text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
This very loose retelling of Carmen begins on a high note with a smoldering, sexually-frank dance between Senaglese prisoner "Karmen" and her female prison warden, but the vibrant opening minutes never ignite into any coherent film. One minute Karmen is all sexual predator, the next she is dancing in protest to her unfair government, and then suddenly she is a smuggler on the high seas... Although the film deserves kudos for postulating the first carnivorously bisexual "Karmen," the broad strokes it paints are so vignette-like and unsupported by any narrative coherence that the film comes off as a schizophrenic, undisciplined melange of "Basic-Instinct" meets "Bound" meets an African version of a Bollywood musical.
| 0 |
negative
|
In many ways, the filmic career of independent film-making legend John Cassavetes is the polar opposite of someone like Alfred Hitchcock, the consummate studio director. Where Hitchcock infamously treated his actors as cattle, Cassavetes sought to work with them improvisationally. Where every element in a Hitchcock shot is composed immaculately, Cassavetes cared less for the way a scene was figuratively composed than in how it felt, or what it conveyed, emotionally. Hitchcock's tales were always plot-first narratives, with the human element put in the background. Cassavetes put the human experience forefront in every one of his films. If some things did not make much sense logically, so be it.<br /><br />One can see this even from his very first film, 1959's Shadows, filmed with a 16mm hand-held camera, on a shoe string budget of about $40,000, in Manhattan, with Cassavetes' acting workshop repertory company, and touted as an improvisatory film. The story is rather simple, as it follows the lives of three black sibling Manhattanites- Benny (Ben Carruthers)- a trumpeter and no account, Hugh (Hugh Hurd)- a washed up singer, and Lelia (Lelia Goldoni)- the younger sister of both. The film's three main arcs deal with Hugh's failures as a nightclub crooner, and his friendship with his manager Rupert (Rupert Crosse); Benny's perambulations in an about Manhattan with his two no account pals; and Lelia's lovelife- first with a white boy Tony (Anthony Ray), who does not realize light-skinned Lelia's race, even after bedding her; then with stiff and proper Davey (Davey Jones), who may be a misogynist.<br /><br />In the first arc, nothing much happens, except dark-skinned Hugh gets to pontificate on how degraded he feels to be singing in low class nightclubs, and opening shows for girly acts. He dreams of making it big in New York, or even Paris, but one can tell he is the type of man who will continue deluding himself of his meager skill, for the one time we actually get to hear him sing, he shows he's a marginal talent, at best. That Rupert keeps encouraging him gives us glimpses into how destructive friendships work. But, this is the least important of the three arcs
. While this film is better overall than, say, Martin Scorsese's first film, a decade later, Who's That Knocking At My Door?- another tale of failed romance and frustrated New Yorkers, it has none of the brilliant moments- acting-wise nor cinematographically- that that film has. It also is not naturalistic, for naturalism in art is a very difficult thing to achieve, especially in film, although the 1950s era Manhattan exteriors, at ground level, is a gem to relive. While Shadows may, indeed, be an important film in regards to the history of the independent film circuit, it certainly is nowhere near a great film. Parts of it are preachy, poorly acted, scenes end willy-nilly, almost like blackout sketches, and sometimes are cut off seemingly in the middle. All in all it's a very sloppy job- especially the atrocious jazz score that is often out of synch with the rest of the film, as Cassavetes proved that as a director, at least in his first film, he was a good actor. The only reason for anyone to see Shadows is because Cassavetes ultimately got better with later films, and this gives a clue as to his later working style.<br /><br />The National Film Registry has rightly declared this film worthy of preservation as 'culturally significant'. This is all in keeping with the credo of art Cassavetes long championed, as typified by this quote: 'I've never seen an exploding helicopter. I've never seen anybody go and blow somebody's head off. So why should I make films about them? But I have seen people destroy themselves in the smallest way. I've seen people withdraw. I've seen people hide behind political ideas, behind dope, behind the sexual revolution, behind fascism, behind hypocrisy, and I've myself done all these things. So I can understand them. What we are saying is so gentle. It's gentleness. We have problems, terrible problems, but our problems are human problems.' That this film is 'culturally significant' is true, but that truth is not synonymous with its being 'artistically significant'. It is in the difference between these two definitions where great art truly thrives.
| 1 |
positive
|
I can only assume the previous posts came from execs at the production company...<br /><br />Attended the UK premiere last night. Zane and Brook attended (they probably knew I was gonna be there) and are undoubtedly stars, but what a turkey of a film. I felt sorry for them at times, when the audience erupted in laughter at what were serious 'thriller' scenes.<br /><br />But perhaps I was missing the point. Perhaps an element of tongue-in-cheek was intended. If so, pure genius. If not, career genocide.<br /><br />On the plus side, Zane always shines, and Brook can actually act a little. As the other half said (as we ran out the cinema, avec broken ribs), they can be forgiven for this film as they both seem like nice people! The scriptwriter, however, should be marooned.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was laughing so hard most of the time I had people glaring at me because they couldn't hear over my laughter. I literally fell out of my seat at a specific point.<br /><br />I'm a Bartender and Bouncer for a living in the Real world (note my use of the term Real world, sadly it always has to come first), and whenever I tell someone I play RPG's, it's usually followed by one of two questions: 1. What, like D&D? I played that back in Junior High.<br /><br />2. Really? I've been looking or a group forever! Have room for another? Very rarely do people not know what D&D and Gaming are.<br /><br />That having been said almost every person who watches this movie can get something out of it. Even if you aren't a Gamer, chances are there is something in your life you "Geek Out" about that can be made fun of in a light hearted way, and that alone means you can relate to the hijinx in this flick. It's just light hearted happiness in an hour and a half.
| 1 |
positive
|
From the golden period of British films, this has my vote for one of the funniest of all time. Screened yesterday at my Film Society to a rapturous audience, I was astonished at how well the comedy has lasted (made in 1950!). It is really down to the expert timing and inimitable playing from two of the finest actors Britain has produced: Margaret Rutherford and Alastair Sim. Adapted from a play by John Dighton, this farce is briskly handled by director Frank Launder. The plot is simple: A ministry mistake billets a girls' school on a boys' school. I will always laugh when I think of this film.
| 1 |
positive
|
Made it through the first half an hour and deserved a medal for getting that far. Lots of excuses for scantily clad women but no real plot to speak of emerged in that time. What sounded like a good idea for a movie was badly executed.
| 0 |
negative
|
Therefore it is important to talk about the DVD release instead of just the film. Tales from the Crapper is a film that only one studio in the world could deliver. The one that has brought us innovative and original REAL independent films for 30 plus years now: Troma. This is truly a very special film because it manages to be certainly not my favorite of the Troma-productions, but released on a disc that because of what I just said is one of my most valued and favorite DVD's. Not only counting the countless Troma discs I own, but counting my entire collection of films. The film itself is the result of an ill fated plan to produce a television series to be directed by a director who was trusted with a substantial amount of money (especially for Troma) to make something wonderful and delivered a lot of unfinished and incomprehensible material before quitting (or being fired, I am not sure which at this moment). In order to prevent having to shove a vast investment down the toilet Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz decided to get together a team of directors and actors and use the material as the backbone of one movie. One movie that really consists of two, in the nice old Tales From The Crypt anthology fashion, hosted by the Crapkeeper played by Mr Kaufman himself. But, as I said, not quite my own favorite of all their movies. That is greatly due to a weird sense of discipline at the various sets, forgetting about the hard Troma rule of "no booze on the set" which was discovered by a furious Lloyd and other less respectable employees that Troma had at the time of the filming of the added scenes. All this made it all but impossible for Mr Kaufman to make a worthwhile product in the editing room. But Lloyd Kaufman is a genius, and with the troubled added scenes to an already misshapen start-product he crafted not much less of a masterpiece. The film itself is as good as circumstances would allow the most brilliant filmmaker to slice together and it is certainly highly entertaining, totally confusing, loaded with those elements that made Troma great and certainly unique and one of a kind. As a film itself, though, not as brilliant as many other Troma productions. The genius of Independent Cinema however made the DVD of this film so much more than a release of a film with some extra's. The film is, when push comes to shove, actually only a part of the entire DVD that in its whole is a document of the difficult situation serious filmmakers find themselves in having to survive in a world that is monopolized by the few Very Big Ones who don't really allow any other players on their market turf. A document of the problems one has when trusting people to be on the level, only to find out that freedom sometimes is something that is hard to live up to and realization that access to a Movie Budget when the Boss is not around can corrupt even those who should really know better. The brilliance of this DVD is that the film is not perfect, and that Lloyd KNOWS it, and doesn't want to make anyone think he believes it is. The full-length commentary is a show in itself (as is often the case with Mr. Kaufan's audio commentaries), mixing humor, sneers at those who deserve it and highly interesting information for anyone interested in Independent Film-making in such a fashion that watching the film again with this commentary straight after viewing it on its own merits is so interesting it is hard to stop. The feature-length documentary THE THICK BROWN LINE takes us behind the scenes at the various locations where Lloyd visits the sets only to sometimes take over and make the most of what he finds there. We see him somewhat disillusioned sometimes, different from his appearances in other Making Of Documents such as Fart of Darkness and Apocalypse Soon, both to be found in the must-own MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN MOVIE box set. <br /><br />The added scenes with James Gunn (who started his career at Troma only to find success as a writer an now a director in Hollywood) and Trey Parker (again someone to start out with a Troma-released work, to later be a national hero with his South Park series) are entertaining and probably (as is much else on this release) a reason for obtaining this disc alone for anyone remotely interested in the work of these two characters. Loaded with much more than I could mention here (including a SECOND audio-commentary) this is one of the best Troma-DVD-releases.
| 1 |
positive
|
If you can watch a Bond film from 1983 that isn't as good as Octopussy and still enjoy it.<br /><br />If you can accept production values which aren't that much above the level of a TV movie.<br /><br />If you can look at Sean Connery with wrinkles on his forehead beneath an obvious toupée and still see James Bond.<br /><br />If you can get past an inexperienced Basinger, a weaker Largo and a jolly Q.<br /><br />If you can learn to love an idiosyncratic score, not up there with Barry on his worst day.<br /><br />If you don't believe the hyperbolic reviews that it was greeted with on release.<br /><br />If you can meet a poker battle and a video game face off and enjoy them both the same.<br /><br />Yours is Never Say Never Again and everything that's in it.<br /><br />And, what is more, you'll probably enjoy it, my son!
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched 5% of this movie tonight and you may tell me that I need to see the whole movie to understand it, but frankly I don't think so.<br /><br />What the hell is the story in this movie? I saw a lot of people running around in a factory, shooting at everything around them.<br /><br />Where to start? Okay..<br /><br />1) They were shooting around the place as if it was the Terminator or something they were trying to kill. The entire place is made of metal, but not a single bullet sparked on the metallic surfaces.<br /><br />2) No ricochet. Metal vs metal is bound to cause ricochets, but apparently no one got hit by a stray bullet.<br /><br />3) Magic bullets? In one scene a bad-guy is standing right in front of a good-guy when another good-guy pops out behind the bad-guy and pumps him full of metal. You see the bullets exit his chest as it explodes in a bloody mist, but the good-guy right in front of him doesn't get hurt at all! 4) After having just splattered a human being all over the wall, the two good-guys tell each other some jokes and they laugh and look like teenagers playing with soft-guns.<br /><br />5) Sound? At one point the good-guys cut a wire and an alarm goes off (who the hell cuts a wire just to set off an alarm?). The lady screams out "Alarm in sector blah blah" and the bad-guy boss says "Okay.. this.. is.. not.. a.. drill.. blah blah" in a very, very amateur kinda way. Ooh, we're getting ambushed by terrorists, this isn't a drill, but I'm gonna sound like I don't give crap.<br /><br />6) Focus!! First you see the bad-guys load up on weapons. For some reason the same guy gets the same Uzi twice. Deja vu or loop of scenes? You literally see every single bad-guy receive the same kind of weapon and they lock and load the same way. The weapons dealer pops in the clip and the bad-guy extra no. XX locks and loads. When they started opening fire you HAD to see the barrel flashes. Boooring!! 7) Actors or dummies? One of the presumed good-guys throw down a smoke grenade for some reason and of course the bad-guys are suddenly inside the smoke because they're smoke-blind or something so they don't see it coming. They cough and moan as if it was Anthrax in the grenade. Then a semi-boss bad-guy arrives and he doesn't even cough when he enters the smoke, he just pushes the other bad-guys away and they suddenly realize that the smoke isn't Anthrax anyway.<br /><br />8) B flick? I think yeah! A guy sliding down a metal pipe wielding a Uzi in his right hand shooting away at someone in his eye height apparently. I'd like to see a guy fire a Uzi with one hand and I'd like to see him go get his hand afterwards. Extra bloody gore mess in a B flick kinda way. Small *pops* and a red hole with a torn shirt indicates that this guy is dead. Though the first bullet hit his heart the good-guy who is a super trained green berets still feel the urge to empty his clip into the dead guy.<br /><br />9) One of these mentioned trained soldiers jump out from his hide with an empty clip! How stupid can you be!? Always check your clip before facing an unknown amount of enemies! 10) Boring scenes. Like the barrel flash scenes and the lock and load scenes, the movie is filled with time wasting scenes of people running around in an apparently empty building. Cut to the action if you're going for a B flick movie, please.<br /><br />My two cents on this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
My 5 year old daughter is very into the Barbie series of movies. I've had mixed feelings about that - not wanting her to buy into the whole Barbie-doll image of things, and recognizing that the movies are a marketing ploy to convince young girls to buy more dolls and make more money for Mattel. This morning though she asked me to watch this movie with her, and - it being a lazy Saturday morning and with not much else to do - I agreed. I don't know if the movies have been made to help market the dolls, which seem to be losing their appeal a bit from what I've heard or if the dolls are there to market the movies (or, more likely, a bit of both) but whichever is the case, I have to admit - somewhat to my surprise, this wasn't half bad.<br /><br />It's a fun and imaginative story full of magical places and people and memorable characters (both good and evil.) Essentially, Annika ("played" by Barbie) has to find a way to build a "wand of light" to reverse the evil spells of the wizard Wenlock, who among other things has turned her sister into a flying horse and her parents into stone. The animation here was pretty good - not Disney-calibre (if one thinks of Disney as the standard to aspire to) but generally pretty good, and while the movie is obviously tailored to young girls rather than middle-aged men, I still found there were enough twists and turns to make me wonder how it was all going to turn out. It's true that there were some holes in the story, or at least some logical inconsistencies, but again one must remember the target audience, who wouldn't really think of such things. This is an all around decent family movie. 7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Subject matter: Worthwhile Acting: Fair (some of it) Plot: Ridiculous <br /><br />Details: Sound goes from screechingly high to nearly inaudible; music is not altogether awful (but mostly is); dialog and characterization are laughable; the main character's process of discovery is blindingly obvious to everyone but himself (and the writer, apparently); animal scenes are just plain stupid (singing "Moon River" in an off-key, forgotten-lyrics, silly duet to a "herd" of wild boars for hours, as one example). Finally, the "wet t-shirt" contest is so over-the-top silly that it has to be seen to be disbelieved. (Hint: The 'girl' who wins is not a ... well, I'm not giving that away.)
| 0 |
negative
|
Going into this movie I knew two things about it. I knew that it was a real extreme flick, and I knew that it was somewhat artsy. Both appeal to me in their own right, but when placed together it can be something truly unique. And this was damn right, without a doubt, unique. Like I said above, it is an artsy film. The way they used some intense sound, it reminded me a lot of an Aronofsky film. Visually I haven't seen anything like it. The cinematography and lighting were done very well. The movie seriously uses visuals and sounds better than anything I've seen in a while. Especially when you consider the experience these young filmmakers had (couple 20 year olds), you really have to take your hat off to them.<br /><br />The movie isn't easy to describe or even discuss. There isn't an actual story
.you could say it revolves around the right and left side of the brain and how they control your life
I think. It's four segments, or four ideas brought alive through visual and auditory extremes. There is some talking hear and there, but it's mostly a non-speaking film.<br /><br />The first segment is the shortest and it revolves a naked body and an eyeball. Try and guess what happens
.wrong. The second segment is my favorite. It involves a brother and a sister (who looks a little like Sarah Silverman, but with bigger boobs). The brother is crazy and the sister is somewhat of a whore. I would say this is the most extreme of all the segments, and the most well made. The gore effects in this one were great. The third segment revolves around a bunch of naked people sexing it up with mother earth. It's probably considered the weakest of the bunch, but still is smart and well made. The fourth segment is probably the strongest of the film and I'd also say the deepest. For myself I'll have to view this a couple times to understand what's truly being said. I know that it tackles Christianity in a way that would most likely make your mother feint or throw up
.give it a try.<br /><br />Subconscious Cruelty was recommended to me and I'm proud to say this is now in my movie collection. It's extreme, violent, gory, very sexual and surprisingly pretty damn thought provoking. The next line I'm about to say has been used in almost every review I've read for this film. "This movie is not for everyone." Now ain't that the truth. If you're into extreme films and/or you're just a lover of film that wants to see something different
.check this out. 8 1/2 outta 10
| 1 |
positive
|
Steven Seagal has made a really dull, bad and boring movie. Steven Seagal plays a doctor!!!!!!???! This movie has got a few action-scenes but they are poorly directed and have nothing to do with the rest of the movie. A group of American Nazis spread a lethal virus, which is able to wipe out the state of Montana. Wesley(Seagal`s character)tries desperately to find a cure, and that is the story of The Patriot. The Patriot is an extremely boring film, because nothing happens. It is filled with boring dialogue, and illogical gaps between events, and stupid actors. Steven Seagal has totally scre#¤d up in this movie, and I would not recommend this guff to my worst enemy. 3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a film about a six year old child from a village in Maharashtra (a state in India) and his grandfather who come to Pune (a city in Maharashtra) to treat the child's eyes. here the grandfather gets to know that the child has cancer in both eyes and that they have to be removed to save the child's life. the movie is all about the main characters' and their feelings and actions until the operation.<br /><br />The movie is not a typical cliché Indian movie, so dun expect to see songs or romance or melodrama. this ia a supremely crafted sensitive movie which resorts to silent expressions rather than over the top dialogs to get the point thru. witness the scene where the grandfather is told about the need to remove the child's eyes. the acting is superb, dialogs heart breaking. your heart goes out for the grandfather who has the unenviable task of telling the child and his mother about the operation. <br /><br />the handling of the subject has been excellent. the film was made under great hardship by the director, Sandeep Sawant who had to knock many doors to gather the Rs. six million (approx. $130000) budget. even then the final product seems polished and has decent production values. also witness the subtle city village contrast shown by the director by incorporating some random shots of the boy's life in the village. Sawant definitely seems to prefer village life.<br /><br />THe acting by all is excellent. Amruta Subhash as the social worker is competent adding the required humane touch to her role. Sandeep Kulkarni as the docter is great, showing perfect mannerisms of a doctor. Ashwin Chitale as the child is a natural. he doesn't seem to be acting. everything about him is natural and does not seem forced.<br /><br />But towering above all is Arun Nalawade as the grandfather. he is astounding in his role. mere words cannot describe his work. it is a performance to cherish forever.<br /><br />Shwaas is a sincere effort to make good cinema. it should not be ignored just for the fact that it shows that if things are kept simple, the the results can be really surprising. 10/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
I actually saw the movie before I read the book. When I saw the movie I was upset because I wondered why Dean Koontz had made such a bad book/movie. The movie was confusing and didn't have a flow at all, it was choppy and made me want to throw a rock at the TV. I couldn't connect with the characters at all, so i didn't care about what happened to them(normally I love the characters because I can relate to their personality or problems). Then I read the book and loved it. I often re-read the book, and the movie is collecting dust. I wish someone would make a Koontz movie that follows the plot of his books, then the movies wouldn't suck so much. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU NEED TO WASTE MONEY!
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie stands for entertanment. Its the funniest movie I have ever seen. The lines, the acting. And the clothes, wow, talk about 70:s. If you ever see this little gem, buy it. Its worth every penny. By the way, the opening song is awsome. If anyone know where I can find it. Plese, send me an E-mail.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have just read what I believe to be an analysis of this film by a lyrical Irishman. Lovely to read.<br /><br />However, a concise analysis of this film is that it is a interweaving of the seven deadly sins with the four types of justice.<br /><br />Envy, greed, pride, sloth, anger, etc. and justice in the forms of retributive, distributive, blind, and divine.<br /><br />I could demonstrate three examples of each, one for each of the three protagonists; however, it is much more fun to note them for oneself.<br /><br />This is an excellent film.<br /><br />Don't miss it.
| 1 |
positive
|
This comment discusses "North and South Book I" dealing with 1842-1861 period<br /><br />The 19th century history of the USA is mostly identified by people with the Civil War (1861-1865). This is a reasonable opinion because that was Civil War which put the Union under the severe test; that was the Civil War which made Americans realize how precious it is to live in peace; finally, that was this period which at last brought the end to the shameful system of slavery. <br /><br />From the birth of motion pictures, there were people who adapted that time onto screen. D.W. Griffith, in the early 1900s, made his unforgettable BIRTH OF A NATION. Yet, the most famous film about the north-south clash is still, I suppose, GONE WITH THE WIND (1938). Unfortunately, fewer people know the magnificent TV series based on John Jakes' novel, "North and South." It is the very best TV series ever made and the time spent on watching it is really precious. I taped it on my video from Polish TV many years ago and have come back to it with great pleasure many times since then. Why? <br /><br />Firstly, the entire story is deeply rooted in historical reality. The two families, the Maines from South Carolina and the Hazards from Pennsylvania, represent two entirely different ways of life. In spite of that, friendship unites them. Yet, what they experience is the struggle all people do: friendship attacked by "truth" of "political correctness", love attacked by hatred of "legal spouses", gentleness by strength of "social heroes". Orry Maine (Patrick Swayze) is my beloved character - someone who finds love and who is quickly deprived of her; someone who cares for friends but political fanatics step in the way and ruin much. Finally, he is someone who can see the tragic future for his land but there is nothing he can do about the south's inescapable fate. His friend, George Hazard, is similar in most aspects but sometimes he appears to have a stronger character. It is him who shows Orry that although there are tragedies, he must get up from despair and live since life is the most precious thing we have. Although they represent two different lifestyles, their friendship occurs to be stronger than any prejudice, politics or conflicts.<br /><br />Other characters are also particularly well developed. There are villains, like Justin LaMotte or Salem Jones who are really wicked but most of the people are ambiguous as the nature of humanity has always been. Charles Maine is, at first, full of rebellion, prone to fighting, later, however, he learns to be a true southern gentleman for whom southern pride is not courageous words but foremost courageous deeds. Virgilia Hazard represents the most fanatical side of abolitionist movement striving to condemn slavery and punish the owners of "black breeding farms." Her marriage with Grady appears to be a symbol of equality but also a symbol of saying "NO" to the politics of the south. Two interesting characters are Orry's sisters, Brett and Ashton - sisters in whose veins runs entirely opposite blood. Brett, in her gentleness but also naiveness, believes in absolute fidelity. She marries Billy, even though he is a northerner, because she truly loves him. Brett is the representation of all that is precious in any young woman. Ashton, however, is a vamp, a tigress, a woman who does not hesitate to do the most wicked things. The clear picture of their world views clash is their chat about men and family...unforgettable moment and how universal! Most characters head for their values...yet, war breaks out and they'll have to put aside a lot...<br /><br />Secondly, the performances... someone said that not all people act naturally. I wouldn't say that. I'd rather say that all cast do very good jobs in their parts from the main characters who are portrayed by younger staff to the guests that consist of famous stars, including Liz Taylor, Robert Mitchum and others. Patrick Swayze as Orry does a great job. I consider this role one of his best ones. Lesley Anne Down as Madeleine is also very memorable. Her part, perhaps, entails too much suffering but she manages to express all sorts of feelings really well. Kirstie Alley is very appealing and truly memorable as the abolitionist Virgilia Hazard. Phillip Casnoff is worth consideration as horribly ambitious Elkanah Bent as well as David Carradine as a monster husband, disgusting Justin LaMotte. And, in contrast to him, a mention must be made of Jean Simmons who is truly excellent as Orry's mother whose heart beats for the glory of family life and concord of union. <br /><br />Thirdly, memorable moments of "North and South" leave an unfading trace in one's mind. Who can forget the first meeting of Orry and Madeleine - what charm, what gentleness there is in this scene! Or is it possible to skip the moment when Madeleine's father dies? I found it really powerful, there is a real drama in this moment, a drama of a woman being left by someone who really loved her. I also liked Churubusco sequence and George Hazard so worried about the life of his dearest friend, Orry. Then his meetings with Constance are terrific. Virgilia's speech in Philadelphia is a masterpiece of performance. And the final moment of the first part: although North and South may separate, their friendship will never die. Orry and George symbolically join hands as the train moves on. Simply, there are so many beautiful and powerful scenes that it's impossible to mention even half of them here. And these gorgeous tunes by Bill Conti and shot in brilliant landscapes. The music in "North and South" is very touching and memorable.<br /><br />What to say in the end? "North and South" is a real must have on DVD, simply an amazing TV series about the victory of all that is precious in us: love, friendship, loyalty, honor, truthfulness, absolute fidelity. 9/10
| 1 |
positive
|
This film was original in an unoriginal way. Although many movies have tackled the subject of suicide and mental institutions, it was always about treating the patients and making them better because of the doctor's assistance, in this film, however, we follow a depressed guy who falls in love with a suicidal girl and will stop at nothing to make her happy even though she doesn't care for happiness at all, she just wants to die. This was a very interestingly cute romance comedy that in nothing less than enjoyable. This is a fun one to check out if you ever get the chance, you just have to be open minded about the material. Overall i give it a 6.4, i just voted 9 to get the rating higher :)
| 1 |
positive
|
Laughable would be a good term to describe this movie. But, since this movie deserves nothing good said of it, I'll use the term god-awful instead.<br /><br />Centering around the adventures of a bunch of eco-warriors investigating the nefarious doings of the military on a semi-tropical island, the lack of a budget rapidly becomes apparent. Michael Pare (a real actor! But only in the sense that Pinocchio was a real boy...) leads the bunch of fools through a series of monster chase-and-gobble-hapless-victim scenes. There is some vague attempt at pseudo-science to explain the presence of the giant reptiles, but it convinces the viewer about as well as the acting does.<br /><br />As if this doesn't insult the viewer enough, the movie also features what I'll call "Guns of never-ending ammunition". I never saw Mickey Parrot or his female side-kick change clips once during the entire film, yet I can positively report they cap off at least 40 rounds each in any scene where they are required to fire their weapon. Forty rounds may not seem like that many, but we are talking standard handguns here. I figure 15 round clip, tops. And remember, they never change clips, nor even appear to carry any extra ammo.<br /><br />It's dumb-assery like this which consigns movies to the eternal fires of celluloid hell, and rightly so. The third-rate CGI does little to help matters and the acting is best laughed at, else you'll start crying. Why SciFi Channel repeatedly churns out this mush is anyone's guess.<br /><br />My advice....give this one a wide berth...a very wide berth!
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm glad this was the last of the '40's Universal Mummy movies. The movies were all of variating qualities and this movie was definitely one of the lesser ones.<br /><br />Problem is that it's a very slow moving movie, in which basically nothing interesting or exciting is ever happening. Perhaps it would had all been better if the mummy had made his entrance earlier on in the movie. Instead now the movie once again spends its first 20 minutes explaining what had all happened in the previous mummy movies, by also once again using archive footage from this time "The Mummy" from 1932 again, to which this movie is the fourth mummy movie following the 1932 mummy story. The movie just never knows to find the right pace and even though the movie is barely over an hour long, it still feels a bit like a drag.<br /><br />It of course also doesn't help that the movie has a rather simplistic and actually very little interesting story. The movie also feels quite disjointed. The first and second half of the movie don't really connect to each other and they seemed like two separate movies on their own.<br /><br />At least Lon Chaney Jr. is still in it. He once more reprises the role of the mummy Kharis, for the third time. Too bad that he has such limited screen time this time. He gets unfortunately very little interesting to do, which is also a big waste of the mummy character itself. The movie is further more filled with dozens of silly actors who are playing around with silly accents. It seemed so totally unnecessary to me that most of the characters had to speak with such an accent and it actually gets quite distracting and annoying at points.<br /><br />The mummy movies that's least worth seeing.<br /><br />4/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Well, okay, maybe not perfect, but it was pretty close. This movie jumped from crime drama to romantic goofball comedy and back again so quickly all the way throughout that it seemed like two different movies that played simultaneously and then joined up again at the end. But they did it smoothly, and some in the theater found the bloody parts (like the scalping scene) to be funny as well. I just about threw up, but I guess that's just me. Greg Kinear is perfect as a soap opera actor. He has the ability to perform those over-dramatic soap scenes with just the right facial expressions and voice intonations. His scenes with Betty seem like something out of "Sleepless in Seattle" or some other romantic comedy like that. You almost forget that Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock are searching Betty down. Morgan Freeman's fascination with Betty was rather creepy, considering that he could practically be her grandfather, but the scenes where he is conversing with her photograph are definitely worth a few laughs! Chris Rock's performance seems rather wooden, but he has his moments. Renee Zellweger is so sweet as Betty, the lovable waitress with the crude, unfaithful husband who treats her like dirt. It's very unlikely that she would have actually gotten a job at a hospital without any real credentials, but, hey, it's a movie, just go along with it! Her roommate, Rosa, shines as well, as a woman who cares about Betty, but doesn't quite know how to deal with Betty's sickness. And, lastly, there is Crispin Glover. As a fan of his, I, naturally, thought that the movie could have been funnier had he been in it more. No one else has the same style of acting that Crispin has, and the argument between Chris Rock, Crispin, and the sheriff about the soap opera is hilarious. I guess I'm saying that I liked this movie quite a bit! If you can stomach blood, violence, and a lot of foul language, it's worth the watch and will give you plenty of laughs!
| 1 |
positive
|
Jewel Thief is one of those suspense thrillers in which the viewers are left guessing till the end who the villain is. Suspense builds from the very first scene when the jewel thief becomes a national problem and there are cleverly concealed clues in the film so that you can guess who is the jewel thief. The story portrays that Dev Anand (Vinay in the film) and the jewel thief have identical faces. But you get a 1000 watt shock when you finally come to know the villain. There are many surprises and a lot of fishy stuff going on but there is time for romance and six melodious ever lasting songs sung by Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle, Kishore Kumar and Mohmmad Rafi.<br /><br />This film was also talked about for its song's videos. Consider the teasing and counter teasing in Asman Ke Neeche. Or the blocking of road by Dev Anand when Tanuja was going out with her friends in Yeh Dil Na Hota Bechara. Or the romantic Dil Pukare Are Are in the beautiful Sikkim. Or the wonderful dance by Vyjantimala in Hotho Pe Aisi Baat. Add to it Rulake Gaya Sapna Mera and Raat Akeli Hain and you will never forget this film for any reason.<br /><br />Able acting by Dev Anand, Ashok Kumar, Tanuja and Vyjantimala and direction by Vijay Anand (Dev Anand's younger brother) makes this one of the best loved Hindi films of all times even today.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film tops the previous incarnation by a mile, taking everything to the next level. As always the JackAss guys are purely unbelievable, and I personally laughed harder in that theatre than I have in a long time. Like the first JackAss, this isn't so much a movie as an eighty minute long string of stunts and pranks. It is pure circus entertainment taken to the highest level. Essentially these guys are clowns, debasing themselves for the amusement of others. And its great. The shenanigans are so low, outrageous, and often disgusting that they transcend into a higher form of entertainment.<br /><br />You can't rate this along other movies, its in a class of its own. And it shines. Go and enjoy it for the pure spectacle that it is.
| 1 |
positive
|
The movie is apparently based on a popular French horror novel, by Arthur Bernède, from 1927. Not that I had ever heard about it before but Belphégor has been a popular subject before for movies and mini-series. The first movie got released way back in 1927, simultaneously with the novel. Arthur Bernède was a part of a group of writers who wrote and produced films and novels simultaneously. The character Belphégor is one of his best known creations.<br /><br />Once upon a time Sophie Marceau was a promising new European actress who would conquer Hollywood. She has now however dropped back again to movies like this one. Nothing wrong with playing in French quality movies, since it's the country she originates from but this movie is just ridicules.<br /><br />Problem is mostly that the movie relies on its special effects, to make the movie good and scary. Well, horror and special effects never really have been a good combination though, with some exceptions here and there. It's not like the special effects are bad in this one. Especially for an European movie it is simply good but it;s just misplaced, since the movie gave the feeling it could had easily done without its effect. It would had actually made the movie a better and scarier one to watch, no doubt about that really. <br /><br />The movie is just not ever tense or engaging to watch, also since the movie seems to have difficulties picking the right approach. At times the movie picks a light and just less serious approach, while at others it clearly attempts to be a good scary horror movie. This is mostly the reason why the movie just doesn't work out on any level. You can say that the movie is even a bit boring. It all also definitely gets worse toward the ending. After a while you just stop caring about this movie and its story and you start wishing you had decided to watch something else instead.<br /><br />The editing seems totally off. It uses too fast cuts, without much style, while the fast editing was obviously intended to give the movie a good, modern style. Also the time-line is just plain messed up at times, as if some sequences got edited in the wrong order.<br /><br />The musical score is also really annoying and at times doesn't even sounds to fit the movie, as if it all long got scored before the movie finished shooting. I can't believe composer Bruno Coulais is an Oscar nominated composer. The musical score is almost just as annoying as the movie its sound effects.<br /><br />The movie is filled with many characters, which you however just couldn't care less about. It also just seems very unlikely that a woman like Sophie Marceau would ever fall for a man such as Frédéric Diefenthal. The movie also features Julie Christie, which is nice but just doesn't add much to the movie.<br /><br />A horrible watch.<br /><br />3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
One of the Message Boards threads at IMDb had two women talking about Colin Firth, how they watched the movie only because of him. Obviously these were two young women; but what struck me is how little this movie has been appreciated by audiences generally. The brilliant, and I mean brilliant, performances by Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange were hardly noticed, not only by audiences, but by the Academy and by most of the critics.<br /><br />I think I know why. First, the plot--or actually just the setup--is a kind of bastardization of Shakespeare's King Lear with the dying, crazy patriarch and the three scheming daughters who will inherit. Their names even begin with the same letters, Regan, Goneril, and Cordelia--Rose, Ginny, and Caroline. And I guess "Larry" (Jason Robards) works for "Lear." The apparent idea envisioned by Jane Smiley in her Pulitzer Prize winning novel was to tell a Lear-like story from the point of view of the daughters, and to tell it a sort of late twentieth century realistic way not considered by the Bard. The problem is, in Smiley and Moorhouse's story, the two older daughters are very human with strengths and weaknesses while the father is a most despicable character without much in the way of redeeming qualities. His only strength was his ability to make a financial success of the farm; however, we can even discount that since his father and grandfather before him built the farm and he inherited it.<br /><br />The second problem--and this is one I cannot personally attest to, not having read Smiley's novel--is that the movie is only a limited and partial interpretation of that novel. Still, it is almost always the case that an excellent novel, especially a long and ambitious one with many psychological nuances, cannot be faithfully transferred to the screen. The vision and audio demands of film drown out the subtleties of a narration while the time constraints don't allow for the full development of character and motivation achieved by the novelist. Given five or six hours, perhaps Moorhouse could have made a movie more in keeping with Smiley's novel.<br /><br />A third problem is one that is perhaps Moorhouse's alone. She began her directing career with the very well done Aussie film Proof (1991) starring Russell Crowe. She follow it up with How to Make an American Quilt (1995) which celebrated women, especially women of a certain age. However it was a bit heavy-handed and clearly and determinedly a chick flick. In a sense A Thousand Acres takes off from there, showing us not only the point of view of women, but does so in a way that may seem politically motivated to some. Larry Cook is clearly a bad, bad daddy. He beat his daughters and he had carnal knowledge of them. He ran the household with an iron fist. Jess (Colin Firth's character) seduces the inexperienced Ginny and breaks her heart for nothing more than a bit of fun it would appear. And then he goes to Rose, who clearly is going to be the power behind the new ownership, and hooks up with her, while incidentally inducing her husband to end his life in a drunken accident. The rest of the men are one-dimensional characters without nuance, the way they often appear in romance novels. I think most audiences were put off by the heavy-handed incest, adultery and sexual betrayal that was woven into the story.<br /><br />Having said all this, I think the critics and the public are wrong. I think the direction was biased against men, but in this story it needed to be. I think Moorhouse did a fine job of making an emotional and engaging film about family dynamics that were none too pretty. And the acting by Pfeiffer and Lange was nothing short of sensational. They seemed to feed off of one another in a way that I found absolutely authentic and deeply moving. In particular Pfeiffer was riveting as she projected her bent-up anger and hatred. The way Moorhouse allowed her character to be revealed to us gradually is a tribute to her ability as a director as well as to Pfeiffer's outstanding performance. And the skill with which Moorhouse guided the change in Ginny's character as she went from a "ninny," as she called herself, to someone with self-awareness and some understandable bitterness, was also excellent. The fact that she left her husband was as much out of shame as anything else. He needed to go get her and forgive her and bring her back. And Robards in his intensity and madness was also very good.<br /><br />I predict that this film, which bombed in theaters, will be better appreciated in the years to come as people see it on DVD. My question is, whatever happened to Moorhouse? Her talent is obvious, but she has yet to director her fourth feature film. When she does I hope she remembers to go with what she believes but to be fair as well. I think, actually she was fair to the two lead character in this film, but didn't pay enough attention to the others. In addition to the unnuanced father, Jennifer Jason Leigh's Caroline was unfinished, leaving us to wonder about why she did some of the things she did. And the husbands needed to be something more than mannequins. They needed to be engaged and involved.
| 1 |
positive
|
yeah..that's what the station disclaimer states after the commercials for this show "some scenes may be disturbing to some viewers" .<br /><br />It is beyond disturbing. The validation of this whole display of ego framing and chauvinism is in the fact it is on the COMEDY channel. Yes..a comedy true and true. A JOKE. To see these 'playas' go through their rigid charade really spells out what is wrong with society. Especially the meat market bar scene. Both sides, the male and female, are equally as weak and desperate to be mingling among this superficial atmosphere. The club is obviously one of those Cigarette corporation sponsored plastic coke scenes. These people do have a choice, and that is what makes it even more of a joke. <br /><br />These slick ricks try too hard. They glisten with their own groove grease. That's OK. It's a lesson on video tape for the new generation of how NOT to focus on a potential heart interest. Hopefully that facade will crumble along with the Bush/Harper administrations. Problem is, who's lined up after these characters fade? The bastard children of the one night stands?
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw House Party 1-3 and I loved them but this one wasn't funny at all.First it can't be a House Party movie without Kid n'Play right? This one sucks and it was more like a black version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off than a House Party movie.Second who the heck is John-John?These new character's can't even compare to the ones from the other three movies.Now i know why they put it straight to video.It has horrible music, weak plot, untalented actors,and no hilarious jokes at all.My advice,watch this movie at night only if you can't get to sleep.They should have ended the series after House Party 3 since Kid'n'Play separated after that one.I hate this one am glad my local video store doesn't have this film and never want to buy it or want to see it on Comedy Central either.Just because Chris Strokes has talent managing an up-and-coming R&B group doesn't mean he has talent directing and producing films am I right or what? Finally, the female characters were all dressed up like cheap two-dollar hookers throughout most of the flick.IMX separated a year after this flick got released probably due to the failure of this film and are all but forgotten nowadays. In simplier terms this movie just plain old sucks!!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
Most people are totally unaware that this movie exists. Fox, which paid Judge to make it, has kept it in the can for quite awhile and then spent nothing to promote it. I guess that made many people think it was one of the garbage movies being flushed in late summer. Well, I am here to tell you that this is a funny and rather frightening look at a future that is not that hard to believe. Basically, Judge puts forward the notion that the stupid are outbreeding the smart by a wide margin. Then these stupid are getting more stupid, by basically spending all of their time watching TV and having sex, which produces more stupid people. By 2500, a person of average intelligence today, will appear to be a genius, that talks "all faggy." Seriously, is this really that hard to believe. Oh sure, this future is painfully funny and ridiculously stupid, but still plausible. Luke Wilson is great as the time traveling army guy, hopelessly trying to get back to a more comfortable time. Where this story will gain its cult status is with the numerous funny one-liners, like "can we family style her" and "hey man, I'm 'bating here!" This is a funny movie and a rather sharp social commentary on an American society that seems to be fatuated with self pleasure, comfort and stupidity, and I guarantee you that I will be buying this on DVD the first day it comes out and watching it over and over.
| 1 |
positive
|
I quite this Anne Rice book adaption. While most of the film is filmed here in Australia it offers a great amount of scenery and a fantastic area to shoot in. Lestat (Stuart Townsend) has recently woke up from a long period time of sleep and has decided to betray his vampire oath by revealing himself to a band. When he becomes a popular movie icon his fellow vampires, understadebly, go mad and plot his death. Meanwhile Jesse (Marguerite Moreau) a orphaned member of the supernatural studies, who has an ancient vampire family tree, has become deeply obsessed with Lestat. Her boss David (Paul McGann) understands her obsession and revaeals his obsession with the vampire Marius, (Vincent Perez)who is an ancient vampire and the man who made Lestat a vampire too. Jesse is given Lestats diary and reads of his first killing and an encounter with the Queen of the Damned- Akasha (Aaliyah). When Lestat holds a concert in Death Valley he receives news that not only will angry vampires be there Akasha may come as well. Meanwhile Akasha has other plans. She goes to a vampire coven, a bar, and kills everyone in her path. With Lestat tempted with royality and loving care by Akasha the ancient vampires consisting of Marius and Jesses Aunt Maharet (Lena Olin) plot against them. Join Her Or Die?<br /><br />I thought the film was fantastic, it had great fight scenes, great music and great locations. Aaliyah sadly passed away in a plane crash shortly before the films premiere, but she looked stunning on the set and off the sets.<br /><br />I gave this film 10/10 because it was a fantastic film and I urge you to see it!
| 1 |
positive
|
Warm hearted flic depicting arch-angel Michael as a brawling, overweight, cigarette smoking slob who loves to dance and cavort with the opposite sex. He does have a good side, however, as he strives to set things right in the lives of a couple of burnt out losers before being recalled to heaven. Funny, well played out film; very enjoyable although somewhat irreverent.
| 1 |
positive
|
Roy Anderson's film 'You, The Living' comprises a series of fifty-odd sketches, snapshots and vignettes set in a Swedish city. Some characters are on screen for just a few second, whilst others appear in numerous scenes and are sometimes seen loitering in the background while another story unfolds. Many scenes are drawn from the dreams, nightmares and fantasies of the strange but believable characters inhabiting this world. It is a fascinating approach: each of the scenes could be enjoyed in isolation, but together they contain a powerful portrait of what it is to be human.<br /><br />For the first half hour or so, 'You, The Living' is gloriously funny. Much of the humour centres on the members of a brass band, whose music practice infuriates the neighbours in their apartment block. The comic highlight, however, is provided by a dinner-party track gone horribly awry. After this hilarious introduction, however, the mood of the film darkens considerably. The dinner-party dream turns grim when the hapless protagonist is put on trial for his life, setting a mixed tone of absurdity and despair for the rest of the film.<br /><br />In the subsequent scenes, the unhappiness of the cast of characters becomes increasingly apparent. Theirs is a world where people are unable to connect with one another, where talk of dreams, nightmares and fantasies is widespread, but where no person can be comforted, even when others reach out to help them. The despondent woman with the 'nobody loves me' refrain and the young girl with unrequited love for the rock guitarist, Micke, are archetypal characters.<br /><br />The world of 'You, The Living' is also blighted by selfishness. An elderly professor is called away the warmth of a vast banquet to answer a phone call from his impetuous money-grubbing son; a thief steals the wallet of a ruthless executive; an arrogant and impatient businessman insults a Muslim barber and receives his comeuppance. In the film's bleakest moment, a woman in church recounts the long list of human sins as her fellow parishioners shuffle out at closing time.<br /><br />And yet, for all dark moments in this film, the shared refrain of 'tomorrow is another day' points to the ability of people to go on living in spite of many miseries. The soundtrack provided by Benny Anderson (of ABBA fame) seems inappropriately jovial at first but makes more and more sense as the film realises this human capacity to persevere.<br /><br />'You, The Living' has an extraordinary visual style. The same washed-out, pale-green colours recur throughout, and there is nary a shadow in sight; this makes the characters appear exceptionally pallid and creates the sensation that human life is being laid bare for examination. Almost every scene is captured in a static camera frame, as if these are photographs being brought to life. The few occasions where the camera does move are all the more extraordinary; the contrast between the life and movement of the great banquet form a startling contrast with the deadness of the cloakroom scene. In the most intense moments of longing and despair, the characters transfix the viewer by directly facing the camera they know that they are being examined and have a few moments to pour out their hearts to us, the viewers.<br /><br />This is a wonderful, human film.
| 1 |
positive
|
The producers of this picture are Hungarians. It's not by crazy artistic momentum that X and Z are capitalized in the titles considering that the word 'isten' means 'god' in Hungarian. - By the way, David, Isten is the word for God in Hungarian... - Hum... Is that so ? <br /><br />Let's consider this movie as 'A History Of Violence' science-fictional sibling. Both films have in common the strength of blowing up respective genres ; thriller and drama in the 2005 one and 'none FX-ed as hell' science fiction in the one we're looking at right now. Everything he does have a meaning and is surrounded by details : The nod to Phil K. Dick (who wrote "In The Days of Perky Pat") by creating a 'Perky Pat' fast-food restaurant. The nod to Stanley Kubrick by using 2001's naming pattern ; as IBM became HAL (one letter down in the alphabet) in the 1968 movie, in eXistenZ 'classic lubricant spray' WD-40 becomes XE-60 (one letter up) when Allegra cleans up Pikul's port. The nod to David Cronenberg by using Videodrome's witty kind of formula ('Death to...' & 'Long Live'..) and by taking another medium for central theme of a picture (tv in Videodrome, Video games and virtual reality in eXistenZ In 1983, you penetrated a TV set. In 1999, you're penetrated by a game. Welcome to Canada!)<br /><br />The nod to good taste by getting Peter Suschitzky's cinematography, Howard Shore's music and Ronald Sanders's editing (a team that wins). For everyone born in the early 80's with a super famicom, a genesis or an arcade stick in the hands, this movie rings a bell. Enough with the nods. The plot ? "Jennifer Jason Leigh stars as a game designer (Allegra) who creates a virtual-reality game that taps into the players' minds" as we can see on the movie main details page. That's the story in the story. To me, this picture is about a 'reality demonstrators' young couple infiltrating the 'brand new virtual game' presentation session to destroy its programmer. I assume that what we see in the last five minutes is reality, if there's such thing as reality. Jennifer Jason Leigh is always playing a game designer in the game they're in and the end of the movie IS the reality, with video games freaks giggles, big hairy dogs, 'Cronenbergy realistic' plastic textures (helmets and stuff) and 9mm handguns. What you see is true. They play transcendenz during an hour or so (in this game, there's a game (eXistenZ) in which JJL plays eXistenZ's genius programmer and Jude -Pikul - Law a marketing trainee associated with Allegra's game), they play eXistenZ because Allegra is very concerned about her pod's health (the thing you plug your nervous system in, in order to play), she has to plug herself and Pikul in then wins the game (Transcendenz) and back in the reality they kill Yevgeny Nourish, TranscendenZ programmer.<br /><br />Playing eXistenZ and TranscendenZ is about facing your essence, face your subconscious while its creating a virtual reality you'll have to overcome in unexpected ways to win the game (by playing the game, the girl playing Allegra, the 'reality demonstrator' turns into Allegra, a 'virtuality goddess').<br /><br />What game would Heidegger have played to feel his abstract da-sein term ? To be truly engaged in the world ?<br /><br />And what about Nietschze (Yes Friedrich, God is dead and you know what ? Willem Dafoe stands for him! - God, The Mecanic -) ??? <br /><br />Yes we do construct a narrative for ourselves, and losing this thread we follow from one day to the next disintegrate people as personalities ; eXistenZ's discusses the fact that reality is the whole perception of itself by anyone who engaged it truly. And we could sometimes get some neat stuff ; a perception of virtuality in virtuality in reality.
| 1 |
positive
|
Quirky, vulnerable, raw, honest and a treat to watch. I'm not here to give a summary or synopsis of the film. I simply wish to congratulate this small film with the GREAT BIG HEART. I tip my hat to the filmmaker and it's excellent cast. If you want to know what happens in the film...then go see it. Michael Parness, writer/director, has handled a very sensitive and emotional subject matter , Suicide, with great compassion, comedy and empathy. I see a great career ahead for Mr. Parness. This film works. Right from the outrageous opening sequence to the tender, honest moments between David Krumholtz and Natasha Lyonne. As with every movie, we need to suspend some disbelief, yet I found with MAX AND GRACE I was easily transported and completely convinced with it's "surreal moments". I only wish they would have pushed some of those moments even further. Mr. Parness has "pulled" some wonderful performances from this already talented cast. For instance Guillermo Díaz' performance as a patient in the asylum was hysterical as well as moving. The colossus Ralf Moeller, former Mr Olympiad, as a terrified patient...perfect. I can go on and on...This independent feature has the star power of a big budget Hollywood film however, you forget about the STARS on screen as you flow along with this wonderfully written story. The real star here is the brilliant screenplay. I look forward to seeing more from Writer/Director Michael Parness.
| 1 |
positive
|
If you like poor SE, (some) bad acting and a total lack of credibility, this is a movie for you. So a really cheap looking movie, but I liked it anyway. Why? Because I like those kind of movies. I can't help but smile when I see these kind of movies....... What were the producers, actors, director and SE people thinking when they made this film? Don't expect an "Abyss" or "Alien", just a (very) low-budget horror/adventure movie.<br /><br />There is one nice "splatter"moment when a guy's head is shot off, but for the most, the horror is pretty tame. The final monster is pretty cool too.<br /><br />It's only 73 minutes long, so you can t go wrong there. Maybe you can pick it up at your local videostore or watch it on TV. I'm sure you will have a good time watching it.<br /><br />But don't say you weren't warned.............
| 0 |
negative
|
I am sure I'm in the minority (I know I am among my friends), but I found this movie long, boring and gratuitous. The fact that the role played by DENIS LEARY is the most likable character (the only other time I liked him at all was in "A Bug's Life"!) speaks volumes. Rene Russo's character was irritating beyond belief and Thomas Crowne himself was flat and stereotypical. To say he was two-dimensional may be a little generous. (No, the scenes with his psychiatrist did NOT help make him real.)<br /><br />With the exception of two wonderful scenes (both involving the museum caper and NOT involving Rene Russo), this movie made me wish I were at home watching televised golf.
| 0 |
negative
|
OK, we were going along with the stereotypical bad orphanage experience and explaining to our son, adopted from Russia, that this was over-the-top acting and dramatization, so we could get to the dog playing soccer (since he plays soccer). But the last scene, in which the dog goes back to his original owner put my son over the edge and he cried for 15-20 minutes, "he's been replaced!!!!" This from an elementary child. I DO NOT recommend this movie to any family that has an adopted child; it displays adoption, orphanages and adults badly--and in the end, even though they win the game--the dog that the boy bonded with has to leave--and this is too much. PLEASE be wary if you have any adopted children, and beware families with biological children, because the impression of children who are adopted is not positive and paints a stereotype that is unhealthy and nasty. (The dog is cute, but not enough to save our family's reaction to this movie....)
| 0 |
negative
|
I had seen this movie as a kid and loved it. I loved how spunky and full of energy Nikki is, and how she mostly ruins Louden's perfect yuppie life and corrupts him and turns him on to her crazy ways. As a kid in the 80's I saw New York exactly the way it was portrayed in this movie, the domain of Madonna's character, with wild animals running rampant and hideous bald men chasing people around and causing havoc. Now as an adult I find I love the movie for the same reasons, and even more so for the love story woven into the crazy antics of Ms. Nikki Finn. Although I would still love to go anywhere and find an indoor atrium like in this movie. Pure beauty and genius.
| 1 |
positive
|
I just re-watched a few episodes of this series on very poor VHS tapes that I recorded the series on. I'm glad I did, though.<br /><br />Ramona is based on the children's books by Beverly Cleary and follows the adventures of the title eight-year-old (Sarah Polley). She has fun with friends and family and gets into trouble much like many eight-year-olds. All ten episodes are pretty good. "Mystery Meal" kind of grosses me out as a vegan, but it's funny seeing the parents trying to get their kids to eat cow's tongue! And any episode that mentions Godzilla Versus The Smog Monster twice can't be all bad. I like "Ramona's Bad Day" even more. Although it's disheartening to see Ramona going through a rough day, she does imagine herself getting revenge on her friend Howie's uncle (a pre-Psi Factor Barclay Hope), who always teases her. "The Perfect Day" is also good.<br /><br />Lori Chodos plays Beezus, Ramona's sister. I swear I've seen her on something else, but IMDb doesn't list anything besides this show. Unfortunately, this series is not on DVD. Why is every crappy show made these days on DVD except something I'd actually like to buy? An injustice if there ever was one!
| 1 |
positive
|
Background info - The movies Octopussy & Never Say Never Again were both made the same year, 1983, and so naturally people compare them. Moore vs. Connery. Bond vs. Bond.<br /><br />I've heard many people claiming that the "official movie" Octopussy is far superior. Well, I just watched Octopussy. Bond is riding an airplane at 100 miles an hour (impossible---the wind would blow him off), using his feet to force the plane to ground, and then jumping off at some 60 miles an hour (again impossible---try jumping out of your car---you'd end up with a shattered body). How is that octopussy scene supposed to be "good" in any sense of the word? Suddenly Bond has super-human strength & a titanium body. And he does all these stunts at the ancient age of 56??? Complete crap. Unbelievable. Farse.<br /><br />---> Now let's contrast the above scene with Connery's "unofficial" Never Say Never Again: It doesn't have the same polish due to its independent film status (less money), but at least you can believe that Connery is a real spy in real danger.<br /><br />The movie starts off with Bond showing his age (he is 50 after all) and being sent off for recuperation. Entirely believable. But of course, there's no such thing as a "day off" for a world-famous spy, and Bond quickly finds himself a target, even inside the hospital. From that point the story spins off into another adventure, with Bond trying to locate his attempted killers and ultimately foiling an attempt to steal nuclear weapons.<br /><br />As usual Sean Connery did a brilliant job, and avoids the over-the-top/unbelievable stunts. This movie feels like a natural successor to Connery's last film, 1971's Diamonds Are Forever... the old style of Bond... before the franchise got silly.<br /><br />Highyly recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
Smashing film about film-making. Shows the intense and strange relationships that can develop between directors & their actors; the manipulation and mind games; the preening egotism of performers. As in any workplace, sexuality complicates matters, but here to the nth degree as they are filming a sex scene.<br /><br />Absolutely fantastic performances from Gregoire Colin as the fragile, wannabe macho male lead, and - supremely - Anne Parillaud as the director's self-portrait. The image of her laughing & eating a banana at the end, having finally got what she wants out of her puppets, is pure delight.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie had a lot of ups & downs...The storyline is strong, while telling the saga of Ma' Barker growing up, & then her misadventures with her boys and the FBI..Theresa Russell is very talented and her beauty even shines through, as Ma' Barker, in Public Enemies. The Direction of Mark L. Lester, while not as good as in "85's Commando was still very interesting.<br /><br />Eric Roberts, plays a short-lived part as a security guard, turned thug(and Ma's Lover), and Alyssa Milano plays a prostitute, who hangs with the gang. Frank Stallone, plays a thug who helps out the gang, & while one of his exploits, gets one of Ma's boy into trouble, he gets himself out, in a final way, so to speak...<br /><br />I was perplexed, intrigued & captivated, throughout this movie..So it makes me wonder what movie all these others who voted it so low watched!..For all those wondering..Umm the FBI was actually that bad in the beginning, didn't have tommy guns like the outlaws had, & were thus at quite a disadvantage, whenever they did get into shootout's with gang's of that era..Since everything I saw represented the 30's, I felt it was more realistic than many other movies made portraying that era...It is in may ways like a train wreck happening..You don't want to watch, but JUST have too..Enjoy!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
It's probably a year since I saw Uzak, but it has left strong memories of the two main characters, jaded photographer Mahmut and his naive cousin from the village Yusuf.<br /><br />It's a long film with very little dialogue and a quite limited plot. This has evidently annoyed a fair few viewers. But the film constructs such a painfully believable portrait of Mahmut and Yusuf that there's just as much emotional tension as in the paciest thriller.<br /><br />Just to be clear, there's no padding in this film -- in the long pauses where no one speaks there as much happening in the characters' emotions (and in yours, watching them) as you could bear. Go to see it awake and alert, and you'll be gripped rather than anaesthetised.<br /><br />Uzak rings true in so many ways, and that sincerity is probably its greatest accomplishment. People don't grapple with events and problems, so much as with each other. In fact, in the whole film, there's probably not one point where the main characters (Mahmut, Yusuf and Mahmut's ex-wife Nazan) are not opposed.<br /><br />Much of it is true the world over: country cousin Yusuf's perhaps wilfully naive expectation that a job on a ship will drop into his lap; Mahmut's urbanised cynicism and unwillingness to sympathise with Yusuf.<br /><br />Other truths are more-specific to Turkey: Yusuf's incomprehension that Mahmut might be tolerating his stay with gritted teeth; Yusuf veering between macho ambition and wide-eyed awkwardness when he tries to get to know a woman.<br /><br />Uzak is undoubtedly a pretty bleak film, and one Ceylan's strengths is not to beat us over the head with the themes he explores. For me at least, I believed entirely in the behaviour of his characters. All the little failed attempts to connect and petty cruelties ring so true. And yet I didn't leave with a message that "The world is like that", but instead I got "This is how we sometimes treat each other."
| 1 |
positive
|
Why does the poster & artwork say "Clubbed is one of the best UK indie films I have seen in a very long time. SCREEN INTERNATIONAL" when it was a quote of the French distributor REPORTED by Screen International (an influential film trade publication). See www.screendaily.com/ScreenDailyArticle.aspx?intStoryID=39811 which reads:<br /><br />"Pretty Pictures has acquired all French-speaking rights to Neil Thompson's Clubbed ....James Velaise, president of Pretty Pictures, said: "Clubbed is one of the best UK indie films I have seen in a very long time.""<br /><br />Isn't this rather misleading? The distributor is bound to say it's good. Are the other quotes real?
| 0 |
negative
|
Although the story is good and portrayals what I expected of Sam Elliot my DVD copy contained almost unbearable synchronization problems. The dialogue was almost 3 seconds behind the lip movement throughout the whole film.<br /><br />I would therefore be very careful in purchasing any DVD of the film without checking for the problem.<br /><br />I would also follow the recommended censors classifications particularly in relation to language and drug usage.<br /><br />This film could become a silent classic cop movie and with the above cautionary notes I can recommend it to prospective viewers
| 0 |
negative
|
not a Larry Mcmurty masterpiece but it stands on its own as a good western, any of the lonesome doves do. who ever takes on the role of Woodrow call, does a great portrayal in their own style. It's also easy to see that they were looking to use this as a stepping stone to the t.V series (both version of it) and that the writers knew how to keep the flavor alive William Peterson was awesome in this, the geeky C.S.I guy is not the character he plays in this - this guy can do it all it seems<br /><br />it's deserve to be enjoyed by those who enjoy westerns<br /><br />4out5 stars
| 1 |
positive
|
If this was the best dutch cinema had to offer these years, my worst fears have come true. I have NEVER, even in dutch movies, seen worse acting. I couldn't get myself to watch it for more than 40 minutes, so if that's the cause of me missing the genius, so be it.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
I am currently watching this movie and I have absolutely no hesitation in reviewing it now. The acting is ridiculous. Half the cast must be retired porno actors, and to get kicked off pornos you could imagine the quality of acting.<br /><br />The graphics are unlike anything I have ever seen. I think there are puppet shows with more believability. They can't even afford blanks for the guns they shoot at the pathetic excuse for monsters. Perhaps I should also note how incredibly impressed I am at the number of 'bullets' their pistols can hold. <br /><br />If asked to summarise the movie, I would say that someone had rustled up a group of complete no-hopers at the local county-fair, slapped them on an island, added needlessly intense music and let a 6 year old do the editing.<br /><br />I can honestly not formulate any possible explanation for why this movie was released, recorded on DVD and costs $6 from my local video store for one day. If anything I have received the benefit of knowing that I am a lot smarter than all parties involved in this film.<br /><br />I hate this movie with great intensity. Why? I wish I knew Captain, I wish I knew....
| 0 |
negative
|
This is an admirable attempt from first time filmmaker Ham Tran, offering little-glanced perspective dealing with Vietnam war victims struggling for liberation, but plays out as a glorified history special. With clunky, self-consciously informative dialog and sub-par acting, even a relatively impressive budget with attention to detail will not spring to life this sagging, albeit historically worthy, melodrama. Paying no mind to the often distracting disconnect with the actors to the reality of situations on screen, and you should be left with an informative, if somewhat impersonal educational lesson in Vietnamese post-war history.
| 0 |
negative
|
While the movie has its flaws, it brings to light some of the problems that come with living in a country that has no democracy. It makes you empathize with the people under such a government and makes you want to learn more about their lives, their struggles and a potential leader Aung San Suu Kyi. It makes one wonder why our government will interfere places we are not wanted yet ignore those who ask our help.
| 1 |
positive
|
i stopped this movie at 48 minutes and change... i don't know...maybe it's because i'm not Swedish...or french(the cannes commenter)...or any of those OTHER sleepy places from which the previous reviewers held forth... born and raised in NY. lived near san francisco for a quarter of a century. and now Holland. i love a good independent film as much as the next movie enthusiast... but this, in a word, isn't funny. see? now THAT's funny...that you're thinking that i made a mistake. i said, 'in a word' but then said, 'isn't funny'... nope. no mistake. if this is your type of humor, i'd say you haven't really had much of a life... consider your appreciation of this film a symptom... and PLEASE don't EVER write another review...i have a tendency to believe them when they're unanimous. even if there only were about 3 reviews before mine...i figured i might ACtually be able to save someone ELSE the boredom...the anticipation of laughter that never materializes... i DID smile once or twice, though... when i started the movie...and when i stopped it. that should be 10 lines.
| 0 |
negative
|
Im usually wary of movies hovering around the 6/10 mark on IMDb. Id like to think people know what they are talking about and know what they like. I guess the trick with reviewing is to take an approach of "Hey, if i liked types of movies like these- would i give it a higher score than i am about to give it now since I don't like these types of movies" Then again people judge differently , basing more value on acting, or perhaps story or directing. Anyway, landing the plane here- i had rented this movie out before and hadn't had time to watch it, this morning i did.<br /><br />Wow! See this movie. I am personally interested in the paranormal/have read a bit about near death experiences, so automatically i was hooked. I am unsure about some of the comments here saying that a quality cast here was wasted - i disagree- the acting here was superb from all- i think this is the only time i didn't mind Julia Roberts, it was good to see 24's Kiefer Sutherland (Currently at the time of this review, serving a jail sentence for DUI), and Kevin Bacon sporting an interesting hair style.<br /><br />Overall- i liked the direction, the atmosphere, the acting, and the story line most of all- particularly the idea of karma, and , to quote Nelson Wright "Everything we does matters" So true.<br /><br />10/10!
| 1 |
positive
|
The '70s were a great time for horror movies. The Brotherhood of Satan is yet another overlooked gem. It's full to the brim with great surreal, unsettling scenes. It's also great to see Stother Martin and L.Q. Jones (who also produced) in decent roles.<br /><br />Some of it is a little dated and cheesy, but The Brotherhood of Satan kicks butt over Race the Devil and many other '70s Satanism flicks.
| 1 |
positive
|
Two hours ago I was watching this brilliant movie which overwhelmed me with its imprisoning photography. It is quite understandable how it won the prize of Best Camera in Cannes 2000. Close ups predominated it. Close ups of walls, humans and of many other things. The warm colored lighting (which is also usually by the director) gave the movie a warm atmosphere. Only two persons are principally to be seen in most of it. An interesting music and especially three songs or themes accompanied the movie nearly all the time. Each one of these themes represented a certain atmosphere during the whole movie. Silence and slow movements characterize the movie. Some scenes were extended moments or a serious of close-ups. Not only Tony Leung deserves a prize for his superb acting since Maggie Cheung was also so brilliant. I wonder how many dresses she was wearing in the different scenes. The story was also connected somehow with the history of Hong Kong and the region the 1960s. This prevented me from understanding some details of the it especially at the end. In short I would recommend the fans of artistic movies to watch it in the cinema.
| 1 |
positive
|
Daffy Duck has signs hanging from every inch of every available tree announcing that it's rabbit season. But, you guessed it - it's really duck season. Elmer Fudd appears: he's the only hunter dumb enough to fall for the gag.<br /><br />He's even dumber than that. When Bugs Bunny strides up to him and asks how the rabbit hunting is going, Elmer admits that he hasn't seen a rabbit yet. This is more than Daffy can stand. He emerges from his hiding place and immediately points to a rabbit: Bugs Bunny. "Shoot him now!" Daffy screams. "You be quiet," says Bugs. "He doesn't have to shoot you now." Daffy insists that he does.<br /><br />After Daffy returns his blasted-off beak to his head, he is doomed to more arguments infected with "pronoun trouble" which all have the same result. Later, Bugs dresses as a sexy woman and flirtingly asks Elmer for a duck dinner. Will Daffy get the last laugh? "Ha, ha, very funny! Ha, ha, ha!"<br /><br />What's funny about this classic cartoon? Bug recoils in fright as Daffy screams in his face. Bugs Bunny says "Yes?" while dripping with self-satisfaction. Daffy Duck stands on tiptoes demanding to be shot. Elmer Fudd whines that he "can't wait any wonger." Daffy sees Bugs in women's clothes and makes that little noise with his tongue. Carl Stalling plays "You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby" during Bugs's drag act. Daffy demands "sheer honesty" out of Bugs. Stalling plays "Home Sweet Home" at an inappropriately appropriate moment. Daffy tells Bugs he's "desthpicable."<br /><br />In five words: every detail of this film.<br /><br />NOTE: This short is available on "Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume One," Disc 1
| 1 |
positive
|
How can ANYBODY give this anything higher than a '1'?<br /><br />I thought "Manos, the Hands of Fate" would forever be the worst movie ever to impinge itself upon my optic nerve. Indeed, I didn't think anything COULD be worse.<br /><br />I was wrong. "Galaxina" is that rare movie where EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT of it is achingly, agonizingly, blindingly bad. How often have you watched a movie and commented, "Who the hell LIT this thing?" From lighting to soundtrack to effects to script to acting to cinematography to . . . well, EVERYTHING, this movie is absolutely unendurable. It's so bad, I couldn't even tell for some time if it was the worst comedy or the worst drama I'd ever seen.<br /><br />It's too bad even to be laughable. I'd sooner eat a platefull of broken glass than sit through it again.
| 0 |
negative
|
It's interesting that someone made a comparison of the "Fifth Missile" to the Star Trek episode. It should be pointed out that the original Star Trek TV episode in which the crew of the Enterprise undergoes a space madness while orbiting planet Si 2000 is entitled "The Naked Time", not the "Naked Now". The "Naked Now" refers to the first regular Star Trek The Next Generation episode in which the Enterprise-D encounters a science vessel. This episode, though, does refer to and is based on the "Naked Time" original series one.<br /><br />Now, to the Firth Missile. While the reactions of the crew in the Star Trek episodes were based on those similar to alcohol intoxication, the crew's condition on board the Montana was caused by a much more serious situation, namely the paint vapors emitted by the faulty bulkhead finish. There are few places where such a reaction could have more serious consequences than among a crew who has responsibilities as serious as a crew on a ballistic missile submarine, and of course this is what makes the film so suspenseful and such a thriller. The plot is very believable. At the same time, this film, along with "Crimson Tide", "The Day After", "By Dawn's Early Light", "The Hunt For Red October", "Ice Station Zebra", and many other similar movies give us much insight into how easily things could go wrong and just how easy it could be for a nuclear holocaust to begin. Thankfully such an event has not occurred and (God willing) such an event will not happen.
| 1 |
positive
|
Alejandro (Alejandro Polanco), called Ale for short, works at an auto-body repair shop in what has come to be known as the Iron Triangle, a deteriorating twenty block stretch of auto junk yards and sleazy car repair dealers close to Shea Stadium in Queens, New York. Here customers do not question whether or not parts come from stolen cars or why they are able to receive such large discounts, they simply put down their cash and hope that everything is on the up and up. Sleazy outskirts like these are not highlighted in the tour guides but Iranian-American director Ramin Bahrani puts them on vivid display in Chop Shop, a powerful Indie film that received much affection last year at Cannes, Berlin, and Toronto. A follow up to his acclaimed "Man Push Cart", Bahrani spent one and a half years in the location that F. Scott Fitzgerald described as in the Great Gatsby as "the valley of the ashes".<br /><br />For all its depiction of bleakness, Chop Shop is not a work of social criticism but, like Hector Babenco's Pixote, a poignant character study in which a young boy's survival is bought at the price of his innocence. Shot on location at Willets Point in Queens, Bahrani makes you feel as if you are there, sweating in a hot and humid New York summer with all of its noise and chaos. The film's focus is on the charming, street-smart 12-year-old Ale who lives on the edge without any adult support or supervision other than his boss (Rob Sowulski), the real-life proprietor of the Iron Triangle garage. Polanco's performance is raw and slightly ragged yet he fully earned the standing ovation he received at the film's premiere at Cannes along with a hug from great Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami.<br /><br />Cramped into a tiny room above the garage together with his 16-year-old sister Isamar (Isamar Gonzales) who works dispensing food from a lunch wagon, Ale is like one of the interchangeable spare parts he deals with. While he has dreams of owning his own food-service van, in the city that never sleeps, he knows that the only thing that may make the "top of the heap" is another dented fender. In this environment, Ale and Isi use any means necessary to keep their heads above water while their love for each other remains constant and they still laugh and act out the childhood that was never theirs. As Barack Obama says in his book "Dreams From My Father", the change may come later when their eyes stop laughing and they have shut off something inside. In the meantime, Ale supplements his earnings by selling candy bars in the crowded New York subways with his friend Carlos (Carlos Zapata) and pushing bootleg DVDs on the street corners, while Isi does tricks for the truck drivers to save enough money to buy the rusted $4500 van in which they hope to start their own business.<br /><br />Though Ale is a "good boy", he is not above stealing purses and hubcaps in the Shea Stadium parking lot, events that Bahrani's camera observes without judgment. In Chop Shop, Bahrani has provided a compelling antidote to the underdog success stories churned out by the Hollywood dream factory, and has given us a film of stunning naturalism and respect for its characters, similar in many ways to the great Italian neo-realist films and the recent Iranian works of Kiarostami, Panahi, and others. While the outcome of the characters is far from certain, Bahrani makes sure that we notice a giant billboard at Shea Stadium that reads, "Make dreams happen", leaving us with the hint that, in Rumi's phrase, "the drum of the realization of that promise is beating,"
| 1 |
positive
|
I am shocked and amazed to find reviews short of miserable for this horrible film. I rented this "movie" or feces, whatever you wish to call it, with several friends and after thirty minutes we had to stop watching. Just listening to the dialog left a horrible taste of sour milk in my mouth. This film was about as intelligent as an ass pimple.I hope I never see that bra-less, raggedy Anne look alike (Julianne Nicholson) again.It was like watching the most putrid pilot for a sitcom that will never make it to television, but instead of being a quick but painful 30 minutes( all I could bare)this was an excruciating 90 minutes.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was everything but boring. It deals with reality. To the people who think this movie was boring, open your eyes to the real problems in our society. Our children are dying. The consequences of alcohol and drug abuse are not to be ignored. I work in a correctional facility as a chemical dependency counselor,and i deal with these problems every day. People of all ages and all walks of life are effected by the consequences of their alcohol and drug abuse. It destroys families, hurts people and leads to serious brain damage,all kinds of health problems, and death. It is all preventable. This movie should be shown in every high-school in the world. If anyone owns this movie and wants to sell it, or sell me a copy, please e-mail me at: [email protected] thank you
| 1 |
positive
|
I did it too. When i first saw the band, i dismissed them straight away without even listening to the music. Then one day, out of sheer curiosity, i bought the cd and fell in love with it. So i bought the video. hold onto your lunch kids, this isnt going to be pretty! the video was excellent - a great opportunity to hear the music, see some of the promo videos, and meet the band...although i *still* dont know how they can cope with wearing those masks all the time! a must for all fans of the band, and fans of alternative music in general
| 1 |
positive
|
Oh dear. this was quite possibly the worst film i have seen in years. I mean what more can be done with the old "woman inside mans body" storyline? it was full of cliches, eg the nerd coming into his own sequence, the "lad" getting whats coming to him etc. im not calling these spoilers because any one could guess what happens!! the only thing it had going for it was Laura Fraser, who gave an average performance. and as for the "dream" boy, that was the wettest piece of acting ever. even the bad guys were instantly forgettable.<br /><br />terrible movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Excerpt from TV GUIDE:<br /><br />This week on THE LOVE BOAT, Captain Stubing has his hands full when a cryptozoologist gets on board with an unexpected cargo! Join the Captain, Isaac, Gopher and Julie in a fun-filled Halloween Special. Guest starring a guy in a really bad lizard suit as the Chupacabra.<br /><br />This is typical, lame Sci-Fi Channel cut-rate fare. The Captain of a cruise ship, played by the once respectable John Rhys-Davies, is in charge of a Carnival cruise along the coast of Mexico. His daughter is along for the ride, and she's earning her keep by being the ship's kickboxing instructor. Pay attention, everyone, that kickboxing will come in handy later! It should be noted that the Captain's daughter is pretty uncoordinated and painful to watch. It would have been good if she might have taken a couple of kickboxing classes before trying to play an instructor in a movie.<br /><br />Captain Stupid and his daughter join Mrs. Thurston Howell from Gilligan's Island, a kooky cryptozoologist and a dark, mysterious stranger on this 90- minute ride into boredom.<br /><br />That's right, I said cryptozoologist. He keeps mentioning that he brought some precious cargo on board that he needs to check out. Needless to say, the box contains a Chupacabra that somebody decides to let out. From this point on, a man in the rubber Chupacabra suit runs around the ship, killing people. Captain Stupid is powerless to stop it. He decides to call in the Marines but telling them that there are a bunch of terrorists on his ship.<br /><br />The Marines respond. They say all that Marine-speak stuff like "Hooya" and "Get Some". But those silly Marines are no match for a Chupacabra. They don't really tell anyone where they're going either, so there's no help in sight. I guess no one will really miss some lame battalion of lost Marines. But don't forget... Captain Stupid's daughter is, thankfully, a Kickboxing instructor. Yay for Little Stupid! She comes in right in the nick of time, she beats up the bloodthirsty Goat Sucker and saves the day. Chupacabra means Goat Sucker. Therefore, Chupacabras suck. But there's no way that Chupacabras suck anywhere near as much as this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
The story is about a psychic woman, Tory, who returns to her hometown and begins reliving her traumatic childhood past (the death of her childhood friend and abusive father). Tory discovers that her friend was just the first in a string of murders that are still occurring. Can her psychic powers help solve the crimes and stop the continuing murders? <br /><br />You really don't need to find out because, Oh My God! This was so so so so bad! I know all the Nora Roberts fans will flock to this movie and give it tons of 10's. Then the rest of us will see an IMDb score of 6 and actually think this movie is worth watching. But do not be fooled. The ending was predictable, the acting TERRIBLE (don't even get me started about the southern accents *y'all*) and the story was trite. Just remember....you were warned!
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw "Caddyshack II" when I was ten and I mostly laughed because of the horse scene. I should have realized that the movie was as empty as...I can't come up with a good comparison. It's stupid and not even really funny. The cast members from the original who chose not to star in this made probably the best choices that they ever made in rejecting this; why, oh why, did Chevy Chase return?! And how on earth did Jackie Mason, Robert Stack, Dyan Cannon and Dan Aykroyd get involved in this swill?! I bet that every person who had his/her name even remotely attached to this junk (e.g., the caterer) is ashamed beyond redemption. So, all in all, it's beyond dreadful, terrible, and everything such. Avoid it like you would the Ebola virus.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw the biopic of Ed Wood many years ago. Tim Burton payed loving homage to this extremely untalented but yet enthusiastic filmmaker.<br /><br />Then I saw Plan 9 and it actually tickled me to no end. A silly story, kind of bad production values but still entertaining and even funny.<br /><br />Then this. What can you make of it. Well, since Wood has been reported as being a cross-dresser it is startling to see a movie that deals with it like a cartoon. Yes, there are some stabs at teaching the audience something about the subject but mostly this is some kind of really twisted self-parody.<br /><br />One of it's problems is that it has a hundred points of view. On one hand it is a plea for tolerance. Another portrays transvestism as a disease. And finally, it tells the audience: "Okay, if you are schocked now, then wait until you see this!" The problem must have been that Wood had to compromise in order for the film to be made. You can almost sense it when you see the opening title from the producer: Personally supervised by... So, where are we. This is neither a serious subject movie or an all-out schocker.<br /><br />The entertainment value is practically nil. The wooden voice-over is mildly amusing but only because it sounds so misguided. This was made in the 50s though, so one can argue that was brave making a film that even mentioned the word transvestites. It all comes down to what the film itself is trying to advocate against. Schock. The rape scene, while mild is there simply to do that.<br /><br />So, sorry. This is a misfire but the discredit is not Wood's alone.
| 0 |
negative
|
I always loved French movies because I think they are filled with much more emotion and sense than the Americans. This film is a gem.<br /><br />Starting with the wedding which is so funny that you just want to join them and in the end where the little family kids tell us who is with who which is extremly funny. Catherine Deneuve is simply hot and so good that it is absolutely possible that a young man can fall in love with her, and Vincen Lindon is perfect for that role. The best scene (except the wedding party) is in the family reunion where Antoine has got mad and yells his feelings to Lea in front of the family. It is such a shame that I could buy this film only from the French and not from the English (so I have to learn in French to enjoy watching it)!!
| 1 |
positive
|
I thoroughly enjoyed this made for TV movie. I was channel surfing, and came across the start of the movie. Boy am I glad I stopped. This movie has a real hot cast, as well as a semi-believable plot. There's drama, comedy, action, and best of all, the human nature aspect of this film is what makes it great. I hope it comes out on Video, because I will buy a copy. Rating...9 out of 10 stars
| 1 |
positive
|
This really is a great movie. I don't think it has ever gotten the recognition that it deserves. I have bought this movie on VHS and DVD. The special effects were ahead of its time. The story was WAY cool. The pace was very steady. If you haven't seen it, you definitely need to check it out on DVD if possible.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm not usually into dark/psychological thriller type things. However, SEIZING ME is really an amazing piece of work. The story, acting, filming, psychological themes, erotic quality and spiritual understanding are all really quite complex and compelling. Rose plays the complexities and shifts of a psychologically disturbed woman really quite accurately. My partner was particularly impressed with the sophisticated way the power exchange issues were handled. It was so intense for us to watch that we found ourselves leaving it three quarters through to "get tea" and I felt compelled to have a shower. The story was gripping but we were clearly unable to handle all the energy in one straight shot. (It delves into the gritty and grimy side of people, but doesn't leave you there). I thought about the characters and deeper meanings for a long time. I would highly recommend this one. Still be prepared for an experience you might not be expecting.
| 1 |
positive
|
There is one adjective that describes everything about this film - acting, plot, effects, continuity, etc. - and that word is poor. The government wants to asses the effects of space travel on certain organisms but the capsule crashes and a mutant something-or-other (looks like a guy in an ape suit with the top of a football helmet over his face) wreaks havoc around the accident scene, which includes a favorite place for the window-fogging, partying set. Therefore, some young people - as well as a law enforcement officer - are among the creature's victims. You gotta be extremely unparticular about how you spend your time - or rich, if you spend any money - to view this epic.
| 0 |
negative
|
It is such a shame that so many people "love" Family Guy, because it is easily one of the worst shows on TV, there are many points to address here. <br /><br />The Flashbacks: Now, in Season 1 and 2, which I think was exceptional, the flashbacks were quite frequent, and actually somewhat tied into what the plot was about and was even funny. Now season 4 and on, the flashback s are even more occurring, and has NOTHING to do with the plot, aren't funny, and really long, boring, and meaningless. Family Guy thinks that long drag scene which go nowhere are funny, when really it is poor writing.<br /><br />Stewie: Wow, a baby that sounds British. How funny can that be? It's not. His character is so unstable it's unbelievable. Remember in the early season's when Stewie was all about world domination and killing Lois. Well now he just has scene's that are awkwardly gay with Brian. From wanting world domination to being gay = bad writing.<br /><br />References: How do they manage to keep making poor references to 80's TV shows or events? Well they just re-use the same old garbage. You know, in 20 years, hopefully Family Guy will be canceled by then, if they are still doing jokes about shows from the 80's, it will be even more irrelevant than it was before. Because will have forgotten. This still keeps me wondering why they can't just writ good episodes with quality jokes.<br /><br />Voice Acting: My God, the voices in this show is so poor. Seth McFarlene should just focus on his crappy episode writing and stop doing voices. All the extras in the already bad Family Guy episodes all sound the same. The Simpsons get 6 or 7 people to do ALL the voices. A few of them are voicing about 15-20 characters...all sounding very different. But why can't Family Guy do that? Oh right, it's a crappy show.<br /><br />The Stuttering: Usually done by peter, Stewie, Brian and any extras, whenever they talk or are offended by something, they have to stutter out their sentence's just to try get a cheap laugh. I can't believe that Family Guy can't even speak normally to get people to laugh at their "jokes".<br /><br />Offensiveness: OK, short and simple, Family Guy tries to break the barrier and be cutting edge, but really they fall flat every time. Go watch South park...<br /><br />Terrible Plots: The plots and story lines are just utter trash. The Simpsons have started their 20th seasons are STILL have better plots than Family Guy. About a total of 8 or 9 minutes is flashbacks and drag scenes which have no relevance. <br /><br />Popularity Lots of little kids have Stewie shirts and think hes so funny, when really they don't even get the terribly written sex jokes. They just say, "oh, ha ha, stewie!" when they don't even get it. Family Guy has gotten canceled twice, and brought back by DVD sales, how sad is that. They got canceled the first time I think after the 2nd or 3rd season, and I honestly believe, that shoulda been it. those episodes back then were superb, they shoulda left on a high note.<br /><br />Drag Scenes and Falling There are scenes that go on way too long. One that just aired this last Sunday, Peter went to an executive bathroom, in which about 2 minutes was spent imitating the intro to Jurassic park, and the plot of that episode is stolen from a Seinfeld episode as well. Also a scene when Chris is working at a store and hes talking with the employee for about 5 minutes about a movie, which also features the stuttering. THE CHICKEN FIGHTS ARE SO STUPID, 3 of them, each one longer then the last. useless, unfunny writing, thinking that people enjoy long scenes of rerun fighting, between a CHICKEN, yeah a chicken. now, every time someone falls down, and by the way, NO FAMILY GUY FAN CAN DENY THIS, that every time they fall down, its under a split second, and they ALWAYS land with their arm over their back to make them look funny i guess, its been used at least 30 times.<br /><br />Herman Oh jeez, everyone thinks the old pedophile is so funny when its just a really bad running gag. they've even gone to lengths of giving him singing scenes (which are very poor) and basing ENTIRE episodes around him, they've done the same thing with other characters, like the doctor, who I know has had an episode based around him.<br /><br />The Simpsons Well, not much explanation needed here. There is so much evidence of Family guy stealing Simpson's jokes. How family guy is just a poor mans Simpsons.<br /><br />so Im sure I've forgotten some key points somewhere, but Im sure this is enough to prove that family guy is really a terrible horribly written TV show that everyone seems to love, when really they should go watch Simpson's, Seinfeld, and Frasier.
| 0 |
negative
|
... Brian? what the hell were you *on* when you signed to do this?<br /><br />I saw this recently at a festival, and it was greeted by howling laughter throughout. By the time the credits rolled, tears were streaming down the faces of many of the audience. <br /><br />The plot is a clunky melding of 'E.R.' and 'The X-Files'; as cynically aimed at the TV audience as is possible to get without being sued. The sequences involving the abductions are hilarious- both Yuzna's staging of the 'floating from the bed' and 'Screaming Mad George's pathetic plastic aliens drew gales of disbelieving, derisive laughter. <br /><br />Limp, camp and stupid. My only hope is that it was an aberration- As awful as 'Return of the Living Dead 3' was good.<br /><br />Steev
| 0 |
negative
|
I went to this film full of hope. With so many capable and humorous actors headed up by Sir Ben I thought this is going to be a little treat.<br /><br />Oh how I felt like gouging my eyes out as the credits rolled. That I had wasted 93mins of my life this film that was clearly DOA. There are some real problems with this film and it will probably be easier to list them; 1. No jokes, I am not particularly hard to please comedically - high or low brow - but there really is not one laugh in this film.<br /><br />2. Sir Ben mumbles through every single line whether he is supposed to be drunk or not?!? 3. There is no effort to to begin let alone develop the relationship between the love interests in this. 2 people bumping into each other randomly in the street would instantly have more rapport.<br /><br />4. All the acting talent that is assembled is completely wasted. Don't be fooled into watching this because of the names.<br /><br />5. For a cold ass hit-man he rubbed out more people in Gandhi than this flaccid waste of time (a by the way dyed beards look really creepy) I was hoping that this was a slow burner but in the end the only thing that could inject any life - and justice - into this is Frank pulling out his 9 and offing the whole cast starting with Tea and ending with himself - sorry it was that bad.
| 0 |
negative
|
So it's a space movie. But it's low budget. You ask, "what about the effects?" The effects are at times good, and at times really, really bad. I mean bad. And notice I started with the effects.<br /><br />There's a story here, but it's told in what I think is the wrong order. I don't mean a Tarantino style wrong order. I mean, it's told in a completely nonsensical arrangement. Most of it's about a mother (in the future, because you know, it's sci-fi) as told by her daughter, which is mostly exposition done in narrative from the daughter's perspective. Only once you're through the first hour and hear Paul Darrow's voice as a computer do you realize how much more tolerable the constant narrative would have been if he'd read it. This narrative is so constant and inclusive, that the actors on screen hardly say a word for the first hour.<br /><br />There's also a lesson here for you up and coming filmmakers: if you're not doing 2001 and want to have some action (this one does), then PLEASE hire a good fight choreographer. Otherwise, your fights will look like, well, what's in BATTLESPACE. And notice the title has the word "battle" in it. Ugh.<br /><br />I think this might be the classic scenario of trying to make a movie based on nothing more than a concept. And some effects. My biggest surprise is seeing the IMDb listing this film as costing $1.8 million. When you compare it to something like PRIMER, which did better with a budget of a few thousand, you realize in low budget film-making, it's all about the story. I wasn't expecting much - but I was STILL disappointed. Two out of ten stars.
| 0 |
negative
|
My brain was screaming "why do you keep watching! Turn it off and go to bed!" But couch potatoness won out, and I watched until the predictable ending. I guess when it's Bruce Campbell I need to give it a chance.<br /><br />I find it hard to complain about a low budget movie purely because of the low budget... time and time again we see low budget movies proving that a good story, good writing and good acting are enough to make a good movie. Ted and Bruce got their start on just such a movie, but they didn't seem to learn from Sam that it takes a bit more than slapping it on film to make a movie.<br /><br />It's sad, too, because Bruce has always been a favorite. After the 70's and 80's, I just can't believe movies this bad are still being made. Bruce, I'm really disappointed.
| 0 |
negative
|
I know a lot of people have said don't bother with this movie because its not a good fighting flick and hard with the subtitles. That is a really lazy way to think of a movie. If you want to focus on that part of the movie you should go find something else, and also learn to to respect cinema as a form of art, this being a masterful piece of work. If you want to watch this, its not about the fighting really. There are good fight scenes sometimes that are filmed rather well with good camera work, but the story itself is what holds the story together and is the important part. This is not the basic Kung-fu movie. The story is really the central focus and not the fights, and the combination of the two make an excellent movie thats well worth watching, and is even better in the original language with subtitles.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one of my all time favorite cheap, corny, vampire B movies. <br /><br />Calvin Klein underwear model...oh, I mean, Stefan the Good Vampire, returns to Transylvania to ascend the throne of Vampiric Royalty, but Manicure-impaired and eternally drooling half brother Radu has other plans. Having killed their father the Vampire King, Radu now sets his sights on Stefan, Stefan's new mortal girlfriend Michelle and her two pretty friends, and the all-powerful Bloodstone.<br /><br />Okay, the scenery is beautiful, and it should be as it was shot on location in Transyl-fricken-vania for gosh sakes. The actresses are no great shakes and Stefan the Heroic Vampire is about as charming as a refrigerated fireplace poker, but who cares? There's only one reason to watch this movie, and his name is RADU! He's a physical homage to Nosferatu and he has the best lines in the movie, all spoken in the raspy voice of a man who smokes ten packs of cigarettes a day. The cemetery festival scene is one of the best scenes in the film, as Radu slowly approaches the camera and reveals his grinning, slobbering face for the world to see. I found myself cheering him on as he collected victims and taunted his perfect brother. But maybe I'm just a sicko. Questionable taste in men aside, I highly recommend this film to vampire enthusiasts. It's original, it's fun, and Radu is one of the best vampires I've seen in a long time...much more fun than the stiff, tragic, whining Undead brats that endlessly grace the horror screens these days. Radu enjoys his sadism and never apologizes. He's what a vampire should be.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is excellent! Fear of watching documentary movies? Cancel your shrink and watch little Dieter's story. You won't believe how captivating this fine piece of film making is until you have experienced it. I'm eager to say that it even out goes almost any Vietnam war movie, including Apocalypse Now. It's a real story, it's a personal story, a story about the love for flying, the dream of being a pilot and the nightmare of being shot down above enemy's territory. All is shot in a "return to..." style - at location, Herzog asking the questions, Dieter answering them in a memorable German-English accent, and with fine remembrance pointing out what happened where about 25 years before. There is this part that I told friends over and over again: bailed out from his US Navy plane, Dieter becomes a POW of the Vietcong. Blindfolded for the greater part of the days, he is being dragged through the Southeast Asian jungle for miles and miles - on bare feet. Tortured, insulted, disorientated, hungered and covered with infectuous wounds, they arrive in a small, friendly village to spend the night. The next morning, after walking for several hours, Dieter discovers someone stole his wedding ring from his finger. That is it. He can take no more. He starts to cry, as a result of complete exhaustion. The Vietcong men react surprised. Dieter manages to explain what happened. Immediately, the group returns to the village and starts searching for the person that stole the ring. They find the man, immediately chop of his finger and return the ring to Dieter. - The movie is full of these mind boggling and surprising situations. The immense cultural differences, the clash of East and West, the fear of the unknown (i.e. all that stands for America on the one hand, the Asian jungle and his secrets on the other) can be sensed the entire movie. Back problems? That's because you sat at the edge of your seat for two hours and didn't notice.
| 1 |
positive
|
I remembered this awful movie I bought at Camelot music store in the summer of 1989 when I was visiting my Grandparents. It was a time when I had just discovered movies like Re-Animator, From Beyond, The Return of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. I was ready for all the horror/gore genre had to offer.... or so I thought! I was only about 12 years old at the time so I really don't remember it all that well. I remember a psycho running around with a corkscrew killing people, and a couple of cops (I think) who were riding in a car that wasn't actually moving, but being rocked side to side to look like it was... true cinemagic. I also remember it being the worst film I had ever seen up to that point and I promptly threw it in the garbage.<br /><br />Something tonight made me think of that movie (I can't believe I actually remembered the name), so I jumped on imdb to see if it was listed. To my surprise... IT WAS! And a full other 5 people have seen it.... Amazing. Even though I remember hating the film at the time I sort of wish I had kept it hidden away somewhere because I'd love to check it out again for a laugh (it would probably make a good drinking game movie). Anyway, I'm glad I'm part of the elite few that's seen this little "treasure". I would love to pick it up somewhere for a couple of bucks.... but beware, this is not a recommendation... it is awful... it's just for nostalgia.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm really surprised seeing all these positive reviews for this movie. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like 'these kind of movies'.<br /><br />While I very well can enjoy a good mindless Hollywood action blockbuster like Die Hard 4.0, I like the 'dogma' kind of movies, or 'real-life-as-it-is'-movies just as much, IF they are well made.<br /><br />A good example is Festen (1998): no music, no dramatic camera angles, no special fx, no fancy locations. Just a good story combined with excellent acting and the result is an excellent movie.<br /><br />Is Nine Lives devoid of dramatic camera angles, special fx and fancy locations? Yes. Is it a good movie? I'm glad you asked. <br /><br />The answer is: Absolutely not.<br /><br />First of all, everyone is raving about the acting performances. I'm terribly sorry, but you can act all you want, but if the story and the dialogue is not believable, the acting falls on its behind immediately. And that is exactly the case with Nine Lives.<br /><br />Not once did I have the feeling while watching 'Nine Lives' that I was watching real people having a real conversation. I had the feeling I was watching actors trying to come across as 'real characters' while they were were saying things a 'real person' would never say under the circumstances.<br /><br />You can hardly call it a SPOILER, but there are some dialogue excerpts below. If you think that reading ten lines of (ridiculous) dialogue will ruin your movie experience STOP READING HERE. If you want a good laugh, continue reading.<br /><br />The dialogue was often so ridiculous that it was tragical. You want examples? Plenty of those in 'Nine Lives'.<br /><br />EXAMPLE1:<br /><br />Picture this. Couple visits their filthy rich friends in their new mansion. Woman sees this castle of a house and says to her husband:<br /><br />Woman: I could get used to this (meaning the expensive house). Man: Don't. Woman: Why not? It could be. Man: No. They are who they are and we are who we are. Woman: I like the sound of that -- we are who we are.<br /><br />She likes the sound of that? Her man is acting like a jerk, but she likes the sound of that. Then an elderly couple walks past them holding hands. This is what the woman comes up with:<br /><br />Woman: Look! They are like children after school. They lived through so much. Shared everything. I love you.<br /><br />They are like children after school? And then the most overused cliché lines you ever heard? Finishing with 'I love you'? She says this while her man is being a jerk to her? Yes, very logical, very realistic, NOT. If anything, this kind of dialogue made me wanna strangle some of the characters in the movie for saying these horrible, horrible things.<br /><br />EXAMPLE 2:<br /><br />Elderly mom, dad and younger daughter at a funeral. Dad: I didn't realize Andrew was religious. Mom: It's for comfort. Daughter: It's for strength. Mom: Life is fleeting. Dad and daughter BURST OUT LAUGHING. <br /><br />Yeah, this one-liner cracks me up any time, especially at a funeral! Sorry, I must have missed the joke here.<br /><br />And it goes on and on and on....<br /><br />How about the camera work? Don't even go there. 'Boring' would be a compliment. It supposed to come across as 'realistic'; instead, you miss half of the actors facial expressions (the only thing left to watch in this movie), while half the time the camera is aimed at someone's back or side instead of the face.<br /><br />Conclusion? Well, don't say I didn't warn you! It's a good movie to rent if you want to make out with your date or something during the movie, because you won't even care whether the movie is playing or not after the first five minutes.<br /><br />Overrated and more boring than watching grass grow kinda sums it up.
| 0 |
negative
|
Now, let me see if I have this correct, a lunatic serial killer is going around murdering estate agents....okay...what's wrong with that scenario, I can live with that.<br /><br />What next, a slasher with tax inspectors butchered? Traffic wardens sliced to death? Are we supposed to feel any sympathy for empty headed and shallow, money obsessed property people? Er...no.<br /><br />Sadly, joking aside, it's just not a very well made film with poor acting and crude effects, the climatic scene is particularly silly. You can almost see the director shouting, 'action' to the stuntman as he falls through the glass of the window.<br /><br />As another reviewer quite rightly said, after starring in 'The Fog,' this was the nadir of Adrienne Barbeau's career. Therefore I was happy to see that she had rekindled it by becoming the voice of Catwoman in the Batman animated series, while watching the extras on the live action Catwoman film. NB: not quite the awful film it's made out to be, by the way.<br /><br />This however is a bad film, think a poor episode of 'Kojak' or 'Streets of San Francisco,' and you will get an idea of what is on offer here.
| 0 |
negative
|
So it's not an award winner, so what? Have you ever wanted to see a film that was just silly? "The Villain" and this one could top the list.My husband says that "Jekyll and Hyde Together Again" is one of those movies that if "you've been there and done that" you'll think this spoof on the 80's cocaine culture is a riot. I think the whole film is just fun. Nothing is sacred; hospitals, plastic surgery, Howard Hughes.... There are ongoing gags that you have to watch for to appreciate. To say that the film doesn't follow the book would be true, but then a lot of really good films take liberties with the published word also. I recommend this movie to all the old "stoners" among us. We may be smarter now, but we will still recognize and laugh at many folks we knew (ourselves?) back in the old days.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw the movie in the theater at its release, then watched the VHS tape over the years, and while strolling through Target saw this DVD bundled with "Pushing Tin" for the exorbitant sum of $5.50.<br /><br />There is something about this comedy that has really clicked with me - how Kelsey Grammar, "with a tattoo on his thing", is an unorthodox commander who inherits a rusty diesel sub and a crew of screwballs and misfits. He's up against the Navy's best - a Los Angeles Class nuclear attack sub - and his old captain (Wm Macy).<br /><br />Bruce Dern plays the bad guy, Rip Torn the admiral running the exercise - If you don't laugh hysterically during the "run silent" segment with the cook, well, you have a different kind of humor from me.<br /><br />Towards the end the machinist says "D.B.F." with no explanation - it is apparently some inside knowledge gotten from an old submariner consultant - thanks to Google I learned that with the advent of the nuclear subs the old salts would wear "DBF" pins - Diesel Boats Forever. <br /><br />A Navy friend said that many of the technical aspects aren't correct but who cares - it is one of the funniest movies I've seen.<br /><br />I don't think it takes a clairvoyant to know who will win in this exercise!
| 1 |
positive
|
I had stifled high hopes for this David Lynch, whom I really like, film, but the very poor acting by everybody but Naomi Watts was the first clue that this was a wasted effort. Some Twin Peaks characters are recycled into this film, but it wasn't eerie, it wasn't interesting (except for the topless Watts scenes) and the quirks were poorly executed. <br /><br />I will probably give Lynch one more chance, but the hype around this film just doesn't pan out, especially for those of us fans who saw Eraserhead when it first came out.
| 0 |
negative
|
Radio will have you laughing, crying, feeling. This story based on a true story is the perfect movie for a couple to view. There's enough for both. cuba Gooding Jr.portrays the title character to perfection. His performance is worthy of an academy award nomination.The compassion of the movie is obvious. The movie evokes many emotions. I sincerely enjoyed this film.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Prime Suspect 4" continues the exploits of the inscrutable and dogged seeker of truth and justice, Detective Superintendent Jane Tennison; the first of three miniseries (PS4, PS5, & PS6) with the notable absence of founding writer Lynda La Plante from the credits. Imbued with the same gritty reality of the first three series, the second three series pit Tennison against the forces of evil while coping with middle age, loneliness, indiscretions, a host of personal and professional problems, and resolutions which are sometimes less than ideal. PS4 conjures two stories while PS5 & PS6 are single episodes each which find Tennison seeking justice on behalf of the brutally wronged while waging war against institutions which are willing to sacrifice the interests of her victims for those of a greater good. In other words, to prevail, Tennison must overcome both evil and good forces, something which makes the always gray scenarios of the PS series yet grayer and the Tennison wars as much a matter of principle as of finding murderers. Very good stuff which only gets better from series to series. (B+)
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is terrible. A true hockey fan would have to assume that the people that appeared in and produced this movie never played or watched a real hockey game. I got this hoping that it would be a "guy movie", but the only people that would probably enjoy this movie are females between the ages of 13-17. The hockey scenes are terrible, defensemen playing like they're 5 years old, goalies diving at shots that are 10 feet wide of the net, etc. It's so difficult to predict the end of this movie, though!! For those who have seen it, who would have guessed?? For those that haven't seen it, don't waste your time!<br /><br />I figured it out less than halfway through the movie. To call this movie a drama is ridiculous!!
| 0 |
negative
|
A mediocre at best horror flick that deals with dumb, not so horny teens who discover an evil video game (GASP) is killing those who die in the game (DOUBLE GASP). This movie is the sustained mystery of the Mystery Gang in "Scooby Doo". I was waiting for them to pull off a mask of one of the villains. I could deal with this for 40 minutes even as a movie on sci-fi but going all the way to the theaters, come on people. The effects were very mediocre, this whole scenario is something of crummy two-but director Uwe Boll, since this would be his cast. As always the great thing about video game systems is the glorious power button. I'd suggest using that mid-viewing. *1/2
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of the best presentations of the 60's put on film. Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man, saw that Steve Tesich's outstanding script rang with truth, and from these two talents comes solid cinema. Jodi Thelin's Georgia Miles gives male viewers a hit of pained nostalgia for the archetypal beauty who is almost within our grasps, but, always just out of reach. Just see it, or you cinematic education will be incomplete.
| 1 |
positive
|
General Trelayne is a super-being who wants to play a little game with the crew of the Enterprise. A lot of extremely unlikely and nonsensical stuff seems to be happening, and Trelayne seems obsessed with the human practices of warfare and murder. He seems to need to experience what he imagines to be a thrill and has created a human environment (though a few hundred years out of date) in which to play out his fantasies. The environment is subtly inauthentic, and the crew immediately begins to spot the inconsistencies. Pretty soon it becomes clear that Trelayne is not just an immature god, but a very fallible one. Regardless of how you feel about this one, stick around for the Twilight Zone-like ending. It is well worth it.<br /><br />As many have pointed out, Trelayne's character inspired the more developed and amusing on-going character Q - and you can see in John DeLancie's construction of that personality more than just shades of Campbell's Trelayne. It is fun to compare how the four captains we have seen coping with Q all deal with him so radically differently.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie brings back so many memories for me! I was very young when it came out but I remember the first time I saw it! My dad and I would always watch the "Ernest Movies" together. We hadn't seen any of them in several years and I found a couple of them really cheap. We watched them and could not stop laughing. I love all of the "Ernest Movies," but this one is my favorite.<br /><br />Spoiler part! <br /><br />The part I remember most is the "magnet" part. My dad still does the electric chair scene! <br /><br />End Spoiler!<br /><br />This is a very cheesy movie...but a great one! It's perfect for families (it isn't like a lot of the trash out there) but at the same time adults can laugh too! If you like physical humor (like facial expressions and the way people move) then this is the movie for you!
| 1 |
positive
|
The story has little to do with Jack London's original novel. I thought the acting was very unnatural, the dubbing was done very sloppily and the story itself contains a fairly large number of inconsistencies and loose ends. Apart from that, the pace of the movie was horrendously slow at some parts.
| 0 |
negative
|
A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother. A total and absolute waste of time. Bad acting. Bad story. Predictable. Simple. Pathetic. After a while I was only watching to see what happens, since I'd already invested my time into it. Totally surprised Mrs Forlani played in a weak movie as this. Honestly - just don't bother.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have been most fortunate this year to have seen several films at my university's art museum. On occasion, well, more like half of the time, I am unable to watch the films there. I have systematically attempted to view each of the films that I have missed. So far Plagues and Pleasures on the Salton Sea and Who Killed the Electric Car? are the other films that I have had to watch this way. The film covers an intriguing subject matter and is well-theorized (emphasis on this later) but not as successful as Plagues and Pleasures, but far superior to Electric Car. <br /><br />The film's thesis concern's the future of the American concept of suburban living. It questions the feasibility of such a practice as oil prices rise. So, the film discusses the origin of the suburb, and it's evolution until the early 2000s. One theme the film discusses at length is the alienation the suburb creates among its inhabitants. While several people may live together, they do not "know" each other as we define the word. This, to me, represents the strength of the film: its appeal to actual human emotion. We are able to understand the filmmakers' argument so much easier because they do not have to convince us of their argument's legitimacy. This is also one of the reasons Salton Sea is such a wonderful documentary. <br /><br />Unfortunately, Suburbia loses its message in firebrand explanation in support of its central argument. As those interviewed speak, their arguments become progressively more akin to those made by militant environmentalists. We are told that oil production will hit its peak in this decade, but are given no scientific evidence (professional reports, statistics, graphs, etc) in support of this claim. We are given little information as to how this date was calculated. Fortunately, this was the only significant flaw that I was able to detect in the film's argument yet it's a glaring one nevertheless. Another less-important discrepancy I noticed was the liberal (political) bias which could polarize some viewers. However, this bias is revealed thorough clips of various events and not the filmmakers themselves. The clips, especially those from the 1950's, seemed a tad unnecessary to me. The film was no better with their presence, and would have been more concise in their absence. <br /><br />As I thought more of this film before composing this review, I thought about why I found its argument more convincing than other documentaries that I'd recently viewed. Finally, I realized that the filmmakers actually offered analysis to the suburban problem. They propose a decentralized village-system where pockets of people would live together. They posit this practice would lower the necessity for fossil fuels and reduce wasted space. They define wasted space as the long stretches of parking lots between shopping areas, for instance. What is incredible about this supposition is that it's actually conceivable. Most documentaries vaguely state that some problem should be ended but offer no method of doing so. Thinking more about the film, I decided that this analysis is what saved the film for me and why I give it a favorable review. <br /><br />While neither perfectly convincing nor fluid in presentation, The End of Suburbia is a worthwhile investment of one's time. It not only addresses the contemporary problem of sprawl, but it also provides realistic insight on how to amend it. The audience can also enjoy the high production value with various clips from the 1950's spliced with the modern arguers. People living in Atlanta, Georgia or the Triad region of North Carolina will particularly enjoy this documentary as sprawl is the most established there.
| 1 |
positive
|
I loved this film!! I have been waiting for this film to come out so I could see it. I saw it opening night and loved it, Some people told me that this film wasn't any good and to stay away but I thought it was great. The actors did great and it was scary and made me jump. Paris Hilton did a great job for her first film, everybody is giving her a hard time when she did great and she didn't even have that big of a role. The set was great has it was made of all wax and how it was made. The two brothers did a great job and the death sense were great. The killers were really scary and made me want to close my eyes and not look at them. I can't wait until this film comes out to Video so I can get it and see it over and over again. The over view of my review is go see this film if you like Hororr films and you will not be sorry I loved this film. I give this film a 10 out of 10 IT ROCKS!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a modest ,unassuming traditional Western with a formulaic plot about opposition between ranchers and crop farmers around the town of Liberal ,Kansas .The story is essentially routine and features a number of the classic Western conflicts .There is the farmer versus the cattleman;there is the clash between cultivated land and "civilizing" tendencies on the one hand and the wilderness/frontier ethos on the other and what this represents ultimately is the opposition of two value systems -democratic and community values as set against rugged individualism .<br /><br />Randolph Scott plays legendary lawman Bat Masterton who rides into Liberal at behest of a land agent (Robert Ryan ) to help him sort out the bad guys who are the hard drinking ,brawling cattlemen .The two men quarrel but reunite to tackle the troublesome elements in the town .<br /><br />The script is clichéd but the action is propelled along with vigour by director Ray Enright and there are solid performances all round .In addition to rugged performances by the male leads there is comic relief supplied by George Gabby Hayes ,an oily villain nicely played by Steve Brodie and attractive contributions from Maggie Meredith as a prim and proper Easterner wooed by Ryan and Anne Jeffreys as a saloon singer As long as you do not place a premium on originality this is good sturdy entertainment for Western lovers
| 1 |
positive
|
After watching this movie on a boring Saturday afternoon, I couldn't quite figure out why so many people liked it. It wasn't "heartwarming" or "clever"; it was merely an amalgam of every other "mismatched people coming together during a holiday and despite their ideological differences learning something about each other" movie ever made.<br /><br />The characters are a stereotype bouillabaisse -- We have the Blacks, the Hispanics, The Jews, The Asians, and the Homosexuals -- and they never do anything except what everyone expects characters in a movie like this to do. The black mother declares that it's "all right, then" when it's mentioned that another black character is at church instead of helping prepare dinner (because all blacks love church), the Hispanics seem only capable of speaking Spanish when the greet each other or make exclamations, the lesbians do nothing but cuddle and kiss (and one of them wears a bandanna. Because all lesbians dress like Ani DiFranco), and the Vietnamese family owns a video store. In L.A. Imagine that.<br /><br />Oh, and the movie is called "What's Cooking" because each ethnic family cooks a different version of what they think Thanksgiving dinner should be! The Black mother wants cornbread and macaroni and cheese, the Hispanics are shown rolling tortillas, the Vietnamese family is deep frying spring rolls; I'm surprised there wasn't a bottle of Manischewitz on the Jewish table. This is all shown via the time-honored tradition of the "musical-montage", where they play the Surfari's "Wipeout", rapidly switching the instruments used in the melody to reflect the respective cultures. Isn't that cute? Anyway, once the director is finished establishing how different everyone is, he attempts to show the inner humanity that we, as all people of every race, religion and culture share, by inventing implausible and overly dramatic conflicts for each of the families to deal with. It would be a plot-killer to mention what each of these conflicts are, but rest assured that they are indeed surprises, that is if you have been sleeping for the first half of the movie. The theme of "disgracing the family" runs pretty strong throughout.<br /><br />All in all, if you're the type of person who enjoys those new-fangled movies that revolve around the stories of unlikely characters intertwining, well, you still won't like this movie. If you like extended montages of food being passed around a table, then you need to put this in your Netflix queue. But if stereotypes and clichés are endearing to you, then make sure you ask for this for Christmas. Or Hanukkah. Or Kwanzaa.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film has a premise that is good enough to get anyone talking, and a sure-fire conversation starter. 'Would you sleep with someone you dislike or don't know for one million dollars?' While the film had lots of potential, poor execution turns it into a b-grade soap-opera. The film has a great lead up, and after the proposal is made, we are really into the film, but then it falls dramatically. The last 3 quarters of the film is spent by characters whinging, complaining and regretting what they have done! The ending was so cliched it had me in tears! This has a very similar premise to 'honeymoon in vegas' which is far better. See that instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is absolutely the worst comedy I have ever seen. It's hard to explain though, because (unless you've seen this) I bet you've never seen a comedy that was not good or bad; it's just there (That's the original part-not good or bad, just there)! <br /><br />Let me say that I have seen every comedian appearing in a main role, and like them all. That's what makes this such a mystery. The supporting leads are actually acting (although the dialog is bad). The only character that is fairly good is the one played by John Goodman. He does a pretty good job with what little dialog he has, and actually has one funny line (I won't spoil the only funny line in the movie, in case you decide to watch anyway. It involves a pancake.) The big mysteries are the main leads. I won't call them characters, because no characters have been developed. This script is so juvenile that they don't even bother to give the leads fictional names. They all just use their own. They don't even seem to be trying to act. It's as though they are all reading out loud to each other from scripts that the local junior high sent to them. I actually wrote a paper like this for my English class when I was thirteen-it wasn't funny either.<br /><br />Bottom line, just don't bother to rent this. It isn't funny. It doesn't even have the kind of bad dialog you can groan to. I just sat there and stared through the whole thing. It was so boring I couldn't even work up any irritation at how bad it was. I can't imagine how this is even getting a rating of 4 here.
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.