text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in "serious" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream "We did it!" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.<br /><br />***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly "By the Numbers" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.
| 0 |
negative
|
What a wonderful documentary - I sat down thinking this would be a rehash of the bitchy stories told in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, but it is, in fact, a clear-eyed, glorious celebration of a strange and twisted era that spawned some truly great movies. What struck me was the lack of bitterness apparent in the director interviews, given that now the movie business sucks in a large fashion - instead, folk like Friedkin and Coppola's eyes seem to positively glitter recalling their glory days. The footage of an audience coming out of a daytime screening of the Exorcist was priceless. 'It was - traumatic,' one guy says. A great epitaph for the late Ted Demme, a thrilling film, I just wish it was longer - I could have sat through a three hour cut of this.
| 1 |
positive
|
People who know me say I have a weakness for animated films.<br /><br />To be fair, those people are HALF right My actual weakness is for exceptionally well-done animated films, such as this vintage family flick from Max and David Fleischer.<br /><br />You may be thinking to yourself, "well if it's so great, why haven't I heard of it?" Fair question. This movie was released the same week as the attacks on Pearl Harbor. The unavoidably bad timing caused the film to sink into relative obscurity. Things are looking up, though, because it has finally been released on DVD under the title "BUGVILLE".<br /><br />It's funny that the film went through all this, because it kind of mirrors the actual plot. Although some people claim that the movie is trying to send an environmental message (ugh), I personally think that the movie's main idea is perseverance through adversity and hard times (after all, the country had barely pulled out of the Depression at the time).<br /><br />Our grasshopper hero, Hoppity, desperately wants to help his endangered community. Problem: each time he tries, whether through the ill-will of others or through simple bad luck, he fails miserably...and slowly begins to earn the disdain of the very people he's trying to save. Although he does his best to maintain a positive outlook, he occasionally breaks down and it's only through the encouragement and support of his friends that he gets back on his feet and fights the good fight. Just a healthy reminder that, when all is said and done, no one is really self-sufficient.<br /><br />"Okay", you're saying. "It has a good message (two actually). Does that really make it EXCEPTIONALLY WELL-DONE?" <br /><br />My answer: Partially.<br /><br />It's not just the message that makes this movie special. It's the characterization. This is one of those films where you can just see the personality of each cast member in their animation. You almost don't even need the spoken lines. A good way to sum it all up is "energetic" or "lively". A lot of movies have used the selling point, "lovable cast of characters". Whenever I hear that line, it always makes me think of this movie.<br /><br />Case in point, the bad guys: Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito. Many movies have "lovable" villains, but I don't think you'll find any as entertaining or endearing as these fellows. Forget that 3 Stooges Cartoon from the 60s. Swat and Smack are the closest thing to an animated version of Moe and Curly (but sadly not Larry) that you'll ever find. Virtually all of the funniest moments somehow involve this gruesome twosome. Yeah, they're rotten no-goodniks, but you still care about them. That's the kind of power you only see from a really talented writer, director, and crew.<br /><br />The movie has two brief jokes revolving around racial stereotypes (Native Americans and Chinese). I don't think they were intended to be malicious; but they're there, regardless. They didn't bother me, but it'd be pretty unfair of me not to warn someone who potentially would be bothered by them.<br /><br />So, if you share my weakness (and I think you do), give this one a go.
| 1 |
positive
|
I used to watch this show when I was growing up. When I think about it, I remember it very well. If you ask me, it was a good show. Two things I remember very well are the opening sequence and theme song. In addition to that, everyone was ideally cast. The writing was also very strong. The performances were top-grade, too. I hope some network brings it back so I can see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I haven't seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, if some network ever brings it back, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good.
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched this film when I was a kid, and I thought it was terrible then. Now that I'm older, I found it just as terrible. Universal could have done better than this. They merely decided to make the most money they could out of using all their monsters at once. To me, that was a cheap shot. These characters were capable of holding their own in their own movies, and the choice of actors was deplorable. Dracula needed to be Bela Lugosi, Frankenstein's, monster needed to be Karloff.<br /><br />In my mind, it was the Disney squalid sequel sequence done decades ago, and it was not appreciated. Umiversal started out with something great and original, and then thought they could pander to the masses with the schlock which is extremely evident in this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
Oh dear, just what we need another Essex -Cockney garbage effort chronicling the rise of the UK footy hooligan/ rave gangster who did of course follow West 'am (East Londan/Essex style). Didn't anybody tell you that they won the world cap!? And then of course the inevitable decay into UK rave culture underworld. Blah blah blah. Why how and who would want to fund a film like this i do not know but lets pray that it was from Private financiers (lets see ex drug dealers, merchant bankers -we all know what to call them, and the rest of the mockneys) rather than publicly funded means. Hopefully with the recession we will not see the like of this again. If we do we will be calling the death knell for British films and of course we will all be able to blame Britains number one Mockney Country gent wannabee gangster Guy Ritchie.
| 0 |
negative
|
This might quite possibly be the worst movie I have ever seen. I knew it was a B-movie before watching it (it was actually the reason for watching it), but I'd never thought it could be this bad. The title promises Dracula in space and does deliver, however, the story makes no real use of the fact that Casper van Dien's character is a descendant of Van Helsing. And watch out for the ending of the movie, it comes at you fast. I've never seen an ending scream out "And now we're over budget!" in a clearer fashion. Their resolution of the movie was rather comic though, the story had so obviously painted itself into a corner. If you feel you have to see it, watch it with a friend who shares your love of B-movies. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have made it to the end.
| 0 |
negative
|
I wasted 5 dollars renting this complete piece of crap. Dr. Zack is the most unlovable lead character i have ever seen. The movie was full of EVERY cliche you could ever think of and contained not a single OUNCE of originality. There was the typical sexism portrayed by rugged foreigners, all the guys had those 'too-proud to take advice' attitudes that are as stale as grandma's christmas fruitcake. The concept and deaths were really cool, but they lose all novelty once the monster is revealed. (read the SPOILER at the end) Nothing else is really revealed though, the ending is the biggest cop-out you've ever seen. I predicted everything before it happened, including who would die and how. The dialogue is lacking, and that's an understatement by far. There's mostly just random yelling, thoughtful staring, and chunky sentences. The actors are just GOD AWFUL! I don't want to talk about this movie anymore, it's making me angry. I just wonder if the director even watched it when it was done.<br /><br />(SPOILER ALERT!!!! SAVE 5 DOLLARS!) the monster is just a bunch of ants that "evolved" so now they need bones so they can move around, (nevermind the fact that this serves no evolutionary advantage whatsoever, and that the ants just killed whoever was available, though the movie acts like they kill out of necessity. This movie made me dumber.) The end consists of the lead idiot killing the mother ant (a big blob thing) which destroys all the other ants. Pretty cliche eh? He almost wusses out at the end because of a sudden emotional attachment to the mother-thing that overcomes him. Give me a break.
| 0 |
negative
|
Think you've seen the worst movie in the world? Think again. The person who designed the cover of this box should be accused of false advertising. The cover makes it look like a good, scary horror suspense thriller. But, no. What we have instead is NIGHTSCREAM. A movie that makes a "sweeeoooowww!!" noise every time a credit flashes across the screen. The biggest name in the entire film is probably Casper Van Dien who hardly has a part.<br /><br />I voted a one for this one only because I couldn't vote any lower. If I could vote something like negative five-thousand, trust me, I would have. So, for now, I'm going to give NIGHTSCREAM 1/2* out of 5 just because it ended.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw this when I was twelve. It was the movie that made me understand what a good mystery really was. I had read the entire Happy Hollisters children's mystery series and they were about a family of child sleuths who always got their man. But we the readers were not in a position to solve the mystery along with them. This movie showed me that a good mystery is that which makes the viewer/reader, at the end, say, "OH!!!!! OF COURSE!!!!!!!"
| 1 |
positive
|
I have been reading a lot of different opinions and reviews of this movie, and I understand why a lot of people get mixed feelings about Ponyo, whether it be the story line, animation, dialogue, and so forth. And I believe the most simple way I can answer to this, is that it's a movie for a much, much younger age bracket. An age bracket much younger than that of Tonarino Totoro (My Neighbor Totoro).<br /><br />Being a Miyazaki fan like the majority of the surfers on this site, I expected the wonderful animation, music composition, complex story telling, the great steady development of characters, how the story intertwines with today's society, etc etc etc of a typical Miyazaki film that we grew up with. And to tell you the truth, I didn't quite understand what the hell this story was supposed to be about or what the hell was going on until an hour and twenty minutes (with twenty minutes left in the movie), that this movie is NOT for the deep thinkers and hard core Ghibli-ists, but for the toddlers and youngins' and happy go lucky Japanese people. Also, I believe this movie is based on simplicity and creative animation; straight-up grass roots Ghibli Studios style. <br /><br />The fact that a villain is not present really surprised me, other than the father and maybe that crazy-ass typhoon. But other than that, this movie is just plain fun; to stimulate a young one's mind, and to make happy good time feeling. That's all. <br /><br />The animation goes back to the old-school mid-80s early-90s era of Miyazaki's films, where very specific detail wasn't a big focus, unlike Mononoke Hime (Princess Mononoke) and the latter. I admire the simplicity which kind of created some small nostalgia when I first watched Ghibli movies like Tonarino Totoro when I was a child. The reaction and movement of the children are all very similar to that of kids, and a lot of Studio Ghibli's body language is very noticeable. Studio Ghibli added some creative moments and sceneries that they can only do with it's wonderful animators, but it probably won't take the ritual Ghibli-ist in awe.<br /><br />The Japanese dialogue also sounded very child friendly and a lot of scenes and dialogues are very, very relative from what Japanese kids and mothers would say and act. The music if very hoppy and "fluffy" I guess you could say (similar to Totoro) from beginning to end. Even the darker scenes didn't seem assertive.<br /><br />In the end this movie is one of a kind. Just about every aspect of this movie is for children. And I waited a whole 80 mins to realize that. Quite frankly, I have never seen a movie told or shown it the way Miyazaki did. It's refreshing to see that Studio Ghibli can still tell a story for a wider, and much different scale of audience, and still keep that trademark Ghibli impression.
| 1 |
positive
|
Poor Shirley MacLaine tries hard to lend some gravitas to this mawkish, gag-inducing "feel-good" movie, but she's trampled by the run-away sentimentality of a film that's not the least bit grounded in reality.<br /><br />This was directed by Curtis Hanson? Did he have a lobotomy since we last heard from him? Hanson can do effective drama sprinkled with comedy, as evidenced by "Wonder Boys." So I don't know what happened to him here. This is the kind of movie that doesn't want to accept that life is messy and fussy, and that neat, tidy endings (however implausible they might be) might make for a nice closing shot, but come across as utterly phony if the people watching the film have been through anything remotely like what the characters in the film go through.<br /><br />My wife and I made a game of calling out the plot points before they occurred -- e.g. "the old man's going to teach her to read and then drop dead." Bingo! This is one of those movies where the characters give little speeches summarizing their emotional problems, making you wonder why they still have emotional problems if they're that aware of what's causing them. Toni Collette (a fine actress, by the way, and one of my favorites if not given a lot to work with here), gives a speech early on about why she buys so many shoes and never wears them, spelling out in flashing neon the film's awkward connecting motif. At that moment, I knew what I was in for, and the film was a downward spiral from there.<br /><br />Grade: C-
| 0 |
negative
|
It's hard to comment on this movie. It's one of the few movies Dimension actually has not shelved (it's hard to come up with a reason why) and it was rushed into a an unimpressive 500 theaters it's opening day. Maybe Dimension was afraid of how people would respond to a swamp creature using his tow truck to pull a house apart piece by piece.<br /><br />Ray Sawyer is just a tow truck driver, until he rescues a Voodoo priestess from a bad car accident, and in return, he gets attacked by a bag full of snakes and drowns. At the morgue, Ray comes back to life, and stalks a group of teenagers who witnessed the awful crash occur. <br /><br />What brings this movie down is it's paper thin characters. I didn't care for one moment about any of them. Also, the dialog was less than ho-hum. Also, it was very predictable. Characters did the typical stupid horror movie character things, like check creaky noises, call out people's names, and trip on a rock while being chased. I also could immediately pick out who the final girl would be. And why did the camera have those quick white flashes whenever somebody died or whenever the killer was shown?<br /><br />What's good? Well, there is an impressive suspense scene where the killer walks underneath swamp waters to get to his victims and a tense sequence where the final girl must camouflage herself with bunch of other dead bodies while the killer looks on.<br /><br />But other than that, It's another August/September disappointment. I was looking forward to it, but I did not get what was expected.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was a very good 1950s western, one of the better ones I've seen in a decade which featured that genre on screen and on TV. It certainly had three big actors on the marquee: Glenn Ford, Barbara Stanwyck and Edward G. Robinson. It turns out that Ford was the star of this film while the other two stars were in supporting roles. Ford had the bulk of the dialog. He also was the "good guy" while Robinson was the "bad guy" and Stanwyck was twice as bad as Robinson. She played the real heavy in this film and the character she played was a little too contradictory at times. <br /><br />Ford handled his starring status very ably, as he usually did - especially in westerns. He played a nice guy who didn't want to fight, was a peaceful man......but if you pushed him.....look out!<br /><br />The story had a nice mixture of action and lulls, not overdoing either. It had an expansive western setting which was put to good use with the CineamaScope widescreen. It also featured realistic people in a realistic setting. That credibility with the characters, especially the supporting players, was most impressive. The men way out-shined the women in this film, acting and character-wise. Dianne Foster and May Wynn were weak - the only negatives of the production. It's easy to see why these two actresses never became stars.<br /><br />Even though it is over 50 years old, this western is one you'd still find fast-enough moving to enjoy, no matter how old you are or what you're used to seeing. For classic film fans, this is almost a must with this cast and good story. Highly recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
Dick and Jane Harper (Jim Carrey, Téa Leoni) wind up on the unemployment line when the corporation Dick works for is caught in a corruption scandal, and after desperately and unsuccessfully trying to find jobs, the duo turns to crime in order to get them out of poverty.<br /><br />I've always been a fan of Jim Carrey. It's been awhile since he has made a straight up comedy. The last one was Bruce Almighty which was pretty good. He has proved that he can do serious dramas but comedy is his real element. Fun with Dick and Jane proves that he still has it. Even though the film was funny, it was still kind of disappointing. It wasn't as funny as I thought it would be. It's worth watching once though unlike most of Carrey's movies, it doesn't have a good repeat value. Part of the problem is the script. I was surprised the script was weak since this is the same guy that made The Forty Year Old Virgin. Some of the jokes just fall flat and other times they seem to be trying too hard. If Jim Carrey wasn't in it, than the film would have been a lot worse.<br /><br />Next to Jim Carrey is Téa Leoni. She's an okay actress but she just isn't very funny. She doesn't match up well with Carrey and she seemed to be phoning in her performance. They should have gone with someone else. The supporting cast includes Alec Baldwin, Richard Jenkins and Aaron Michael Jenkins. The latter plays Billy Harper and he actually gives a decent performance. He wasn't as annoying as most child stars are. Alec Baldwin was okay and Richard Jenkins tried too hard to be funny. To be honest, I'm a little bias here. The film altogether was pretty average but I liked it more because of Jim Carrey's performance. Fans of Jim Carrey should enjoy it but that's about it. In the end, Fun with Dick and Jane is a fun way to spend 90 minutes but its not very memorable. Rating 6/10
| 0 |
negative
|
I Loved this movie. Mark Blankfield was perfect for this role. More Classic sci/fie/Horror films should be remade to this comedy level, which is at the very top of the line in my opinion. A no drink movie, you laugh so hard you will spill it all over yourself. Can We expect more? Let's hope so. I would like to suggest many movies for this type of remake. Mel Brookes made some remakes of classic films.He made some very strong contributions. A Picture of Dorian Gray would be a good suggestion. I hope some producer or director can get into the idea and bring us new comedy to our screens. we are needing a good insurgence of comedy to keep our level of laughter higher than ever before. A good Comedy FIX.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have been waiting to see this film for ages and I finally have! As soon as I heard the title I knew that this film would be my favourite film ever and when I saw it believe me I wasn't disappointed!<br /><br />This film had everything dance, love and Patrick Swayze! There was so much in it and it dealt with important issues, (that were at the time, 1960's) , such as abortion.<br /><br />The dancing in this film was fantastic, just like the acting was! Swayze was brilliant just like Grey was too!<br /><br />Although this film was absolutely fantastic you cannot say that you have seen it if you haven't seen the last scene. It really does take your breath away as the whole choreography of the last dance was done brilliantly, it had you dancing at the end of the film and it really wouldn't surprise me if it influenced people to take up dancing!<br /><br />Overall Dirty Dancing is a film NOT to be missed and even if half the actors are in the: "Where are they now?" period the actors will always have this superb film in their career!
| 1 |
positive
|
One of the BEST movies I have seen in a very long time. Bechard has a way of looking at things that is completely unique and this movie does not disappoint.<br /><br />This movie has you guessing throughout, and with the seemingly taboo topics addressed it keeps you glued to the screen. There are no bad guys or good guys, Bechard makes sure of that. The characters are so perfectly complex you feel for each of them, you care about what they have been through.<br /><br />Bechard's use an attention to details is unmatched in this world of "FAST FOOD MOVIES" and while some of the topics may make some uncomfortable - you love the feeling it gives you.<br /><br />I have heard it said too often that there are no NEW stories to tell. Thank you Gorman Bechard for proving that false.<br /><br />Run, don't walk, to see this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
The worse film i have every seen. Like the other honest reviewers, it is just an excuse for getting naked birds with their juggs out. Don't get wrong, naked women isn't a bad thing but there is another film genre for that. <br /><br />Boyfriends beware. I sold this to my girlfriend as a classic bike gang fest (due to reviews) to be greeted with every other scene full of naked women gyrating about the place. Slap in the chops for me.<br /><br />What makes me laugh the most is all the dogey bike dives they went to in the film were full of models with the works cosmetically - what biker bars have these? They are usually slightly haggard with tattoos and far saggier juggs! Completely unrealistic.The acting is terrible, loads of pointless swearing and a complete waste of time storyline.<br /><br />Did anyone check out Vinnie Jones's attempt at an American accent? Its as embarrassing as his football skills.<br /><br />Avoid like the plague. The only reason you would watch this film is if you are a young lad who cant access p@rn and have nicked it from their parents movie collection for a few pervy kicks!
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is a nonsense/spoof comedy, in the lines of The Airplane or Naked Gun, but it doesn't even come close to this two, because it lacks originality and a little more intelligent jokes, rather then just throwing you with the same old easy jokes.<br /><br />You can figure out some references to other movies, from the top of my head I identified Dodgeball and Rocky, so you can have some fun with that, trying to find out what movies are spoofed.<br /><br />The movie also offers you an occasional laugh, but nothing that can cause you injuries, thus nothing really funny.<br /><br />I liked the character IPod in some ways (even though some of the jokes with him are standard comedy 101).<br /><br />I think this movie (and like most of nonsense/spoof comedy) depends on the mood you are in, so if you think you will laugh to any joke watch this movie. If you are in a serious mood forget about this (re)watch The Airplane instead, it will definitely make you laugh
| 0 |
negative
|
This "horror" movie lacks any horror or even mild suspense. Even the gore is not good. The plot would have some promise if it was done by someone who cared about what they're writing/filming, but the people who made this movie obviously did not. Basically, the film proceeds in a series of fits and starts thusly:<br /><br />Main character insists she's not crazy.<br /><br />"Milo" lurks about in his yellow raincoat or rides in front of a car on his bike.<br /><br />Main character insists she's not crazy and rambles on about her passion as a schoolteacher.<br /><br />Someone gets killed in an unsatisfying manner.<br /><br />Main character insists she's not crazy and musters up a few fake sobs.<br /><br />Are we seeing a pattern here? If you don't, you may enjoy this film. Otherwise, watch something else. The budget is low, low, low AND IT SHOWS (unlike say, THE EVIL DEAD, which makes you forget about its crap budget), and the acting is bad, bad, bad (with the possible exception of the janitor). In general the movie is boring, boring, boring. I can't think of a single scene that's actually done well. In fact, I disliked the movie so much I actually turned it off ten minutes before the end, something I very rarely do... heck, I watched the non-MSTied MANOS, THE CLONES, and WILD WILD WEST all the way through.<br /><br />3/10. Spare yourself and watch PHANTASM again.
| 0 |
negative
|
I stumbled across this movie late at night on TV. My brother and I could not stop laughing at how God awful this movie is. The crappy sound effects whenever White Ninja or Black Ninja punch, kick, or use a weapon is hilarious. This movie is almost on the same level as the Evil Dead series, but you can only watch this movie once because of shear crappiness. I'm not sure if the director meant for it to be so crappy on purpose because he knew idiots like me would buy it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Jack Frost 2, is probably the most cheesiest movie I have ever seen in my life. The complete title of the film, is Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. Horror movie fans that have a taste for campy story lines, will be delighted to watch this. This film was straight to video, and for good reasons. Here's why: The acting, was so atrocious, and so terrible, that it could cause one to cry. The main character had no personality, and the actor's bad acting made it all worse. The screenplay was, was also atrocious. Each character always says a cheesy line, and add the cheesy lines to the bad choreography, then you have something bad. Second, the story line isn't really all that impressive, but since this movie was straight to video, it is forgiven. The director, and writer could have turned the idea of a killer snowman, into something cool, but they didn't. They story has lots of plot holes in it. In the beginning, a cup of coffee gets knocked into the fish tank, with the melted Jack Frost. Scientists try to restore his life, but they couldn't. Once the cup of coffee fell into the tank, Jack Frost was completely restored. Now he is immune to anti-freeze. In Jack Frost part 1, the main character's DNA got mixed up with the Anti-freeze that was used to kill Jack Frost. Since the main character is allergic to bananas, Jack Frost is too. Hence, here's my point. They say that Sam's DNA combined with Jack Frost's. But, one of the scientists had some saliva on the cup, so when it fell into the tank, the scientists DNA would have been combined with Jack Frosts. Another thing, the special effects weren't very good either. Here's the good points: Jack Frost 2 has lots of blood, that looks pretty realistic. Even though this movie is flawed to hell, it is still entertaining. Overall, Jack Frost 2 is an enjoyable horror movie. The first one was better though. 7 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
Orson Welles' 1974 documentary "F for Fake" examines trickery and fraud, mainly focusing on two men who have been exposed as frauds themselves. Clifford Irving is a biographer who wrote the allegedly fraudulent Howard Hughes autobiography, yet, at least it seems, purports his innocence. The other main subject of the film is artist Elmyr de Hory, a man who has spent his life painting fakes of famous masterpieces, sometimes selling them to museums as real works by the original artists. Interspersed among these stories are bits where Welles does magic tricks to illustrate points, etc., and he also addresses the fact that his career began as a fraud when he first lied on his resume and then created a radio sensation with "War of the Worlds".<br /><br />I really wanted to love this film and find it profound since I am such a Welles devotee, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Part of the problem lied with the fact that it was not just non-linear, it was completely scattered. While I appreciate stylish editing and quick jumps and zooms, particularly when used in an unusual format such as a documentary, there was simply too much of it going on in "F for Fake". They created a distraction as opposed to lending style. If the story had been more clear and comprehensive, I think that the editing probably would not have been as annoying. The scattered storytelling was made all the more obnoxious by the fact that these were truly interesting subjects, particularly Elmyr de Hory. His artistic fakery brings up the topic of fraud in the art world, and who is truly able to determine the authenticity of certain works; and if the works are not authentic, what does it say about those who admire the pieces in museums? This is one documentary that I would say to at least give a shot, but don't be afraid to turn it off if you're not enjoying it. It is certainly the most discombobulated documentary I have ever seen; it is a cross between a documentary, an art film and experimental film, none of which is properly represented or isolated. I don't have any lesser opinion of Welles after seeing it, but it certainly, in my opinion, doesn't stand out as a glowing specimen in his oeuvre. 4/10 --Shelly
| 0 |
negative
|
This is an astonishing film: a romantic thriller with a convoluted but perfectly constructed and devastatingly symmetrical plot, brilliantly buttressed by the use of recurring visual motifs. Everything in it is beautifully filmed: the women, the apartments; but more amazing is the devastating juxtapositioning of images, almost every scene has echoes of another. This is a story told in light, in colour, in many almost-parallels. Every time I watch it, it fills me with delight.<br /><br />The acting is great too. Romane Bohringer is stunning as a woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown: everything about her changes with her mood. Vincent Cassel plays a very different role to his part in La Haine; but no less excellently: shifty and sympathetic at the same time. And Monica Bellucci - ah!, Monica Bellucci, well, put simply, she plays (is?) the world's most perfect woman. There's one small scene about three quarters of the way through where she does nothing more than smile; yet in that instant, says more than hours of Hollywood junk.<br /><br />One cannot do justice to this film without at least mentioning the superb, sequential climax: sad, shocking, ironic and subtle in turn. But if one moment captures the brilliance of this work, it's the scene at the start of this fabulous denouement, the prospect of which has been teasingly laid before us throughout the entire story. Yet when the moment comes, it is handled so delicately, so briefly, so deftly, that on reflection it makes you gasp. Only a director of staggering confidence would dare to underplay this vital point. But the confidence is justified. Cinema doesn't come much better than this.
| 1 |
positive
|
Pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy Blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good. All the characters are OK, and the story while had a lot of potential is rather dull, however the blood transfusion scenes looked frighteningly real, and as a result they were extremely disturbing. It's well made and decently written, and it started out really interesting, but it just couldn't keep up the pace, plus I found the ending to be disappointing. Linnea Quigley has no more then a very small role in this so, I was also disappointed about that, and Stephen Knight does a good job as the lead, as he was pretty twisted, plus I got this in a DVD Horror set called A Taste Of Evil, along with a bunch of other Horror films. There is lots of blood,however it's not all that gory, and for it's low budget it was pretty well done, however as I said it just couldn't sustain it's interest. This is a pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good, I would pass,but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing better to do. The Direction is OK. Elly Kenner&Norman Thaddeus Vane do an OK job here with decent camera work, and doing a good job on it's low budget, however the pace is too inconsistent for my liking. The Acting is actually alright. Stephen Knight is great as the lead, he was creepy, twisted, sick, and gave a very creepy performance, the most creepy thing about it though was he seemed like a normal person. Linnea Quigley did well in her small role. Christopher McDonald is OK I guess sin his short time. Rest of the cast are OK as well. Overall I would pass, but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing absolutely better to do. *1/2 out of 5
| 0 |
negative
|
This was a riveting film, one that really drew me in. I'm a big fan of William H. Macy, and he puts in a wonderful performance. His great likeability, coupled with the way his character breaks the fourth wall, really gave me a sense of complicity in his actions. I found myself waiting tensely for the whole house of cards to come collapsing down around him (and by extension myself, as his confidante and silent witness). It took several minutes for me to relax once the film had ended, I was so wrapped up in it. <br /><br />Good performances all around, too, not just with Macy. Arkin was quite good, as was Cromwell (he was surprisingly fierce). In short, I highly recommend this film to any fans of Macy and/or the murder mystery. But you may want to prepare to feel a little guilty.
| 1 |
positive
|
Believe me I wanted this series to work, but the early departure of Kevin Kilner dealt a near death blow after season one. Robert Leeshock just wasn't right for the part and Jane Heitmeyer did an admirable job as lead but the series just got too messy and confused at that point. I don't know what happened in Season Five, what a mess. Sometimes its time to drop the red cape and just stick the sword in the bull, if you know what I mean. The only consistent thread holding the series together were the amazing performances of Leni Parker and Anita LaSelva as the two Taelons in quiet idealogical conflict. If not for their talents and well-written dialogue they would have been two weird bald man-chicks in a B-movie series.<br /><br />If only this series could have ended at season 4 and picked up later by SyFy...
| 1 |
positive
|
Just watched this movie and it's not bad; there are a few tense moments and not a lot of long dialog strings. Comes off as fairly intelligent; fastpaced almost like 'documentary style'. This movie will evoke some nostalgia and a bit of cold war paranoia with cars,street scenes,and life in the 50's. The acting is fairly solid and at 85 minutes run time it goes by at a good pace. An atomic era film buff shouldn't miss this one.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is the greatest movie ever. If you have written it off with out ever seeing it. You must give it a second try.
| 1 |
positive
|
It seems no matter what I see her in, Christina Ricci seems full of promise but fails to deliver. Sure she can cry and scream, but Prozac Nation sees Ricci totally out of her depth, perhaps I'm being too harsh.... okay, I'm shifting the blame to the director. Jessica Lange is outrageous and almost reaches Faye Dunaway heights of megadramatisation. Unfortunately I think Lange peaked with Frances and it was all downhill from there. There was every chance of this film being slick and witty while tackling depression head on. What we get instead is poorly acted hysteria dressed up with a stereotypical try hard eighties veneer. I really had no sense of the films eighties backdrop, since I was unsatisfied with the lame attempt at making believe it was the eighties just because ms Ricci wears a madonna inspired dress to her "lost my virginity" celebration. Cmon everyone, you are ALL better than this. The filmmakers should hang their heads in shame, and as a result of disappointment, Elizabeth Wurtzel could probably make a bundle if she sued for "irrepairable emotional damages" as a result of the finished product. go on lizzie, sue! I would
| 0 |
negative
|
Enough talent and sincerity went into making this film that I wish it turned out better. Everyone is clearly doing their best to be true to an intriguing premise, but it's too deep a vision, too involved attempt at disentangling mental delusion to survive a transition to the screen. It is an attempt to capture the dimensionality of gossamer patterns on celluloid -- the result is muddled and slow. I give it a 10 for effort, but a 5 overall.
| 0 |
negative
|
Having grown up with GWTW, I shunned both the "Scarlett" sequel book and the mini-series until now. When I recently viewed the video for the first time, I was amazed how much I enjoyed watching Timothy Dalton's depiction of Rhett Butler and Joanne Walley-Kilmer's as Scarlet. I feel "Scarlet" should be judged on its own merits rather than attempting any comparison with the venerable Selznick masterpiece GWTW. While the "Scarlet" story line and some of the dialogue suffered from lack of inspired writing, overall I thought this was a worthwhile dramatization of what might have been between Scarlett and Rhett.
| 1 |
positive
|
A refreshing interview with the legendary Italian cinematographer-producer-director who passed away in 1999 with close to 200 features to his credit as director. A large portion is spent on D'Amato's softcore sex films including his notorious EMANUELLE entries with Laura Gemser. They also briefly cover his porn career, which kept him afloat during his last decade or so. More interesting to me is the section focusing on his horror and action efforts. D'Amato has plenty of great anecdotes about actors and his low budget film-making including a story about an assistant accidentally collecting real bones amid the fake ones while shooting in a 2,000-year-old catacomb. Other interviewees include George Eastman and Al Cliver. I would have liked a bit more conversation about his Stateside Filmirage productions (not a single question about TROLL 2; granted it wasn't the cult film then it was now).
| 1 |
positive
|
Frank Sinatra starred in this odd little short from RKO that is now in the public domain. The film came out at about the same time the war ended and is a nice plea for religious tolerance.<br /><br />The film begins with Sinatra on stage singing. After leaving the stage, he walks out into the alley and finds a group of kids picking on another because of his religion. Instead of yelling at the boys (or helping them for that matter), Sinatra delivers a nice civics lesson on religious toleration and equates prejudice with fascism. The kids seem to get the lesson but then, out of the blue, Sinatra begins singing a song that, frankly (get it?), kids would have hated. He had a lovely voice but unfortunately I think this detracted from the excellent message he gave to the kids about tolerance. It's a case of a good message with too much singing--even if the guy singing is Frank Sinatra. It's also an interesting curio--a nice historical piece that is often overlooked...plus it's quite touching even if it seems a bit schmaltzy.
| 1 |
positive
|
First love. Teenage love. We all have experienced it even if it was not as sweet as the one the protagonists share. "Friends" could be considered an adaptation of the classic "The Blue Lagoon", originally from 1949, and its remakes from 1980 (the most popular one, with Brooke Shields) and 1999 (with a young Milla Jovovich). While "The Blue Lagoon" puts the two young lovers in a desert island, with no contact with civilization, "Friends" goes the opposite route and it is sure to ring much more true and be a more difficult movie with contemporary audiences. Paul and Michelle who, for different reasons, turn their backs on family and the adult world to end up living together in a small cottage in Southern France. Having only each other and their childhood innocence, their friendship slowly develops into much more as they struggle to sustain themselves, in this sweet coming of age story. This film even to this day is controversial since the actors are teenagers and they certainly look the ages that are stated in the movie (15 and 14 1/2). The movie does contains a hint of child molesting, nudity, depictions of teenage sex and teenage pregnancy. But the real controversy is not the subject matter but the fact that Paul and Michelle's love is presented as a natural and healthy relationship. While this worked fine for stranded lovers in another time and in a desert island, having them in a modern setting presents some very difficult moral issues. Laws prohibiting consenting sex between minors are in effect in almost all countries and lack of sexual education in teenagers is seen as one of the causes for the rise in unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions. Is a movie like this one just child pornography or a slap in the face to make us face our own hypocrisy, regarding a modern society that does not cater to teenage parents and laws that clearly go against human nature and hormonal development but that are needed to prevent child abuse? Is hormonal development parallel to emotional growth? These are not easy questions and most of us will feel uncomfortable with them. As an artistic piece, this movie is really a forgotten and rough gem. The script progresses with extreme simplicity, albeit some sappiness, but never pulling any punches to state its message, although by today standards, it is somewhat slow. The photography is beautiful and it has scenes of great beauty. The acting of the two protagonists varies from really awful in some scenes to marvelously innocent and credible in others. Pop music, unlike most productions nowadays, is used tastefully and sometimes the lyrics speak the thoughts of the protagonists. Overall, this is a delightful piece, even if the moral values are not in concordance with your own.
| 1 |
positive
|
In Pasadena, Mrs. Davis (Joanna Cassidy) sends her daughter Aubrey Davis (Amber Tamblyn) to Tokyo to bring her sister Karen Davis (Sarah Michelle Gellar), who is interned in a hospital after surviving a fire, back to the USA. After their meeting, Karen dies and Aubrey decides to investigate what happened to her and gets herself cursed in the same situation, being chased by the ghost of the house. Meanwhile in Tokyo, the three high school mates Allison (Arielle Kebbel), Vanessa (Teresa Palmer) and Miyuki (Misako Uno) visit the famous haunted house and are also cursed and chased by the ghost. In Chicago, Trish (Jennifer Beals) moves to the apartment of her boyfriend Bill (Christopher Cousins), who lives with his children, the teenager Lacey (Sarah Roehmer) and boy Jake (Matthew Knight). On the next door, weird things happen with their neighbor.<br /><br />"The Grudge 2" has scary sound and visual effects, with the creepy woman and boy, and I have startled a couple of times while watching this movie. However, the complex screenplay with three subplots is totally confused, making the entwined story a complete mess. There are too much characters and situations, and in a certain moment I was completely lost with the disconnected and fragmented narrative. In the end, I was completely disappointed with this confused, but also spooky film. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Grito 2" ("The Scream 2")
| 0 |
negative
|
This BBC series is astonishingly good fun. I'd only seen a few minutes before I knew I had to own it and watch it again with all my friends. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone prudish, but almost anyone else is going to enjoy it--from the cinema snob to the entertainment-hungry masses. The lead character is a lesbian, but it's still worth watching if that's not your thing.<br /><br />Rachael Stirling is incredible in a lead role that stretches her into a dazzling assortment of emotions and situations, some of a bizarre nature. No one who saw this series would ever say she can't act. She makes us laugh, cry, get turned on and slap our foreheads in amazement.<br /><br />You can't really compare this story to anything else. It's not a rehash of style or plot. It's entirely it's own beastpart comedy, historical drama, erotica, coming-of-age tale, musical and more.<br /><br />Gotta praise the BBC for making this story. I can't imagine anyone in the (overly prudish and formulaic) U.S. ever doing it. So, stop reading about it and go buy it.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was very disappointing in that several elements of the book were wrongly done. The main story is the same but there are several flaws that hurt the movie.<br /><br />1) Boobie Miles gets injured in the beginning of the story in a preseason game at Texas Tech. This means he won't get anything done during the season at all and Chris Comer comes up sooner on the team.<br /><br />2) The game against Marshall was lost at Marshall. The team depicted as Marshall was actually Midland High one of Permian's main rivals and here is the proof- Marshall High is the Mavericks colored Scarlet and Silver, Midland High is the Bulldogs colored Purple and Gold. Look at the jerseys and you will see who it is. Also the real Marshall High's football roster is overwhelmingly Black, the team shown was racially mixed like Midland High. <br /><br />3) Permian only loses to Midland Lee by one point in district play. Midland Lee loses to Midland High and Midland High loses to Permian. These are the teams that set up the coin toss as such.<br /><br />4) Boobie comes back on the team as a reserve to Chris Comer and after not getting any playing time in the Midland Lee game, he quits the team completely at half time and never stands on the sideline or goes to any games again. <br /><br />5) Brian Chavez was a Tight End and Defensive End who wore #85 not a Tight End and Strong Safety. In addition, Boobie wore #35 and Ivory Christian wore #62. <br /><br />6) The coaches end up liking Chris Comer as a player more than Boobie because he has a better lifting ethic and runs more straight up plays the way the staff prefers him too, this is in part why Boobie quits the team. <br /><br />7) Dallas Carter is played in Austin at Darrell K. Royal Memorial stadium where UT plays in the state semi-finals not the state finals. Carter wins the state title but is forced to forfeit due to an ineligible player.<br /><br />The acting is done pretty well but if you read the book, you will see these flaws are pretty true. I am also tired of hearing all the PC hypocrites out there complain about the depiction of Dallas Carter's football team. The team according to the book is as large, monstrous, talented, and black as the movie shows. People say it is a racist depiction but reading the book, you see a true depiction of the team. The story is very altered giving this movie a score of 3.5/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
I think that this is a fabulous movie... I watched it constantly from the time I was 4 to about the time I was 8... However, watching it resulted in many nightmares. I particularly got them because of the guy that was always like "the otherworld" and his friends. I am 12, and I still get nightmares about it to this day. I can't fall asleep right now because I am thinking about it. I love this movie, but it is so scary! I definitely love this movie though, I have very good memories from it. Kate is very good at acting in this movie. Amazingly, I never realized that it was her! I also think that the graphics were very high quality, contrary to what some other people think
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this film in a Cinema-Club in Germany in 1970. Most of the attendees were from the local private school at which I was teaching. I had seen a few Godard films previously while I lived in France, and, though they hadn't been my favorites, I could at least make sense of them. Being able to speak French helped.<br /><br />The fairly innocuous beginning of "Le week-end" soon turned into a kaleidoscope of images, very well, maybe too well photographed, that soon made no sense to me. For me, films, like books, must have some clear sort of meaning. This didn't for me. I suppose I'm not "into" artsy films. Images still haunt me from the film. To this day I refuse to eat rabbit meat, well-loved by the French. Those who've seen the film might realize why. Yes, the theme of materialism came through, but the cannibalism, the car wrecks, and all the other scenes of destruction and horror only sickened me. I'm not sure if I walked out before the end, but I certainly felt like it. I promised myself that I'd never watch another Godard film, and I haven't and never knowingly will.<br /><br />My rating: nothing. It was the most disgusting film I've ever seen. Others may have been more inept, silly or stupid. I've forgotten those while scenes from this one will haunt me forever.
| 0 |
negative
|
Although I enjoy Steve Carrell's work, Evan the Almighty, like so many other overdone films turned out to be a lot worse than I hoped it would be.<br /><br />This turned out to be a cheesy family movie, the kind that employ famous comedian to improve their image, but ultimately fail to deliver.<br /><br />The usual Carell's dorky humour is almost absent from the movie and though he did make me chuckle a few times, there was nothing hilarious about him in Evan the Almighty.<br /><br />His 3 kids, although were probably somehow important for a biblical character, were really quite useless in the movie and terrible actors. Even his wife, was somewhat of a third leg for such a simple storyline.<br /><br />Spending so much money on making a comedy was a huge mistake. Although, Carell's career might profit from this movie, there's no real reason to go see it.<br /><br />If only there was a little less of his family, a little more of Carell, Molly Shannon and maybe some other SNL cast, it could have actually been a lot more entertaining.<br /><br />4/10 for a few chuckles here and there.
| 0 |
negative
|
There are interesting pieces here of and about Bruce Weber's likes and dislikes. Maybe if a professional editor had put it together for Biography, I would have felt more satisfied. Instead, I spent $8 at a film festival on it. For an autobiography, almost nothing is revealed about Bruce Weber, other than he likes to look at photographs, shoot interesting people, especially beautiful teenage boys, and listen to jazz. The director of "Crumb" would have made a much more interesting and cohesive film.
| 0 |
negative
|
An obsessive love story, where the characters have been extremely convincing. I think this film highlights the talent of professional actors. Specially for Vincent Cassel who wouldn't (at the time it was filmed) be the first character you think of for such a role. And yes he did succeed to seduce the beautiful Monica Belluci, beyond the film, during this creation. I can only say, that this film should have been released at it is in the USA, instead of thinking of doing a remake. It is simply so french, almost perverted....and yet so true...this film should stay untouched...<br /><br />A director that should definitely get more projects as this kind of subject requires the right amount of ingredients to not make it a flop..
| 1 |
positive
|
The horrific production doesn't qualify as a "film." It was obviously shot on video tape, and very poorly at that! There is a constant screaching sound for the audio(sounds like a bad microphone), which is so annoying that you sometimes cannot understand what the characters are saying. Badly dubbed-in music will suddenly appear in a scene, and the entire editing of this thing rates about a ZERO!<br /><br />The plot is contrived and ridiculous. A late 20's gay man trying to hide his live-in lover from parents visiting? PLEASE! And the reaction the mother has when she finds a picture of her son kissing his boyfrioend is beyond melodramatic and rolls right into stupid. Talk about a stereotypical view of gay life! The acting is worse than a porno movie, and the direction is very poor!<br /><br />As far as "production" goes, there isn't any!<br /><br />This title is simply a lame videotaped attempt to call itself a "Film." There is no heart and soul to give it even the smallest bit of praise.<br /><br />It's just a stupid waste of time, so avoid it at all costs! BAD ACTING! BAD WRITING! BAD DIRECTING , and the title of "producer" is vanity as this trash probably costed them the price of the videotape they shot it on.<br /><br />This ametuer garbage has no business getting released onto a dvd as it's deceptive to the cunsomer. I cannot stress how horrible this "SUGARPLUM" crap is!<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
For the most part, I considered this movie unworthy of a comment, but the last 10 minutes prompted me to write one. You see, right then we learn (SPOILERS...if they can be called that) that the Devil's emissary has no chance of properly preparing the domination of the world by his master, because he is not skilled at martial arts! "Prosatanos" has been lying in a hole for centuries, waiting for "human greed" to release him, only to be defeated in a simple one-on-one match against 54-year-old former karate champion Chuck Norris! Imagine what would have happened to him if he had taken on Jackie Chan... (*1/2)
| 0 |
negative
|
On account of my unfortunately not being able to find them anywhere, I have not gotten to try any of the other entries in the series, although I certainly would not mind, and trust me, I have looked. For anyone who does not know, this is a point-and-click adventure title. That means that the mouse is what you use to interface with everything that you can do so with in this, though there is one particular case in this where that is inaccurate. I won't spoil it here, for anyone who haven't yet tried it. Nevertheless, regardless of how little experience you have with computers, you can sit right down and try this. There isn't even terribly many bits of this where you need to be fast or have swift reflexes. Heck, you can adjust the speed of the text(if you have it have subtitles on), and thus, of the talking in it, and it's not enormously awkward or forced when slow. Accessing your inventory is easy, as well as combining or using items. Clicking and holding down the button at anything you can affect gives three options for what to use with it(be it a person, a specific part of the surroundings or an object): Hand(push, pick up, open, etc.), eyes(examine, look through, etc.) and mouth(eat, converse, etc.). This all adds up to a welcoming, friendly environment, where you can approach the plentiful puzzles(the amount of them is varied, based on which of the two difficulty settings you try this on) at your own pace, and explore and take in the dozens of individual, creatively done characters and areas in this to your heart's content. The length of this will be determined by how much time you take to do such(you'll hear no blame from me, they're worth it), and your skill at figuring out the solutions. There are a few points in this where you get to decide if you want the harder way of completing that or not. This can be enjoyed by anyone, from any age. There's no material that isn't acceptable for children. This is one of the products that help prove that that very fact does not have to mean that it is intolerable for older audiences. The animation is quality work, smooth, everything moves as it should, and the 3rd dimension honestly isn't that sorely missed when trying this. The story-telling is well-done, and you're never unclear as to what is going on. There are numerous well-directed cut-scenes, kept in the same colorful, mostly bright 2D world as the rest, with well-done camera motion. "Cartoony" is an appropriate word to describe this, and not only the visual style. It can be applied to all of this. The entire world of this is very similar to, but not quite the same as, ours, with a mix of past and present, inhabited by people and filled with things that we can sort of recognize or understand at least portions of, but the absurdity makes them funny. That would have to be one of the greatest strengths of this, right there: It's hilarious. A lot of that comes from the lines spoken(what is said as well as how it is), and those who dig British efforts with focus on verbal, the likes of 'Allo 'Allo or the BlackAdder franchise will want to check this sucker out. However, there are several different types of jokes, including, but not limited to the following: Satire, cleverness, dark, spoofs, irony, gross-out comedy(not exactly my favorite aspect of this) and more. There's self-awareness, with the lead addressing you, personally, and, for example, explaining why he isn't going to do what you just asked him to. There are references to pop culture through a couple of decades. Almost all of it works, hardly any gags fall flat, and if you aren't in stitches during this, my best guess as to the reason would be that it's simply not compatible with your sense of humor... a situation that warrants no judgment, and if one suspects that could be the case, and wishes to find out, I suggest the demo version, where you, for free, can see if you care for the brand of play and/or laughter. The plot is well-written(nearly all of this is, really), develops nicely throughout and keeps your interest well. The audio is all excellent, crisp and well-done. The sound effects are spot-on. The music is well-composed with no exceptions. The voice acting is impeccable, with a celebrity or two. Armato is fantastic as Guybrush Threepwood(gotta love that name), whom you control. Boen is incredible as LeChuck, the deceased(and still threatening) zombie villain. The designs are immensely well-done, highly imaginative and all fit. In spite of the relatively limited disposition of our hero when it comes to pirate deeds, you do get to engage in some. Steer a ship, board that of others, and match blades in a rather unique, and marvelously thought up, way. The re-playability lies mainly in the choices, during dialog, etc. This is linear, with a tad freedom as far as the order goes, so the buccaneer sitting down with this, for at least the second time, has not got that large an amount of possibilities as far as being challenged by this goes, unless he or she has forgotten what to do in the meantime. Ah, nothing is perfect. Anyone who would care to delve into a thoroughly well-crafted and fascinating fictional universe, and crack up countless times should get a real kick out of this. The good kind, not the ones that hurt and potentially leave bruises. Don't forget, kids, do *not* eat books... that is just begging for a paper-cut. I would wager a guess that those who like the others would appreciate this one, too. And they're not the only ones who may get into this. I recommend this to, apart from members of aforementioned group, any fan of this genre of VGs, as well as anyone to whom this review appeals. 8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Octavio Paz, Mexican poet, writer, and diplomat, who received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1990, said about "Nazarin": "Nazarin follows the great tradition of mad Spaniards originated by Cervantes. His madness consists in taking seriously great ideas and trying to live accordingly". A humble and spiritual priest (Francisco Rabal in a wonderful performance) attempts to live by the principles of Christianity but is cast out of his church for helping a local prostitute by giving her a shelter after she had committed a murder. Nazarin wanders the country roads of the turn of the 20th-century Mexico, offering help to poor and begging for food. His two followers, a murderous prostitute Andara and her sister Beatriz who is a failed suicide desperately searching for love, consider him saint but it does not prevent him from hatred and humiliation from both the church and the people he meets on the road. He ends up beaten in prison and begins to question his faith for not be able to forgive his attacker. <br /><br />Bunuel tells the story in a manner of a Christian parable masterfully and uniquely combining admiration and irony for the main character and strong criticism of formal religion and hypocrisy. The film is simple and profound as well as beautiful, ironic, and heartbreaking.<br /><br />I consider Bunuel one of the best filmmakers ever. I've seen twenty of his films and they all belong to the different periods of his life but they have in common his magic touch, the masterful combination of gritty realism and surrealism, his curiosity, his inquisitive mind, his sense of humor, and his dark and shining fantasies. With great pleasure I am adding little seen and almost unknown but amazingly candid and touching surrealistic tragic-comedy "Nazarin" to the list of my favorite films.
| 1 |
positive
|
Ostensibly a story about the young child of Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. The kid gets kidnapped to keep his parents quiet. They know something about a plot to assassinate the ambassador of an unnamed country during a performance at Albert Hall in London.<br /><br />The movie is rich in Hitchcockian incidents. A friendly but opaque Frenchman seems to grill the innocent Stewart -- a doctor from Indiana -- a little too intensely to be merely idly curious. Later the Frenchman shows up in Arab disguise, a knife in his back, and whispers some information about the murder plot to Stewart. Stewart tells his wife -- Doris Day looking very saucy indeed -- but refuses to cooperate with the police and risk his son's life.<br /><br />Instead the couple try to track down the assassins, buy them off, and get their son back, taking them from Morocco, where Hitchcock has given us his usual tourist's eye view of the customs, locations, and food, to London. There is a hilarious wild goose chase involving a set-to between Stewart and the staff of a taxidermy shop. The staff are more concerned about guarding their half-stuffed specimens than anything else, and they shuffle around protectively holding the carcasses of a leopard and a swordfish. In the course of the scuffle, Stewart manages to save his throat from being cut by the swordfish bill, but is bitten on the hand by a stuffed tiger, the action boosted along by Bernard Hermann's bumptious score. The scene ends with Stewart rushing out the door. Hitchcock ends it with a shot of a lion's head gaping at the slammed door. There is also a running gag, well done, about some visitors waiting around the couple's hotel room in London, waiting for things to be explained.<br /><br />There are two serious issues that are lightly touched on. One is the relationship between Stewart and Day, which is not as rosy as it ought to be, considered as a bourgeois ideal. She's been a stage musical star for some years and is internationally known. And she's given it all up to marry an ordinary guy who happens to be a doc. That's understandable in, say, a nurse or a flight attendant or almost any woman other than an international star with a promising career in her own right. It isn't delved into, but the edginess is noticeable, as it was not in the original version. It reminds me a little of an exchange between Joe Dimaggio and his then-wife Marilyn Monroe, who had just returned from entertaining the troops in Korea. "Oh, Joe," she gushed, "did you ever see ten thousand people stand up and cheer?" "Seventy thousand," muttered Joe, former hero of the New York Yankees.<br /><br />The second problem is one of allegiance. Who is of greater social value? One's own young son? Or an unknown ambassador. Do we put ourselves or our loved ones at risk for the sake of national stability? Day is faced with this dilemma in its starkest form at the climax in the Albert Hall. Her solution opts for allegiance to political stability, although her motives are problematic. Does she scream to save the ambassador's life, or does she do so just to release the anxiety that is overwhelming her? (Cf: Alec Guiness falling on the detonator at the end of "The Bridge on the River Kwai.") The photography is extremely good, and the settings can be menacing, even on a quiet street in a residential neighborhood of London. It's mid-day, and Stewart is alone and determined, but frightened too. There are footsteps echoing on Gulliver Street from someone, somewhere. Is he being followed? Is his life in danger? And where the hell is everybody who lives on this street? Hitchcock pays such close attention to location details that we can make out the garden wall bonding of the bricks beside him.<br /><br />The director had a rare disagreement with Francois Truffaut while being interviewed for Truffaut's otherwise laudatory book. Truffaut argued that the earlier version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" lacked the depth of the later version. Hitchcock replied, "It seems to me you want me to make films for the art house audience," but finally agreed that the 1930s version was the work of a talented amateur and this version was the work of a professional. No argument there.<br /><br />This is Hitchcock pretty much near his zenith.
| 1 |
positive
|
Instead of writing a paragraph, I'll give four good reasons why 2001 is the greatest cinema experience of all time: 1) It is a visual Odyssey that could only be told on the big screen. The special effects that won Kubrick his only Oscar are the most stunning effects before that age of Jurassic Park and T2. They allow Kubrick to give an accurate (or at least are the most accurate) depiction of space travel to date. The silence that fills the space scenes not only serves its purpose as accurate science, but also adds to the mood of the film (to be discussed in a later point with HAL). The fact that Kubrick shot the moon scenes before the Apollo landing is a gutsy yet fulfilling move. Many have said that upon its original release, it was a favorite "trip" movie. I can think of no other movie that has such amazing visuals for its time and even of all time (sorry Phantom Menace fans!) 2) Kubrick's directing style is terrific. As in all his films, Kubrick likes to use his camera as means to delve into the psychology of his characters and plots. His camera is not as mobile as other greats, such as Scorsese, but instead sits and watches the narrative unfold. Faces are the key element of a Kubrick film. Like classic movies, such as M and Touch of Evil, Kubrick focuses on the characters' faces to give the audience a psychological view-point. Even he uses extreme close-ups of HAL's glowing red "eye" to show the coldness and determination of the computerizd villain. I could go on, but in summation Kubrick is at the hieght of his style. 3) HAL 9000 is one of the most villainous characters in film history. I whole-heartedly agree with the late Gene Siskle's opinion of HAL 9000. Most of this film takes place in space. Through the use of silence and the darkness of space itself, a mood of isolation is created. Dave and his crewmen are isolated between earth and jupiter, with nowhere to escape. Combine this mood with the cold, calculated actions of HAL 9000 and you have the most fearful villain imaginable. I still, although having see this film several times, feel my chest tighten in a particular scene. 4) The controversial ending of 2001 always turns people away from this film. Instead of trying to give my opinion of the what it means and what my idea of 2001's meaning in general is, I'd like to discuss the fact that the ending serves to leave the movie open-ended. Kubrick has stated that he inteded to make 2001 open for discussion. He left its meaning in the hands of the viewer. By respecting the audience's intelligence, Kubrick allowed his movie to be the beginning, not the end, of a meaningful discussion on man's past, present, and future. The beauty of 2001 is that the ending need not mean anything deep, it can just be a purely plot driven explanation and the entire movie can be viewed as an entertaining journey through space. No other movie, save the great Citizen Kane, leaves itself open to discussion like 2001. It is truly meant to be a surreal journey that involves not only the eye but the mind. Instead of waiting in long lines for the Phantom Menace, rent a widescreen edition of 2001 and enjoy the greatest cinematic experience.
| 1 |
positive
|
While driving in a dangerous zigzag manner on a lonely road in the night, the teenager Cliff (Jay R. Ferguson) has a car accident with his friends Lauren (Christine Taylor), Alex (Kim Murphy) and Eric (Christopher Masterson). While spending the cold night stranded in the woods around a campfire, they kill time telling ghost stories. In "The Honeymoon", the couple Rick (Ron Livingston) and Valerie (Jennifer MacDonald) travels in their RV to Las Vegas in their honeymoon. Rick takes a shortcut to visit the Clayton Caverns in the night, but the stranger Cole (Hawthorne James) advises them to leave the spot since dangerous creatures attack people in the full moon. In "People Can Lick Too", on the eve of her twelfth birthday, Amanda (Alex McKenna) tells her Internet friend Jessica that she is alone at home. However, Jessica is actually a psychopath. In "The Locket", the biker Scott (Glenn Quinn) is crossing the country on his motorcycle. When he has a problem with his bike, he finds an isolated house where the gorgeous dumb Heather Wallace (Jacinda Barrett) lives with her father. When the man returns from his herd, Scott finds the truth about Heather.<br /><br />"Campfire Tales" presents three good horror tales, with monsters, psychopaths and ghosts and a surprising twist in the end. The weakest segment is "The Hook", with Eddie and Jenny, but the other stories a great. The plot point is totally unexpected and gives a great conclusion to this above average horror movie. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazul): "Contos da Meia-Noite" ("Midnight Tales")
| 1 |
positive
|
I Remember That Hey Hey Fuss & I Saw The Jackson Jive, It Was A Pretty Straight Forward Comedy Skit But I Saw This & It Is Free & Is Out In The Clear? Have I Missed Something? If The Black Community Should Be Complaining About Any Racist Comments In A TV Show It Should Be This & If You've Read My Earlier Comments I Am Not The Easy-To-Offend Guy. The Basic Plot Is That An African/American Moves In Next To This White Guy & They Make These Racist Comments Like The Value Of A House Will Drop Just Because Of Black Neighbours & The White Guy Makes References Like (If Your Easily Offended By Racial Slurs Do Not Read On) Nig-Nog Jungle Boy Sambo. (I Apologise But That Really Happens In This Show I Really Am A Guy Who Is Fine With The Black Community) People Might Say Hey Lighten Up But Even When You Take The Racial Slurrs Away It Is Un-Funny No New Jokes Badly Acted & I Can Swear In One Episode I Saw Someone's Eyes Focus On Something Unconnected With The Situation. All In All Horrible Comedy.
| 0 |
negative
|
Actor turned director Liev Schreiber (The Sum of All Fears) does an above average screen version of the novel, Everything Is Illuminated, by author Jonathan Safran Foer. This tale of journey and self discovery is highlighted by strong ensemble performances and sharp direction with a storyline that enriches and enlightens the soul.<br /><br />Jonathan Foer (Elijah Wood) is a young man who has seen his grandfather, Safran, pass away. Jonathan has a peculiar habit of taking small objects and life's little memorabilia and sealing them in plastic ziplock bags to display them on his wall. Safran gives Jonathan an old picture showing a young Safran standing next to a beautiful girl who saved his life many years ago. Thus Jonathan commences on a long journey to locate this mystery woman in the Ukraine not knowing if she is still alive. He enlists the help of a brash, young tour guide named Alex (Eugene Hutz) and his grandfather (Boris Leskin) to drive him to his goal. At first the trip hits dead ends and false leads, but as the group nears its target, the men find themselves amid the ruins of a dark chapter in history with the memories of war and the past ghosts of a nonexistent town. There, they find their own respective destinies and will be forever changed by what they learn.<br /><br />This film feels like it was directed by someone who knew how to get the most from his actors. At times, the film is spoken in Russian and seems like a foreign film. The title itself is a play on self discovery. This is a thoughtful trek of one man into his past, and his past ironically involves his companions; Jonathan's obsessive journey becomes an emotional journey for Alex and his grandfather as well. It's a tale of bonding over the long haul and the guilt one must carry for a lifetime. By the end of the film, these characters have all experienced life altering events that will permanently intertwine their lives. It proves that memories can be powerful in traumatizing and also cleansing the soul. It's also about one's legacy and how others view an event or a person in the past. Alex eventually sees his grandfather in a completely different light. Even our perception of these individuals will have changed by film's end which is a tribute to a story that is well told.<br /><br />The story is deceptively simple. It functions as a road trip movie (like The Straight Story) combined with an interesting mystery story. It really involves a great many layers of emotions and subplots that range from the past to the present. The ending is a bit surreal with its déjà vu feeling.<br /><br />Elijah Wood (Sin City, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)) has chosen a wide range of roles ever since his splash in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Here, he does a fine job with what is essentially a minimalist role with not much to show. Eugene Hutz and Boris Leskin fare better as Alex and his grandfather respectively. Even the grandfather's dog named Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. (that's right) is funny as a fiercely loyal companion.<br /><br />The spare music score by Paul Cantelon is a moody compliment to the thoughtful nature of the film. The editing is effective as imagery from past and present are linked and transitioned effortlessly. The cinematography by Matthew Libatique (Gothika, Requiem for a Dream) is appropriately stark and lifeless with some impressive images of war and its aftermath.<br /><br />The coincidences that emerge during the last half of the film make for good drama but are a little too coincidental. We never fully understand the whole background story of Alex's grandfather and what his motivations are. Likewise, Jonathan's blank stares and lack of apparent substance and depth do not give us much more than a sketch of a quirky man. At times, the film feels a little downbeat and depressing as more horrific revelations are exposed. But these are minor criticisms of what is a good, introspective story with good performances and interesting themes of remembrance and closure. That Schreiber not only directed but adapted the screenplay to this worthwhile slice of history is a tribute to his talents and promising potential in the future.
| 1 |
positive
|
This train-wreck begins with Brujo and Alma crossing the Mexican border. Alma is suffering from some horrid curse that causes her to vomit garden snakes and Nickelodeon Gac every few minutes as well as clench her teeth and mutter nonsense. So Apparently Alma has this uncle in Los Angeles who knows of a cure for her. They hop aboard a train to get there and luckily a friend of theirs pays their way. Alma and Brujo stay in the luggage cart the whole movie since they can't afford upper class seats. Meanwhile in the higher class we see a bunch of nobodies on their way to LA for whatever reasons. A balding guy on a business trip, two girls, one of whom is carrying $5 grand and a wad of cocaine, three stoners, and some Mexicans. The Mexicans rough it up with Brujo and try to take his "weed" which apparently is a sedative for Alma's snakes slithering inside her. They realize that the snakes don't attack, they Enter Your Body Through Your Veins! Very twisted and B-Movie. Brujo saves the guy by ripping out his heart (Temple Of Doom style) and procuring the snake. For some reason he cannot have the snakes harmed or it'll hurt Alma. While this is going on a narcotics expert tries to bust one of the girls and gets a little action (topless) in exchange for not telling about her shipment of drugs. A mystery guy shows up and has a gunfight with him. As a grand finale Alma turns into a vampire, bites her man and then becomes a giant pathetic excuse for a CG snake the size of the train, eats the train and is blasted into a nuclear bomb hurricane whirlwind and disappears. Everyone then heads to LA on foot.<br /><br />The credits actually say at the end "Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental, and very weird. We suggest moving and/or taking a plane". Odd since a line in the movie from the bald guy is "Yeah, I HATE planes!" The credits go on to say "No snakes were hurt during the production of this screenplay. Only a small child but it's cool." There actually were a LOT of real snakes used in the movie, and all of them very tame. There is actually no scene of CG snakes attacking anyone unless you count the large one, but then it just eats the train and the other fake snake is just the head and it looks like a muppet. The snakes don't really attack anything, they're just...there. One crawls out of toilet paper actually!<br /><br />the movie isn't funny, isn't scary (as there's no real snake attack), and is just a 'quickie cash-in' which is when a low-budget movie company hears about a big budget Hollywood release, then they rush to put out a similar film, or even a parodic version, for release just prior to, or simultaneously with, the big name flick. The effect of this being that many people will either confuse one for the other, and go see the quickie rather than the 'biggie' or, they will want to see both, for whatever reason... like myself. Avoid at all costs.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is supposed to be Charlie's masterpiece, but I will contend that it is actually one of his weaker films. First of all, it's not funny. Not one thing in this movie made me laugh. Okay, there's a quick jump into a box that was a giggle, but that was one of desperation. The Tramp's first - and only - talkie where he speaks (he sings in an earlier film), but his flat dialogue shows us exactly why he was such a joy to watch in "Modern Times" and "Gold Rush" - two films that are at least ten times better than this film. There's literally only one good scene in this film, the one where Hitler plays with the globe like a beach ball. That's it.<br /><br />Okay, so it gets a lot of praise for being the first film to wage war, even long before we entered the war. Nope. Not true. Simply not true, so that praise can be turned down a bit. The Three Stooges did it on January 19, 1940 with "You Natzy Spy" - ten months earlier than the October release of Chaplin's film - and that movie was actually funny! If you want to watch Chaplin's greatest film, watch this only for reference. And then pop in "Modern Times", "Gold Rush", "City Lights", "Limelight", "The Kid", or even "Tillie's Punctured Romance".
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw this film last night, a satire of the reality style programs that seem to be making the rounds at the moment.<br /><br />What can I say. I absolutely hated it. About as interesting as watching paint dry and with maybe one or two only slightly amusing moments.<br /><br />Maybe it had something to do with me definately not being a fan of the Survivor and Big Brother type shows, but if this had been a video/DVD or if I'd been watching at the cinema on my own I would have definately not endured more than the first 5 minutes.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
Sam Lion (Jean Paul Belmondo) discovers he needs to take some time off as everybody around him relies to much on him and stages his own death. When he discovers those he loved ans still loves are in need, he gets Albert Duvivier (Richard Anconina) to help them. In search of his own past, of his own desires, this fabulous film by Claude Lelouch is a man's quest for himself at a ripe age.<br /><br />Built like all Lelouch films, the film's beginning with constant flashbacks may be puzzling, especially scenes where Paul Belmondo (who looks a huge lot like his father) is playing a young Sam Lion while Sam Lion stands in the same room - a flashback sequence which takes a second to grasp.<br /><br />One of Lelouch's most elaborate works, L'itineraire d'un infant gate is a must-see tale of self fulfilment.
| 1 |
positive
|
i went to see this because i have some friends in the ukraine. but the film moved me beyond what i expected by turning out to be a perfect blend of belly holding laughs (alex's strange use of English) situational comedy and heaviness bordering on depressing. i loved the range. it made me want to jump in to an old car and hit the road for the ukraine. alex (hutz) plays his guide part perfectly and provides a great counterpoint to elijah woods' poker faced earnestness. the film shows the positive side of humanity when ppl of differing cultures can bond and do the right thing when they feel the sincerity of the situation, even when they went into it with preconceived notions and prejudices, and how this can open up doorways into deeply buried memories. there is a lot in this film.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Great Dictator is a beyond-excellent film. Charlie Chaplin succeeds in being both extremely funny and witty and yet at the same time provides a strong statement in his satire against fascism. The anti-Nazi speech by Chaplin at the end, with its values, is one of filmdom's great moments. Throughout this movie, I sensed there was some higher form of intelligence, beyond genuinely intelligent filmmaking, at work.
| 1 |
positive
|
The sad thing about Frontline is that once you watch three or four episodes of it you really begin to understand that it is not far away from what happens in real life. What is really sad is that it also makes extremely funny.<br /><br />The Frontline team in Series One consists of Brian Thompson ( Bruno Lawrence )- a man who truly lives and dies merely by the ratings his show gets. Occasionally his stunts to achieve these ratings see him run in with his Line Producer Emma Thompson ( Alison Whyte ); a woman who hasn't lost all her journalistic integrity and is prepared to defend moral scruples on occasions. The same cannot be said of Reporter Brooke Vandenberg ( Jane Kennedy )- a reporter who has had all the substance sucked out of her- so much so that when interviewing Ben Elton she needs to be instructed to laugh. Her reports usually consist of interviewing celebrities ( with whom she has or hasn't 'crossed paths' with before ) or scandalous unethical reports that usually backfire. Martin De Stasio ( Tiriel Mora ) is the reporter with whom the team relies on for gravitas and dignity, as he has the smarts of 21 years of journalism behind him. His doesn't have principles so much as a nous of what makes a good journalistic story, though he does draw the occasional line. Parading over this chaos ( in name ) is Mike Moore ( Rob Sitch ) an egotistical, naive reporter who can't see that he's only a pretty face for the grubby journalism. He often finds his morals being compromised simply because Brian appeals to his vanity and allows his stupidity to do the rest.<br /><br />Frontline is the sort of show that there needs to be more of, because it shows that while in modern times happiness, safety and deep political insight are interesting things; it's much easier to rate with scandal, fear and tabloid celebrities.
| 1 |
positive
|
Skilled professionals live it up in an exotic and dangerous location. They get drunk every night. They smuggle opium. They drop pigs in parachutes. They fly under impossibly hazardous conditions. They dress weird and act weirder. They're iconoclastic, outrageous. They violate every rule of command and have contempt for their employers at the CIA. They're irreplaceable.<br /><br />Nope. It's not "Only Angels Have Wings" and it's not "M*A*S*H." It's an uneasy mixture of the two that unfortunately comes across as more silly than funny.<br /><br />It aims at shock, amusement, and education, but doesn't really achieve its goals.<br /><br />As far as its shock value is concerned, well, we're inured by now, aren't we? Does it really shock anyone that a bunch of hard-living pilots flew secret missions in Laos in the 1970s? No, it's not shocking. It's not even educational now, under our current circumstances, when it would be interesting to learn that some paramilitary excursion was NOT buried in a file labeled National Interest, Defense de Toucher. That's okay. So we've been wised up a little and are no longer neither so shockable nor so dumb.<br /><br />The problem in this case is that the film depends on those very qualities for its power to amuse. Without that, the film implodes. A group of shaggy drunken CIA pilots are sitting around in a cat house, goosing the girls, shooting out the lights with a silenced pistol, killing lizards with same. Asks newbie pilot Robert Downey, Jr., "When you guys act like this does it mean there's something to celebrate?" Replies another, guffawing, "No, it means it's night time." That might be funny if we expected renegade pilots to be as upright as the rest of us. If we don't, the gag, like the movie, falls flat.<br /><br />There are action scenes naturally. Everything that can possibly happen in or to an airplane in flight happens in or to an airplane in flight. People fall out of them, baggage is thrown haphazardly out of their hatches, engines fail, they sustain damage from AAA, the are torn apart during crash landings, but we've seen most of this elsewhere, often done better.<br /><br />Some might find this funnier than I did, and the acting is pretty good. Robert Downey Jr. is especially effective as the straight man. Check out the other comments and if they describe a film that you might find appealing, then by all means watch it. There might be some laughs in it that escaped me.
| 0 |
negative
|
The stories were pretty weird, not really funny and not really cunning. I'm not sure what the point of the stories was .. The first story was actually mostly sick, the second was just really really pathetic and the third was only weird (the fake baby was actually quite badly made).
| 0 |
negative
|
What the heck is this about? Kelly (jennifer) seems to drop all moral behavior as soon as she arrives to the island. She finds this Juan P (Manuel) existing and exotic, though she witnessed when he slapped his ex in the face, which he also justify later on in the movie, right or wrong? These two guys are the first to find each other on the island. Kelly are totally lost in every sense and the great Juan P can fish and built a somewhat house. Mr handyman. They seem to have a great time. Then Billy Zane (Jack, Kellys characters husband) shows up and of course, two days without knowing what his wife has been doing whit this gorgeous Juan P, he is a little bit jealous. Billy Z is the stereotype rich guy and maybe not the nicest man in the world. He dislikes Juan P (for hitting his girlfriend at the pier, who can blame him? Hes also is arrogant, but he paid loads of money to rent that boat and Juan P who is the waiter/everything cant even fetch him a beer whit in 20 min. Wouldn't you be upset? Yet Billy is probably the guy you want to punch in the face if you meet him. But at the same time, he is, not to be blamed for, suspicious about the scuba goggles Manuel has. Kelly and Billy just lost some dear friends! How convenient he just happens to have them, no matter what!). However, for some strange reason Kelly likes this girl hitting Manuel and starts to hate Billy for being jealous. OK, Billy is overreacting, thats for sure, but Kelly isn't doing much to convince him either. She spends more time with Juan P and even wants him to sleep with them since hes been so nice (and even though Manuel yelled at her and calling her things for asking him some intimate questions. But Kelly is SO forgiving...). Yeah right. And then she starts to have sex with this Juan P. It should be said that Kelly and Billy seems to have a working relationship before this island incident, at least, they have intimate sex on the boat and talks like people do when they like each other. Now, you can think that this scenario is possible. But for real, is it? Are you cheating your husband after two days on a coconut island just because hes jealous and acts like a drunk in the bar? (i wouldn't disagree if there relationship was really bad but the director doesn't give much hints if thats the case). For Christ sake, Juan P hasn't really shown himself being a good person. Catching some fish and built a wood house to get into someones panties, is that showing a good side? Not trying to befriend Kellys husband in anyway (which would be very simple by letting them be alone most of the island-time, simply be respect) He doesn't care about their relationship (and Kelly cant figure that one out), he just want to have sex with Kelly. Kellys character is just not trustworthy (if she was stranded with Billy and another attractive girl, wouldn't she be upset or what?!). Or maybe she is? Billy Zane plays a not very nice person, and Juan P isn't actually much better if you really think about it. And poor Kelly is so confused, and believes having sex with Juan P will solve everything because her husband is so strange and so aggressive towards poor Juan P? So... for all of you who reads this... What do you think about it? If you where the Kelly character, would you consider cheating on your husband, knowing one day you'll be back in real life, and all of a sudden Billys maybe not that horrible person after all. Hes just too jealous. And if you where Billys character, what do you say, is he totally wrong in his behavior? And Juan P character what do you guys really think of him. One thing is for sure. Manuels exist! Ps... The voodoo thing is so totally wrong here! What the heck was that about?! Seriously! Anyone tell me?
| 0 |
negative
|
Highly recommended to all those who appreciate watching movies. Great acting, perfectly surreal awkward humor, requisite prison sh-t, accurate depiction of the male condition. Music is also spot-on. I think the artist is "Dip" but not sure. The short loop of the title credit song on the DVD menu is well-timed, and sounds like Slint. (one thing to know is that IMDb maintains a ridiculous policy of a MINIMUM comment length based on, not CHARACTERS, not WORDS, but rather LINES. Measuring post quality and quantity based on LINES in the bold era of UNICODE and flexible, web-based typography, is like smoking poles.) ! Your comment does not contain enough lines - the minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Please see the guidelines. Attempts to pad the comment with junk words can result in your account being blocked from future submissions.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film was very different form the previous films and I had to wonder, "Where is Ralph Macchio?" he could have been involved in the plot somewhere as Myiagi's old friend who teaches Julie what he already knows, then Myiagi can come along and add some more! Macchio could've been the love interest for Julie in this film! Never mind!<br /><br />On a serious level, I enjoyed this film because it involved teaching a teenage girl how to do Karate, and her feelings are very different to what Daniel's were. Julie is much more wild than Daniel was and needs taming, something which Myiagi finds very challenging; she's quite a troubled girl and a rude, obnoxious brat!<br /><br />It was very satisfying to watch the transformation in Julie as she warms to Myiagi and gets to understand more about Karate and her life in general. We can all learn a thing or two from Myiagi's witticisms!
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie did attempt to capture the naive idealism that many young teenaged girls have for fun, friendship, escape, danger, sex, maturity, etc. The problem was that it failed to establish these things on every single level; which is why it failed to build a decent story around them. I couldn't follow the point of any part of this story, nor any reason why I should care.<br /><br />This movie is not an exploration into pedophilia at all. It's basically about a girl being in love with her sister, and her sister being in love with the idea of "men". While the latter tries out her love of men, the former tries to win her sister back by "getting even".<br /><br />The plot is weak, the characters are weak, and the reality of it all was similar to an amateur porn filmmaker (without the sexual substance).
| 0 |
negative
|
Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield is set in the small American town of Plainfield in Wisconsin during 1957 where loner Ed Gein (Kane Hodder) lives by himself on a farm after the death if his mother & brother. The local police have had a spate of grave robberies to deal with & when local barmaid Sue Layton (Ceia Coley) suspicions grow that something nasty is going on. Ed is a violent sexually deviant man who kidnaps girls & murders them, will the police figure the truth out in time to save Erica (Adrienne Frantz) the Sheriff's (Timothy Oman) daughter...<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Michael Feifer this was an attempt to base a horror film around the true events surrounding notorious serial killer Ed Gein & turns out to be pretty crap. The real life Ed Gein was only ever convicted of two murders & died in 1984 but several films have been inspired by him including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Deranged (1974) & Ed Gein (2000) with this fairly recent addition possibly being the worst Gein film ever. Even though Ed Gein was real next to nothing in this film is based on fact, Gein never had an accomplice, none of his victims were related to any of the investigating officers, there was no car crash victim, although Gein keeps his name other people have had name changes, the kidnapping & murder of the two women depicted here actually happened four years apart in reality but in this film it happens over the course of a couple of days & while here Gein is shown as a large hulking muscular man in reality he was a scrawny, thin, old & quite short. As a factual drama Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield is worthless & as pure entertainment it's no better with a deadly dull pace & feel to it, the character's are all boring & when he isn't killing someone Gein is shown working or just walking around & it's very dull. There's no suspense because we know who the killer is & it's just a tedious wait until he gets caught at the end. There is no real attempt to get into Gein's mind with the makers giving him no more motivation than him occasionally having hallucinations of his domineering mother.<br /><br />There isn't much gore here, there's a scene with a woman hanging on a meat-hook, there's a really badly edited scene of Gein cutting a leg off, there's the usual jars of bodily organs & skulls lying around as well as a bit of blood but there's really not much here to get excited about. The film was obviously processed to bleach a lot of the colour out of the picture as it's not far off black and white at times, I personally think the lack of colour makes it even duller to sit through.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $1,500,000 I can't really see where the money went in a very forgettable production. Although set in Wisconsin this was filmed in California. Kane Hodder is all wrong for the role of Ed Gein, just from a physical point of view Hodder doesn't look even remotely like Gein & he gives a pretty poor performance to as he just stares at the camera a lot making silly faces.<br /><br />Ed Gein: The BUtcher of Plainfield is crap & it's as simple & straightforward as that. As either a factual drama or pure exploitation entertainment this is total tripe from start to finish with nothing to recommend it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Accepted is a 2006 teen flick that stars the guy from the mac and PC ads. The movie is about Bartelby .B. Gaines a guy who has rejected from all the colleges he has applied for so decides to make his own college and invites all the other people who did not make it, problem is hundreds of people sign up to his school. The movie is hilarious and I was lucky enough to buy it for $5.00 at a sale and I have always watched it since. Overall this movie is a must watch for fans of all comedy as it is funny, witty and just a good movie all up. I rate this movie a very fair 78%. GO ACCEPTED MAKE A SEQUEL GUYS BUT MAKE SURE IT IS NOT CRAP.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Battleship Potemkin was said to have been a favourite of Charlie Chaplin. It presents a dramatised version of the mutiny that occurred in 1905 when the crew of the Russian battleship Potemkin rebelled against their officers of the Tsarist regime.<br /><br />The film is a textbook cinema classic, and a masterpiece of creative editing, especially in the famous Odessa Steps sequence in which innocent civilians are mown down in the bloodshed; the happenings of a minute are drawn into five by frenzied cross-cutting. The film contains 1,300 separate shots, and in 1948 and 1958 was judged the best film ever made by a panel of international critics. The Battleship Potemkin is in the public domain, in some parts of the world.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's difficult to express how bad this movie is. Even in the 1950s when intellectual searching for the meaning of life was fashionable and beatnik rejection of physical comforts, clean clothes, haircuts, etc. was a common reaction to the smug middle-class mores of both the USA and western Europe, this movie would have been a stinker. The plot is a mishmash of several dei ex machina (if that's the correct Latin grammar); the acting consists of deadpan stares broken by occasional hysterics (by the male lead as well as the females); the gratuitous view of Catherine Deneuve's (or somebody's) breasts are worthy of a Budweiser commercial; the repeated cacaphonous orchestra rehearsal in the abandoned building is I'm sure heavy with meaning in the director's mind but to me is just one more stupid symbol thrown into this meaningless movie -- I'm ranting because my time has been wasted watching this scam excuse for an art flic. The scenery is beautiful and the sex scene is hot -- but underneath his clothes, this king has no substance.
| 0 |
negative
|
Lloyd Hamilton was one of the most imaginative (and among the funniest) of all the silent-film comedians. Why is he utterly forgotten? Unfortunately, the original negatives for a large percentage of his films were lost when the Fox warehouse burnt in the early 1930s. Hamilton was not handsome or graceful like Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd; nor was he dapper, like Raymond Griffith. And unlike Harry Langdon and (again) Chaplin, Hamilton did not try for audience sympathy.<br /><br />However, his films were hugely popular at the time of their original release, and they remain hilarious today. Oscar Levant once claimed that he asked Chaplin if there was any other comedian whom he'd ever envied, and Chaplin instantly named Lloyd Hamilton. The character most frequently portrayed by Hamilton on screen -- a flat-capped naff, with fastidious hand gestures and a duck-like walk -- was later adapted by vaudeville comedian Eddie Garr (Teri Garr's father), and further adapted by Jackie Gleason as his 1950s TV character 'The Poor Soul'.<br /><br />'The Movies', directed pseudonymously by Roscoe Arbuckle, is one of Hamilton's most innovative shorts, and it's hilarious. We first see him as a country boy, bidding farewell to his family outside their homespun cottage, on his way to the big city. Then he steps away from the cottage, and we see that it's IN the big city, with traffic booming all round him!<br /><br />Eventually, our hero ends up at a restaurant (uncredited, but it's the Montmartre Cafe in downtown L.A.) where all the movie actors eat between takes. There's an amusing gag when Hamilton's bumpkin character meets three actors in costume and makeup as Presidents Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt: this gag would have been funnier if the impostors looked more like the originals. Finally, our lad seats himself at a table, hoping to meet a celebrity. Sure enough, entering the restaurant and sitting at the very next table is a big movie star ... none other than Lloyd Hamilton! There's a very well-made double-exposure shot -- the join is nearly invisible -- when Lloyd Hamilton as himself greets Lloyd Hamilton as the country boy.<br /><br />Sadly, Hamilton's peak period of creativity was very brief. He began his film career in crude slapstick films as one half of a double act (Ham and Bud, opposite Bud Duncan), and had a brief and blazing period of stardom in shorts during the late silent period. Sound movies were not kind to Hamilton, and he was quickly shoved down the cast list in some crude early talkies. Then he died young. Fortunately, 'The Movies' is quite funny, and a splendid introduction to this unique comedians' style. I'll rate it 7 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
I had the misfortune to see this film recently and have to sit through it. A friend purchased it for £1 and insisted we watch it as it sounded good from the story on the back cover.<br /><br />10 minutes into the film it was apparent that the actors were amateurs and this was an extremely low budget effort.<br /><br />The scenes were very poorly acted, the script was stupid and the story contained many scenes which seemed unnecessarily long, just so the movie would be of a reasonable length.<br /><br />For instance when the lead character rents a warehouse, the film spends a ridiculous amount of time on this scene, with meaningless dialogue which serves no real purpose or necessity to the plot.<br /><br />The lead actor is supposedly carrying out revenge on a woman who sleeps with guys to give them HIV, he never once thinks to get tested. Instead he turns into a crazed killer deciding to torture her before killing her and sawing her into pieces.<br /><br />If this sounds good and you are thinking this will have lots of gore, think again. This film has no real gory sequences and is quite tame for this type of film.<br /><br />It does not scare, it does not make you think, it does not offer fast paced fun. It may however put you to sleep, it is certain to bore you to tears, so please save yourself the despair and follow my heading.<br /><br />AVOID THIS FILM 1/2 out of 10 (this does not deserve even 1)<br /><br />The film was 78 minutes but seemed as if it was 2 1/2 hours.
| 0 |
negative
|
'Felony' is a B-movie. No doubt about it.<br /><br />Of course, if you take a look at the cast lineup you might have some high hopes for its entertainment potential. This film is stuffed with all of those wonderful character actors that you grew up with, the ones with the faces you immediately recognize even though you probably don't know their names. It's amazing that the filmmakers were able to get all of these people together on one project, almost like they decided to do a B-movie actor reunion. The cast even includes a couple of really first-rate actors: David Warner, who most people will recognize from 'Titanic' (although my favorite of his roles is Jack the Ripper in 'Time After Time') and Lance Henriksen, who many will remember as Bishop in 'Aliens'. These two actors have done some excellent work in their long careers and made some very fine films.<br /><br />However, as impressive as this collection of actors is, their talent is never fully manifested on the screen. The writers of 'Felony' spent a lot of money to assemble a dream-team cast and then missed their golden opportunity because of one important factor, the common denominator of all B-movies: a silly script.<br /><br />We start with a silly premise. The bad guys are caught on tape committing a gruesome murder and they relentlessly pursue the film crew in order to acquire the videotape and destroy the evidence. But honestly, why bother? In the time it takes them to track down the film crew, a thousand copies of that tape could be made and circulated to every law enforcement agency and media outlet. The criminals don't seem to realize how futile their effort is, and they talk as if stealing and destroying the one original videotape is going to solve the whole problem. Silly...but I suppose if the bad guys were so logical there would be no movie.<br /><br />Then there is the dialogue. It is at times silly, at times cliché, and at times unbelievable...everything you have come to expect from a B-movie. Of course, I have always believed that strong performances can overcome a lot of weaknesses in the material. This cast includes actors who are definitely capable of strong performances, and although a number of the cast members are not good actors at all and have achieved B-movie status quite deservedly, one still might be hopeful that the stronger part of the cast would be able to infuse some life into their parts. However, it's disappointing to see that few of the actors in this film really seem to take the movie seriously enough to give it their best shot. There's not much inspiration evident in these performances, but then again it's an uninspiring script. Now, I'll admit that some of the more colorful actors in the cast do manage to add a certain amount of pizazz into the delivery of their lines, but honestly, even the very fine actors I mentioned earlier seem mostly disinterested and uninvolved with the story.<br /><br />Speaking of the story...even if the acting had been of a high enough caliber that it made the dialogue seem a little less cheesy, it still would not redeem 'Felony' from the fact that its writer commits the ultimate faux pas of low budget action movie scripts: a plot with as many holes as a block of Swiss cheese. You can watch this movie a hundred times and you still won't figure out how everything adds up. In an effort to create suspense and always keep the viewer guessing, the writer throws in all kinds of surprises and unexpected twists into his script and ends up with a jigsaw puzzle, but when you get to the end you find there are a bunch of pieces that just don't fit anywhere and others that are missing. I admire a good thriller that keeps me guessing, but creating plot twists that exist just to confuse you and which are not consistent with the rest of the story is amateurish. There was so much that was never explained that I felt extremely frustrated at the end. If you decide to watch it, be prepared to be confused.<br /><br />I haven't even mentioned all kinds of other silly things about this movie, but I won't bother. The funny thing is that despite everything I've said, I have to admit that I can't give 'Felony' 1/10 stars. Although I can't exactly put my finger on why, I actually found this film to be somewhat likable. The silliness can actually be fun at times if you are in the mood for it. Plus, I really like some of these character actors, and even though their performances are somewhat lackluster considering their talents, I still got a kick out of seeing them.<br /><br />Now, I realize I have been rating this film from the standpoint of a serious moviegoer. It's entirely possible I have completely missed the point. It could be that the filmmakers' intention all along was to make a B-movie. Maybe the silliness is all completely intentional. If that's the case, and if I were to rate it on those terms, I would have to say that 'Felony' is a classic in the genre of tongue-in-cheek action flicks. B-movie fans will love seeing all of their favorite actors together in one film, will get some chuckles from the script, and will be entertained by the healthy dose of guns, explosions, and chases.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was an all around uninspiring film. It was a non-moving story that definitely does not get you thinking anything other then where is all the strong moving material the other critics say about the film The 3 main actors are good, and there is a few laughs but once again it becomes another movie that you keep watching in hopes of it getting better and it just doesn't. I watched this movie last night and wished that we hadn't wasted our precious time (while baby is sleeping) watching this film. <br /><br />I plan not to recommend this to my family and friends, as well as obviously anyone looking to rent it. I was pretty much non-impressed with everything about this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the first recorded effort to put sound with a movie, and a the oldest that, obviously, is still in existence. This historic piece of film is the opening segment in the "More Treasures Of The Natural Archives" DVD.<br /><br />It's only a 15-second clip of a man playing a violin in front of a huge recording cylinder. Next to him are two men dancing. Near the end, another man walks on the stage. William Dickson, the director of this experiment, is the violin player. This "movie" had several titles over the years but the sound experiment was not really a success. It took over 30 years from this point to the synchronize sight and sound to the point where something could be issued to the public for entertainment. However, this was a start, no matter how primitive it came off. <br /><br />For more of the technical information and history of this film process, see the other review here by "Boba Fett1138."
| 0 |
negative
|
I completely disagree with the other comments! I too saw this film at an early screening and found it quite enjoyable. Robin Williams is in top form. True, the tone is familiar, but it is Williams of Good Morning Vietnam: smart, funny, on point. After too many dark turns, Williams is finally back to what he does best. The supporting actors give great performances, especially Laura Linney and Chris Walken. Chris plays himself, as usual, but as the "agent" to the next president he was a delight each time on screen. Lewis Black plays only himself basically, but he is wonderfully well used here. There is also a fun turn by Jeff Goldblum. The movie is more than what the trailer suggests, as well. The movie is funny, but it is not a pure comedy as suggested. It has a bit of a thriller line, which everyone should seriously consider, especially if you pay attention to the newspaper.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film easily rivals the emotional strength, the dramatic impact and the top-notch performances of "12 Angry Men". I rented it on a whim and was amazed that I had not heard of it before.<br /><br />I do not know if this was Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but the pacing, the interplay and development of the characters as well as some clever camera work surrounding the character Estevez plays all suggest a natural eye.<br /><br />The interplay between Martin and Emilio contains the same wonderful chemistry we saw in Wall Street with Martin and Charlie. Kathy Bates is wonderful in her characters subtle desperation and escapism; a variation on her character in "At Play In The Fields Of The Lord". She is irritating and yet one can empathize with her at the same time.<br /><br />There are some moments where I feel the plot slows a touch and the moments between Estevez and his ex-girlfriend almost seem written for another film, Estevez comes off as another character all together. But those are minor complaints.<br /><br />This film must be based on a true story or must have been written by someone who lived these experiences. I rate it 8 out of a difficult 10.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
It was easy to get lost in the simplicity and light hearted humor of this year's best family film...Grand Champion. The story of a 12 year old boy (Buddy) that with the help of his sister, Mom and best friend is determined to raise a Grand Champion steer. It is a whimsical journey to the big competition. After Hokey Pokey is crowned, Grand Champion, he is auctioned for $775,000. to pay for the kids college education. Buddy finds out that the next time he sees Hokey....it would be on a bun! The kids conspire to steal the prize winning steer,vowing to save him from the BBQ. This is where the fun begins...Julia Roberts, Larry Mahan, George Strait, Natalie Maines, Steven Bland, Tommy Guy, Tuff Hedeman, and so many more stars create the backdrop for all the antics. You wont believe who actually won the steer at the auction!!! (he looks good in a mustache) The soundtrack is rich with tunes from George Strait, Natalie Maines, Willie Nelson and more. Where else can you experience Movie stars, Country & Western stars and Rodeo stars....only in Texas...only in Grand Champion. <br /><br />It is masterfully crafted "simple" little film that may be the best movie you see this year. The movie opens in select cities on Friday, August 27th. 2004.<br /><br />Another great film from Rope the Moon and Michaelson Productions is IN A WHISPER. Keep an eye out on the cable networks for this one!
| 1 |
positive
|
It was full of plot holes, inaccuracies (doesn't the time-clock stop for injured players or loss of helmets in Texas football games?) and not so much redemption (So Your Dad Beats the Crap out of You? Well, do something right for once and then he will Love You and make it all worthwhile).<br /><br />Either make the movie about a team and its quest for a championship OR make a movie about a player within a team and his personal struggle but instead, this movie tried to do it all and came up more than a couple yards short. The book probably showed the whole story much better; the movie should have picked one element of the story and stuck with that.<br /><br />Instead, the movie jumped from one character dialogue to flashes of game play and then another character dialogue months later without actually telling you who people were or why they were important--the QB calling his sibling to take care of the mother--whatever happened with that? Because the mother was coherent by the end of the final game, does that mean she's not crazy anymore? Its one redeeming quality was the soundtrack. Buy that and then watch SportsCenter highlights while Iggy Pop plays in the background.
| 0 |
negative
|
I own this video as well as the concert version of the musical with Patti Lupone and George Hearn with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. George Hearn is fantastic in my book as are Angela Lansbury and the composer, Stephen Sondheim. This musical is operatic in scope and shows much ingenuity in composition. I certainly hope that this VHS becomes available on DVD!! Hearn's performance is spookily sympathetic. The one annoying performance is the young woman who sings the role of Joanna. I believe this performance was at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles, rather than on a Broadway stage and am not sure that the minimalist set was utilized in New York, as it was in this production. But I found the scaffolding being dragged across the stage to be quite effective to "portray" the streets of London. I highly recommend this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
Ben Affleck, about to be married, is shaken up by a plane accident and gets involved with one of the other passengers (Sandra Bullock, forcing herself to act insane). Who is to blame for this inept, ugly morass? It is so badly edited, when I looked in the credits it wasn't to read the editor's name--it was to see if the person actually took the credit! Rife with clichés, contrivances, and Sandra Bullock in raccoon eye-makeup, the movie doesn't even concern itself with creating chemistry between the two main characters. Laughs are non-existent: the scene in the gay bar with Affleck might have gotten a big laugh if it weren't so stupid (the bar patrons--a big rowdy bunch of them!--shout for Affleck to strip and start digging out their cash). It's not supposed to have any significance other than getting Ben to loosen up a little, but the direction of the whole scene is wrong-headed, and the outcome is unseen because the idiot editor cuts away...or was that all the film he had? It's a small moment but it's typical of this film, an amateurish piece of pop-goods that wants to be an edgy modern comedy but doesn't have any guts. It is tailor-made for the bottom shelf at your video store. * from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
This was one of the biggest pieces of crap I have ever had to watch. I mean, seriously. How would anybody else feel if they were in Woody Harrelson's shoes and your wife was even CONSIDERING it would be a good idea to sleep with the other guy even for a million bucks. After all, she was the one talking about it in bed and saying how it would be good for them since he can build his house or whatever with that money. Woody never fully agreed to it until she talked him into it. How CAN you trust her? Who the hell would actually even consider that if they were married? I don't care how desperate they were. That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. Then, he flips out on her. Apparently, he had no right to mistrust her, other than the fact that his wife just slept with another dude who is extremely rich and handsome. Oh and wait, then he's supposed to apologize to HER after she files for the divorce so she can be with the guy she slept with. Of course Woody has no right to say anything to her or mistrust her especially after she still has Roy Hobb's card in her wallet. Then, at the end of the movie, she's apparently so in love with Woody still and misses him so much, that she was not going to leave Hobbs until he made some ridiculously stupid story up to try to hint to her to leave, and she bleeping thanks Hobbs???? Are you bleeping kidding me? Was she under contract as his sex slave or something?? I mean what the bleep?? Oh and wait it gets better. She bleeping kisses him passionately before she gets out of the car. Yea, she's not a whore. Oh, thank you for letting me go, let me go make out with you one last time for good ole' sake. Smooch smooch, smooch even though I'm still married to a guy I left for a rich guy. I have never seen such a piece of crap in my life. How the hell are we supposed to feel good after that horrible ending? What was this movie supposed to represent? NOTHING CAME OUT OF THIS! This was the most pointless movie I have ever seen in my life. Two pathetic desperate people. If I were Woody, I would tell her to go drown herself in that body of water they were near. Apparently, he had no self respect. What the hell was Roy Hobbs thinking by taking this horrible role. I feel like puking after watching this. This movie was so bad, it was seriously laughable. I want those two hours of my life back that I wasted watching this piece of ****.
| 0 |
negative
|
Well, I'll begin with this: I love horror-movies, not even the worst plot or the most insanely terrible acting will ruin the experience as long as there is a certain amount of gore and suspense present. Second; this is the worst movie of all times. It even beats Mean Guns, and the attack of the killer tomatoes. And for that I pay it homage.<br /><br />However, the involuntary humor was only funny until half the movie had passed, after which point everything was so so sad. To my great surprise, the reviews where somewhat divided; and you guys who rated this piece of C-movie-crap from 7 and up; I KNOW YOU'RE JOKING! GOOD ONE!! HAHAHA! Because if there is any reason in the world, and we have just an tiny bit of the same notion of what quality is; you can't be for real.<br /><br />Everything worth to be mentioned about the contents has already been summed pretty good up, so I'll leave it. <br /><br />MINOR SPOILER ALERT<br /><br />But the scene where the cloaked rubber mask guy drags the woman back and forth through the dog-kennel for ten minutes, with o so terrible music score and the mind blowing dialog between the two, really does it for me.
| 0 |
negative
|
John Landis truly outdid himself when he directed Michael Jackson's THRILLER as a short film. Of course, it's corny, the dialogue is terrible and it all seems way too cheesy, but it's perfect none-the-less.<br /><br />Michael and his date are out at the cinema to view the latest horror flick. When it all gets a little too graphic for the date, she leaves. Michael follows. On the way home, they decide to take a shortcut through the local graveyard. There, it begins.<br /><br />The actual thriller dance is amazing. It's full of those trademark Jackson moves, as well as some memorable zombie moves, too. It doesn't appear rushed at all, nor too long. The whole thing seems movie-like and it really is actually rather scary. Of course, it's one of the most famous music videos of all time, and is probably the greatest music video ever made as well.<br /><br />Overall: Watch it, seriously. Those 13 minutes will be some of the best ever spent staring at a screen. (5/5)
| 1 |
positive
|
Latcho Drom is a cinematic survey of Gypsy music from several countries. It is touching, sad and joyous. Most of the segments appear to be completely unstaged, unrehearsed. The music, ranging from the sensual flamenco music of the Spanish Gypsies, to the melancholy music of the Central European Gypsies, is exquisite. If you love Gypsy music, you'll find Latcho Drom absolutely beautiful.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a wonderful movie, and I still love it! It just so magical and it is fun for the whole family! I recommend it to people of all ages. I promise you will not be disappointed! The characters are always so engaging, so real, you will just love them! The story of Gerda and Kai falling in love will really amaze you and put that little spark of magic into your life.<br /><br />I don't see how anyone would care if the movie matched the book, I mean the movie was amazing! I haven't even read the book, and guess what? I don't care. In fact, if the movie and book are so different, then you can just call them two separate stories and be happy with it.<br /><br />I thought the acting was bloody brilliant! Bridget Fonda plays the Snow Queen, so evil, and so cold - you just have to hate her. Chelsea Hobbs plays Gerda, a love-struck girl who is determined to find her love no matter what it takes, and goes on a wonderful adventure. And I just love all of the Snow Queen's sisters (the Spring Witch, the Summer Princess, and Autumn Robber)they are so fun and different in many ways.<br /><br />I haven't seen this movie in awhile, so forgive me if I make a minor mistake.... but there's no doubt that I will always love this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
The quintessential "let's get ready for summer movie." It's dumb, goofy, and maybe a touch dated, but my kids just saw it and they laughed as hard as I did when I first saw it. In the style of all "little guys versus the establishment" movies, so yes, the plot is very predictable, but it's warm and funny. And no, it's not Bill Murray at his Bill Murrayest, but he is starting to stretch out in what was his first starring role. Odd, though, to see how few of the "fresh young faces" in this film went on to do much more.
| 1 |
positive
|
Stay the hell away from this one... No, really I'm serious - I know you might think this is a fun, campy, cheesy Hong Kong action style B movie. I did, but trust me, it's not. In fact, the only thing accurate about that description would be the words Hong Kong, and then only used in a strictly geographical sense.<br /><br />Yes, Donnie Yen has co-directed it. Jackie Chan has a cameo. The guy Ekin Cheng, from Storm Riders plays the lead. It got vampires. It should be good - or at least fun, charming and action packed. Once again - it's not.<br /><br />I could digress on why this movie sucks - I could dissect it, hack it to tiny, shivering pieces. But where to start? There's so much to hate...<br /><br />To make it easier, and to give this hate-fest some credability, let me say that I'm usually a big fan of Hog Kong cinema. The heavier drama stuff as well as the more lighthearted action and/or comedy.The really good movies as well as the really cheesy ones. I can sit through hours of bad subtitling, jokes lame enough to make first graders roll their eyes. I can handle lovers as chaste and celibate as a convention of nuns, that and pretty much anything else the average film goer would bang their metaphorical toes against on their way between action sequences. Also, Hong Kong or any other origin - I love it when a movie goes from just being bad to bad enough to be good.<br /><br />But this - Arrgh! It's just horrible, STUPID, unwatchable garbage. So far from being funny or charming it's actually painful. So derived of action it makes a Bergman movie look like the Texas chainsaw massacre.<br /><br />Why?! Why waste such an opportunity?! This could have been so much fun!
| 0 |
negative
|
"Flashdance" meets "Meatballs III" or maybe it should just be called "Meatballs IV". This is my friend Wesley's all-time favorite movie, largely because he still has a thing about J.V. cheerleaders. As someone once said: "This is fine-more than fine-but as you get older you need to branch out. Whether you want to or not, society demands it".<br /><br />"Gimme An F" has cinema's greatest J.V. cheerleader Mary Ann (played by Beth Miller), who looks like a sweet-faced Alicia Silverstone from before her "Clueless" days. Wesley hates Miller's other film, the horrific "Teen Wolf Too" made three years later, where she plays a fickle southern belle much like Martha Smith's character in "Animal House". Personally I admire Miller's range as the two characters could not be more different and she is convincing as both.<br /><br />Anyway, Mary Ann is a naïve novice cheerleader from Moline (a member of "The Lucky Ducks" squad) who comes to Camp Beaverview for cheerleading instruction. She's befriended by Jenna (Karen Lee Kelly), the leader of the tough girl squad-appropriately named "The Demons". Jenna becomes protective of Mary Ann after her main rival takes an instant dislike to Mary Ann.<br /><br />Later Mary Ann gets a crush on Tommy Hamilton, the head instructor. Tommy is spending his summer wrestling with the dilemma of having to grow up and move on, which is a problem as his only skills are teaching cheerleading and performing elaborate dance routines in the shower, for the enjoyment of viewers who get off on that sort of thing. Phoebe (Daphne Ashbrook) is Tommy's long-suffering girlfriend, she has a well-adjusted attitude and an experienced perspective. She even tolerates Tommy's flirtation with Mary Ann-trusting that Tommy will not actually take advantage of young Mary Ann.<br /><br />While these four characters are solid and their relationships have a nice charm, the supporting cast is almost as weak as the material they have to work with. Which is a shame because had they brought some actual comic relief to the production it would have been a decent film. Jennifer Cooke plays Pam, a social climbing and terminally peppy instructor who is carrying on with camp's money-hungry owner Bucky. And there is another couple with a thing for the characters from "Mad Max". Since nothing is very funny you are left with only a cute semi-romance and some great dance routines.<br /><br />An attempt is made to create some suspense by slowly leading up a final competition but unless this is your first movie experience the outcome is never in doubt. And there is a back-story about some Japanese businessmen Bucky wants to get money from, but it goes nowhere dramatically or comically.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
| 0 |
negative
|
I pretty much liked every character on this show from the start except Reba herself. She comes off as an holier than thou type and quite frankly a big Bully. And that stinks because she is in every scene and every episode. In the later seasons Van becomes unlikeable too,like a spoof of his former self. and Kyra walks around sneering and being miserable.The first 3 to 4 seasons are pretty good if you overlook Reba. Towards the end its pretty bleak.. In basically every episode Barbara jean Is walking around being dumb,Reba is being mean to her,but poor Ole Barbara jean desperately wants Reba to like her which results in Barabara jean telling Reba how awesome she is in every episode. I think it is pretty clear to see Reba has self esteem issues and wants to be seen as this all forgiving saint. Its really a shame too because other than her the show had such potential.
| 0 |
negative
|
I enjoyed Carax's "Les Amants du Pont Neuf" and was therefore expecting this film to be of a similar standard. Well, the first 10 minutes were OK, but then it disintegrates into a rather pretentious journey of a young man looking for the essence of life. A sad disappointment.
| 0 |
negative
|
Is this movie as bad as some claim? In my opinion, yes it is. I wasn't going to comment, noting that quite a few comments have already been made, ranging from 'awful' to -not nearly so bad...'. However, I can't resist.<br /><br />What do you make of a movie that has, on the DVD cover. the phrase "the real story of "Ma BArker and her boys...", and the standard "any similarity to actual persons..." disclaimer in the credits? I'm not naive, but in this case, it's a pretty relevant observation regarding this movie.<br /><br />Several comments knock the performances. They are pretty awful, Roberts, Russell, Milano and Stallone have something like 315 movies and TV shows listed between them. They can act, or at least perform.<br /><br />However...the dialog is not to my taste, and quite unintentionally funny at times. The story arcs didn't seem to be anything but the barest minimum required to string specific scenes of violence and melodrama together.<br /><br />Direction and screen writing has to be faulted: Amyrillis giggles after seeing Ma Barker's violent temper and finishes with "Take The Girl!"?????. What ever you think of Alyssa's acting abilities...some screenwriter wrote that line or reaction, and/or some director shot it, and said, 'OK, that's good enough, no need to retake that, that's credible...' One footnote: I did pick up my copy for $1.99 or $2.99 in a grocery story discount bin; the running time is shown as 91 mins, and I note that the running time is listed on IMDb as 95 mins. I don't know what 4 minutes I'm missing, but I acknowledge that if those 4 minutes were of the right sort of person in the right sort of situation, my rating might soar to 3 or 4 out of 10. As I saw it, 1 / 10 is what I must vote.
| 0 |
negative
|
TV News producer, Jane Craig (Hunter) meets Tom Grunick (Hurt), an up-and-coming news presenter, at a seminar, and their mutual attraction takes them back to her room. Romance, however, is cut short, when it emerges that Tom is, in his own words, "no good at what I'm being a success at", and Jane realises he personifies everything she hates about where TV news is going. The rub comes when Tom reveals he is about to join her news bureau in Washington.<br /><br />Jane and Tom's initial attraction is therefore given a second chance, but will Jane be able to put aside her professional opinion of the man she finds herself attracted to - and should she? Aaron Altman (Brooks) is Jane's highly intelligent reporter colleague and confidante. Despite his obvious talent, Aaron's career is stalling as he lacks the confidence and people skills - and the classic good looks - to be the success that his new, less qualified and less intelligent colleague - Tom - is becoming. He is also concerned that his good friend Jane maybe falling in love with Tom, despite her better judgement, as it becomes increasingly clear that Aaron has his own romantic feelings for her.<br /><br />This central romantic plot is set within the trials and tribulations of a TV news network office, where moral dilemmas and ethics are wrestled with quickly and where appearances and dramatic effect are becoming more prevalent and important.<br /><br />This is where most of the bite comes from with well-observed comment and scenes. One of many moments is a scene where Tom meets the Network's top anchorman, Bill Rorich (a cameo role for Jack Nicholson), for the first time, and the camera focuses on their handshake. In a film full of great lines and dialogue, long and short, you realise a lot about these two men's character from this one quick shot of two hands.<br /><br />The dialogue between characters is amongst the most intelligent and witty you are ever likely to find anywhere on film and in such abundance. Brooks gets the best portion of them, in line with his character, but even the briefest conversations that are incidental and perhaps over-heard by one or more of the characters as they move through a crowded room, should be listened to.<br /><br />Hunter is a tour-de-force in this role for which she was rightly (and not alone) nominated for an Oscar, and for which she probably would have got if it was for a role in a film that didn't mock part of what had become a closely related industry - and against a strong performance from another actress in a more traditional feel-good, rom-com.<br /><br />Brooks is also excellent as the constantly frustrated and occasionally too-smug-for-his-own-good, Aaron Altman.<br /><br />Hurt, whilst possessing the looks and providing the personality required of his character, does not always convince that he is quite as dim-witted the character says he is or is supposed to be. He displays a latent intelligence that enables him to make the most of his apparent limitations, which may be plausible, but I don't think Hurt quite pulls it off. Apart from when he tells us he "stinks" or "doesn't get it", Hurt comes across as a bit smarter than that. Otherwise it is an effective performance, in a role where his character is compromised by its intellectual limitations, but Brooks and Hunter slightly overshadow Hurt's performance. It is the only negative thing I can say about the whole film, and who is to say that anyone else would have done it better, or come off any better, when next to Hunter and Brooks and their performances in this movie.<br /><br />Support is ably provided by, amongst others, Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles and Joan Cusack, and there is also a bit-part role for Christian Clemenson of subsequent Boston Legal fame, and the briefest of bit-parts for Joan's brother, John Cusack, whose face you don't even see.<br /><br />James L Brooks has provided us with many great TV shows and movies, and this film should rank up there with the very best of them. It may not have won any Oscars, despite seven nominations, but it did win plenty of other awards, and turned Holly Hunter into a star.
| 1 |
positive
|
as i said in the other comment this is one of the best teen movies of all time,and one of my personal favorites. to me this movie is the second best teen movie of all time. second only to the breakfast club. the last american virgin is also maybe the most honest teen movie of all time. it's underrated,and pretty much an unknown movie to a lot of people. it comes on TBS maybe once a year,but sometimes longer. the first half of this movie is a sex comedy with a few honest scenes. then the second half is pure honest,and most of the time serious. with only a few comic scenes. in my opinion this is the best soundtrack of all time. i've never heard this many great songs in one movie before. there are 4 love songs in this movie that i think are some of the best love songs in history. the movie is about a pizza boy named gary who is a virgin. hes in high school who has a couple of best friends. his two friends are sex-sarved teens. the first half of the movie is pretty much sexual misadventures. that are very funny. gary is major in love with the new girl in school. he later finds out that his best friend is going out with her. he also cheats on the side. you can feel the love gary has for this girl very much. you can feel it even more in the second half. gary's friend turns out to be a creep. but his other friend is pretty cool. the movie shows how mean people can be. you can relate to a lot of this movie. the plot sounds like your typcial teen sex comedy. but it's so much more than that. it's a very honest movie. it's also very 80ish which i love. if you love the 80's or grew-up in the 80's,rent this movie. but there may be some people that don't like the 80's,but still may like this movie. i first saw this movie back in 1987 i think. it's very entertaining,and very funny. it combines very touching moments with very funny moments. it's an underrated gem! i have the movie. i love it! i give the last american virgin ***1/2 out of ****
| 1 |
positive
|
(Very mild spoilers; a basic plot outline, no real details) <br /><br />IF you go into this movie with sufficiently low expectations. I saw this film at a free screening a few days ago in Maryland, and the only reason I agreed to go...was because it was free. I expected a few chuckles, but as I have never been a huge fan of Tenacious D, not much more then that.<br /><br />The first ten minutes of the film are hilarious, as we are given a look at Jack Black's humble Christian origins in a Midwest American town. The film then takes us years into the future, to the first meeting between JB and Kyle Gass, the second half of Tenacious D. We see the formation of the band and the genesis of its name. Finally, as the title suggests, the second half of the film details their quest to obtain the fabled "Pick of Destiny." Again, the beginning of the film was laugh out loud funny, and most of the movie at least kept a smile on my face. That said, there were times it felt a bit long; it's only 100 minutes, but it still felt like it should have been a bit shorter. The story is every bit as absurd as it sounds, and this is not a film you see if you want a real plot. Which is fine, except it means that many of the jokes are very hit or miss...and when they miss, they miss bad. Same thing with the songs; it is a musical, but many of the songs lost their appeal after the first minute or so...then kept going anyway.<br /><br />I will say that the R-rating really saved this movie from bombing; The D's humor simply couldn't work without cussing, sex, and drug references. But unless you're a real fan of the band, or at the very least know you appreciate their style of comedy, I would recommend you save yourself some money and rent. "Pick" will make you giggle a bit...but is it worth 9 bucks? I don't think so. I was tempted to rate it a 6, but since I do think that many would enjoy it enough to justify seeing it in theatres, a 7 seems more appropriate. Just be sure it's your style.
| 1 |
positive
|
Nightkill stars Robert Mitchum as a world-weary private eye probing the case of a missing industrialist (Mike Connors). He is hired by Jaclyn Smith, the anxious wife of the missing man. What Jaclyn fails to inform Mitchum is that she knows full well her husband's whereabouts. After all, she was the one who helped her lover James Franciscus dispose of her wealthy hubby.<br /><br />What more would expect from a rotten slasher film with Robert Mitchum? Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end. This is BAD cinema. And this movie is sooooo poor. It makes it look like Halloween mixed up with Trick Or Treats. Avoid this.<br /><br />Rated R for Graphic Violence, Nudity and Sexual Situations.
| 0 |
negative
|
Random Hearts is a very well directed, well scripted and perfectly cast actors for the primary roles. I found it to be so intense, that you have to stop and wonder in almost every scene Harrison and Kristin are together, how their characters deal with this horrible situation they find themselves in. Very talented acting from both of them. A lot of people I believe who did not appreciate the movie for what it was, did not get the point of the movie or could not even fathom a situation like theirs.<br /><br />(please skip this next part if you have not seen the movie yet)<br /><br />I loved the ending, which was a great surprise which tied the whole movie. It was relieving to see how these two good persons can come out actually happier in the end.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
Hey all, I just wanted to give you all a few crazy facts about this movie. I was actually one of the Make-up FX artists that help create the "beast" for this movie and I have to tell you the original creature looked absolutely amazing. I remember when we got the first photos back from the set we were all talking about how much of a shame it was that this creature was in a movie that would probably be pretty poor.<br /><br />What actually happened though was that Jason Palmer did the original make-up for the Sasquatch, but for some reason they had to go back and re-shoot much of the creature. The sad part was that Jason passed away a few weeks before that and so the re-done creature was no where near as awesome as the original one.<br /><br />For me it was quite sad because this was Jasons final movie, and he sort of got cheated out of his final fame due to the bad re-shoots. Anyway, I thought you guys may find that a tad interesing, and if you would like you can head over to mmmyeah.com and check out some "behind the scenes" photos.<br /><br />Later, Jeff
| 0 |
negative
|
OK, so maybe it's because I'm from the North East of Scotland and I talk just like the guys in this film, but I found this great fun. Cheap fun to be sure, but plenty of effort has gone into making the film look great and the actors certainly give it all. I was actually quite effected when they died. In particulare when the Captain finally fell. The script? Well it;s a game of 2 halfs. The opening half of the film is well written and sharp. The last half hour is not so great, with many questions left unanswered. This will doubtless annoy others as it annoyed me. But nevertheless, good fun and a very smart first feature from Sturton.
| 1 |
positive
|
The story starts out with a soldier being transported to a desert town then goes back in time to tell the tale of how he came to this place. He started out as an officer in Napoleon's army fighting in Egypt but became separated from his unit. After nearly starving and/or dying of thirst he came upon a leopard which somehow became his bosom buddy. It brought him food and before long the soldier became almost totally wild so acute was his bonding with the animal. All things do end however and the man decided it was necessary for him to leave the critter. A very strange film, well written and portrayed. Beautiful scenery from Jordan and Utah which didn't always blend perfectly, but who cares.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.