text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
It looked cool from the movie sleeve, but after five minutes we weren't sure if it was a homosexual documentary of west side story without any female interest. The film quality was poor, and there was hardly enough gang fighting action to sustain even the drunkest person's interest for long enough to watch the entire film. May god have mercy on the souls of both the actors and the filmmakers responsible for what I can only describe as my new one and only reason why I never will want to see (or trust) an Australian made film again. I have to write more so I will again say that the actors were so bad that I'm positive I could make a better movie with fifteen dollars and a box of Trojans. Please don't see this movie for your own sake.
| 0 |
negative
|
I bought this movie at a thrift store. Months before, my friend told me about it when we were talking about dumb movies we've seen. Once I spotted the cassette, I knew I had to have it. I watched it that night. I could tell it was going to be very cheesy and cheaply done. . . That's what drew me to it. I popped it in and I laughed the whole way through. I recognized Gregory (The Ice Cream Man), but I didn't recognize his name and I couldn't remember where I saw him. Later, while watching the Andy Griffith Show, Clint Howard (Ice Cream Man) was featured as an extra since he is Ron Howard (Opie Taylor)'s brother. I saw the credits and I gasped. I turned to my mom, who was also watching the show, and said, "That's the Ice Cream Man!!" She, too, gasped. This movie is great, but only for laughs and criticalness. It is the perfect example of a cheesy horror flick. If you feel like laughing as well as poking fun at low-budget movies, rent this video.
| 0 |
negative
|
What were they thinking when they made this truly TERRIBLE film? <br /><br />Arbus, one of the most important photographers and women of the Twentieth Century, had a fascinating and dramatic life. What possessed anyone to make this film, which explains her unique artistic vision, as being the result of an (imaginary) affair with a grotesque, yet charismatic hairy freak (played by Downey)?<br /><br />In real life, Arbus broke out of a traditional marriage and woman's role to express herself. In this movie, Arbus is an ultra-dreary Nicole Kidman whose inspiration is all attributed to a "Beauty and The Beast" devotion to an interesting man.<br /><br />For this reinvention, the film is truly shameful. Independent of that, it is also just dopey and dull.
| 0 |
negative
|
There is no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock was a seriously talented director. Many of his films are undeniable classics that have stood the test of time and are highly watchable to this day. This list could include The 39 Steps, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, and a few other films.<br /><br />However, "Suspicion" is not aging well at all and is really so unwatchable that it seems to me that it was probably a bad film even by 1941 standards. The list of scenes that work well could be listed on a matchbook with a crayon. The script is loose and ridiculous most of the time, but the acting seems so forced and wooden and borderline amateurish throughout, that it is almost unbelievable. Joan Fontaine tries to shore things up but she is on a slippery slope and Cary Grant doesn't provide much assistance. His acting is so bad at times that I have seen better performances in high school plays or college Theatre Experience classes where a Chemical Engineer is acting for the first time with no formal training.<br /><br />After about 30 minutes of watching this film you may find yourself reaching for the DVD sleeve in the dark to see if you accidentally picked up some kind of special edition version that was cobbled together without any editing.<br /><br />The subject matter is serious, yet the film has a silly and trite feel to it that just seems so out of place you become numb with perplexity.<br /><br />"Suspicion" is basically unwatchable and another very very very overrated BAD movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
One True Thing proves that it's the characters which make a movie. Streep will surely receive an Oscar nomination for her role. A beautiful drama, One True Thing is a prime example of movie-making in the late 1990's - there are still people out there who care about making and watching movies other than the big blockbusters with million dollar special effects. It's no Best Picture or anything... don't be silly. But the amount of emotion that was delivered by both the actors and the writer hit me like a shock-wave. I cried twice in this movie, which says a lot for a 24 year old man.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was recently given this film on DVD as a gift, and was unsure at first if it would appeal (although one of my favourite actors has a leading role). In fact, it's on its way to becoming a favourite.<br /><br />First of all: thankfully, it's *not* the same as the book, the ending of which I think is excessively melodramatic. Secondly: it's one of the best films I've seen about the First World War. "What?" you may ask. "It's not a war film!" True: we see no battles or bombardments, no trenches, no gas. But it shows the cost of war, the damage done to the lives of the men who fought in it, and the impact this had on those close to them.<br /><br />We first see Helen (Sarah Miles), a baronet's widow, awaiting her release from a mental hospital. All the women in the film appear to be widows: some from the war, but Helen's much-older husband, Sir Thomas (we see him later in a photograph) was taken ill and died while she was at a party, hence her guilt-stricken breakdown. She is lost and lonely. The wire around the hospital grounds evokes POW camps and the trenches: like many of the men in the outside world, Helen is suffering from a kind of shell-shock.<br /><br />Out of hospital, she has to find her feet in the outside world again: a world we experience through her eyes as bleak, desolate and unfriendly. Her mother is unable to provide her with any real support. Herself a widow, she has put up her own emotional defences, behind which she hides to avoid dealing with her daughter's distress. (Like many people, especially in that time, she seems to find mental illness embarrassing.)<br /><br />Ledbetter, the hired driver, becomes a supportive presence, and helps Helen begin to adjust to life again, but she does not realise that he is becoming dangerously obsessed with her. This is a superb performance by Robert Shaw. Ledbetter is a former regular soldier, an ex-sergeant-major who runs a boxing club and has set up his own car-hire business. Superficially, he seems tough and strong, dependable, but there are cracks beneath the surface: he has not really adjusted to civilian life. He invents (for reasons he later explains) a family and home life he does not have; he has brutal outbursts with colleagues, and affection-less sex. Getting close to Helen a woman whom, even with the greater post-war social freedom, he could not realistically have hoped to marry exposes psychological fault-lines that tear him apart. These days, one might diagnose PTSD.<br /><br />The same is true of the other man in Helen's life, aspiring politician Captain Hugh Cantrip (Peter Egan). He is ambitious, handsome, but also very young. Tellingly, his girlfriend, Connie (Caroline Mortimer), mothers him, combing his hair and making sure he has a clean handkerchief before he goes out. He is known to both Ledbetter and Helen: the former had served under him during the war, and Helen had met him in political circles and had thought him a "popinjay". However, he and Helen now begin a relationship, with Helen intending to support his political career, financially and emotionally. Peter Egan, fresh from his stage success as Stanhope in R C Sheriff's 'Journey's End', makes Hugh more than an immature cad. There is a revealing, understated scene in the back of the car between Helen and Hugh, in which they quote Brooke's 'The Old Vicarage at Grantchester'. She asks, of his war experience, "Was it very bad?" He cannot answer. She says: "Well, you're back now." But his softly-spoken reply "Am I? Sometimes I wonder
" is the key to his character. As light and shadow flicker across his face, we know that there are some horrors that cannot be put into words. The disproportionate casualties suffered by junior officers of his sort straight out of school or university and expected to lead from the front are well-known. In a nervous speech (during which Helen reassures him) to local political folk at a dinner-party, he reveals that he will stand as an Independent, no longer as a Liberal (the party which had taken the country into the war). His emotional life is as damaged as Ledbetter's. He cannot easily extricate himself from Connie, who depends on him emotionally and financially: reading between the lines, she is probably a war-widow (perhaps of a former comrade?) with a child, whose drawings we see on the wall of her home.<br /><br />***SPOILERS***<br /><br />The crisis between the trio builds slowly, with a frightening scene between Helen and Ledbetter in the car, and Ledbetter listening in to Hugh and Connie when he is driving them, as Hugh tries to persuade Connie that, even as his relationship with Helen develops, they can continue theirs; that he will, at least, continue to support her. Jealousy, obsession and his belief that he must protect Helen from a duplicitous gold-digger lead Ledbetter to confront her and Hugh violently in her home.<br /><br />The ending is entirely different from that of the novel, and is better for it: it is dramatic, but less melodramatic, and maintains an unsentimental tone. We began with one character recovering from a mental breakdown; we end with another suffering one. Helen, one senses, is now wiser and stronger than both the men, who have been unable fully to adapt to the so-called 'land fit for heroes' to which they returned from the nightmare of total war. The new ending is open: one feels that she, at least, will cope with whatever lies ahead, without illusions. In this, it reflects well the reality of the time, in which women (Helen, Connie, and so many others) had to pick up the pieces of a world in which too many men had died or had come home with varying degrees of mental and physical damage. <br /><br />"Well, you're back now." "Am I? Sometimes I wonder
"
| 1 |
positive
|
<br /><br />The kind of movie that demands too much from the audience, yet to disappoint most of them. I think of the Mexican people who (either in an attempt to support Mexican movies or willing to see a film casting top Mexican stars) saw it, half of the people went out of the theater when I went to watch it, it's definitely not the kind of movie one could expect. I think too of the people from other countries who dared spending 2 hours seeing it till the very end, "what a piece of crap". In order to understand Cronica de un desayuno, one has to be mexican, and one has to be familiar with the low middle classes (or even better, be part of them). There's nothing accidental in this movie, the family is and has what many families, in Mexico at least, share. One has to see it with a wide open mind to accept it entirely, it's not the kind of movie that you fully understand after you watch it. The older brother wouldn't let anyone sit on his RED couch, the sister is staying no matter how she wants to leave, the younger brother is going to an excursion, and all he cares about is the yellow radio, the mother has to prepare the breakfast for the family, no matter how tense and unbearable the situation is. The father came back after who knows how long, allowing the mother to live a night of passion that somehow turns out to be momentary, and ends up by repeating all the attitudes of his sons... The stories around the house are surrealistic (and so is the movie), a travestite looking for his penis, a factory worker and his attempt of suicide, subtled by the kisses of his girlfriend, a fat man riding his bicycle after a interesting conversation about homosexuals with his sister? wife? mother?... The music doesn't pretend too much but it achieves a lot, not more than a snare drum, cymbal, a some strings. Thanks good a movie like this was done and released.<br /><br />One of the best mexican movies ever!, and one of the less understood, even by mexican themselves, no matter how identified the should have felt with it.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
The 80s were overrun by all those HALLOWEEN/Friday THE 13TH slasher-style horror movies, so this is something of a relief.<br /><br />Ten unbelievably annoying teenagers (would you want to hang out with these jerks?!) decide to throw a Halloween party at a local former funeral parlor called "Hull House". During a "past life séance" a demon is accidentally released, and each person becomes possessed and kills off the others.<br /><br />This all sounds very EVIL DEAD/DEMONS-ish, but Tenney lends some directorial style to the proceedings, there are some good one-liners, the music is excellent, the Steve Johnson prosthetic make-up FX are scary and Linnea Quigley is quite fun as a boy-crazy bimbo who pokes out eyeballs with her fingers and does an amazing new thing with a tube of lipstick!<br /><br />Great fun on a no-brainer level! After checking out the breakdown of the voting and the other posted reviews, I don't understand how this only received 4 out of 10 (?!)<br /><br />I give it, 8 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
1956's The Man Who Knew Too Much is exceptional entertainment. To those who prefer the 1934 original, I will say that that one is faster paced and wittier. However, even though the American version was (heaven forbid!) a big budget blockbuster, I believe it blows the British version out of the water. I think this is one of Hitchcock's 10 best-no small feat considering he made over 50 films and many of them were among the greatest of all time. I find so many things to love:<br /><br />1)James Stewart, America's favorite everyman for so many years, does an excellent job playing the distressed father here. He can make any film enjoyable, and working with such a likeable character in such a gripping story, he had me rooting for him very intensely. Leslie Banks in the original is nothing in comparison.<br /><br />2)Doris Day. Yes Doris Day. Despite all the criticisms directed toward her, I think she makes the loving wife/mother an extremely sympathetic person. I disagree with the negative remarks towards her character; just because she is soft-spoken and gentle it doesn't mean she is docile and helpless. I don't want to spoil anything, but she does make a crucial discovery by herself after her husband has failed. She gives the story a level of warmth that just wasn't there in the first one, and for those who care about that this version is the way to go. And I loved Que Sera Sera; I think it is one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard and deservedly won its Oscar. It elevated the film to another level.<br /><br />3)The Albert Hall sequence. I don't think it was too long at all; I think the suspense built the whole time to that terrific crescendo and Hitchcock's direction in this scene was absolutely brilliant. And the assassin was truly frightening. <br /><br />4)The ending really put a smile on my face; even after the aforementioned scene was over I found the rescue scene to be exciting and it was great to see the charming family together again. The last line in the film is highly amusing. I don't think the film started out slowly; Hithcock was trying to get us to know and like the McKennas and he did a great job. I wasn't a huge fan of the kid playing Hank, but I didn't have a problem with him. Since Hank was Ben and Jo's kid I cared about him too; it's not like he was a brat or anything. <br /><br />I found no major flaws in this movie and so many major and minor virtues. Way to go Hitch!
| 1 |
positive
|
OUCH, No real need to say anything else. This movie actually had me contemplating suicide. As a huge fan of the wonderful genre that is zombie movies I found this to quite possibly be the worst attempt I have ever been privy too. The film never actually seemed to go ANYWHERE! What was the point to it all, I am left feeling hopeless and lost. Hell this was so bad i cant even justify bashing it anymore. I'm just gonna go hang myself in the closet. OK now I tried to submit my comment but the server will only accept comments that are ten lines or more. So here it goes... Bad, horrible, no where near enough gore. NO TITS!!!!!!How can you have a Zombie movie without tits. As a matter of fact the female lead had one hell of a rack and the only reason I watched the film to completion was in order to maybe by chance get a glimpse. NOPE! Of course there was one line that does deserve mentioning, a line I am looking forward to using myself someday (when i just feel the need to get my face smacked) "This hog isn't going to smoke itself" This movie is bad, so bad.
| 0 |
negative
|
At first sight, I must say already, watch The Contractor, 2007. With Wesley Snipes too. A better action movie and with a more dramatic plot.<br /><br />The Detonator has an horrendous plot focusing in some sort of atomic bomb, set in Romania and with awful directing for an action movie-- there is no thrilling moments and an action movie is turned in to boredom.<br /><br />Really, what you expect Wesley Snipes to do, when awful screenplays like this one are offered to him? Don't blame him, he needs the money.<br /><br />This was the first impression when I saw the movie, 3 years ago. But I won't see it again, no way. Screw it. It sucks. There. I said it.<br /><br />PS: I don't think I ever said "this movie sucks" on a IMDb review. Thank you, Detonator!
| 0 |
negative
|
Assy McGee is a show that you really have to be a certain age to appreciate. Otherwise, it's likely you'll miss the references to 80's cop films and simply think it's a running gag about a walking rectum. Think it's brainless, infantile poop humor? Go watch the Stallone film 'Cobra' and you'll see what I mean. This show actually has very subtle humor, which says a lot, both for a show that aired on adult swim, and for a show about a walking ass.<br /><br />All the standard genre clichés are in place that made movies like Dirt Harry and Cobra so great and ripe for parody. Sanchez is Assy's partner, who is - as per the genre - level-headed and constantly apologizing for his partner's homicidal behavior. The police chief is, of course, a fire-breathing hard case who lives to scream "I want your badge on my desk first thing tomorrow morning!" The over-the-top, and sometimes completely nonsensical manner in which the 1980's 'Renegade Cop' film is parodied suits the subject matter well. For instance, while breaking up a bus robbery, one of the criminals stops to ask Assy, "Hey, where are you going, asshole!?" To which the title character snaps off the one-liner: "I'm going... to shoot you." <br /><br />Highly recommended for anybody who loves 80's action movies, and has actually viewed enough of them to understand the humor.
| 1 |
positive
|
This was very funny, even if it fell apart a little at the end. Does not go overboard with homage after to Hitchcock - Owen (Danny DeVito) was lucky he had "Strangers on A Train" playing at the local cinema, so the movie flat out tells you that that was the inspiration. <br /><br />DeVito is very funny but also a little sad. He has no friends and all he wants to do is write and have someone like his writing. His teacher, Billy Crystal, is going through some serious writers block of his own and his wife has stolen his book and made it her own success, which also has him frustrated a great deal.<br /><br />Best parts are the book proposal by Mr. Pinsky ("One Hundred Girls I'd Like to Pork") and all scenes with Anne Ramsey, who is so horrible that even Mother Theresa would have wanted to kill her, too!
| 1 |
positive
|
One of the most entertaining of all silent comedies is Pudovkin's short 'Chess Fever', a mad tale of how a rigorously intellectual board game could disrupt even the most carefully planned central economies. Such an unpromising comedic subject as chess found an earlier outlet in this delightful short. Two young men play the game earnestly against an artificial background, a painted set. This is in contrast to earlier Lumiere shorts such as 'L'Arrosseur Arrosse' or 'Repas du bebe', wherein the human activity was deliberately framed by a natural setting. The difference in activities (natural=feeding baby, watering garden; artificial=chess) is possibly significant.<br /><br />The main contrast in this film is between this immoveable background and the placid, serene game of chess, and the fierce passions this latter causes, as accusations of cheating lead to a most undignified melee. The intellectual game becomes a gross physical scrap, just as the pretensions of arty filmmakers are forever deflated by the 'cruder' demands of audiences.<br /><br />What is most amusing about the film is not neccessarily this descent into slapstick, but the way it is filmed, its prolonging long after the initial joke has been made; the way the camera refuses to dignify the fight with anything like attention, focusing instead on the set, while we catch glimpses of hurling feet and dislodged clothing. The film's refusal to edit is audacious, so that the humour seems to arise from something else other than the fight, reflecting our need for physical contact over intellectual stimulation, our unwillngness to let go.<br /><br />What is especially brilliant is the denouement, as these upper-class fops are caught by the valet, who picks them up like two errant schoolboys, as if he is about to box their ears. If masters can't be expected to keep their place with decorum, than somebody's going to have to do it for them.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Priest, into profound love and suffering showed not the result of love, but the process of love and salvation has high-souled beauty of human(or vampire?). http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/confuoco/diary/200911290000/<br /><br />And the love of Femme fatale is not notorious, but lovely in taking the responsible death as a vampire. She did not keep falling deep into the paradise lost, but decided to leave human alone. Fragile, but lovely Femme fatale! This movie made me think about suffering between human and vampire, that far beyond priest, and salvation. Also I thought about love. Adam was not so responsible for Eve's but this Adam(priest), sacrificial and responsible to pick Eve up from the Paradise Lost, vampire's world. Another Symphonic Poem of Adam & Eve, Paradise Lost.
| 1 |
positive
|
Maybe James P. Lay knows what do to in the sound department if a director supervises him.<br /><br />In 'Dreamland (2007)' however, he cannot accomplish anything as a writer or as a director.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing in this film, no story, no character building, no events, no atmosphere, no plot, no twists, no acting that deserves that name.<br /><br />In any of those departments this movie is billions of light years behind any short film that has some actual thinking in it, even a one minute one.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with any of David Lynch's works!<br /><br />I actually think it could be used as mental torture or as negative propaganda material against the West.<br /><br />Recommend it only to your worst enemies!
| 0 |
negative
|
Living just down the Hwy from Georgetown, Co...I remember this movie well and thought it was great! The story seems like something John would do even in real life, but there is something that I will always remember most about the movie. For those of you who don't live in Denver...every Christmas, the city of Denver, Co puts up a fabulous display of lights and decorations at the Civic Center in downtown Denver. Well...as it so happened, during the filming of this movie, a Nativity scene was needed. So...it was borrowed from the Civic Center display...with permission, by the way! Someone had forgotten to advice the powers that be, and it was reported stolen! A frantic search began with law enforcement for a few days. Finally, someone spoke up and remembered loaning it to the film crew in Georgetown! It was returned and put back where it belonged! As it turns out...it wasn't featured all that much in the movie...you can barely see it during the Christmas show with the children. It did create quit a disturbance though...
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie, although well shot and superbly acted, was awful. I felt as if I was watching a car accident--sure I kept watching but I really wanted to turn my head. The plot leaves little to be desired, was extremely disjointed, and the ending was abysmal. Although, it did fit the tone of the movie, I was hoping for something to improve this movie. I still don't understand what the references to rabies and the child get bit by the fox at the beginning of the movie. Fifteen minutes of plot that really didn't do much. It's really sad to see a movie with fine actors and a beautiful set wasted on such an awful, awful, story. There's not much more to say about this movie. Save yourself the time and watch c-span. It'll be more uplifting.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was very good. I really enjoyed it. Tom McCamus' performance was excellent and very believable as the consumptive son Edmund. I also enjoyed the set design (house) and the costumes.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is called "Solomon Kane". Which it isn't. The main character wears a hat, but that's all he has in common with Robert Howard's character Solomon Kane as known from early pulp magazines and lots of publications ever since these days. It is a fantasy movie, not really that bad and it might easily have passed with a rather good review - if it hadn't been called Solomon Kane. The hero is a newly invented character who definitely is not SK. The story is not Robert Howard, neither.<br /><br />As a fantasy movie it is one more movie following the traditions of the genre: simple story, poor CGI, poor actors, poor directing. Yet it can be fun, you know: 'the cheaper they are, the better they are'. But since it is called Solomon Kane, I cannot accept it. Imagine a Lord-of-the-Rings movie with a hero Bilbo who fights the black sorcerer Saugalf with the help of his dwarf friend Aragorn and the beautiful heroine Shadowfax. And with a final fight where the three use a magical ring to kill the evil sorcerer who has transformed into the dragon Gondorian. Imagine that. This is exactly what this movie has done with Robert Howard's character Solomon Kane.<br /><br />I'd give it a 4 stars review if it was just another horror movie, but since it is called Solomon Kane, I can only rate it 3 stars.
| 0 |
negative
|
I give this movie 2 stars purely because of its slightly liberal plot line. Without going into too much detail.<br /><br />The acting in this movie is terrible. Really terrible - wooden, shallow.<br /><br />The graffiti on show is weak, so bloody weak that I can only wonder why they bothered to use graffiti artists at all. IT was obvious in the spraying scenes that they'd gotten other people in to do the 'work'. They might as well have let the actors do the painting and saved themselves a few cents.<br /><br />I would avoid this film at all costs.<br /><br />The kid loco soundtrack used to be something I listened to on my iPod, its going to be a while before I can go back there for fear of this movie coming back into my mind.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs. Unless you are thinking to yourself "Wow, its been a while since I've seen a really sh*t movie...."
| 0 |
negative
|
There seems to be a spectrum of cinema. On the left, there are movies made mostly for entertainment and/or commercial purposes. In the middle, there are movies that are both entertaining and artistic. On the right are movies that are not as commercial, but are focused more on cinema as art than cinema as product.<br /><br />I'm not here to say any one part of the spectrum is better than any other, but that when a movie goes too far to either end, it's rarely good. Such is the case with Naqoyqatsi.<br /><br />I had no idea what to expect when I saw it advertised. A few friends were going and asked if I wanted to come along. None of us knew what to expect, and by the end, none of us were pleased.<br /><br />Yes, there are breathtaking images. Yes, I'm amazed at the lengths the filmmakers went to in searching through archival footage. Yes, the soundtrack is enjoyable to listen to, and probably the best part of the experience. The thing is, this goes so far to the right side of the spectrum I mentioned that I can't say anything nice about the movie as a whole.<br /><br />It's preachy. It's a jumble of symbolism and obvious morality. It's not saying anything new or forcing the viewer to examine life in a new way. It's just telling us things we already know (that is, if we can even figure out what it's saying).<br /><br />This movie is simply art for art's sake. An attempt to say "Look at how deep and thought-provoking we can be by using montage!" When a film becomes more about how clever or intelligent its creators are than about its subject, it ceases to be a film and simply becomes celluloid self-gratification.
| 0 |
negative
|
...but I would be lying. A relative was a crew member, and we got to go watch the production of this movie for a couple of days (and I was an extra). I get to die and have a second of screen time, not that I plan on moving to Hollywood anytime soon. I just thought it was awesome to see how movies are made and be a part of it. Plus, I got a copy of the movie once it was finally released. They didn't have a studio backing when making this film so it truly was independent. Why the writing and acting is so awful is beyond me, but the main character "Cherry" is the director's sister so that could be part of it. But the cinematography was good. :)
| 0 |
negative
|
How 'Thursday' managed to avoid attention remains a mystery. A potent mix of comedy and crime, this one takes chances where Tarantino plays it safe with the Hollywood formula. The risks don't always pay off: one character in one sequence comes off inappropriately silly and falls flat. In the lead role, Thomas Jane gives a wonderful and complex performance, and two brief appearances by Mickey Rourke hint at the high potential of this much under- and mis-used actor. Here's a director one should keep one's eye on.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am so glad when i watch in every time the movie of (Ray) for the Sidney pottier of the 21st century (Jamie Foxx) who played this role as an evidence of his brilliant ability as an actor to take his position beside great actors in Hollywood by his golden supporting for the strong abilities of afro American actors all over the times and periods by his eternal work as an evidence for the eternity of Ray Charles as a grand prove for their legend appearance in every time by their success for winning Oscar prize as (best actor for leading role) an (best mixing sound) between fact and cinematic scenes upon Ray and Jamie as a mixing between two copies of Ray (ray of the past) and (ray of 2004 acted in the person of Jamie Foxx).It was nice from the director to choose those songs to be adapted with dramatical scenes in the accidents of film to enter for the atmosphere of success in legend corn with legend movies in Hollywood since 1893 till now and his cleverness of choosing Sharon Warrne in the role of Ray ,s mother that she succeeded in this role by brilliant analysis for the core of her character that Ray,s mother was the turning point for him upon her grew up to be independent on himself to take his place in this world and to be icon in his talent as (Nat king Cole , Louis Armstrong , Duke Ellington) and at the end of this film by receiving his honorable report from Gerogia and their decision to take his song (Georgia on my mind) the national anthem for this state he made his promise for his mother to be alive until now by his legend songs and brilliant life.
| 1 |
positive
|
An anonymous film which could have been directed by anyone at all.Where is Anthony Mann,the director of such classics as "El Cid" " the naked spur" or "the man from Laramie"?<br /><br />There are marvelous shots of planes in the clouds,lovingly filmed.The story is very trite ,and almost completely devoid of dramatization.The couple lives an almost routine life and the user who complains about June Allyson's choice for the wife ,IMHO,totally misses the point.With her less-than-attractive look,her hoarse voice,she was the perfect housewife the screenplay needed.At the time,women were barefoot and pregnant:there 's not one single woman among the base staff,even in the desk jobs -.All they had to do was worrying about their hubbies ,who were fighting for democracy and against an Enemy whose name we never hear ,but in 1955,it was not hard to guess it.<br /><br />One wonders why a young person who has never seen a Mann movie should choose this one among all the great movies he made.
| 0 |
negative
|
I love the Jurassic Park movies, they are three of my all time favorite movies.<br /><br />And I hate this game, if there was one game I wish I never own for the Super Nintendo was this one.<br /><br />How can a game based on a classic movie be just too awful? And to make it worst, I was scare of this game when I was a kid.<br /><br />How dumb was that but then again I was a kid when this game was first out.<br /><br />The game play in this game is just odd. One minute it's a action game and then it's a shooter. What in the world is wrong with making up your mind when making a video game.<br /><br />The Sound in the game is just terrible to listen.<br /><br />The music is just too sick to listen to.<br /><br />The Controllers in the game don't work most of the time.<br /><br />Jurassic Park the game is just a waste of time and money and won't be a classic.<br /><br />Avoid at all cost
| 0 |
negative
|
Walking With Dinosaurs is an amazing Documentary, educational for both the Ignorant of Dinosaurs and Dinosaur-Lovers (like myself) alike. I admit, I was very young when I saw this on Discovery, but I was obsessed with it immediately. (Spoliers!!!!!) The series contains 6 episodes, going from the Late Triassic when dinosaurs were just first evolving to the Late Cretaceous, at the end of Reign of the dinosaurs. When I first saw this film, it was like I really had traveled back in time. The majesty of the Diplodocus, the adventures of Opthalmosaurus, and the caring mother version of T-Rex all astounded my family and me. It is an amazing film, and I believe that BBC managed to do just what they set out to do. Awesome job!
| 1 |
positive
|
It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened. <br /><br />The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.<br /><br />I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.<br /><br />Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned... <br /><br />What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.<br /><br />Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.<br /><br />I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?<br /><br />Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.<br /><br />Avoid it like the plague.
| 0 |
negative
|
The idea behind this movie was great. The story of a little girl facing abuse (both emotional and physical) and trying to deal with it and survive. What makes the movie fall apart is the terrible use of voice overs and the corny dialog. The actors have to point out the most obvious things over and over again. Also, there is very tedious, almost funny, overuse of metaphors in the voice overs. The high point is the acting of the little girl. Nice try, but this one's a stinker.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film was such a mess I actually reimbursed my friends who I dragged to see it. The only reason I went to see it was that my friend was an apprentice editor on the shoot.<br /><br />I'm sure that this film was meant to be campy, but the approach was so heavy-handed and self-reflexive it turned out really flat. Judd Nelson stars as an obsequious garbage man who is a hack comedian on the side. His life is hell and made worse by his obnoxious and overbearing companion Bill Paxton (who I feel embarrassed for - this was a really tasteless role for a talented actor). A freak accident alters Nelson's career course and mayhem ensues.<br /><br />The attempts at humor were corny, predictable and often base and tasteless. Wayne Newton in the cast as a talent agent is a novelty but he adds nothing - comedically or otherwise.<br /><br />Overall, it's a very weak and uncreative attempt at camp humor that goes over like a lead balloon. At least you could laugh AT Plan 9 From Outer Space. This one just makes you wonder who thought this was a good enough idea to finance and film. One of the all time worst bombs you'll ever witness.
| 0 |
negative
|
Have just seen this film, in Australia on satellite. As i have been avoiding the news more so than usual over the last week coming from the US of A regarding gunmen, well to be absolutely blunt, this film is a prescient gem. A big bravo to all involved. i had only a small idea of what the film entailed as is most often the case for good effect and this certainly came up with cinematic goods. the setting of the scene is effective in the truest sense of the word, with all the hairy confronting subjects of today's world in relation to one's own faltering family, albeit suburb. The first forty minutes sets such a professional theater i was not ready for the out loud laughs when they came. Although the cathartic moment built via comedy and character as the family and neighbors came together in an extraordinary way.<br /><br />All in all a foreseeing of who and what we are. A most meaningful film and a must see.<br /><br />please note the date of this review.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's probably a cultural thing---somehow, the natives of this country have been conditioned to find this stuff funny. I have experienced this phenomenon first-hand, during an open-air cinema event, where this film was shown before the feature. Most of the indigenous audience laughed, and no, this wasn't in a sanitarium or a clinic for retarded children, this was in a well-to-do area, and the audience consisted mostly of educated adults.<br /><br />So it must be possible, somehow, to find this amusing, but honest to goodness, I have no idea what it takes---maybe it's in the air or the water, prolonged exposure to which causes this condition. Something must cause it, obviously, the only thing I can say is that I am quite sure what doesn't cause it: the movie itself.<br /><br />There are no jokes in it. It's brain dead, stupid, nonsensical, unfunny, lame. It's, in short, a waste of time. Any Tom and Jerry is funnier, heck even funerals are funnier.<br /><br />Just in case you have been fortunate enough not ever to have seen any of the Stooges' performances: It's three guys behaving, running, even talking like retarded infants, causing all kinds of unfunny mayhem, with no plot, no real purpose, and no real conclusion. It's like ugly Teletubbies without the cute costumes.<br /><br />Sitting in a crowd watching this garbage in this country can be quite exasperating, because you feel like you are at a party with a bunch of potheads and you are the only one who hasn't smoked anything.<br /><br />So unless you are prepared to intoxicate yourself to make this bearable, or come equipped with whatever it is that makes people think watching three ugly old men behave like morons is funny, my advice on this is: Stay way. Far away.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Saturday Afternoon" is one of Harry Langdon's best-known short subjects, and with good reason. It is one of his funniest and best films. The plot -- such as it is -- is an old staple: a hen-pecked husband sneaks away for a night out with a his pal and a couple of other girls. It's a solid and well-used comedy plot, but the difference here is Harry Langdon himself. His slow, ineffectual, befuddled, innocent character has somehow floundered his way into a marriage with a woman who feels that he of all people must be ruled with an iron fist, and he is only thrust into cheating on her because he can't say "no" to the exhortations of the chummy Vernon Dent and the cute eyelash-fluttering of the girl. <br /><br />It's a very adult problem to be thrust onto such a helpless, childlike character. Harry doesn't want to cheat, but he can't do anything about it. In a wonderful bit of comic business, he can't bring himself to blow the new girlfriend kiss goodbye: he slyly pushes the kiss at her underhand and ashamedly wipes off his hand as if to chastise it. The film is a three-reel comedy, ten minutes longer than the two-reelers Harry Langdon had previously been starring in for Mack Sennett, with no more plot. Perhaps it was even designed to be a two-reeler. This works beautifully, since it gives him as much time as he needs to inject the slow reactions and bewildered glimpses and half-actions where so much of his comedy lives. <br /><br />He's at his best here, and the show is really Harry Langdon's curious magic and ability to spin comedy out of almost nothing. His little half- smiles, his look while handling the money he has hidden under the rug, childlike attempts to enter the fight at the end. I think his comedy makes us recognize something fundamentally innocent and confused in ourselves that makes us feel like the whole world is too much for us, yet at the same time, by allowing us to understand what Harry does not (such as the fact that the women he good-heartedly brings to his friend to cheer him after he thinks the date has been blown are in fact whores) he forces his to realize with a little bit of sadness that we are not that innocent anymore. His comedy is just as capable of making us audibly say "Awwww" as it is making us laugh, often at once. <br /><br />Here Harry wants to refuse to cheat on his wife, he wants to tell his wife whose boss and take some power back in his relationship, he wants to fight back against the two violent men at the end of the film, but he just can't affect his surroundings that much, and sometimes we all feel like that. <br /><br />The film is perfectly directed by frequent Langdon director Harry Edwards; it moves at a quick pace and never stalls while at the same time making time for and presenting to best effect Harry Langdon's still, reactive comedy. Vernon Dent, a frequent foil to Langdon, plays one of the roles here where he becomes almost a comedy partner in his very effective pairing with Harry. The gags spaced out in a way that gives maximum effect too, and Harry gets his own version of a Lloyd or Keaton style stunt at the end. Here the comedy is not in Harry's big reactions to the danger of sitting perched between two moving cars, but in his slowness to take it in. <br /><br />This is a hilarious film, and a perfect example of the comedy of one of the most unique an talented humorists that I know ever to have existed.
| 1 |
positive
|
One of the most macabre, depressing, yet eye-opening docs. I've watched in awhile. There's no narration or story that's told, just a "third eye" type camera following around 2 couples of heroin addicts in NYC through the seasons. Watching them shoot up on the floors of public washrooms then "clean" their needles in the public toilets... sometimes it's a bit too much and you need to hit pause just to go for a breather.<br /><br />Anyone currently in recovery of alcohol/drug addition should watch this when they're craving - it really shows you to what you could be going back to! After seeing this it's a wonder how anyone could even try this drug to begin with.<br /><br />The only thing it needed was a follow up at the end to tell where these people are today. Judging from what is shown in the doc., there's no hope for any of them. They mention wanting to get better and quit, but it seems the only end to their habits is to quit by way of dying.<br /><br />This definitely isn't for all audiences. I found myself kind of like watching a car accident - after I started watching it I just couldn't turn it off. I had to keep watching with a dark/morbid fascination of what it's like inside the lives of these addicts.
| 1 |
positive
|
Nothing dull about this movie, which is held together by fully realized characters with some depth to them. Even the hooded torturers have body language. Jannings' performance is brilliant, all will, want and need. A Henry VIII as he must have been. Henny Porten is, maybe, nobler and purer than Anne Boleyn, but she plays the part as written: A victim caught in the jaws of a big (huge) baby.<br /><br />Sparkuhl's cinematography is gorgeous in the restoration, the tints sensuous. Lubitsch lets these characters breathe and reveal their corruption down to the tiniest of meannesses. He takes his time, which can try the patience of an audience accustomed to being carried away by action, but the time is worth spending. Slow your heartbeat and watch this minor miracle of German silent film.
| 1 |
positive
|
El Padrino has just been released in Europe and is really kicking ass. This film with its great cast - Damian Chapa ( Blood in Blood Out ), Robert Wager, Jennifer Tilly, Robert Wagner and many more ) - is the best gangster movie since SCARFACE. A Film that everyone MUST SEE. 2 hours full of action with fantastic unbelievable stunt !!!!<br /><br />GRACIAS JENNIFER !!!! We are eagerly waiting for part 2 !!!! Does anyone know if there will be one ? Keep up the good work !!! I loved it !!
| 1 |
positive
|
Having seen the full length film Kieslowski made out of this episode of "The Decalogue" years ago, came back to this viewer as we watched the complete ten vignettes. As with the other films, this one is loosely based on the fifth commandment, or, "Thou shalt not kill".<br /><br />Kryzsztof Kieslowski, writing with Kryzsztof Piesewicz, took a look at the mind of a young man who commits a heinous crime in murdering an innocent person to vent his own frustrations. This installment has a Dostoyevskian character that kept reminding us about "Crime and Punishment", or at least some of the qualities of the novel are passed to the aimless youth who apparently has no redeeming qualities.<br /><br />The story shows the young man as he roams the streets of the city without a clear idea of what to do, or where to go. The only tender moment he displays is when he visits the photographer's place to ask to have an old picture of his sister restored. Kieslowski leaves it up to fate to have the murderer board a taxi with the intention of robbing the driver, but it's his anger and frustration that get the best of this youth to kill a man that didn't deserve to die. The last moments of this criminal is one of the most gripping sequences in any film, past, or present.<br /><br />The other element in the story is the relationship between the public defendant and the criminal. Nothing can prevent the court to condemn to death the young man. The lawyer feels at the end he has failed his client and goes to the judge to see where he went wrong. All he is asked by the young man is to retrieve the picture and send it to his mother.<br /><br />Kieslowski's account of how he interprets the fifth commandment makes for a surprising film that will stay in the viewer's mind long after this episode is forgotten.
| 1 |
positive
|
Insane really. Even if you haven't seen the original George Cukor movie with Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, Paulette Goddard, Joan Fontaine and a cast of a thousand other stars you may dismiss this forced, politically correct, depressing comedy. Depressing for many different reasons. Meg Ryan for one. What has she done to herself? Her face can hardly move. That alone puts her miles away from Norma Shearer. Annette Bening should be suing the DP and Debra Messing, what the hell was she doing here? Actresses with no connection in the public's subconscious trying to pass for friends, totally unconvincingly. Eva Mendes in the Joan Crawford part is an outrageous piece of miscasting. What a terrible idea! Her character is like a trans-gender performer without any taste or subtlety. Bizarre to think that a woman adapted and directed this women.The only positive things I can mention are a short but very funny appearance by Bette Midler and Cloris Leachman as the housekeeper.
| 0 |
negative
|
Follow-up to 1965's "My Name Is Barbra", and shot in brilliant color, "Color Me Barbra" has La Streisand alternating nostalgia, clowning comedy, feminine romantic angst, and beguiling seriousness for a crazy-quilt hour of show-biz razzle dazzle. She's a cut-up and a femme fatale, a sprite and an enigma. With her Egyptian eye make-up and ever-changing hairstyles, she's also a chameleon. Her voice is rich and moving, even if a few of her songs are not ("One Kiss", "Yesterdays"). The circus sequence isn't as intriguing as the museum trip (with the conceit of Barbra becoming the images in the paintings, an idea which works better than you may think). The circus-medley (built around songs featuring the word "face"!) is girlishly cute without ever really becoming enchanting. Still, this is a lively, jazzy special--not quite as emotionally tantalizing as "My Name Is Barbra", but certainly a sterling sophomore effort.
| 1 |
positive
|
Stephen Sondheim's SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET opened on Broadway on 1 March 1979 with Len Cariou and Angela Lansbury in the leading roles. Although it swept virtually every award imaginable, the box office fell short of expectations and the original production ended its run at 557 performances. Fortunately, however, the play then went on tour--and along the way was captured on film. The result is a remarkable capture of the play featuring George Hern, who replaced Cariou, and Lansbury in a close approximation of the original Broadway staging.<br /><br />There is, however, a flaw. Simply stated: stage plays do not film very well, for a performance that works well on the stage must fill the theatre and is therefore very, very large--and when placed on film such performances often seem slightly static, oppressively aggressive, or both. SWEENEY TODD is no exception. Seen on film, it has a "stand and sing" quality, and while both Hern and Lansbury seem to have modulated their performances for the sake of the camera such is not the case with Betsy Joslyn as Joanna; her larger-than-life performance reads on film as unpleasantly frantic and her extremely operatic voice feels out of place when contrasted with the voices of the overall cast.<br /><br />Taking this stage-play-on-film effect into consideration, however, this really is an exceptional performance of a unique and macabrely comic musical in the operetta style. Lansbury is astonishing, a mixture of silliness, stupidity, and cunning malice, while Hern truly owns the role of the psychotic barber whose clients "go to their graves impeccably shaved." The overall cast is quite fine and although the film does not let us see quite enough of the set, there is enough on display for it to be impressive. And the music! Who can argue with what most consider Sondheim's finest work? The story itself is extremely well-known, particularly in England. In 1846 Thomas Peckett Prest cobbled together several urban myths for a short story he titled A STRING OF PEARLS; within a year or so it was adapted to the stage as SWEENEY TODD, THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET--and, in an era that knew little of copyright law, variations of the play were soon playing all over England. Each one, however, was more or less the same: Sweeney Todd, a barber, kills the men who come to him for a shave; Mrs. Lovett, his associate, bakes them up into pies and feeds them to an unsuspecting public. The Sondheim version is specifically based on a 1973 version by Christopher Bond.<br /><br />The story is very Grand Guignol, with a lot of blood, bodies dropping down chutes, and grotesque humor; at the same time, however, the music, lyrics, and subplot of an innocent in the clutches of evil open out the subject to numerous lyric charms one would not expect. Sondheim's lyrics are often ironic, but never more so than here; he intertwines a great deal of wicked satire re industry and capitalism along the way, and certainly one cannot fault the strange yet Victorian-elegant of his complex music.<br /><br />Like the "concert version" starring Hern and Patti LuPone, this particular film also provides us with several selections that were cut from the 2007 Tim Burton film version, most particularly the opening "Attend the Tale of Sweeney Todd," which runs like a thread throughout the play. It is also, in my opinion, considerably more comic than the film, which tends to underplay comedy in favor of a still greater show of blood. Whatever the case, if you are a fan of the story, this is the legendary Broadway show on tour, and it is a knock-out. Recommended.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer
| 1 |
positive
|
Mickey Rooney (as Mi Taylor) is a young man drifting along the figurative road to ruin, where he meets 12-year-old Elizabeth Taylor (as Velvet Brown) - she adores horses, but he has a sad history with the animals. Ms. Taylor is enamored with Mr. Rooney's horse-sense; she takes him home, and gets him room and board with her family. They are supported very well by Anne Revere and Donald Crisp (as Mr. and Mrs. Brown). Butch Jenkins and Angela Lansbury are Taylor's strained siblings.<br /><br />The plot of "National Velvet" is implausible to a fault; for example, the circumstances leading to Taylor's ride in the "Big Race" are quite a stretch (but were likely more believable on paper). Still, the characters' connection to horses, and to Ms. Revere's character are nicely conceived. Rooney and Taylor are excellent in the starring roles; there is a balance between Rooney's fading "child star" and Taylor's exuberant new "child star", which adds depth to their characterizations.<br /><br />The excellent performances of Rooney and Taylor are further enhanced by fine direction, photography, and editing from Clarence Brown, Leonard Smith, and Robert Kern. A sentimental classic. <br /><br />******** National Velvet (12/14/44) Clarence Brown ~ Mickey Rooney, Elizabeth Taylor, Anne Revere
| 1 |
positive
|
Jim Brown stars and produces a tale set in the Philippines just after the Japanese invasion. The story has the Japanese taking several navy men prisoner including some divers, who they use to retrieve the gold that MacArthur had dumped into the Manila bay.<br /><br />It's a messy movie aiming to make a statement about war and racism (The film uses Edwin McCain's War in a not so subtle montage). The performances are just adequate at best. Jim Brown is okay, but he doesn't really show any sort of range in a performance that just has him standing there looking annoyed. The sets are serviceable but seem rather cheap. The film suffers from the outset due to a great deal of stock footage including many of the best known shots from the Japanese attack in Tora! Tora! Tora!. The use of such big budget sequence effectively makes the rest of the film look positively anemic; it also reminds one that there are better films out there one could be watching. For me the film seems to have half a real plot, the retrieval of the silver, and half a plot that is there just to fill time. None of it is particularly exciting even with the explosive finale.<br /><br />Given the choice I'd take a pass.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of Alfred Hitchcock's best films, and one of his most underrated. I believe it certainly exceeds a 'Psycho' or 'The Birds' for technical artistry and brilliance. It is a macabre, tense, darkly humorous product that will leave you in awe for quite some time.<br /><br />Robert Walker creates one of Hitchcock's most memorable villains as the father-hating, mother-fixated (but aren't most of Hitchcock's villains mummy's boys?) Bruno. It is a disturbing, stunning performance that illuminates the whole film. His character is obsessive, apparently homosexual (look at those deliberately effeminate ties and hear how he is described as 'European'), strangely charming and dangerous to cross. Farley Granger certainly knows this as he becomes entangled in Bruno's sordid web after the pair meet on a train. Bruno, knowing some inside information on Guy's affairs, proposes the two 'swap' murders for each other's benefit. Walker will kill Granger's slutty, conniving wife who is inhibiting his marriage to beautiful Anne, whilst Granger will murder Bruno's father, who he so intensely hates. Everyone's happy, right? A win-win, as Bruno asserts? Wrong. Granger forgets about the indecent proposal, but an obsessed Walker doesn't. He commits his murder and is determined to hound Granger until he completes his side of the bargain too. 'Strangers' becomes a riveting, suspenseful game of cat-and-mouse in Hitch's capable hands.<br /><br />Hitchcock was absolutely amazing at creating intriguing minor characters and building scenes. We have the whore Miriam, Granger's estranged wife pregnant to another man. She lasciviously slurps a phallic ice-cream cone whilst openly eating up Bruno with her eyes. Barbara Morton, Anne's sister, is a deceptively sweet yet smart and cunning young girl who comes out with the most crude remarks you'll hear from a bespectacled girl in the pictures in the 50's. Senator Morton is authoritative and self-absorbed. This is one of the most daring films Hitchcock ever made, and it is, typical to a Hitch film, subtly sexual in detail.<br /><br />This fits into the film-noir category with it's focus on murder, lies and deceit and shadowy cinematography. Walker's nut is one for the ages, and Granger makes a convincing troubled protagonist. Roman is perhaps weaker than the other two, and I never believed her relationship with Granger. Still, the overwhelming positives cancel out the slight negatives and it can be safely said that this is one of the BEST American films ever made.<br /><br />Just look at what Hitch does here- the originality, the technical skill. We see the murder of Miriam reflected in her shattered glasses. A game of tennis turns into one of the most thrilling, intense scenes you'll ever see. A innocent fairground turns into a place of murder and foul occurrences. A young boy's balloon is popped callously by Walker (Hitch obviously liked what he saw in 'The Third Man!').Children's delight at riding the carousel turns into screaming, fast-paced terror. Hitch subverts normal, everyday events like no other.<br /><br />The camera-work here is among the best ever seen in a Hitchcock film, and the premise is to-die-for. It's slick, oozes sophistication and devilish charm. The cross-cutting between Walker and Granger's characters is magnificent- Granger's do-or-die tennis match is just as vital as villain Walker's rescue of an incriminating piece of evidence lost down a drain. Hitch again build his villain into a nasty, repulsive yet sympathetic and oddly charming (Did anyone else find him strangely attractive, more so than Granger?) piece of work- we are just as tense as Walker in our hope that he can get the lighter out of the drain. We need him to, anyway. He holds the key to the story.<br /><br />You'll never view an approach from a stranger in the same way again after seeing this film.<br /><br />Amazing.<br /><br />10/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
Recovery is a well-judged and balanced drama of a sensitive subject that doesn't sentimentalise the main characters. David Tennant and Sarah Parish bring to the fore the complex and conflicting emotions of a couple deeply in love struggling to come to terms with the personality changes they both endure and also must make to survive a tragic accident.<br /><br />Tennant, as Alan, brings humour as well as a dangerous lecherousness, as an engineer recovering from a memory loss brought on by a road accident. Alan is not portrayed simply as a victim but as human being with feelings doing the best he can to make sense of his new life. Sarah Parish's Tricia is not a clichéd stand-by-her-man housewife who will do anything to support her husband. She struggles with falling out of love with Alan, as the man she once new and loved is now a completely different person - a stranger to her.<br /><br />Contrary to some opinion, this - in my view - makes perfect Sunday night viewing. Too often, we are shown soft family dramas or detective series, like Heartbeat, which rot and putrefy the brain. Programme commissioners seem to think that the traditional day of rest is also a day when our minds go to sleep. More challenging and thought-provoking drama like Recovery would seriously change the situation.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's a horror story alright. But perhaps not as you know it. The real monsters in this flick are humans. While the monsters, are human and prey. As weird as that may sound I see this as "Monsters Inc" for horror film fans.<br /><br />Sure, the effects are of a std horror film, the monsters are there as in any monster based film, the gore is there as well, there even is a slasher in the shape of Dr Decker (played by David Cronenberg; I see flash of Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane in Batman Begins here - or is it the other way round?). And it is Decker &c who are the bad guys. The monsters want mainly to mind their own business, warding off intrusive humans more or less misguided, wanting to join there society.<br /><br />By the end of the film you actually grow to like the quite little monsters (and the dog) - not perhaps what you had expected from the first few scenes....
| 1 |
positive
|
"Campfire Tales" is basically made up of three spooky stories that a group of friends tell after they get into a car crash in the woods after a concert. The film begins with the classic "Hook" story, and then we're introduced to the group of friends driving home from the concert. They crash their car, put out some flares, and start a fire in a little abandoned chapel, waiting for someone to arrive with help as they warm themselves by the fire. To pass the time, they decide to start telling classic horror stories, about terrorized honeymooners, a girl who falls prey to an Internet predator, and a motorist who takes refuge in a haunted house. As they tell the eerie tales, each story becomes increasingly terrifying, but the real shock that awaits them is yet to come...<br /><br />In my opinion, the last story they tell is probably the scariest and had some genuine, frightening effects. The first story was alright, and the motorhome sequence near the end was a little creepy. The second story built a lot of suspense, more than either of the others did, but it's unoriginal plot was it's downfall. I remember watching this movie a long time ago when I was like eight years old on HBO and the third story scared the crap out of me, although it's not scary to me now. You'll probably recognize some of the cast here, particularly Amy Smart from the opening "hook" interlude story, and Christine Taylor as one of the main actresses in the film. The twist ending was kinda interesting too, I know I didn't see that coming, I thought it was all cleverly pieced together.<br /><br />To sum things up, if you're looking for a horror movie that is worth the while, rent this, you should be happy. It's a great anthology of some classic urban legends, and the whole film was tied together neatly. It is much better than what one would expect. 7/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
One day I thought to myself....what is the worst possible thing that could happen today? I answered my self with a simple," Oh, it already happened. I rented Killjoy/Killjoy 2" on DVD. Well, what is there to say? The budget was not large enough to rent a police uniform, the movie cuts out sex scenes and death scenes. There is one funny line that I can remember, and the acting is far worse than the first one. There seems to be no lighting on the "set" (the woods somewhere) and the killer clown known as Killjoy (who makes Leprechaun look like The Exorcist)is less than spectacular. This time, he is not portrayed by Angel Vargas and is completely changed as a character from a crazy irritating clown to a different kind of crazy irritating clown that says "CHILD" a lot. Somewhere between Freddy Krueger and a blade of grass... lies this version of Killjoy. Somewhere between a pile of dirt and a pile of s---t lies Killjoy 2. It's badness is underrated. This movie does not have any redeeming qualities, except the song at the very end over the credits... which at leas provides some enjoyment. Killjoy 2 is not even really a movie, so much as an exercise in tension. Killjoy 1 is at least good enough to be considered as the worst movie I have ever seen. MINOR SPOILER######### Let me describe one of the supernatural kill scenes. A girl is locked in a wood shed of some sort (maybe an outhouse?) when Killjoy peers in through a hole. He has some small chattering teeth (like the ones you can buy at Spencer's Gifts) and he does something with them (maybe winds them up?!). Then he holds them in his hands and says a terrible line (which can't be written on IMDB). From what I gather of this scene (not from what is shown by the movie) the teeth went into the outhouse and killed the girl in some interesting, but unshown way, and then came back to Killjoy. If I were those teeth I would have run. Run far from Killjoy so he could never ever get his hands on me again. Killjoy 2 is hopefully the last Killjoy we will have to endure. Even as a fan of movies others would say are very bad, I think that this "film" could unify the human race and create world peace if it were promised that this film and anything reminding us of it would be destroyed. I give it 2/10 - simply because the creators succeeded at making the pictures move.
| 0 |
negative
|
This feels very stilted and patronizing to a great extent. The whole plot is extremely forced - especially the "gallant" effort to save the college from ruin, and the moralistic overtone (especially by the leading lady) grates a bit.<br /><br />But there are one or two comic moments that do help relieve the boredom, and the dancing is quite fun (especially for alleged amateurs - ha, ha!)<br /><br />The shop proprietor and the young guy doing spectacular tap dancing were particular highlights. And I liked Peter Hayes impressions of Charles Laughton and Ronald Coleman as well.
| 0 |
negative
|
Forgiving the Franklins is the best film I have seen in years. The acting was fantastic..especially Mari Blackwell who was truly remarkable in the role of Peggy Lester. She brought Peggy to life with incredible skill and made her as real as my own next-door neighbor. I also enjoyed Robertson Dean in the role of the father... he is a true professional, and managed to pull off even the most intimate scenes with a rare grace. The performances by the entire cast were very good, excellent, in fact but Peggy's role as played by Blackwell made the movie. The cinematography was beautifully done throughout and was most impressive. The only criticism I have to offer is a slight weakness of the ending scenes, which were overly drawn out, repetitive and a bit too focused on the wrong character. I would have liked to see it end on a note of forgiveness....but spite of that slight flaw, it is very much worth the watching and applause for all involved in the making of it.
| 1 |
positive
|
Ugly women-of-the-cellblock flick rakes the bottom of the midnight-movie barrel, combining pulpy sleaze with the hoariest of girls-in-the-shower clichés. Linda Blair plays an innocent sent to jail (we learn offhandedly she was involved in running over some guy with her car), facing hard time in the Big House with some of the nastiest characters this side of a Russ Meyer pic. Blair is continually pawed at, punched, raped, humiliated and harassed. The dialogue is four-letter-word disgusting throughout, and the flick offers no let-up from its barrage of violence and stupidity. Still, some viewers see this as a camp classic, though perhaps its tongue isn't far enough in cheek. * from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
"Maximum Risk" is a step sideways for Van Damme and just more of the uninspired B-movie action stuff we've come to expect from films featuring the macho Belgian martial artist. The flick has gaping plots holes, goofs galore, a messy conglomerated plot, and a gorgeous Henstridge who spends most of her time looking like she's waiting for a cue. "Maximum Risk" doesn't distinguish itself in any way and will likely not have much appeal beyond the usual young male audiences. (C-)
| 0 |
negative
|
The only Riddle in this film was how it ever got made. the British film Industry needs to make films people actually want to watch and not look to get Taxpayers money (a'la BBC) to keep Luvvies in their life style they have been accustomed to, with doing nothing for it.<br /><br />the Film was every thing wrong with British Films it relied on stereotypes, it had to be about a London were people were either Posh and corrupt, Gangsters, Luvvies or gawd blimey jellied eel types, the story script was just pathetically weak, to the extent when the Police man pulled out his phone and the ring tone was the "Sweeney " theme I just expected it. The whole film was a happy shopper sweeney / Minder rip off.<br /><br />the priceless manuscript I noted got left behind and lost on a few occasions and is something even I with my limited street wiseness wouldn't carry around in my breast pocket every where, to the beach and fights etc Saying that Vinnie Jones is likable which is about the only thing in the film, poor bloke.<br /><br />When Derek Jacobi walked into the water at the end because he was Dickens, oh my god, what a load of crap, and I am being positive here
| 0 |
negative
|
Larisa Shepitko's THE ASCENT (1976) is an extraordinary, gruelling account of the partisans' fight against the Nazis in German-occupied Belorussia, The Ascent reflects the Russian obsession with the horrors of the Great Patriotic War, but unusually is both steeped in religious symbolism and ready to acknowledge the existence of the less than great Russian collaborator. The true battle is not with the Nazis, who hover in the background as mere extras, but between the Russian Nazi investigator and Sotnikov, the captured partisan who finds the spiritual strength to go to his death unbeaten. With its many references to the Crucifixion, the story takes on heroic proportions glorifying the sufferings of the martyr and his influence on future generations. A remarkable piece of work.
| 1 |
positive
|
Schieder delivers a semi-believable part as the President of the United States with politically correct Maria Conchita Alonzo as the female Vice President. The movie just stinks. with so many plot holes its a wonder they got it to stick to the film it was shot on. Relegated to late night HBO time schedules, this film is not worth seeing at all. 10 minutes into it, you are asking yourself why it was written. 40 minutes into it, you are wondering why you are watching it. Save the effort and watch a re-run of Hee Haw or something. Anything is better than this clunker.
| 0 |
negative
|
Why couldn't the end of the movie have been Sean Connery's men fighting the French instead of the Germans. Ever since the French had occupied Algeria in 1830, the tribes from Morocco and those of Algeria were making raids on the French military and civilian settlements. This movie could have been a continuous of that historical aspect where the French had seize the Rasuadli so his followers would not be raiding Algeria, and then his followers would have attacked the French to free him.<br /><br />The movie is still stereotypical of shootouts between the Germans and the Americans. When the Americans shoot the Germans, their guns (even the pistols) make loud noises, create large bloody bullet wounds, and their enemies are screaming after being shot. When Germans shoot at the Americans, their guns don't make large sounds, do not create bloody wounds, and their enemies make little or no sound after being shot.<br /><br />In real life, the American Krag rifle was the worst rifle America had ever produce until the early version of the M-16 came along. The Krag was hard to maintain, not reliable, and the rifle bolt was always jamming. The German Mauser was one of the world's finest rifles. We were so impress by it during Spanish American war, that we made a copy of it and call it the Springfield rifle.<br /><br />Finally, the people of Morocco must had a word for artillery since the French were using them in their raids against Morocco. I didn't like it when they made the Rasuldai feel stupid that there was no word for artillery in the Moorican vocabulary. Instead, the Rasuadli stated that the Europeans had guns on wheels that make the ground shake.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am salivating for the sequels. I needed something to keep me from going insane with tension, anxiety (what if it isn't as good?!), and constant lack of information. I needed something to calm me a little, something to pass the time, other than, of course, The Matrix. This was just the thing.<br /><br /> I found it informative (like the part about Keanu's neck...) and some of it was funny. I pitied Carrie-Anne soooo much when she said there was only one bathroom and all those guys. I found only one problem with it. Given that 95% of the people there were as a matter of fact male, they just kinda let their mouths run wild, and there was language in it. It's not near as bad as The Shawshank Redemption's cussing runs, but that one scene were Keanu is describing a bad day, plug your ears if you are little. ><br /><br />It was entertaining and was just what I needed. It is what all Matrix fans who are going nuts need to keep them quiet. They mention a tiny bit about the sequels, and someone almost gives something away, but he catches himself in time (shoot!). It gives you almost no spoilers, but it is great to have if you are a Matrix Head like me.<br /><br /> There is no spoon.
| 1 |
positive
|
I like the show, but come-on writers, get some action in it! Quit dragging it on and on. You have a great concept and it could be a whole lot more. Miles (Jenkins) is great and performs as a kid that age should act in the situation he finds himself in. Hey, get creative with the creatures, they may have telepathic capabilities or other out-worldly powers. The kid actors in the series are very good and convincing. The parents of Miles do appear to be a little too out-of-sense as to what is going on, but develop this, come on! you have a great seed here and there can be a whole new twist to next season with a lot of new characters and creatures and all kinds of neat sci-fi stuff. If they could make a series on a witch, then you should be able to make one on these creatures and kids.
| 1 |
positive
|
Luc Besson's first work is also his first foray in science fiction, a genre to which he will return fourteen years later with "the Fifth Element" (1997). Even if this film was strongly influenced by Hollywood cinema, it is still highly enjoyable. Back in 1983, "le Dernier Combat" reveals Besson's own approach of science fiction. He takes back a threadbare topic and his efforts are discernible to make a stylish work. Shot in widescreen and black and white, a disaster has destroyed virtually all the population from earth and we will never know what was this disaster and why men can't talk any more. Some barbarian hordes were formed. In parallel, a man (Pierre Jolivet) lives on his own and arrives in an unrecognizable Paris where he is received by a doctor (Jean Bouise).<br /><br />There are no words in Besson's work. The characters' actions and the progression of the events go through looks and gestures. Although the starting point and the backdrop are unnerving, the film has never the look of a despondent one. It seems that the man and the doctor try to reproduce gestures and actions linked to mankind before the disaster. The film opens with the man having sex with an inflatable doll. Later, the doctor tries to make him speak through a machine and he is a painter in his spare time. It's all the more intriguing as these paintings seem to come from the prehistoric times. Following this reasoning, one could argue that the bearded giant (Jean Reno) embodies evil and a threat to the efforts deployed by the man and the doctor to regain what finally made a human being. Ditto for the gang of baddies at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />The pessimistic whiff that such a film could convey isn't really at the fore and gives way to a glimmer of hope. Personally, the film could have gained with no music at all, except the one the man can hear with his cassette recorder. Luc Besson was to make better and still entrancing films like this one, he also boosted Pierre Jolivet's career as a director who will leave a patchy work behind him in the future: "Force Majeure" (1989), "Simple Mortel" (1991), "ma Petite Entreprise" (1999) or "Filles Uniques" (2003).
| 1 |
positive
|
Barbara Stanwyck probably didn't think of it, but it is a relief to see her in a more becoming dark hairstyle (if it wasn't a wig) than the one she had to wear in "Double Indemnity" the year before. That film, while the premiere "film noir" and an all-around great film, gave her a great role, but oh, that hair. Here, she is more chic and certainly no femme fatal, but she is certainly a 40's woman. She has gotten used to life without men since most of them are off at war, and as a successful Martha Stewart like columnist, she writes a homey column in which she describes her country home as the camera pans over what it really is. We meet her boss, Sydney Greenstreet, who has no idea that she is living a lie, and when he pushes his way in for a Christmas away at her supposed Connecticut home, she has to come up with a husband (Reginald Gardiner) and baby before we can say "Jingle Bells". Hungarian chef S.Z. Sakall steps in to help and ends up in a cutsey pie one-on-one with Irish Una O'Connor. "It's not Goulash, It's Irish Stew". Sakall simply takes the paprika, pours most of it in, and says, "Now it's goulash", totally changing what she has prepared for lunch. Then, when it comes to the flapjacks, he flips and she scoops. For years, a few friends of mine and I will use that line every time pancakes come up in a conversation. "I don't flip. I scoop!". She won't even flip just one for Greenstreet, saying "I've never flipped in me life." O'Connor can get on the nerves when she screeches over and over in some films, but here, she is delightfully lovable, and her pairing with Sakall is very charming.<br /><br />It is obvious in the romance department that Reginald Gardiner is not Barbara Stanwyck's cup of tea, especially when she meets handsome Dennis Morgan, who is a bit dimwitted when bathing the baby, which eats soap, causing Stanwyck to get a bit alarmed. He should suspect something instantly, but doesn't. But it doesn't matter. The film is so charming with the country setting filled with snow, an abundance of rocking chairs, and a dog running towards them as the sleigh comes up. Living in New York City after 25 years in Los Angeles after growing up in a small town on the western side of New York State made me miss this kind of Christmas. While Central Park is beautiful after a first snow and the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center is exsquisit too, there is something about looking out at a snow-covered field of trees, and catch an occasional glimpse of deer, rabbits, or other wild life.<br /><br />This is a great holiday film that can also bring on the Christmas spirit out of season, and makes a great pairing with another Barbara Stanwyck country Christmas film, "Remember the Night", an underrated gem. Add on the big city Christmas of "Meet John Doe", and you've found perhaps one of the busiest stars of holiday films around.
| 1 |
positive
|
I wanted to dog this movie, but somehow I can't find it in myself to do that.<br /><br />Exhibiting a duality of fighting styles, it's Li vs. Li in a somewhat decent battle for supremacy.<br /><br />This is one of those movies where the story carries the performances. Li's acting is extremely amateurish, hesitant, and stiff for most of this movie...right up to the very end. At first I tricked myself into believing he was just doing that for one of his two characters. You know, to show a difference in personalities. But it appeared to be inexperience or a lack of talent. It did get a bit better, more relaxed, toward the end. But that wasn't enough to save his performance. Jet Li's acting does improve as his career moves forward. I don't hate his acting. I just hated him in this.<br /><br />I also have to say that the effects were very "B" class effects. What effects there are.<br /><br />The story itself had great potential. It was uniquely creative, daring, and fresh. Unfortunately, either the budget was not ample enough to accommodate better lighting, effects, film quality, and some acting lessons, or the director just did not care enough to bother with these little details. He also did not bother with the SCIENCE in the science-fiction. A fact which was a great detractor to this film.<br /><br />The fight sequences were a bit one sided, as he seemed to give more to one character and little to the other. But all in all the story line made for a very enjoyable attempt.<br /><br />As enjoyable as this was, I couldn't help but think, all the way through, that this was just one of those movies that you can't help but watch it for what it SHOULD'VE been, rather than what it is.<br /><br />It rates a 6.0/10 on the "B" scale.<br /><br />That's a 4.2/10 (on the "A" scale) for having a good plot, from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
| 0 |
negative
|
This could have been a really good movie if someone would just have known how to finish the film.<br /><br />The story was going along just fine and heading towards that point in every movie like this where the "gray" characters turn "good" and the "bad" guys get their just desserts and *boom* ... it's like they ran out of script and the cast just started to make things up.<br /><br />Which wouldn't have been so bad ... if the cast had just continued with the character development they had already put in place. But such is not the case and the movie soon becomes a goofy mess.<br /><br />My advice is to watch this movie up to about the last 30 minutes ... and then shut it off. At this point, imagine how you think the next 30 minutes will look based on what you have seen so far.<br /><br />Believe me, the ending you come up with will look far better than how this film actually ends. Trust me on this.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of my favorite films for many reasons. To begin, there are standout performances from lovely Debra Paget as a princess/dancing girl, from Michael Rennie as the villain, handsome young Jeffrey Hunter investigating crime in her city/state and others. The film is an unusually colorful adventure, and we even see the princess rehearsing the dance she later performs (for once). She manages to skewer Hunter before she learns he is on her side; also the photography, the costumes by Travilla, Lionel Newman's music and the film's style are unusually fine. Add to this rousing action, intelligent characterization and fine direction by veteran Harmon Jones of a Gerald Drayson Adams' script set in 1249 AD, and you have the ingredients of an enjoyable Grecianized Near-Eastern. But there is much to praise about the unusual and well--developed storyline here, as there is much more to praise other than the film's swift pace, well-managed physical action sequences and superior technical aspects. Classically-trained actors such as Michael Ansara, Edgar Barrier, Wally Cassell, Jack Elam and Dona Drake are not commonly found in one "B" film together; nor are there fascinating sets, a variety of locales and a mystery of the quality that is supplied here. One way of assessing a film is, "If I were guaranteed to live through the experience, would I choose to undergo these events and perform these actions?" Since my answer is a resounding "yes" in this case, this film remains one of my choices as a favorite and very-underrated cinematic work. Could it be that US critics' all-too-frequent disdain for females as warriors and thinkers that as in so many other cases has caused closed minds to misprize this estimable film's obvious anti-tyranny and pro-entertainment qualities?
| 1 |
positive
|
Yikes.<br /><br />I've seen quite a few bad movies in my days, a lot of them in the company of Mike, Tom, Crow and the others from MST3k. So was the case with this one as well and even though I found the movie in itself quite funny, it wouldn't have been nearly as fun without the MST3k commentary.<br /><br />The movie is a prime example of really bad movies coming out of Europe during the eighties. Horrible music, horrible acting, horrible plot (what little there is), horrible dialogue and really, really, REALLY, horrible editing. Cripes.<br /><br />This might be called a turkey if it weren't for the fact that it's not unique in any way whatsoever. It's pretty much the same kind of film that almost every italian hack of a director cranked out.<br /><br />So, try and get the MST3k version. It's a pretty fun episode with Mike and gang in quite good form.
| 0 |
negative
|
I find it almost touching how Star Trek fans try desperately to like this film in spite of its unbelievable number of flaws.<br /><br />To begin with, none of the familiar characters are really in character so to speak. Scotty is depicted as a bumbling tinkerer instead of the competent engineer he was in the original series. Uhura...Gods, I can't even think about what they did to her character. All of her dialog was painful to listen to. McCoy seemed like a neurotic stepfather to Kirk instead of his trusted friend. Spock...well, let's just say that Leonard Nimoy was terribly wasted. He was given bad dialog ("I do not believe you have grasped the gravity of your situation Captain." Gravity, get it? Get it?) and made almost into a buffoon. Kirk...oh man, don't get me started. William Shatner is a hammy actor to begin with, so to allow him to direct really is to invite disaster which is what we got.<br /><br />The plot is beyond ridiculous. Giving Spock a brother is a pretty desperate story line and unnecessarily soap operaish. But hey, let's go with it. The search for God. Again, a weak plot basis. You don't think so? OK, let's go with that too. So assuming that the two aforementioned plot elements are sound, what's wrong with the script? Well, for one thing, it recycles way too much. The Enterprise, for example, is yet again, not working properly. Are we to assume that Starfleet would send a grossly malfunctioning ship with a skeleton crew into a potentially dangerous situation just because they want James Kirk to handle the situation? If that's the case, then why not put him on a better ship as an adviser? Adding to that...the crew is grossly incompetent. Scotty has the ship in pieces (and apparently is cloddish enough to bump his head knocking himself into unconsciousness WHILE there are hostiles on board!), no one seem to notice the Klingon ship decloaking at a crucial moment (despite the fact that the sensors are clearly showing the ship in weapons range) and the crew all seem way too familiar with each other. In other words, there is no sense of discipline. If this is the flagship of Starfleet, then it's a wonder that the Klingons hadn't already overthrown the Federation.<br /><br />As to the personal struggles with pain, it was crap. Lawrence Luckenbill is a competent actor, but even he couldn't save this turkey. In short no one could. Of all the people involved, I imagine Leonard Nimoy is the most embarrassed by it. I hope he is, anyway.<br /><br />Thank god the original cast didn't bow out on this cloddish opus.
| 0 |
negative
|
Usually I have a lot of luck with these small scale movies. I looked at the cast. Leary, Lovitz, Delpy, Wuhrer, Estevez. How bad could it be? Unfortunately the answer was...pretty bad. I have a hard time remembering a movie that had such poor execution of a plot that had potential.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw this film at the 2004 Toronto International Film Festival. Since I work in the wine business, I had been quite eager to see this documentary, and I wasn't disappointed. Reportedly drawn from over 500 hours of footage, the good news is that Nossiter will be releasing not only a theatrical cut, but a ten-part, ten hour series of the film on DVD by next Christmas (ThinkFilm is distributing it). The bad news is that it's still a bit of an unwieldy beast. When it was shown in Cannes, it was close to three hours long. For Toronto, he's cut about half an hour but it still clocked in at 135 minutes. Now, for me, that's fine. I love wine and I love hearing about the controversies raging in my business. But not everyone wants that much.<br /><br />Nossiter flits around the globe, from Brazil to France to California to Italy to Argentina, talking to wine makers and PR people and consultants and critics about the state of the wine world. The theme that emerges is that globalization and the undue influence of wine critic Robert Parker are forcing a kind of sameness on wine. Small local producers are either being bought up by larger conglomerates (American as well as local), or are being pressured by market forces to change their wines to suit the palate of Mr. Parker, who dictates taste to most of the American (and world) markets.<br /><br />It's a complicated subject, and I can understand why Nossiter wants to let his subjects talk. There is Robert Mondavi, patriarch of the Napa wine industry, and his sons Tim and Michael, whose efforts to buy land in Languedoc faced opposition from local vignerons and government officials. There is Aimé Guibert, founder and wine maker of Daumas Gassac, iconoclastic opponent of Mondavi's plans and crusader for wines that express local terror. There is Robert Parker himself, expressing some discomfort with his influence while refusing to stop writing about the wines that he favours. There is "flying wine maker" Michel Rolland, consultant for dozens of wineries all over the world, advising them how to make Parker- friendly wines. There are many many more fascinating personalities in this documentary.<br /><br />If you are a wine lover, you will want to seek out the ten-part series as well as the theatrical version of this film. But even if you're not into wine, the film is an interesting look at how the forces of globalization are changing many of the world's oldest and most established traditions. The effects on local cultures and economies cannot be ignored.<br /><br />(8/10)
| 1 |
positive
|
Soon after this movie was released,Salman Khan was handed over a 6 Year Imprisonment.(Read further to know why am i mentioning this.)<br /><br />And i heaved a sigh of relief.Not that i was happy that he got jail for something which because he was a celeb but i was happy cus this meant No more Salman Khan movies,no more his histrionics and no more over hyped Acting(read Overacting).<br /><br />This movie made no sense whatsoever. <br /><br />The scene where the kid belonging to one of the family makes a rocket which was voice activated .According to the movie script it would chase anyone.But ultimately it finds only Salman Khan Bare Chested. Well this is what happened.<br /><br />The Rocked gets activated in another foolish way and you have to have an IQ of .001 to believe that. Then it chases Salman Khan ,who was on his water scooter and the chase continues unless he is done with all the possible stunts he could show to foolish audience. (In my regard all those people who have given this movie 5 and above ,unless they are paid to do that.)<br /><br />Another of breath taking ,unbelievable scene was at the end when all the arrangements about the marriage is made and Salman Khan with Govinda in Disguise comes and stall the marriage by another of those highly unwanted songs .Later on even though everything is done and ready a mere confession of govinda and Katrina Kaif to katrina's Father and Bingo . Everything is fine and Govinda marries Kartina....<br /><br />This made me wonder if convincing was so easy why did not they do that and tortured us for so many hours and wasted my Money.<br /><br />This movie is must avoid and don't even think it had any scene worth watching . The plot is way too disconnected with characters popping from no where and ultimately vanishing..for ex Choota don...What a waste of characters.<br /><br />After this movie i took a pledge that i would not watch Salman khan Movies for the rest of my life unless it wins an Oskar...(hahahah...which means i would never watch)
| 0 |
negative
|
a compact crime drama with a good amount of action. The unique NYC location shots adds to this tough little film.Technically well done with good direction and acting. Needless to say,the wild car chase that seems to begin in downtown, extends through the upper west side, Washington Heights, across the George Washington Bridge and into NJ has to be one of the best ever on film.All around a fine flick that for me gets better with time.8 out of 10...easy
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this on the shelves at the rental place and I have rented everything else so I said why not. Why not is because it's one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It looks like it was shot with home camcorder. I guess thats all the budget would allow. There was less boobs in it than I thought there would be. Some people made it out to be soft porn with a few killings. The funniest part of the whole movie to me is in the extra stuff. There is a spot with deleted scenes. Well there is only one but it is the dumbest and I think it may have brought the rest of the movie down. The girls get in a hot tub and find some chocolate syrup in the bathroom. Yes it ends up all over them. Great stuff !!! This movie is very very bad. Don't bother.
| 0 |
negative
|
There are a few scripts like this one floating around Hollywood; this one is not even close to the best--just the first. This is all production value, no substance, but the Disney name probably will help it. A good idea, a wasted opportunity.
| 0 |
negative
|
A great story, although one we are certainly familiar with. Meryl Streep proves that she is truly the best actress in film today. Very entertaining, and just what I expected. Don't go see this film unless you are prepared to be used and manipulated emotionally, but if you have that expectation, then you will enjoy the ride.....
| 1 |
positive
|
Typically Spanish production - slow-moving, but with great sensuousness and sexuality oozing from the lead actress Paz Vega. (Watch her in "Spanglish"). Great sets, lots of colour - you get to see Cordoba, Seville, Spanish mountains and countryside. The plot tends to meander here and there, but if you follow closely (I managed to, even though the film is in Spanish), you'll get the gist of it.<br /><br />It's about how one very highly sensual young Gypsy woman, Carmen, uses her feminine wiles to seduce men to do her bidding. Carmen is being taken to prison after attacking a fellow cigarera at the cigar factory where she works. She persuades Jose, the soldier in charge of taking her to prison, to let her escape. Jose succumbs to her charms because she speaks Basque (he is Navarrese and speaks the same language). Jose is punished by 1 month in jail and demoted to foot soldier. He later meets Carmen at a party and they end up becoming lovers. But Carmen refuses to commit to him, and continues her lascivious and flirty lifestyle. In a jealous rage, Jose kills a fellow soldier who has been with Carmen. They then have to leave town. Life on the run turns Jose into a bandit. Carmen, meanwhile, remains the same, a wildly promiscuous woman. In the end, Jose loses his mind and ends up killing Carmen.<br /><br />The story is told by Jose in prison, awaiting to be executed. The person he tells the story to is Prospero Merrime, a French writer and anthropologist, whose fancy watch (it plays Beethoven's Fur Elise) was stolen by either Carmen or Jose.<br /><br />Worth watching for the sets and for the delectable Paz Vega.
| 1 |
positive
|
This thing takes the horny teenager genre, very poorly respected to begin with, and completely flushes it down the toilet. The only people I would even consider recommending it to are teenage girls, for a "revealing" scene in a boys' locker room. And in the end I wouldn't make such a recommendation. To do so would be to contribute to the delinquency of a juvenile. An absolute piece of garbage with utterly no redeeming qualities.
| 0 |
negative
|
Now, lissen you guys, I LOVED THIS FILM, though not quite as much as FAREWELL TO THE KING, another beloved John Milius epic. It was fun, a lot more than if it were based on a Tennessee Williams drama. It's a great yarn, with a whiff of political correctness. I love this film for its beautiful photography, its humor and its attenuated criticism of the Bad Guys (Berbers) and the REAL Bad Guys, the spear- carriers for the acquisitive 'civilized' world, with their repeating rifles, artillery and large gunboats out there in the harbor. <br /><br />The standout scene is the Berber encampment with blue-gray smoke from the cooking fires rising into the chill desert air. It is visually eloquent, highly evocative.<br /><br />Set in 1904 Morocco, WIND features a helpless American woman (Candace Bergen) who is taken hostage by a dashing, albeit immodest, Berber bandit (Sean Connery-the very model ofa Scottish Muslim nomad). The exciting story is based on a few historical facts. The photography is Milius beautiful, punctuated by Jerry Goldsmith's outstanding score.<br /><br />Mrs Pedicaris and the Raisuli conduct protracted foreplay and bounce around in the desert between oases. Even though the Raisuli proudly traces his lineage back to the apes, he is a perfect gentleman - he even lets her keep her head after she beats him at chess! A Marine detachment storms the Bashaw's palace, putting out the fires of competing hegemonies with gasoline. Don't mess with the Corps, Abdul. <br /><br />There are many entertaining stereotypes:<br /><br />Despicable Sultan - resembles a dissipated ferret. Definitely not a Liberal.<br /><br />Cruel German Officer - a large, bellicose Dachshund sporting a monocle. He gallantly chooses to fight the Raisuli with swords instead of gunning him down in the manner of Indiana Jones. Noblesse oblige, by way of Von Clausewitz?<br /><br />Dashing Marine Officer - kicks the crap out of the Bashaw of Tangier's army and storms his palace while chewing tobacco. His speech is mildly aphasic. The Bashaw begged him not to breathe on him.<br /><br />The Berbers - a horde of groveling sycophants led by a charming megalomaniac. None of them take baths, except perhaps in camel urine.<br /><br />President Teddy Roosevelt is undeservedly portrayed as vacuous and preoccupied with guns, toys and stuffed grizzly bears.<br /><br />Beautiful American widow - gives the men a lesson in courage, as do her two children. She evidently has a huge supply of clean, starched clothes and rarely has a hair out of place. <br /><br />The Raisuli sends Teddy Roosevelt a message, thanking him for the gift of a Remington repeating rifle, declaring,<br /><br />"MEESTER ROOSEVELT, YOU ARE THE LION AND AIEE AM THE BREAKING WIND."<br /><br />How true.<br /><br />Please do not take my acerbic remarks to mean that I did not like the film. I had almost as much fun writing this as watching da Pitcher.
| 1 |
positive
|
A feminist tract in which if you the viewer believe that: i) wild animals are seldom tamed by singing but instead attack, kill and eat (the line that grizzlies never attack unless provoked was a hoot - unless "provoked" means that it sees flesh); ii) homosexuality is both immoral per se -- and its acceptance almost always associated throughout history with signs of a society's dissolution and decay iii) few women are bisexual (in this one, virtually every woman is presented as having no preference for men or women) iv) divorce is far worse than infidelity v) land is there for human beings to use, develop and enjoy vi) it is as incumbent upon a mother of an adult son to keep in touch as it is upon the son vii) a mother raising her son alone is an unfortunate and real tragedy for the child viii) the idolization of a parent for worthwhile ideals is a good and healthy thing ix) adults continue to bear a responsibility for their sexual behavior, no matter their age, and the duty to engage in this most intimate and giving of acts only within the most intimate and openly sacrificial of relationships: marriage -- believe me, you are NOT going to like this film! Essentially it's a Howard Stern sort of fellow who is brought down by a Jane Fonda sort of woman (think The Electric Horseman). It's ugly stuff because the values, the ideals, of the screenplay are all so harmful.<br /><br />I share the other objections about the odd things in the writing: a) why would this man lose every girlfriend he has -- because he refuses to reveal that his mother's death and funeral caused him to be unable to keep dates with them? It's a mystery why he just keeps saying "it was personal" when faced with angry and disappointed women. HUH? <br /><br />b) there's an enormous inconsistency (i.e., the screenwriter wants to have it both ways) by telling us that the protagonist's mother loved the father with everything she had - and then later we're told that there was only one great love in her life - her lesbian girlfriend.<br /><br />c) the underlying legal assumptions are nonsense. We're never told that the executor has any right to live at the property - merely that she shall determine the timing of the sole heir's title and right to occupy the property. Yet somehow the film makes it appear that the executor is the rightful occupant - which is crazy. (Try to think of any executor of any will who uses the decedent's property before the will's bequests are fulfilled - it doesn't happen).<br /><br />d) the assumption throughout this film is that women are equally drawn to men and women - it's just absurd. Thus, we're told: i) that Penelope Ann Miller's character is dating other men near the end of the film - after having been with the decedent for five years - and before that in a fulfilling relationship with the protagonist, ii) that the protagonist's housekeeper after being devoted throughout her adult life to her kind husband - is now dating another woman iii) that one girlfriend upset with the protagonist would now therefore "like to try a woman".<br /><br />iv) that a male transsexual is eager to date the protagonist v) that Mary Kay Place's character naturally looked at other women in college ("and they looked back" she says with an idiotic triumphal flip of the head).<br /><br />This is all just ridiculous.<br /><br />I agree with others about the sound of the DVD (I had to keep it at maximum volume and repeatedly rewind to understand names, phrases).<br /><br />This is a film by someone who really despises traditional heroics by any man, hates the notion that a man is needed to raise a child, loathes the idea that there is any necessary connection between marriage and sex. The film is out to preach - and that kind of propaganda of false messages doesn't sit well.
| 0 |
negative
|
Okay. Here's the thing. I've read through the comments of other viewers --- some trashing the film and some saying it's the funniest, darkest, blackest comedy ever made. Whiffs of Tarantino, etc. Well, not exactly. But, guess what? It's still an enjoyable and, ultimately, funny film. Not brilliant, not trash. Liv Tyler gives a great performance and you absolutely cannot take your eyes off her. She's a woman with very strong decorating ideas...Matt Dillon, a greatly underrated and under-used actor, is wonderful, as ever. He always manages to stride that delicate line between scruff and soul, and he pulls off the comedy beautifully. Ditto John Goodman (though the religious overtones, probably funny in the script, really don't work). Paul Reiser is very good --- definitely better than he was on TV.<br /><br />The usually unbearable Michael Douglas is actually great in this role. As for his coif, well, see the film. Between this and "Wonder Boys," you're actually reminded of the fact that Douglas can act. The movie will make you laugh in parts. Okay, not exactly belly-laughing, but definitely in the I'm-amused-I'm-very-amused category. If you're renting this expecting to see another "Pulp Fiction," forget it. But if want something kinda hip and kinda fun, this is a damned good choice.
| 1 |
positive
|
First, I'm sorry for my English. Second, the true story of this episode: 39 soldiers, operation "Magistral'". 6 soldiers were killed. Hundreds of insurgents were killed too. Within 10 years the Soviet Army has lost less than 15 thousand person and killed over 900000 insurgents and civilians. There is no insurgents without permanent help of USA The veteran of war: "Traditions. There are no traditions in this film. There is no military oath, there is no first jump, no farewell to the Fighting Banner. There is no delivery of awards and medals. There is nothing sacred. There is only a hatred to Soviet army. Being in this area on investigation, we have revealed start-up jet shells by insurgents . An exact place could not define. So gunners have asked to give easier square. Also have covered it. Through pair minutes. Here it was the reality of fights. So there was no feeling "oblivion". These feelings have appeared then. Already on other war and in other state (Chechnya). Others were children. More kindly. More humanly. And "prapors" were as fathers. Well and culmination fight - full orgy. Shooting in anywhere. Mental attacks young Ben-Ladens, not killed both not broken through. And full absence of mutual aid. That there was a main thing on this war. Even Americans accused us of inadequate application of force against insurgents. And here it is direct on the contrary. In the summer 1981 I about myself have firmly solved, that personally should fill up a minimum 50 insurgents. As a result accepted "plan" has been under-fulfilled, and on a demobilization I departed strongly contused and malicious as fig. After returning the first months there was a feeling of that I not was at war up to the end, not business there have completed all how follow. There was any vague, but an oppressive sensation of discontent with itself and caustic irritation. Such here night ideas, can be and out of place at all. Officers really in film are not present absolutely. In occasion of that, what is the time they spent with staff. On fighting-is constant. New Year on fighting. From where did they take beds? In mountains? And so on..."<br /><br />If you want a fairy tale about war, "9 rota" and "Shtrafbat" is for you. If you want truth, you must see "Come and see" or "Batallions Ask for Fire".
| 0 |
negative
|
i have just seen the movie "15 park avenue" which was the first night presentation movie in the asia society human rights film festival in new york.i was really moved by the subject matter of this movie and also the excellent portrayal of "mithi" by the lead actor konkona sen sharma.i have just one word for everyone who is reading this comment,run to get a copy of this gem and watch it.my sincere thanks to director aparna sen who has done a excellent job again.movie like this comes on once in a blue moon and i was lucky enough to see this movie on screen and also took part in a after movie discussion/question and answer session with konkona sen sharma.in a simple word "a wonderful experience.
| 1 |
positive
|
The first few minutes showing the cold and crusty the Willis character were pretty enjoyable, especially with Jean Smart, but it really tanked after that. This is just hackneyed big man and little irritating kid stuff from way back with no innovation at all. I know that the casting probably picked this kid to show that Willis was just as irritating in his younger self, but I found this kid ESPECIALLY irritating and whinney.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is by far the worst Hemingway adaptation ever. Rock Hudson was badly miscast and entirely unbelievable as a hard-bitten soldier/adventurer drawn to war. Jennifer Jones was far too old for her part and Vittorio de Sica seemed to think he was acting in some other movie altogether. They tried to make a large-scale epic out of a low-key romantic novel and the result is terrible. As if that were not enough the whole thing is so slow, overlong and dated that it is practically unwatchable. Rock must have kicked himself for turning down "Sayonara" and "Ben Hur" in order to make this ghastly crap.<br /><br />0/10. To be avoided.
| 0 |
negative
|
Supposedly, a movie about a magazine sending journalists to investigate reports of UFOs with one being more or less tolerant or agnostic about the whole affair and the other an Aussie, a hardened skeptic who laughs at the UFO nonsense. It's all a crock, some kind of money making racket.<br /><br />Turns out this movie is actually a deceit, and a trap to actually promulgate Christian teachings and the Christian explanation of UFOs, one I've heard before. This is an ad hoc explanation that is itself not at all biblical but invented by certain modern theologians who can fit anything and everything into their mythology. The paranormal? It's real, just demonic, unless it takes place in a Christian context, then of course, it is of God. Simple, if it isn't of God, it's the of the Devil, stupid! So I suppose since Beethoven's 9th symphony wasn't inspired by God, it must have been written under demonic influence. Or so would the logic lead ad absurdum.<br /><br />We are informed that since the Bible does not tell of life on other planets in the Universe, therefore there is none (a version of the Ad Ignorantium fallacy) and that God created the Universe so huge, so grand to show us his almighty power. I think of Carl Sagan's remark that if God created such a huge Universe and stuck life only on Earth it'd have been a tremendous waste of space.<br /><br />So what are UFOs? They are Demonic activity and concern the soon to be earthshaking Christian event, the rupture...I mean Rapture. Before the tribulation, the true Christians will disappear from the face of the earth en masse causing mass panic, confusion, car and plane crashes...whatever. Therefore Satan knowing this is sending his demons to basically create an illusion of alien spacecraft and alien abduction which can then be used to explain away this otherwise inexplicable event. All part of Satan's plan which will of course keep people from looking to God or Jesus and fall for the lies of the AntiChrist.<br /><br />This ad hoc explanation also typifies theological mishmash by explaining away one mystery with another, in opposition to the scientific method of explaining the unknown, the strange, and the mysterious in as much as possible, first by the known, if not solely by the known.<br /><br />It's like jumping straight to an alien abduction whenever a child is missing and unaccounted for. I think I'd look first at more mundane explanations like the child has run away, gotten lost, or been kidnapped for ransom or abducted by a predatory pedophile before invoking aliens, or the supernatural or Satan or some such.<br /><br />This kind of deceit or trap on the part of fundamentalists is nothing new, as young people are often lured to Free Rock Concerts, that may start out with something innocuous then suddenly switch to overt Christian music, followed by a sermon and an altar call. This kind of blatant deception one might think would be more Satan's ballgame. But maybe because the Christian faith is soon to be in its death throes, these guys feel that anything goes, any deception or trickery or scare tactics are acceptable to try to keep the faith alive, which is facing serious opposition from both secularists as well as competing faiths like Islam, the world's fastest growing religion which may well replace Christianity, as Islam is far more cohesive and unified, and logically more tenable than Christian fundamentalism. Although this should offer little advantage to mankind, as it would be replacing one intolerant thought system with another.<br /><br />And of course the movie ends more or less with a variant of Pascal's wager. The atheistic Aussie who is skeptical about just about everything is told. Well, if you are right about there being no afterlife and death is nothing but rotting in the grave, no worry...but what if you're wrong?<br /><br />Basically, statements implying that reality is going to conform to nothing but an atheistic viewpoint or Christian fantasy, is a false dilemma or Black and White fallacy. Even if the atheists are wrong would not necessarily make Christianity correct by default, nor if Christianity turns out to be full of holes in its theology, that the materialistic atheists are therefore correct by default.<br /><br />For all we know, Native American spirituality might turn out to be the best description of ultimate reality and we might all of use have wished we treated the Earth and its creatures a wee bit better.<br /><br />This movie should be stamped right on the box: Caution: Contains religious Propaganda and not meant for informative or entertainment purposes.
| 0 |
negative
|
Komodo vs. Cobra starts as 'One Planet' environmentalist Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish) & his girlfriend Carrie (Renee Talbert) hire Captain Michael Stoddard (executive producer Michael Paré) to take them to an island in the South Pacific, at first Stoddard is reluctant since the island is a top secret military research base but soon changes his mind when a load of cash is offered. Along with TV news reporter Sandra Crescent (Jeri Manthey) they set sail for the island & once ashore find out that the military have been funding illegal DNA genetic experiments which have resulted in huge Komodo Dragon's & King Cobra's that have eaten almost every other living thing there & Stoddard & co are next on the menu...<br /><br />Co-written & directed by the ever awful Jim Wynorski under his Jay Andrews pseudonym this is just plain awful, this is just plain hard to sit through & is even worse than the usual rubbish 'Creature Features' the Sci-Fi Channel have the nerve to air if that's possible. The script is terrible, predictable & utterly boring, some giant monsters of some sort are created by scientists messing around with DNA, a group of people are trapped with said monsters & have to try to escape being eaten. That's it, that's the whole plot of Komodo vs. Cobra, maybe this was trying to rip-off AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004) with the title but all the 'vs.' bit amounts to is a rubbish thirty second stand-off between the two titular beasts at the very end, boring as hell & surely a big disappointment to anyone hoping to have a full on monster mash. The character's are poor, the dialogue is awful, the pace is slow, the story is predictable & cliché ridden & the whole film just sucks really with a lazy script that states wrongly that both Komodo Dragon's & Cobra's are amphibious which they are not. Hell, Komodo vs. Cobra isn't even worth watching for any unintentional laughs since it's so dull & hardly anything ever happens although the sight of a woman hiding behind the smallest rock on the beach from the Cobra is quite funny for the wrong reasons.<br /><br />How does Wynorski keep getting directing jobs? He is probably consistently the worst director currently working, how can he keep getting fun sounding films set on beautiful locations with half decent casts & still churn out such an awful film? I think this was cut to get a PG or for it's TV showing since every time someone swears it's masked by a Parrot squeak! There's zero gore or violence & the monster scenes are limp, people just sort of stand there, the monsters just sort of stands there too hissing or roaring & that's about it. The CGI computer effects are terrible, this is really poor stuff that just looks horrible.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $450,000 this looks as cheap as it was, the Hawaiian locations are nice to look at but that's about it. The acting is poor from an uninterested looking cast.<br /><br />Komodo vs. Cobra is an absolutely terrible Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' from Jim Wynorski, films don't get much worse than this.
| 0 |
negative
|
1st movie comment ever! I'll start with saying "Come on! Wasn't THAT bad... was it?"... No it was't that bad actually. I laughed and giggled enough times through the movie so I cannot say with hand on my heart that it was rubbish.<br /><br />It's completely different, this and Epic Movie (Epic Movie sucked bad.. doh!). "How so?" people would ask. I'll tell you how. This movie is not as nearly as pointless, not to mention that the stupid (and I say stupid because it is, but being stupid makes it funny) stuff that happens around and with the characters is actually enjoyable in this movie. Not the best around but hey... what would you expect - look at the poster! Some people said it was stupid, I find that when writing a comment one should be more objective (my own opinion) but yeah, of course it was stupid, it's a movie about "stupid"! Look, I'm not telling you to go and watch the movie now or else you missed the event of the century. What I am telling is that, if you happen to see the movie somewhere, please don't carve your eyes on the opening credits. See what it's all about - who knows, you might like it a bit.<br /><br />I give it 4/10 for not being so bad and making me laugh and some unexpectedly good sex-related jokes.
| 0 |
negative
|
I too must apologize for a somewhat biased opinion of this endeavor as I contributed to the soundtrack. Still I received my copy, sat back and enjoyed the rolling cast of characters who were perhaps more colorful than the characters they were creating in this tale of a film sequel shanghai. For those who feel George Bush is a "credible Texan", one need look no further than this film to shatter the image that Texas is full of truck driving, one-dimensional rednecks. The cast contains some of the most intelligent, peculiar and humorous folks you'll find anywhere as they spin their tales of agony, bliss and disappointment in going for a great film sequel, no budget, guerilla style (i.e. "punk rock style" as each person helps define).<br /><br />This is a great documentary made with passion and guts and all the venom you'll need to break through to the other side of whatever industry b.s. and doublespeak you're dealing with (take note authors, painters, musicians and fellow filmmakers). It hearkens back to the credibility of the first wave of American hardcore music when the term "D.I.Y." was the standard, a period where courage, passion and commitment mattered way more than technique, style or precious calculations. Not that there isn't plenty of technique or style to this...the tone of the documentary is quite refreshing. The editing cuts provide as much drama as the dialog therein.<br /><br />The idea of creating a documentary out of the sad demise of the cast, crew and director's initial intent is brilliant, totally Texas and absolutely punk rock. In the truest sense of the term.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am very diplomatic in my reviews, and as an academic writer, try to give creative license to TV writers trying to explicate a true story. This story, about Karen Carpenter, could have helped so many, yet due to the directing and editing, does not.<br /><br />The story, in this case, is not fully addressed, unless one reads psychological journals. While Cynthia Gibb portrays a realistic Karen, it is sad that so much has been edited...Louise Fletcher portrays her mother, and does an excellent job, with limited material and dialogue. In this case, I give the actors credit for surviving this project.<br /><br />Why is the audience not permitted to see causation factors?....American audiences are quite savvy, and if they have cable, usually educated.<br /><br />I sincerely feel that I could have written a better story, would not have edited out the truth, and allowed the actors to project the reality.<br /><br />Richard Carpenter, as director, has seriously underestimated and insulted American audiences. Karen's story is important, and it is sad we will never hear it.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the most inaccurate and disgraceful biblical film i have ever has the misfortune to watch. I would like to know why anybody on earth could enjoy viewing this. I am so surprised that a big name like Jon Voight would agree to act in this disgraceful piece of garbage. Many people who may not have read the bible will now be mislead by believing this film was accurate and the thought of that really bothers me. I think the makers have a lot to answer for. The worst thing is that, i believe nobody could make such obvious mistakes with a biblical film, since they can research the bible for the truth, so i believe the makers deliberately twisted what the bible says, and that is something nobody has the right to do and i find that very offensive. There are no words strong enough to describe exactly how i feel about this.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film says everything there is to say about religion - I wish it were required viewing for all bigots and would-be clericals.<br /><br />The story, set in a turn-of-the-century Danish villages is about two very religious sisters whose late father was a rigid priest who discouraged all their dreams of love and exploring the world and its many beauty. They are now old and their life and beauty spent. Their quiet new help - whom they "teach" to cook - is Babette (played by the lovely Stephane Audran who graced so many of her husband Claude Chabrol's films). The life in the village is simple and the stark direction reflects that.<br /><br />When Babette wins the lottery, she requests a chance to prepare a feast - a true labour of love. The course of the feast and its Chief Guest reveal messages of love and spirituality and how there are many ways to love God and life.<br /><br />This is a must-see for the devotion with which Babette prepares the feast and for the speech the General gives at the end. Possibly the best international film of the 1980's.
| 1 |
positive
|
this fourth installment of the series is the last to get a theatrical release,though it feels like a direct to video movie.it's OK,i guess,but nothing special.the acting is the worst of seen in the series up to this point.and like the third movie,there isn't much in the way of imagination.also,the sentence "directed by Alan Smithee" is never a good thing.Smithee is the pseudonym directors use when they want nothing to do with the movie.anyway,its an acceptable movie in the Hellraiser series,but not much more than that.it's a slight drop in quality from number three,and a huge drop from the first two.for me,Hellraiser IV:Bloodline is a 4.5/10
| 0 |
negative
|
OK, this doesn't compare to the explosive tempo of the first part's opening sequence; nor to its visual shock value; nor, for that matter, to the melancholic suspense of the second installment. No, it's surprisingly and refreshingly different (apart, of course, from the two main actors). The tongue-in-cheek futuristic scenario drives the characters towards each other across genres and languages with an almost gravitational force. The moment of impact-conclusion is your choice of: a)Shakespearean metaphor of life and humanity in a cartoon costume; b)sublimation of violence into homo-erotics; c)humorous detonation of an impossible buildup. Everything up to then is even less unequivocal.<br /><br />Highly recommended to indiscriminate movie buffs who don't mind following foie gras with a hot dog; caution to those with more refined palates.
| 1 |
positive
|
There is a solid group of people that have lives like this girl going through the admissions process at school. The parental absence at all important junctures in Lauren Ambrose's school search provide admissions interviews only and draws the interviews with them at below transcript quality review that in 30 minutes sabotages four years of high school grading. The incident of anger in her mother obviously block a mothers display of possible physical abuse of her or her disabled sister at one time or another; thus masking her Mother's truer involvement in family losses. The daughter, Lauren, really has done something big - trying to make her mother fulfilled and then that plan itself, somewhat heroic in light of the age she is - still giving when everyone around her taking, somersaults on her. A heart not yet connected to her head - something that age has never had a genuine answer to even to this day. Her replacement of a significant other, not necessarily requiring a father image, however, a trusted authority nonetheless being imagined if not real. A pure cup without a handler .......(see the movie). Everyone needs a friend to see through understanding of a proportional world - she made hers up on what she knew of life at the time. She has all the mental capacity for higher learning though having no friends present for her time makes the ending a developmental tragedy in progress ... given a bird in a cage... not a puppy... that would a least get her walking two times a day. Ideas out of the roof she is under would be the developing on her sidewalk life. Sad is the looming psychiatric ending... how could she be committed at a time when she has proved an important responsibility? (believe it or not taking of a dog is a better witness than taking care of a bird at this time of her life) The symbolic cage of her in a cage is too much mental and self fulfilling of some of her writings within the story. The neighbor college freshman is developed just fine, he is as developed as the training education will allow for the mental maturity that dwarfs her eternal purpose compared to his fateful conditioning. I myself, eventually just went to the Mensa magazine and got a $20.00 degree saying I was an (Hon)DDiv. It offered all the education that buying the truth would and independence to skip fecal content. "Run the world" or do not get your own home was the college offer. Who was freeing anyone for superior time for the learning? The only sin is not having your pleasure right. What fight figged on that? She has been denied an act for life commensurate to her love for life. What is college, a reward for failing high school? Do you graduate with your class or without it - what is the exchange? A lifetime of correcting youth with only questions? Could lead occur w/o a question? The loss followed as much for good as bad. When was she given a mind for sexual intimacy or growth for her good self to be fulfilled? Why didn't good people treat her with good things? If good people do not do good things for good people, what is good for? She is young, pretty and walked on long before personal development is given a winning game. Her act taken in life with a closed door. Perhaps the title would be better as "Christmas Doors" not "Admissions".
| 1 |
positive
|
his has to surely be one of the worst gay-themed films of all time. Who told any of the so-called actors that they can act. Bad sound - bad script - gestures so overboard that they defy reality. A nightclub scene with only one actor and dubbed crowd scenes.<br /><br />After seeing other low budget films similarly made I was prepared for something innovative - but not plain pathetic.<br /><br />Parents and friends really should not encourage anyone to make such tripe.<br /><br />And the DVD - No menu access; its worse than a VHS tape. Once you start you have to watch the whole thing through - luckily the fast forward button works - with this film and DVD nothing else does.
| 0 |
negative
|
The first thing that struck me about this movie was the terrible acting. The whole cast was so uniformly inept at delivering their lines that I started laughing at the awful dialog midway through the film. An even bigger issue with this movie is that at no point do we ever find out what motivates the actions of each character. The one somewhat redeeming aspect of the movie is Halfdan Hussey's innovative visual effects. However, as eye-catching as they may be, they do little to make up for the gaping flaws mentioned above. A dreadful script mixed with community theater level acting does not make for a pleasant viewing. I was honestly shocked at how bad this movie was.
| 0 |
negative
|
I taped The Morrison Murders on Lifetime Movie network and I watched The Morrison Murders on Lifetime, Lifetime Movie network and on Courttv. Jonathan Scarfe and John Corbett did a great job of playing Luke and Walker Morrison. I am glad that Walker got his brother Luke to confess of murdering his parents and their brother Bobby. I enjoy watching True stories on Lifetime, Lifetime Movie network and on Courttv. The Morrison Murders is a good movie to watch. Next time The Morrison Murders is on Lifetime, Lifetime Movienetwork or Courttv I am going to watch The Morrrison Murders again because My favorite actor John Corbbett is in The Morrison Murders. I give The Morrison Murders a ten because it is a good movie about Walker who tries to find out who killed his parents and his brother Bobby and at the end Walker discovers it was his brother Luke who murdered his parents and his brother Bobby.
| 1 |
positive
|
This isn't "so bad it's good"--It's "so bad, it violates the Geneva Convention's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment"! Only by reading the Synopsis can you even figure out the "plot" of this Straight to Video disaster. It's a hodge-podge of grainy stock footage spliced together with some of the all-time worst acting you'll ever have the misfortune to see. Comparing this incompetent, turgid, humorless mess to "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" is like saying that "Gigli" is like "Citizen Kane". The talentless cast are costumed in cheap, J.C. Penney "Goin' to Church" clothes, and there isn't the slightest attempt at period hairstyles or make-up. If you really want to see how this sort of "homage" can work, check out "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra"--It's clever, well-written, and best of all, performed by actual actors who aren't such agony to watch. For that matter, seek out the work of Phoenix artist Paul Wilson whose Sci-Fi short "The Attack of the 70 foot Courtesy Lady" leaves this film in the dust. The people in Terror In the Tropics look and sound like they were pulled off the street and given their scripts to read during the one and only take. This is an insult to Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney, and anyone else involved in the films they cannibalized to make this schlock-fest! Money isn't the problem--A lot can be accomplished with very little expense. A good script, decent actors, and above Z-Grade costumes and production design should have been a given before the so-called director created this stinky pile of cinematic offal. Let's hope the "promise" of a sequel doesn't come true--That was by far the scariest thing shown in the whole movie!!
| 0 |
negative
|
Hello people,<br /><br />I cannot believe that "Shades" from That Thing You Do took this role. I don't think Cory Feldman would have taken this role. This movie was a fuming pile of dung. Save your money and time, and see every one of the top 250. I swear I wanted to slap the lady at Blockbuster silly for permitting me to rent this. Stay away!!!!!!<br /><br />Mr. Hipp
| 0 |
negative
|
Its my favourite film because there's so much going on that you don't see at first and so many things that make you wonder "Did Kieslowski mean that or is it in my head?" For instance - is the judge meant to be God or some supreme being ?<br /><br />Also Irene Jacob as in The Double Life Of Veronique is outstanding, there may be a few superficially prettier actresses but none who manage to convey beauty of spirit with physical beauty the way she does.<br /><br />Tritingnant also is magnificent without really saying much and the things he does say are excellent such as his answer to Valentine . . . "Be".
| 1 |
positive
|
Larry Donner (Billy Crystal) has a crazy life: His wife (Kate Mulgrew) stole his book and left him, he has a new budding romance with a girl named Beth (Kim Greist), he doesn't know how to start his book, and his students of his screen writing class are stranger than most. However, one student (Danny DeVito) is extra strange. He lives with his evil Momma (Anne Ramsey) and he can't get up the courage to kill her. So than he goes to Larry for help, making his life go from normal crazy, to extra crazy! <br /><br />Stu Silver should have done more! The dialog, the characters, the whole script is near perfect! And Danny DeVito has proved to me he's more than a great actor: he's a great director! His kid's movie Matilda is among my favorite family movies and now this is one of my favorite comedies.<br /><br />It's a black comedy, most jokes are about murder, but it's damn funny! All of the actors are doing their full potential, whether they're main characters (Billy Crystal) or just one-bit minor characters (Olivia Brown).<br /><br />If you like comedy (Who doesn't?) than you'll like this! 8/10 stars.
| 1 |
positive
|
Hey what do you expect form a very low budget movie!?!? Although I haven't seen "Dahmer" (2002) I can say that following what the media put out about Jeff this is a pretty accurate depiction. I have studied the Jeffrey Dahmer case and learned all I can about this man. This is a low budget movie but it shows the mentality of a serial killer. If you can get past gore and see what the underlying story of a sick mind. I loved this movie! Just brace yourself for low budget and no blood. Its a story as seen through the eyes of a killer and his actions and thoughts from childhood up through his arrest. My favorite line is : "If they had bothered to look in the back seat it might have saved a lot of lives" Enjoy!
| 1 |
positive
|
I really enjoyed this old black and white talkie. At first I didn't recognize Harold Lloyd as Mr. Cobb, a missionary to China coming home to find a wife. There were many twists and turns in Mr. Cobb's attempts to clean up city hall. His methods of making the punishment fit the crime would likely be illegal, but this is not a movie based on reality. This would be a perfect movie for children except that there is female near nudity (pasties only on Grace Bradley)! The old telephones are enchanting. The only fault is a problem typical of the day - Caucasians are used to represent Chinese men. This is offset by the positive way the Chinese are portrayed. They are the wise, good and friendly guys. Trivia - a Bekins truck appears in the movie when the police run out of Black Marias.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.