save all the hassle of dealing with Rourke? <br /><br />3.Hoskins sees the murder take place and the police let him go off - without protection, I may add - to take confession? No way.<br /><br />4. Rourke hangs around the church (right next to where he carried out the murder ) immediately after the crime takes place to go to confession. Why aren't the cops checking the place out? <br /><br />5. Rourke hangs around the church and Hoskin's blind niece in particular, for days afterward without anybody bothering him. What? He's on the run and he stays put by the very place where he committed another murder? Stupid.<br /><br />6. The cops actually meet Rourke in the church "fixing" the organ and have no idea who he is. Do they not know he is on the run for the school bus bombing? They don't even check up on him? <br /><br />7. Why get Rourke to kill for you, and then tell him to wait around for a few days to get on the boat? You'd think you'd want to get rid of him immediately. Or kill him. One or the other? <br /><br />8. Why does Bates' brother suddenly decide to rape the blind niece in the midst of all the waiting? Could he not restrain himself for a few days? At least until Rourke has been safely offed to the States? Ridiculous.<br /><br />9. Rourke suddenly has inner turmoil after all his years of killing and wins over the blind niece immediately - even after she knows he is a killer, she still loves him? Again - utterly ludicrous. And besides - she falls in "love" with him in record time - a few days !!!! <br /><br />10. The whole bomb thing at the end is just plain silly from Bates' point of view.<br /><br />11. Things happen in parts of this film that just do not make sense or are simply in there to help the storyline (and I say that in jest) along. Bates' houses Rourke in a whorehouse until the boat is ready to sail and Rourke suddenly displays a moral high ground to respect the whore in the house - but yet will bed a blind girl.<br /><br />12. Rourke asks a henchman on the boat where Bates is - and the henchman practically spurts out the entire movements of his boss in less than 10 seconds. It was embarrassing - the guy was telling Rourke far more than he even asked.<br /><br />13. Hoskin's priest is an ex-army guy and we see him beat up three henchmen behind a pub. Totally uncalled-for and yet another cringe-worthy scene.<br /><br />I'm gonna stop there at unlucky 13 without mentioning Rourke's hair (so falsely red it is laughable), his accent (which to be fair is not too bad sometimes but deteriorates to a barely heard mumble at other times), his clothes, walk, looks to the heavens etc. Nor will I mention the music and the choppy editing style.<br /><br />Oooppps - I have just mentioned them.<br /><br />Overall - a disaster of a film with some obvious religious imagery thrown in (Rourke on the cross, preaching from a pulpit) which would embarrass a first year film student never mind a top star and director.<br /><br />4/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
I watched this movie with my mother. She is 81 yrs.old and was raised to be a bigot. She even acknowledges this. I don't think she really understood what was happening, she had already made up her mind that the kid was guilty. Scary. I felt for this child and his family. What torture they went through and remained faithful. That is true faith. Back to the movie. I was disgusted by the police force and their ineptitude. I am so glad that this public defender was chosen to work this case. It was very fortunate for this family that they had a person that cared enough to see through the crap that was handed to him. I could tell when one the cops was lying. He would not look the defender in the eyes. His eyes moved to the side when he answered the questions. It is unfortunate that a black person has to be punished because of the color of his skin. I read the book about the black man being dragged behind a truck by three white men. They were finally found guilty after many years. I can't remember the title, but it was the same premise. Whites doing whatever they want with blacks. I am sure the child in the movie will be traumatized for a long time, if not forever. I pointed out to my mother that most serial killers and pedophiles are white. No comment from her. I want to commend the director and producer of this film. I feel the exposure they gave to this blatant injustice was a necessary project. I am an avid viewer of indy films. I feel that they are well written and have substance. I am pleased that I happened to grab this movie on the shelf. I felt compelled to write a comment because of how strongly I feel about the film and the prejudice that continues to exist in our modern society.
| 1 |
positive
|
Before I forget, let me say the artwork in here is outstanding. From garbage cans to the huge cruise ship, the drawings are beautifully done. If this wasn't animated, critics would be lauding the "direction" in here, because it's really good.<br /><br />To the story: Sylvester is picking through the garbage at the shipyards but the pickins' are slim. While brooding at the dock next to a big ship, in a porthole he spots Tweety in his cage. Tweety spots him, too, and you know his first comment - the same one he always makes when he spots the cat. Anyway, Sylvester runs over, opens the porthole and says, "Hello, breakfast!" Tweety slams the porthole window on his face and says, "You bad old peeping tomcat!" The cat falls into the water.<br /><br />The undaunted Sylvester quickly sneaks back aboard ship, tiptoes into Tweety's cabin, grabs him and is ready to leave when - wham! - there's "Granny" at the door with her umbrella. Sylvester takes a beating as the old lady protects her pet bird once again. But, "flippety gibbet," says Granny, "I've dropped my glasses. I can't see a thing without 'em. Heavens to Betsey, where are those cheaters."<br /><br />Now Sylvester has the upper hand....and the normal cat-trying-to-catch-bird shenanigans are on again, like Granny's glasses. Sylvester's most clever act was to take her glasses and paint a picture of Tweety on them, so when she woke up and put them on, she'd see the bird and think it was okay.<br /><br />Overall, a very entertaining animated short that was a lot of fun to watch. As you can tell by the quotes, I love the dialog in some of these old cartoons.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Curse of Monkey Island. Released excactly 6 years after the success of Monkey Island 2. You would think with Monkey Island 2's wierd ending that it would finish Monkey Island once and for all. But, it all turned out to be a trick to lure Guybrush into captivity. But enough about that, the whole jist of this is that Monkey Island has returned, and the voices are just phenominal. If LucasArts were to make a movie/cartoon of Monkey Island, this would probably be what it would look like, and sound like. It's plot is real good, and everything about it is just awesome. If you haven't heard about the Monkey Island series, buy the Monkey Island Archives or The Monkey Island Booty Pack and play through all the games starting with The Secret of Monkey Island, then Monkey Island 2, and The Curse of Monkey Island. Monkey Island 4 was real good, but this one tops them all.
| 1 |
positive
|
i was a projectionist while in the U.S.A.F. and remember this movie very well. we had just been set up with Stereo Sound!! o-o-o-o-o!! well, it Was a big deal in 1959. instructions came with the reels. the overture played while the projected curtain image was closed and i followed suit with the theater curtain closed too. for intermission the theater curtain was closed and after five minutes i restarted the movie with the projection curtain closed while music used as a curtain call to the second part. being the first stereo movie i had ever seen and being such a huge musical production i certainly enjoyed watching it every time i showed it for the run.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm a huge comedy show fan. Racial humor is always a little risky but the greats like George Lopez, Dave Chapelle, Lisa Lampanelli etc. pull it off perfectly.<br /><br />They don't go overboard, make the audience uncomfortable or *cough cough* STEAL JOKES! But I won't harp upon that.<br /><br />Carlos makes racial humor totally unenjoyable. His jokes continually scream racial humor to the point were it's not funny or clever, but it's insulting. I'm not one to turn cold towards racial humor. But his execution of these jokes is sloppy that cause people to recoil at his comedy.<br /><br />His humor is only surpassed by his stage presence in annoyance. I feel as though he's SCREAMING at me constantly! And he runs around the stage like a maniac. It only comes off as annoying!
| 0 |
negative
|
This mini-series is iconic of the Australian spirit. While there may be what are perhaps considered glaring inconsistencies, the film portrays a spirit that is unique to Australia, and one that should be cherished. If anything, this mini-series demonstrates the Aussie sense of humour. The ability to laugh at the supremely ridiculous. Our willingness to have a laugh in even the most dire of situations. While a large part of this series focuses on mateship and how humour can be used as a means of survival, it also has elements of drama that are evoke real emotions. The main actors who appear are absolutely sensational and very convincing in their different roles. Capturing the essence of their characters perfectly. This mini-series should be mandatory viewing for all Australians.
| 1 |
positive
|
One of my desires is to be a film-maker, and I just have to say there's no way I will be able to compete with the powerful drama The War at Home. The reason is because the acting is perfect, and when you see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. All I can suggest is watching it, I got so involved in it and was extremely impressed.<br /><br />Estevez's and Sheen's relationship on the screen was absolutely amazing.<br /><br />And so was his relationship with his mother (Kathy Bates). Some of the best scenes include these 2. <br /><br />As well as the relationship between Sheen and his daughter, Estevez's sister in the film.<br /><br />10/10, and definitely in my top 10. I want the DVD!
| 1 |
positive
|
If you watched this film for the nudity (as I did) you won't be disappointed. I could have done without the bumbling crooks or the bear though. Some bottomless nudity could have be shown but for what it was I think H.O.T.S. has to be the best of its genre.<br /><br />It is not the sort of film that could have been made today which is a pity because it is the sort of film that is worth watching in these times.<br /><br />I would take mindless nudity over pivotal plot points any day.<br /><br />It is a shame that the DVD doesn't have any extras but as they didn't have DVDs when this was filmed that is understandable. I would have like to know more about the shooting of the film especially where they shot the football match at the end.
| 1 |
positive
|
As a fan of the book, this work is fantastically adapted; remaining true to the source materials, and demonstrating an honest respect for the literary work. The intrigues translate well to film by virtue of Ron Howard's good eye for detail and sound devotion to authenticity.<br /><br />I like Hanks as Robert Langdon. His portrayal is genuine and earthy, with only the barest glint of the Kip we all knew and loved, back in "the day." He is a good dramatic actor and, while I miss his comedic efforts, I do enjoy his more serious performances.<br /><br />The subject matter is no less controversial than the DaVinci Code, and the Vatican seems to never learn their lesson. As with the aforementioned film, the Holy See issued a scathing rebuke and called for a global Catholic boycott of the film, which of course, generated millions in ticket sales.<br /><br />Although the story of the "God Particle" was played down dramatically, and the science was written out of this piece of science fiction, the fiction that was left, was entertaining and extremely well done. And, the truth be known, people who have not read the book, will not notice any missing or lesser element to the story, as the screen version carries the main story well on its own.<br /><br />In fact, it is not necessary to have seen the first installment of this franchise, in order to enjoy this second, which should have been a prequel in all honesty, although that does not lessen the effectiveness, nor does it meddle with the continuity or flow of this second work.<br /><br />All in all, this is good for a Friday/Saturday night's viewing, although the execution may be a bit rough for the small ones.<br /><br />It rates an 8.8/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
| 1 |
positive
|
John Leguizamo's one man shows are hit or miss: Mambo Mouth showed off his intense characterizations and great timing but the material was average, Spic-o-Rama accomplished the former as well but this time the material was funny, Freak is a classic followed by his disappointing Sex-o-holic. But his stuff in Freak showcases his genius and when he's in the spotlight he's without peer.<br /><br />Freak's semi-autobiographical look at the journey of a young man has power and resonance I don't think even it's creator knew about. By allowing us the chance to see his soul, Mr. Leguizamo gives us an opportunity to project our own life onto his and there can be no greater gift a performer can give. The willingness to drop 'the Wall', expose and share is too terrifying for most actors-they use characters to hide behind-but JL goes full-throttle and gleefully smashes any pretenses. Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor were our best cultural observers/comedians/actors because they spoke from their heart about whatever they noticed in society and the truth provided slashing humor. Combine that with a great actor's gift of mimicry and being in-the-moment (not to mention a sense of humanity) and you'll see John Leguizamo has the power to do the same. At least in Freak he does.<br /><br />From birth to his first big break and every life altering moment in between, a viewer sees our host and other characters in their most private moments all the while experiencing the pain, hope, and humor that comes with. Looking drained and lean muscled-tight JL is ringing with sweat by evening's end having offered up his crazy life for an audience; Spike Lee's fluid camera work captures the actor's nuances down to the last lip curl and slow blink. The scenarios range from drinking with his machismo-fueled father (when he was 9) to seeing A Chorus Line with his gay, deaf uncle; his first girlfriend's vicious humiliation when he strips naked, eager to have sex. A nightmarish first sexual encounter with a large German woman in the back of a Kentucky Fried Chicken follows an unsuccessful attempt to pick up a "drunk lapsed Catholic" in a bar on St.Patty's Day. Climaxing in a serious showdown with his mother and father, it's here that he shows his true genius: he plays a scene between these two characters and himself and his brother with such a strong dramatic/humourous intensity, you forget you're watching only one person. There's no costume changes, bad wigs, lighting tricks, or makeup. Just an actor giving his all. It's simply amazing.<br /><br />Other actors/comedians that stand out right now are Eddie Izzard and Chris Rock but they don't dive into themselves as deeply as John Leguizamo does; that's not a criticism, not by a long shot. I love their work but Freak is different. It's moving in a no-b******* way. It's the best one man show out there and no one will be able to touch it for a long time.
| 1 |
positive
|
Who could have thought a non-disabled actor could act so realistically and immensely powerfully as a disabled person in a film? Probably someone. But no-one, truly no-one, could ever compare their expectations with the amazingly emotive and powerful performance given by the two actors in this film.<br /><br />Michael (Steven Robertson) lives in a home for disabled people. He has Cerebral Paulsy, and as shown to us right at the beginning, he has huge trouble communicating. So it truly is a lifeline when fellow disabled member Rory (James McAvoy) who can speak normally, understands him. Thus starts off a friendship that relies mainly on (ironically enough) communication.<br /><br />In a hilarious scene, they manage to move out of the home into their own. After Rory had been rejected, good hearted Michael put forward an application to move into his own house. Rory, who already had a bad name with the "judges", was to be his interpreter.<br /><br />But troubles soon come about. They begin good-heartedly stalking a girl who they met in a pub a while back, wanting her to be their assistant to do the little things that matter. She at first is reluctant; she does not know these men, but seems they could be harmless; so strikes up another friendship, but not necessarily a good one...<br /><br />As well as being poignant, however, this film really does rely on the actors. But that isn't a bad thing. For a non disabled actor, you see Rory, though he can communicate properly, frustrated at the way he's completely dependant on other people, and has no real life of his own. But the real star for me is Steven Robertson. He acts with such emotion, yearning to fit in and sadness/happiness, that really sees him win over the whole entire film.<br /><br />Excellent.<br /><br />Overall: 5 out of 5
| 1 |
positive
|
I do not fail to recognize Haneke's above-average film-making skills. For example, I appreciate his lingering on unremarkable-natural-day-lighted settings as a powerful way to force a strong sense of realism. However, regarding the content of this film, I am very sad to see that in the 21st century there is still an urge to pathologize domination-submission relations or feelings (and/or BDSM practices). The problem that the main character has with her mother is unbelievably topical as is the alienation and uncomprehension felt by Walter (I don't mean the frustration of a lover which is not loved back in the same way, which is understandable; I mean that he looks upon her as if she were crazy, or as if he was a monk, come on!). I mean D/s is not something new in the world and I think it is rather silly to treat the subject as if it were something "freakish" or pathological; it isn't. In general, films dealing with this subject are really lagging behind the times.<br /><br />So, for me, I feel that this film ends up being quite a programmatical film, worried with very outdated psicoanalitical theories (isn't it nearly embarrassing?), and that does not really relate with real-life lives and experiences of those engaged in D/s relationships (personal experience, forums, irc chatrooms even recent scholar studies will show this).
| 0 |
negative
|
Based on a True Story . . .<br /><br />The premise of this film is to illustrate that through fairly normal events its possible for an outwardly 'decent' mother to get drawn into Heroin addiction.<br /><br />***semi spoiler*** Some of the scenes are fairly inaccurate - whilst others almost make you want to get the 'fix' yourself.<br /><br />Computer technician/graphic artist woman with good relationship with her young teen kid spirals into addiction after work colleague, who is a 'chipper' (-someone who can take + enjoy it now and again - ) Then spirals into an addiction that leads her eventually to scoring off 'street' dealers after losing contact with her steady dealer.<br /><br />The scenes that show her coming down and getting 'sick' are often VERY real - especially the first real 'night sweat' Prior to all these events she began a relationship with a guy who just happened to have lost his wife to the bottle, and insists he has an inner radar not to get hooked on such women. Some radar! However after after some late turn ups and weird behaviour, the boyfriend challenges her as to 'what is going on' His radar begins to get more with it and demands that she empty out her bag; she hits the roof and storms out.<br /><br />Because of the excellent and open relationship she had developed prior to this tragedy, he is the first to 'find' some real evidence in her bag; he then looks around the hose for her 'stash' - apparently his sensibility is from school lessons on drug taking - and when he discovers a large stash in the bathroom he flushes it! NOT A HAPPY WOMAN when she takes her next bath and its 'disappeared'.<br /><br />The kid keeps one back and places it on the meal table - she then goes into further denial - admits it and says its no worse than dope.<br /><br />Thge kid does all the right things and calls her friends and generally puts her in a position where she has to come 'clean' - if you'll pardon the pun.<br /><br />The movie takes the viewer through some pretty arduous situations where danger is not far away.<br /><br />Eventaully she gets help from a professional organisation and does cold turkey - you'll have to watch the film to see what happens next . . . .
| 1 |
positive
|
What is about mathematical geniuses that get the critics juices flowing ? A BEAUTIFUL MIND wasn`t up to much in my opinion ( FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING deserved the Oscar that year ) while GOOD WILL HUNTING had several awards lavished on it undeservedly<br /><br />First off is the script . When I attended film school I was told GOOD WILL HUNTING is a very good example on how not to start a script and the tutor was right . This movie lacks any type of opening hook and for the most part it`s very very slow . If you wrote an unsolicited script like this the script reader would have given up on it by page 15<br /><br />Structure aside the idea of a member of the American underclass being some sort of intellectual god doesn`t really ring true . Ask yourself this : If he`s the cleverst character in the movie how come he`s gone through his short life without anyone noticing his abilities ? Not one single teacher from his childhood noticed his gift ? Highly unlikely as is the fact he`s read so much mind expanding litrature . And if Will`s so clever how come he`s so oblivous of what happens to young good looking boys in American prisons ?<br /><br />But it`s the casting that let much of the film down . You want to get a couple of actors to play rough tough Irish gang members ? Let`s get Matt Damon and Ben Affleck which is like getting Russell Crowe to play a pacifist or Charles Bronson to play a liberal do gooder . I failed to be convinced by the foul mouthed Damon and Affleck as they strutted about smacking people in the chops and couldn`t help thinking that even though they wrote the script the parts should have been awarded to different actors , after all Billy Bob Thornton has written screenplays for films he hasn`t been cast in and the same criteria should have been applied here<br /><br />There are some good points to the movie . Robin Williams is excellent as the man who tries to show Will his potential and also very good is Stellan Skarsgard who is quite simply one of the greatest character actors to stepped foot outside of Europe and despite my previous criticism of the script there is quite a moving piece of dialogue at the park as Williams character explains to Will what he has seen in life<br /><br />But I`ve got to repeat that there`s less plus points than negatives to this movie and I`ve got to agree with the people who`ve said GOOD WILL HUNTING is boring and unconvincing
| 0 |
negative
|
Dude, I thought this movie rocked. Perfect for just sitting around alone and watching at like 3AM with just you and a bottle. The whole time you are watching it you are thinking WTF? What's gonna happen next.... dude just get with the chick already. Alright..... they are pickin mushrooms... this is odd... but kinda creepy cool. Damn this whole movie has an erotic dirty naughty cold evil undertone to it... it's subtle dance just keeps you drawn to it... you're just waiting for someone to get whacked. But damn... WTF!? You get that and then some. For the morally enraged stomach it is great running to the toilet to barf material. Any movie that can get that kinda reaction out of you deserves an award.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was a poor movie. The plot was poor and the comedy they "tried" to deliver came out poorly. The accidents seem contrived and predictable. I thought the actors tried to some extent but with this movie, it was so lame it can only go so far.One of the worst films I have seen and don't recommend it to anyone. The only accident to Mr. Accident was it's release.
| 0 |
negative
|
SPOILER ALERT<br /><br />A cliché-riddled film that somehow makes an anti-death with dignity statement, though it attempts to do the opposite. Washington is a paralyzed forensics officer who has been suffering and wanting to die for the past four years (apparently he wrote his huge selling book only a year ago though, so it hasn't all be despair). He arranges for an assisted suicide with his doctor who will return in a week.<br /><br />In the meantime, he helps out on a serial killer case. He recruits the gutsy, I don't wanna do it, but I'm just so good at it, cop Jolie, and they track down impossible clue jumping to highly unlikely conclusions in matters of moments. Hey, that old bolt means that the killer has the millionaire's wife in a steam tunnel by the old Woolworth building. Shyeah, right. It's laughable. Yet no is smart enough to figure out that doctor who's going to assist him is the killer.<br /><br />When he comes to Washington to murder him (ahead of schedule), he has a change of heart and struggles unbelievably for his life. Cut to the obligatory bad guy about to shoot the good guy scene when BANG the gun goes off--- but the bad guy didn't fire! No the woman steps out of the corner, she has just shot him in the back.
| 0 |
negative
|
Fellow noir devotees, be not deceived, this is a stinker...poorly filmed, poorly acted and there is nothing...nothing here for the film buff looking for yet another solid B-movie from the goldmine of the 40's & 50's era of classics. I gave it a try based on the relatively high rating on IMDb. There's no accounting for taste, but I found nothing in this movie to recommend to other IMDb members. This is a classic example of having watched a movie and feeling like you have been cheated out of x number of minutes that it took the movie to get to its thankful demise. To have Alan Ladd on the cover of the DVD/tape is nearly fraud, he is on camera less than two minutes and has almost no dialogue! This isn't This Gun For HIre folks...it is a classic in the lousy sense of the studios cranking out fodder on no budget...We all search for the great ones... save your time on Gangs, Inc./Paper Bullets...it is lousy!
| 0 |
negative
|
Ewww! A Disney sequel that is rubbish! Who would have thought it? Actually, quite a lot judging by the comments here, and they aren't wrong. I actually looked forward to seeing this awful film based on my liking of the original. And therein lies Disney's whole "cash-in" mentality. Shovel out any old junk on the back of a success and people will go for it. Don't think they are that cynical? Ask yourself this, then....How many Disney films have sequels? And then....How many of those sequels spawn a follow-up? A significantly lower number.<br /><br />Kronk's New Groove is just another example of this. The plot is laughably simplistic and drawn out. Even more annoying was the increased number of "out of place" items and scenes - an old folks home for example and, God forbid an Aztec version of the Boy Scouts! Worse yet, Kronk's opposing Chippamunk leader has a completely bewildering over-the-top English accent for no reason whatsoever. An accent that was, after a very short while, intensely grating on the nerves.<br /><br />There are a couple of good things. The animation is very nice and the voice talent do well with the sub-standard dialogue they are given - especially Warburton in the lead role. But other than this there really is nothing to recommend it. Sure, little kids may like it, but there is little to amuse mum and dad whilst they sit through this tortuous maiming of the original concept.<br /><br />Avoid this monstrosity with the same zeal you'd use in avoiding a pack of ravening man-eating lions.
| 0 |
negative
|
The gate to Hell has opened up under Moscow. A priest, played by Vincent Gallo, goes to the city to find a friend who has gone missing in the tunnels under the city in an attempt to find the gateway. Wandering around underground he and his colleagues have to deal with the tunnels inhabitants both human and demonic. Good idea with a good cast of second tier actors goes nowhere much like the tunnels that are its setting. I've watched this twice now and I still have no idea why this is suppose to be scary when not a heck of a lot happens other then people talk about the evil and we see shadow forms. Nothing is clear and honestly I didn't see the point of it all other than provide a pay check for those involved (Second billed Val Kilmer is in a couple of fleeting scenes that don't amount to much other than to allow him to be billed as in the film.) The idea is really good, the performances are fine, the script goes nowhere. Take the advice of several of the characters in the film and don't cross the river to see this.
| 0 |
negative
|
Death Camp Opera: Right Here, Right Now!<br /><br />Ten years ago, I read that a very special movie had been directed about the polarization of our society. A certain Peter Watkins was the author. His picture was acted by some non-professional actors, citizens like you and me
and others. The violence of the atmosphere was described as extremely realistic. Was it a movie, a documentary? Both actually.<br /><br />Over the years, I realized how hard it was to find it. Maybe I would, by coincidence? Anyway, it's yet an old story. I saw it a short while ago. Totally impressing. My very favourite peace of art: Punishment Park is its name. I love this "docu-fiction", this "truecastmovie", this "realityshowfictionnal", what ever. After all the shock movies I saw, I reach the best with this strong and intense cinematography'experience. I found a masterpiece. There is enough on the net to know many things about the movie. It is even to buy on DVD, with additional stuff. The only words I want to add is about my own experience with this film. I can only trust such a sincere and engaged peace of art about people and for people, those who direct, act or watch. A cinema which is simply a real human experience within an art adventure
or the opposite. <br /><br />So, I'm not talking about all the 'mucs' we can see on TV, especially the 'real'shity-show' whom the concepts of people playing them-selves are interesting, but used in a stupid and perverse way. In Punishment Park, we can see some real individuals living as they are. We only put them in a very specific context, with a few lines to follow, and we let them be what they want to be. It's a kind of therapy, a way of 'individuation' for those inside the movie and also for the active spectators in front of screens. Then, to end, the director's touch edits a short and sweet apocalypse movie, a desperate scream, a 'Death Camp Opera', where some folks are on the run after virulent trials. Punishment Park is for those who want to grow. See this film and have the opportunity to choose your own morality. Grow up and harmonize yourself with it! If you can feel it! If you can see it!! In my case, Punishment Park is stuck in me for ever, with all my love, consciousness and will.
| 1 |
positive
|
For the most part, romance films were never my cup of tea. But Valley Girl is one of the few romance films I not only could sit through, but actually enjoy. Nicholas Cage is great in his first role and Deborah Foreman is cute beyond belief. There are some side stories that tend to become muddled, but not enough to diminish this film.
| 1 |
positive
|
From time to time it's very advisable for the aristocracy to watch some silent film about the harsh life of the common people in order to remind themselves of the privileges and the comfortable life that they have enjoyed since the beginning of mankind or even before
in comparison with the complicated and hard work that common people have to endure everyday since the aristocrats rule the world.<br /><br />And that's what happens in "The Love Light", the first film directed by Dame France Marion who will be famous afterwards in the silent and talkie world thanks overall to her work as a screenwriter; better for her, certainly, because her career as a film director doesn't impress this German count.<br /><br />The film tells the story of Dame Angela Carlotti ( Dame Mary Pickford ) a merry Italian girl who lives surrounded by a "picturesque squalor" ( an important difference of opinion between upper and low classes; aristocrats prefers to live surrounded by "picturesque luxury"
); she has two brothers and a secret admirer but all she gives him in return is indifference. Destiny begins to work hard and pretty soon war is declared and Dame Angela's two brothers enlist and in the next reel both are dead. But destiny is even crueller and Dame Angela meanwhile falls in love with
a German!! And to make things worse, she doesn't know that her Teutonic sweetie is a spy and that the light signals that she sends to him every night from the lighthouse she maintains thinking that is a love signal, don't mean "Ich Liebe Dich" but "Sink Any Damn Italian Boat At Sea"
<br /><br />Fortunately for Dame Angela, pretty soon her sweetie German spy will be found by the neighbours in her house in which she was hiding him ( a not strange fact, indeed, because it is not an easy task for a German to go unnoticed
) but the German spy will prefer to die before being captured by those Italians.<br /><br />From that German love, a half-Teutonic baby will born ( the wicked Destiny at full speed
) but a greedy neighbour who has a particular idea of motherhood will carry away her son with the consent of a Catholic nun who has taken the Council of Trent to extremes
a fact that will put Dame Angela at the verge of insanity.<br /><br />But meanwhile Dame Angela's secret admirer has returned from the war and you can think that finally Dame Angela's sorrowful life will improve; a tremendous mistake because Destiny has in store for her that the returned soldier is blind. But as they say in Germany, it may be a blessing in disguise and finally Dame Angela will recover her son and will start a new life with her blind sweetie in a poor Italian village in what it is supposed to be a happy ending for the common people.<br /><br />As this German count said before, it was much better for Dame Frances Marion that she continued her career as a screenwriter, because as can be seen in "The Love Light", she had a lot of imagination to invent incredible stories, ja wohl!
but a completely different subject is to direct films and her silent debut lacks emotion and rhythm in spite of the effort of Dame Pickford to involve the audience with her many disgraces. The nonexistent film narrative causes indifference in the spectator making this the kind of film where only Dame Pickford herself provides the interest and not her circumstances.<br /><br />And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must send Morse signals from the Schloss north tower to one of his Teutonic rich heiress.
| 0 |
negative
|
*SPOILERS INCLUDED*<br /><br />Alfred Hitchcock's brilliant and innovative adaptation of Robert Bloch's novel was an amazing film, unlike anything previous. Every shot, every camera angle, every nuance was PERFECT. He didn't just break the rules, he made up a whole set of new ones.<br /><br />Here's the spoiler: there is absolutely nothing new, different, or original about this movie. Gus Van Sant doesn't just pay a homage to Hitch, he rips off every idea, and does so in a less original, more conventional manner. I didn't have anything against Gus Van Sant before I saw this movie. I liked Drugstore Cowboy and I thought My Own Private Idaho was a very interesting film. The question burning in my mind when it comes to the remake of Psycho is, "Why did you do it, Gus?"<br /><br />In my mind, there are only two reasons to do a remake: 1) The original was a good story, but the movie sucked. 2) The original was a good movie, but someone has thought of a fresh, new approach to the material. Neither one of these factors is at all present in the Gus Van Sant version of Psycho. Apart from the fact that it is in color, and there is one scene in which there is a montage of disturbing imagery relating to the title character's possible inner dialogue (which I found unnecessary), there is nothing new here.<br /><br />Furthermore, I found the casting left something to be desired. Anne Heche was okay as Marion, but she lacked a certain vulnerability that Janet Leigh portrayed in the original. I didn't feel as sympathetic towards her character, because the choices she faced seemed far less constrained as a woman in today's society, as opposed to the choices she would have faced as a single woman living in the early 1960's. Vince Vaughn got a few laughs with his rendering of an incredibly naive Norman Bates, but I feel that Anthony Perkins' timing and nervous, haunted look was much more effectively creepy. The only performance that I enjoyed better than the original was the character of Lila Crane, played by Jullianne Moore. She was excellent as usual, and brought a new strength and intelligence to the character.<br /><br />To be fair, there is some beautiful camera work, especially during the famous "bathroom scene" in which Van Sant takes advantage of his use of color to show the murder in vibrant shades of crimson. And yet, during the whole film I had this irritating sense of deju vu. Haven't I seen this somewhere before? Oh wait, I HAVE seen this somewhere before! Nearly every scene seems to be copied shot for shot from the original. One almost gets the feeling the director made this film as a school project. "See, I can make a Hitchcock film, too!"<br /><br />If you haven't already, go see the original. It's held up over the years, and beats this bit of mediocrity, hands down. You won't be disappointed.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was fortunate enough to be an extra in this movie when I was about 13 during the roller rink scenes. My junior high school drama class was invited to participate. It was a fantastic experience.<br /><br />Gary Busey, Charles Martin Smith and Don Stroud played the music live, all day! As a musician, I can appreciate the tireless work and dedication these guys put in to their roles. They must have played those songs 20 times. It's very difficult to maintain consistency and energy under those conditions. This is visible during a cut to a close-up on "That'll Be the Day," but fortunately the unsuspecting public probably wouldn't have picked it up.<br /><br />Skating around all day, getting the day off from school and being transported back in time was a incredible thrill. I also had my first "date" on film. I had to walk a girl up to the ticket booth. Woo hoo! Even with an out-of-date haircut and hot lights melting the vaseline in my hair, it was still worth it. Fun stuff.<br /><br />The movie is top notch and is highly satisfying as a whole. Busey delivers his best role ever and the supporting cast is superb. I'm glad to have participated in a great film of the day. To think I could have been in Corvette Summer or something. Not.<br /><br />A funny ironic ending to this is that years later I was in a video store in Malibu looking at the movie the week it was released on video. Gary Busey walked in and stood right next to me. I showed him the cover and babbled on how great he was and how I was an extra and whatnot. Pretty weird, but very cool, for what it's worth.
| 1 |
positive
|
Saw this at the Hong Kong International Film Festival, over three years ago. I went in with no expectations since Christopher Nolan was a no-name at the time, but it sounded interesting and turned out to be one of the best things I saw at that festival. It worked well on the big screen, with the technique of cutting the scenes out of sequence adding to the mood. Mr.Nolan gave a good account of its making at the end, enough to put anybody off starting out as a film-maker! I liked it better than Memento although this was, perhaps, due to the lower expectations. And the fact that it was more of an art house movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
I must give credit to Billy Dee for trying to pull this off. Knowing this was a blaxploitation film, I started my DVD with a certain expectation. I knew it would be low budget... the acting sub-par... but hoped for a few gems to be sprinkled throughout. If there were any diamonds or gems sprinkled within this film, they were successfully buried under tons and tons of coal... or perhaps overacting. As an actor and filmmaker, I cringed often when potential poignant moments were ruined with atrocious performances. Yet, I must admit, I could not look away. I don't know if this was like a car wreck you can't turn your eyes from, or some mysterious power in the film that kept me there. This film is a good case for an excellent story that was told wrong. If Walter Kronkite were to tell "the Aristocrats" joke, it would be a total flop, although the joke itself is hilarious. Let Dave Chappelle tell it, and we are all rolling on the floor laughing. This film needed a "Chapelle." Now, with that said, if you have the opportunity to purchase this film for the dollar that I did, do it. It is well worth the money. Perhaps I will take another dollar, purchase the rights to this film, and remake it. Who knows... it might not be any better, but it surely can't be any worse.
| 0 |
negative
|
Well, I fell for it. I saw the box for this at the video store, and mistook it for "Girlfight", which I'd heard was great. In my own defense, the titles are similar, and they re-did the cover art for the box so it looked almost identical. Anyway, to sum it up, they obviously re-did the whole cover packaging/promo to capitalize on the buzz/success of "Girlfight". I popped it in and got a bad feeling when they started showing trailers for low budget straight-to-video flicks, and even worse when a music video of the main song for the movie, which sounded like elevator music and featured corny slomo clips from the movie preceded the main feature. When I saw the first few minutes and Maria Conchita Alonso showed up, I knew I'd fallen for it. (don't get me wrong, she's a talented actress, but I knew she wasn't in "Girlfight", the movie I'd been under the false impression I was renting).<br /><br />So, apart from me feeling sort of cheated and mad at myself for not looking closer, the movie was OK. The plot involves Belle, a young Latino woman who is the daughter of an ex-champion boxer. One of her close friends is a female boxer, who--and I could see all this coming sooo far ahead of time it was really a drag--gets seriously injured during a match with a mean champ named "The Terminator", who resembles a female version of a bigger, more pumped up Ike Turner. Of course, Belle decides that the only thing to do is to become a boxer herself and avenge her friend. She lives with her caring, supportive yet protective Dad (her mother died of cancer when she was younger), who just happens to be a cop. Her love interest, also caring and supportive yet protective, is also a cop who works with her dad. Hmmm, they both have jobs that put their lives in danger in the line of duty...wonder what's gonna happen? She starts training and meets a sleazy manager who of course, pretends to care about her but just wants to exploit her. The actor they hired looks like a very low-rent Cary Eweles and is so young he barely manages to have a mustache. His acting was also really, really bad. I'm not even going to go into the plot any further because anyone who has seen Rocky, or almost anyone, knows exactly where this movie is going and how it will end.<br /><br />This was not a completely terrible movie. Most of the acting was OK, and the lead actress was very good. There were good, strong female Latino role models. The final fight scene did get me sort of interested, even though I knew everything that was going to happen long before it did. The actress that played "The Terminator" did a great job of being unlikeable enough that I really did want Belle to kick her a$$, and rooted for Belle-again, although there were absolutely no surprises. My favorite moment (maybe the only moment where I wasn't mad at myself for renting the movie by mistake) was when Belle slaps her sleazy manager after he's shown his true colors, yells at him, and then turns away only to suddenly fake a punch and watch him cringe back in fear, showing that she is really the one in charge.<br /><br />The dialogue was really, really bad, my main complaint. One of their attempts to be witty was someone discussing boxing saying "size doesn't matter" and the female replying wryly, "now where have I heard that before?" Other lines that are supposed to have dramatic impact are "The doctors told me I may never walk again!" "Come on, you know you can trust me!" and "Your mother would have been so proud of you". I could go on and on. Nothing you haven't heard a million times before in bad soap operas or movies-of-the-week. <br /><br />Maybe I'm being too mean-the filmmakers did make an effort, and I did sit through the whole thing voluntarily...but only because there was nothing else to watch while I worked out. You could do worse (especially if you are looking for a movie with strong female characters) but you could also do much, much better.
| 0 |
negative
|
To paraphrase the previous reviewer's comments, if you're a Stooges fan, avoid this one at all costs! My basic question is, being the experienced troopers of comedy that Moe and Larry were, why did they insist on attempting to continue the act when it was so obvious that their home studio, Columbia, was so clearly not interested in giving them serious writers and veteran comedy directors? This movie plays like someone who's giving a pale imitation of the trio and you can see how very hard Moe and Larry are working to make every little bit of slapstick relevant. Joe De Rita, despite his background in vaudeville is just not up to the job as a replacement for Curly, Shemp, or even Joe Besser. If that's who Moe and Larry had left to pick from, they should have just closed up shop and enjoy their retirement years. Leaving us fans with better memories of far better films they had done earlier. Always leave them laughing is the motto for comedy and always quit while you're on top. Hence Seinfeld's leaving the sitcom while right up there, instead of sticking around for the inevitable decline.
| 0 |
negative
|
Had I known to what I was submitting myself, I would have fled from the theater. The film is dreadful, in the literal sense of the word. Despite striking images, intriguing locales, and a subject matter that might have been fascinating, the film is dead.<br /><br />I was unfamiliar with this period of Greek history, and prepared to experience a great film. The filmmakers's hand is heavy. it is not enough to see a train going by; we must watch it from afar, we must watch it car by car, we must see the smoke, we must see it slow down, and we must see it stop. The director's approach is didactic. Likewise, the characters that he creates never develop, they never change. They are so stereotypic that we wonder, are they meant to be Everyman? Everygirl? Everyoldmusician? Is there some point to this allegory? It is the most pretentious film that I have seen in a long while.
| 0 |
negative
|
If all movies had to be destroyed and only one could be spared, Death in Venice would have to be it. It is a monument in movie history. Much criticized for being slow, boring and too obvious in stating it's point (an old man discovers beauty in a young boy and is tragically destroyed, first mentally, then physically), we should appreciate this movie for what it is. 'Morte a Venezia' was shot over 30 years ago, and it portrays a period even further back, at the beginning of the twentieth century.<br /><br />Life was slow then, compared to now. People were supposed to behave in a certain way, hiding their true emotions even from themselves. Director Visconti and Dirk Bogarde, the leading actor, admirably succeed in showing how the aging composer Von Aschenbach discovers his romantic interest in a young boy. For a man like Von Aschenbach, in his time, this must have been a shock too powerful to come to terms with. We see his inner struggle, mostly on the face of Bogarde, against the beautiful backdrop of Venice and accompanied by the most wonderful music, composed by Gustav Mahler.<br /><br />This movie is slow, there is no denying it. No special effects, car chases or fights to keep the audience pinned to their seats. No perverted sex scenes either; the interaction between man and boy is limited to stolen glances from afar and the occasional smile.<br /><br />So, basically, nothing much happens in this movie? Not if you want your senses to be hit like a base drum. If you want them to be played like the strings of a violin in a romantic concerto, this is the movie to do it.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie dethroned Dr. Giggles as the best horror movie I've ever seen. The plot was great, the plot twists were even better and the cast was great. It's hard to believe that they compiled the most unknown people 8 years ago and they would be big names today! <br /><br />The plot is simple. 4 teenagers wreck their car in the middle of nowhere. They stumble on this campsite and do what everybody who is in an accident should do. Build a fire and tell scary stories.<br /><br />1. "The Hook." Great opener. Anyone who is in High School has heard variations of this story on Prom night. But they do it real good in this movie.<br /><br />2. "The Honeymoon." OK, this was not the best of the 4. It was pretty good and you get to see some boob. Emphisis on the word "some." It's just your basic creature in the woods story.<br /><br />3. "People Can Lick Too." This is a cautionary tale of what happens in internet chat rooms all across the country. This segment alone should be required viewing for parents whose children have access to the internet. <br /><br />4. "The Locket." Now this is the best story in the whole movie. A guy on a motorcycle breaks down and goes to this mute girl's house. Very good plot twist.<br /><br />The main plot, "The Campfire" has the biggest and best twist in the whole movie. I won't tell what it is cause I don't want to ruin it. I was never this shocked during a movie in my life!<br /><br />Plot: A+ <br /><br />Acting: A+<br /><br />Writing: A+ <br /><br />Directing: A+ <br /><br />Music: A+ <br /><br />Overall: A+ <br /><br />I recommend it to anyone over 13 with the exception of "People Can Lick Too." Any parent who's child has access to the internet needs to watch this one with their child.
| 1 |
positive
|
Recap: A lone swordsman, living in the desert and acting as an agent to other swordsmen, recollects how his life turned out to be as it is. It started with that the woman he loved chose to marry his brother instead, causing him to leave his home town. One of the swordsmen is Huang who is himself in the middle of a complicated love story, where a woman wants to have him killed for having ran away from a promise to marry her younger sister. But the sister wants to hire a swordsman to have Huang protected, and everything is put to an edge when the woman and her sister is really the same person.<br /><br />Comments: I've seen the Redux version released in 2008 of the original that was released in 1994. How the two versions differ I can't say, but the Redux is very heavily stylized in the way of Chinese Wuxia action. That is unfortunate as that style to me seems to have forgotten one of the most important elements of a successful and entertaining movie. A comprehensible story. But true to its style scenery and visual elements seem much more important and much more in focus of writer and director Kar Wai Wong. Therefore there are lots of colorful, very beautiful scenes, that are completely unrelated to the story.<br /><br />The editing and timeline of the story is also mishandled. Much is left out in the scenes, the time line is broken and rearranged in a confusing way. Very slow and calm scenes are suddenly relieved by surprisingly brutal and seemingly unmotivated fights, only to themselves being relieved by something else and unrelated. The result is a confusing and very uninteresting movie.<br /><br />Thanks to these brutal but very few fights, the movie is put into the action genre. The poster and photographs also imply this but could almost be regarded as false marketing. Only a few minutes out of the 90 could be considered as anything like action, the other couldn't be farther away from it. The movie in its entirety is very slow, dull and hence very boring. Not even the rare action filled scenes help since they are so disconnected from the rest of the movie.<br /><br />I might say that I'm not a fan of this Chinese style, since they often seem to be afflicted of these same problems, most importantly that the visual is more important than the story, but Ashes of Time Redux is perhaps the worst example I've seen.<br /><br />3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Well, let me put it this way - I have always been one of the "hardcore brothers"; I've always loved rock music, and especially heavy metal!! That's why this movie is like a gift from God! I believe this movie is one of the best movies ever (well, except from Neverending Story and Star Wars, of course ...). It's great to hear all the classics, like "Long live rock and roll" (DIO), "Stranglehold (Ted Nugent), songs by Jon Bon Jovie, Deep Purple, AC/DC, Zakk Wylde and several other legendary rock bands. Heavenly! Absolutely gorgeous! WONDERFUL!!! I hope they will make more movies like this (otherwise it's just crap movies, like that "AC in da USA" or what they call it, and "8 miles". Bulls***!). Well, I strongly recommend this anyway! Everything I'm missing is a couple of Stratovarius-songs! But except from that, it's one of the best movies ever! Ten out of ten!
| 1 |
positive
|
COC had its moments. I enjoyed the action sequences, but I despised the screenplay and plot. I hate this film so much, I'll just write about the dumbest part. First of all, the plot would never happen. Second, the bleakness of the Chinese President was uncalled for. That would never happen. Finally, the dialogue. Employing non-Chinese actors to play Chinese roles is understandable, but to write dialogue for them that's TOTALLY OFF is dumb! For those of you who understood the Chinese in the film, you know what I mean.
| 0 |
negative
|
Swift's socialism and pacifism come through against all odds in this well done remake. (Did you know there is no hyphen after "well"? Fact.) He meets warlike miniatures, socialist giants, head-in-the-clouds (literally) philosophers, and pacifist horses who rule over Yahoos -- nearly neanderthal humanoids. (Is that where "yahoo" came from?) We also meet the dastardly Dr. Bates, the devoted Mary Gulliver, the sweet and devoted son Thomas, and the full cast of a truly horrific 19th century lunatic asylum. Suspension of disbelief comes easily, and our 7- and 12-year-old girls enjoyed it as much as my husband and I did. (Sorry for the length, IMDb requires 10 lines.)
| 1 |
positive
|
It's the old, old story : kids have a party in an old house, demons are unleashed, death and gratuitous nudity ensues. You all know it, it's still a lot of fun.<br /><br />Many people (okay, many horror fans, to be specific) have fond memories of this movie and it's always with slight trepidation that you revisit an old movie to see if it's still as good as you used to think it was. Luckily, this is.<br /><br />It has something for everyone (well, everyone who happens to be male, I suppose). From a fun title sequence to a shoplifting scam involving cunning use of Linnea Quigley's ass to the "mirror" scene to the full on demonic fun, this is a blast from start to finish.<br /><br />The girls are cute, the guys are . . . . male, the death scenes are well done with some good gore effects and, unlike some horrors from the era, this actually keeps a good sense of atmosphere and even tension throughout. Don't get me wrong, it's still fun first and foremost but it offers some nice, freaky moments that should please most genre fans.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was recommended to me by the same person that blessed me with a copy of The Chronicles of Narnia. Shadowlands is one of the most amazing screenplays ever written. It is well executed, acted and directed. The cinematography is a bit dark for my taste but I'm sure it was intended to be so. The screenplay is like poetry in portions of the movie, through out the movie I found myself taking pause to reflect on the comments just made on screen. This is a wonderful piece of cinema and I can only hope that more people will run across it and add reviews. Fair warning though this was a 6 tissue movie for me. Very touching. Very Heartfelt performances.
| 1 |
positive
|
Good lord.<br /><br />I'm going to say right off the bat, I only watched 20 minutes of this movie. As I am a hardcore Eraserhead fan, the "what, you can't watch a wierd black and white movie with little-to-no dialogue?" defense does not apply. I simply can't watch TERRIBLE weird black and white movies with little-to-no dialogue.<br /><br />This movie is what happens when you give an angsty goth-child with no talent and nothing to say a camera and budget, and let him/her put as much meaninglessly offensive imagery on screen as possible. It was clear from the start that this film should have been 5 minutes long (assuming it should exist at all). Shots that should last a few seconds drag on for minutes, because the director has "I-Just-Love-The-Sound-Of-My-Own-Voice" syndrome, and refuses to cut to another shot until the entire piece of footage has been viewed. From the moment the girl in the mask started masturbating the corpse of "God" (the opening scene of the film! joy!), I knew it was only a matter of time until I turned off the tape. After at least 10 minutes of a different corpse being pulled around, twitching, on a rope, by a gang of cloaked mystery-men, I knew it was time to give up. Rarely do I give up on a movie. I sat through the entirety of Blair Witch 2: Book Of Shadows, albeit not happily. This did not deserve the 20 minutes I gave it.<br /><br />If you're an Eraserhead fan, do NOT let simple-minded comparisons to said film con you into renting this piece of amateur trash. Allow me to refer you to Tetsuo: The Iron Man, for a watchable and enjoyable piece of incoherent black and white weirdness.
| 0 |
negative
|
There are movies that are just a different version of another one, not remakes, but just similar to others, it is not. Although it talks about Mafia it is watched in another way and often it seems just a secondary theme. I went to watch that movie for case (because the otherone's theatre was full) and I was satisfied at the end. It surprised me, because of its black irony or cynicism and there are more and more interesting items to analyze. It doesn't follow the classical ways of movies, it is just different and I think not to be the only one to like that. I am very happy also because it is Italian, and I was afraid that Italian directors and producers were not enough brave to change themes. In this movie you can watch new Italian style as well, but is not blocked into clichés. I hope to be understandable enough, I know it is difficult, I hope also that this movie can be exported out of our frontiers, it is a good product to export. I want to point out also the music, very good soundtrack, the movie needs it because of its long silent pause and they are covered perfectly by that music. Many compliments to the director, and thank you, cinema needs these movies.
| 1 |
positive
|
Let me say this about Edward D. Wood Jr. He had a passion for his work that I wish more people did have. If we all had the optimism and the commanding hope of Ed Wood, the world would probably be a much better place. Being familiar with Ed Wood's story and having seen the most wonderful biopic "Ed Wood" (1994) several times, I admire his boldness and his strives for the job he loved; I still admire his never-say-die attitude. He had a love for directing that I wish more people in modern-day Hollywood had.<br /><br />But that doesn't make his movies any more fun to watch. And "Glen or Glenda," his first and most confessional film, is probably his very worst.<br /><br />"Glen or Glenda" is a deadening cult movie about a cross-dresser named Glen (played by director/writer Ed Wood himself) who despite his love for his fiancée Barbara (Dolores Fuller), cannot seem to conquer his lust for transvestitism, in which he dresses in women's clothing and a wig and thus becomes...Glenda! Glen/Glenda's story is narrated by a doctor and he too is talked and watched over by a mysterious character called "The Scientist" played by veteran horror star Bela Lugosi. Oh, and there's also some sub-story about an Alan/Anne character who becomes a transsexual based on the Christine Jorgenson story, upon whom this movie originally titled "I Changed My Sex!" was previously to be based.<br /><br />Have I dropped your jaw yet? Well, as much as I want to warn you off this picture if you've never seen it, I would never tell a lie about a movie and there is not one word of falsehood in that plot synopsis I just gave you. Every thing in it is true. This is a movie about cross-dressers and transsexuals, a topic that does not sound very appealing to begin with and is not done in a very appealing manner. I'm sure that with a good screenplay, and a good director (it had neither) that "Glen or Glenda," despite the subject matter, could have been a very moving picture. It is a confessional movie on Wood's part, as he was a transvestite in real life as well as on screen. But once again, that does not make it a good movie...or a watchable one for that matter. "Glen or Glenda" is a jumbled, disorganized mess of a movie that sinks into new trenches in the realm of bad cinema. It makes no more sense than does its notoriously silly scene where Bela Lugosi screams "Pull the string!" over inexplicable footage of stampeding bison. The majority of the movie is narrated in a monotonous voice, reminding me of some very bad short informative films I've seen before. It's like one of those really bad short films expanded into a seventy-minute feature and twice as dull. We sit there for ages waiting for the plot that never comes. There is no real attempt to even build energy with the camera being locked down in one position for many grueling minutes and long stretches of time where nothing at all happens. The only moments that are worth anybody's time are those of Bela Lugosi who manages to bring some light into these dark trenches. I guess Lugosi is supposed to be like the deity of the film, but personally, I couldn't care less who or what he's supposed to be. I'll tell you what he was: A gifted actor who wound up making trash. But he and Wood were very good friends and liked working with each other, so good for him.<br /><br />I will always admire Edward D. Wood Jr. for his passion for the cinema, but I will never as long as I live admire his movies. A film critic once called Ed Wood's movies "innocent fun" but I think even that is questionable. Innocent? Yes. Fun? No, sir. And if "Citizen Kane" is the Mount Everest of the cinematic world, then "Glen or Glenda" is probably the Mariana Trench.
| 0 |
negative
|
A sick man Carleton Hendricks (Dee Snider), cruises the Teen Chat lines as Captain Howdy. He poses as a teenage boy and invites other teens over his house to party. He instead knocks them out, strips them, sews their mouth closed and tortures them (mostly with needles). He captures the daughter of cop Mike Gage (Kevin Gage). He finds him, arrests him and he's institutionalized. Four years later he's released...totally cured. But a lynch mop (led, amusingly, by Robert Englund) attack him and hang him. He doesn't die but he snaps and Captain Howdy is back...<br /><br />A very sick, disturbing, twisted horror film. Captain Howdy enjoys pain and torture and is trying to show the kids he kidnaps how to enjoy it also. The torture scenes aren't that explicit (you hear more than you see), but what you do see is very very sick. There's no humor and the (muted) screams of his victims sound way too real. I was cringing away from the TV during most of the scenes. <br /><br />The acting varies. Kevin Gage isn't that good as the cop--he's not terrible but he could have been better. Dee Snider is very scary as Captain Howdy--his attack scenes are not pleasant.<br /><br />All in all, not your typical horror film. I'll probably never see it again (this film really gets under your skin) but I recommend it to all horror fans--at least those with strong stomaches. I give it a 7.
| 1 |
positive
|
Seagal was way off the mark with this film. I'm a fan of his and come to expect cool fight scenes and sharp one liners but this film had none of this, instead it had injections and cheesy music. Even if you're a fan of his i strongly recommend you keep away from this film and watch under siege or even on deadly ground instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is an excellent film, full of complexity, themes and great dialogue. The characters are well drawn, with Phil the biggest loser of all time.<br /><br />Adam Haddrick's character is the most vicious thing I've seen on screen since Alec Guinness's portrayal of Adolf Hitler in 'Hitler: The Last Ten Days.'<br /><br />I just wish they'd all got away with it. But without giving too much away, there are some situations you just cannot lie your way out of.
| 1 |
positive
|
Ken Harrison, a young sculptor in his early thirties, is seriously injured in a road accident. End of story.<br /><br />"End of story", that is, in the sense of "end of any physical action". Not in the sense of "end of the film". Ken's life is saved, but he is paralysed from the neck down. When he discovers that he is unlikely ever to regain the use of his limbs he decides that he wants to die and asks the doctors to end the medical treatment which is keeping him alive. The rest of the film is essentially one long debate about the rights and wrongs of euthanasia and the right to die.<br /><br />Ken's main antagonist in this debate is his doctor, Michael Emerson. Although the case against euthanasia is often presented in religious terms, here it is presented in purely secular ones. If Dr Emerson has any deep religious convictions, these are never expressed in the film. He believes passionately, however, that death is an enemy against which it is his duty as a doctor to fight; to allow a patient effectively to take his own life would represent a surrender to that enemy and a dereliction of that duty. Ken therefore finds himself in a "Catch-22" situation. He must be able to show that he is sane and rational enough to make the decision to end his life. Emerson, however, considers that a wish to die is in itself evidence of insanity and irrationality. Ken's dilemma can only be solved by hiring a lawyer to sue the hospital.<br /><br />Richard Dreyfuss as Ken and John Cassavetes as Dr Emerson put across their respective points of view skilfully and with sincerity, but this cannot hide the fact that "Whose Life is it Anyway?" simply does not work as a film. At one time filmed versions of stage plays were done in a similar way to theatrical productions but by the seventies and eighties this was often seen as unsatisfactory because of the differences between the two media. When plays were filmed, therefore, the general tendency was to "open them up" by filming on location as well as on studio sets, by taking liberties with the playwright's text, often making significant changes to the plot and even introducing extra characters.<br /><br />I have never seen Brian Clarke's play, but I suspect that this is a story that would work better in the theatre than in the cinema. There is very little physical action; most of the action consists of lengthy discussions around a hospital bed in which the main character lies paralysed. Such a plot does not lend itself to the "opening up" device at all, and the resulting film is very static, dominated by talk at the expense of action. Although it is well written and there is some good acting, I am surprised that a film was ever made of such an uncinematic subject. 4/10
| 0 |
negative
|
For all intents and purposes, Showtime was the worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />Why? Because having Deniro in the cast adds immediate credibility and makes you want to watch the movie. I had also made the mistake of watching 48 Hours and Beverly Hills Cop recently before seeing Showtime and for some strange reason thought Eddie Murphy was still funny. Well he's not. In fact it almost seems like he has been neutered. As I watched this movie I was in amazement that Deniro decided this was a good enough script to lend his name too. No chemistry between him and Murphy whatsoever. Horrible writing, horrible jokes, a movie that you THINK is supposed to be good can't get much worse than this. Not too long after sitting through the wretch that was Showtime I happened to watch National Security starring Martin Lawrence. The movie had its funny parts but wasn't that great. But still it was 20 times better than Showtime. Please if your a Deniro fan DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!
| 0 |
negative
|
This final installment of the "Airport" franchise was so incredibly awful that it took me awhile to realize it actually wasn't a slapstick comedy, like "Airplane". George Kennedy shooting a flare gun out an open window to divert heat-seeking missiles was comical. What would happen to your hand if you held it out a window at mach two speed? You'd lose your grip on the gun and get a broken arm. The passengers were unintentionally hilarious, as was the interior of the plane. The sophisticated French woman coming on to slobby George Kennedy was like Jackie Kennedy coming on to Ernest Borgnine. Ain't gonna happen. Susan Blakely, a talented and unappreciated actress, did not get any points on her resume for this one. Neither did Robert Wagner. This movie was so lousy it seemed surreal.
| 0 |
negative
|
Other than it reassembled the characters from the first film and gave them more backstory. Essentially, Lucian the Lycan (werewolf) fell in love with Sonia the Vampire, a Romeo and Juliet scenario you know is going to end badly if you've seen the first movie. So with absolutely no suspense, we blunder forward with two hours of unremitting CGI and actors with little or no screen presence. All shot in that monotone color that the first movie had because nothing was shot in daylight.<br /><br />Worth your time.. probably not. In fact, the quality has gone down, even the CGI looks like it was done on the cheap, you don't buy for a minute that these are real werewolves.
| 0 |
negative
|
Jess Franco makes exploitation films, and he has made tons of them. Franco is responsible for some of the most shocking films in cinema history, and god bless him for it. Unfortunately, The Diamonds of Kilominjaro is a truly awful movie that is not up to his usual standards.<br /><br />Exploitation films should be judged on story, sex, and gore. What else is there? This film fails on most of those benchmarks. The plot is paper thin, placing a nubile young girl in the jungle among cannibals. We really don't get information on why she and her father were there in the first place. As expected, her father is the "Big White Chief" and she becomes a goddess, sitting in trees, naked. Add fortune hunters and precious stones, and you have your basic rescue the girl for greedy intentions plot line. The characters are stock, not adding an ounce of believability to the proceedings.<br /><br />Gore? None, or at least very little. This film is often mentioned in the same vein as the classic Italian cannibal movies. Those seeking that type of gore need to run the other way. Save for one cheap be-heading, this movie features surprisingly little blood and guts.<br /><br />As best I can tell the only reason this movie exists is so Katja Bienert, Aliene Mess, and Mari Carmen Neieto could run around naked. Actually "Lita" (Mari Carmen Neieto) does the full frontal heavy lifting, while the two jungle ladies are bare chested throughout. Yes, there are love scenes....probably the most sterile Franco has ever supervised. The women are beautiful, but nothing here to really make this movie an erotic classic either.<br /><br />This movie just reeks of low budget buffoonery. The sets are laughable. The acting is horrid, and the editing is confusing. There is no real story to hold this together, and not enough of a budget (or effort) to shock or titillate. I think Franco fans have come to expect more out of the master of exploitation.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the best work i have ever seen on television. The story is compelling--all the more so because it is true. The writers did their homework--the accuracy of events is well documented. The acting is great. This has to be the best role Sam Waterston has ever had. And the black and white cinematography was exceptional. My only regret is that it is not available to buy. A few years ago I contacted someone involved with the production (either with PBS or in England) and was told they had no plans to release it on VHS (at the time). This was a BBC production and ran in the U.S. on American Playhouse. There is such an interest in seeing this--just hard to believe no one can make it available.
| 1 |
positive
|
One of the best! As being a fan of the civil war, I was very pleased with the first installment of the North and South trilogy. Patrick Swayze gives and extraordinary performance, as well as James Reed and Leslie Ann Down. In watching this fabulous story unfold into a time never forgotten, the subjects of love, passion, grief, shame, harmony, and cruelty come to life. I was first introduced to this series when I was in the eighth grade. Being a young boy, you would think that I wouldn't have been interested in this civil war soap. To be honest, this story stole the hearts of every one in my class, and this is just the first book. I bought the novel and studied the likes and differences and it was awesome. I am 17 now and still enjoy the story, characters, subject, and remember the times of the civil war. As a movie director of the future, I will always enjoy North and South: Book One.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.