text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
In this crackerjack noir thriller from Columbia which is a combination of Panic In The Streets and The Naked City, Evelyn Keyes is unknowingly The Killer That Stalked New York. Evelyn who smuggled some stolen jewels into the country from Cuba also smuggled in smallpox. It gets misdiagnosed by doctor William Bishop and when they do find out what it is the hunt is on for her.<br /><br />For most of the film the Treasury Department is also hunting Keyes, but for the smuggled jewels. It's not until nearly the end of the film that the health department and law enforcement realize they're looking for the same woman.<br /><br />Evelyn's on a mission also. Her husband Charles Korvin has left her flat, the unkindest cut of all being that he was fooling around with her sister while she was in Cuba collecting the gems and contracting smallpox. When Lola Albright as her sister commits suicide over the whole affair, Evelyn's on a mission, get Korvin or die trying. And that's not an idle threat given the situation.<br /><br />The film was mostly shot in New York like The Naked City and its cast is sprinkled liberally with a lot of familiar names and faces. Keep an eye out for good performances by Connie Gilchrist as Evelyn's unsympathetic landlady, Jim Backus as a shifty club owner, and Art Smith as Korvin's fence.<br /><br />A real sleeper in the noir category, don't miss it if broadcast.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is beyond Horrible AVOID AT ALL COSTS!! I want my hour and 20 minutes back!!!<br /><br />Not funny AT ALL, you can watch this movie without laughing or even smiling once. Swears spill out of the speakers like a waterfall, each one getting more annoying as the last, and not contributing to the comedy OR plot (general comedy - not this movie in general!).<br /><br />All in all, its a lame-a$5, watered-down -typed- "Out Cold"ish movie - But Tremendously Awful. The movie focuses around two groups of a city Poories and Richies (how obviously dumb is that?), where the two opposites have snowboard battles with each other. (story is much like a 4-year-old's bed time story without all the swears and stupid jokes)<br /><br />MOVIE - 1/10 - because you can't give any lower scores
| 0 |
negative
|
Let me begin by saying that this remade version of one of the greatest ever created movies "Psycho" (1960) has been nothing but a fine example of poor direction, poor acting and poor cast. The best way to describe this movie is by comparing it step by step, acting by acting and process by process to the original.<br /><br />Alfred Hitchcock, one of the greatest movie directors ever lived, had an intention to shoot the original in black and white despite the availability of color at that time. Okay, people in 1960 may not have been used to bloodshed or horrifying scenes as much as we are today but that didn't prevent people from liking it and getting nominated for 4 Oscars. Gus Van Sant had absolutely no reason to release this in color except that the year was 1998. What should have looked realistic in color did not. After the shower scene Norman washes his hands it is easily comprehendible that whatever was used for blood looked like some kind of red wax. Once he washes off the blood his hand is red in color. <br /><br />About acting, perhaps there couldn't have been a better cast of Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins in the original. Perkins suited well for Norman and he was incredibly natural when he smiles and talks to the stranger. Hitch wanted a handsome and good actor and it worked just fine. In this version, I personally think Vince Vaughn looked perfect and handsome and strong to play Norman's role, unfortunately his acting was nothing less than terrible. In the motel office where Norman and Marion have the long conversation, he had zero expression on his face and his voice and face never changes throughout. In the original in the same scene when the madhouse is described, we can clearly see the sudden change of expression on Perkins's face and he looks scaringly angry although not aggressively. Vince Vaughn here works out the entire conversation like he's just had his lines by heart. Again, terrible acting. Same is with Anne Heche. In the opening scene in the original, we can see how tensed and nervous Marion (Janet) is when she drives to Phoenix. She was happy in getting the money but at the same time scared for life. That's what I call acting. In the remake, Heche has no signs of fear and she smiles periodically for getting the money. I don't think anyone would be "happy and smiling" when they've just stolen $400000 and the entire state police is behind them. In the shower scene, Janet in the original grips the curtain, turns around and dies after getting stabbed. In the remake, Heche gets stabbed, turns around, then sways the other way, has a foolish expression on her face and manages to die with great effort. Again, terrible acting.<br /><br />There are also some specially introduced changes in this movie from the original that seems to have nothing to do with the plot line and the ongoing situation. In the scene where Arbogast gets murdered, two scenes blink in between the stabs. One with a naked woman and the other with a sheep. Many people including myself aren't exactly sure whether the second scene showed a sheep or a cow or whatever it was. What on earth does a beast or a naked woman have to do with an investigator's murder! The changes were just inappropriate and unnecessary. There are a couple of changes in the ending scene as well. <br /><br />Let me add some (and the only) positive points along with that. I felt Julianne Moore did her job well and played a good character of Lila. And William Macy acted well, that was almost exactly how Arbogast's character should have been played.<br /><br />It is common man's knowledge that the purpose and intention of a movie remake is to make the present generation aware of a movie that has a good classic plot line, and to try and make it look better than the original. And if anything has happened here according to what I just said, it is directly the opposite. Unfortunately many people like me weren't impressed after watching this movie unless we came to know of the existence of an unforgettable original version. <br /><br />Please do not watch this movie, it is nowhere near the original and the original will always remain one of the best ever created movies if not THE best.
| 0 |
negative
|
Many of us who went through high school probably made it through alright without having to take a Physics course - I know I didn't. But after watching this program, I surely wish I had.<br /><br />This documentary is a guide to the 'Holy Grail of Physics' - the quest to unify all the fundamental forces of the universe into one 'master equation' that eluded Einstein during the last years of his life. Brian Green, a professor at Columbia University, introduces us to this mind blowing theory in a wonderfully simple way and leaves us with an even greater appreciation for the universe we live in.<br /><br />We start with the tantalizing possibility of a 'master equation' that could unite and explain everything... *everything!* in this universe, including the four fundamental forces that we know that exist: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity. Green takes us on a tour of how our understanding of the universe came into view with the work of Newton, then Einstein, and then later on to the revolution of the physics at the quantum level.<br /><br />But it is at this point that we run into a problem that has plagued physicists for years, and one that no one has been able to solve just yet. How can we unify all these forces that we know together? We find, as Green constantly points out throughout the problem - that the answer to this perplexing problem could be in the theory of strings. However, if we are to describe the universe in terms of string theory, there is a very big price to pay.<br /><br />It turns out that out of the mind numbing mathematical equations of string theory, that, as a consequence, we find that we could possibly be living in a universe filled with, not just 3 dimensions that you and I see every day plus 1 (for time), but rather, that we may actually live in a universe of *11* dimensions. But the math that arises out of that theory doesn't stop there - the possibility exists that there may actually be parallel universes; some of them right next to you and me! Could we possibly take such a theory that leads to such consequences seriously? As Green points out; we have yet to fully find out, but we do know that the math that has arisen from these equations are already showing us that the universe still has much to show us.<br /><br />For those of you who fear that you won't be able to understand the concepts in this program - fear not. Professor Green does a wonderful job of doing away with the math and harder concepts of physics and instead focuses more on the *concept* - which, when you take away all the math from it, transforms from a monstrous beast into an incredibly simple and, as Green constantly points out, 'elegant' concept. Viewers of this program need no prior background in science; the concepts are so simple even a child could understand them.<br /><br />When you finish this program, you will truly come to understand what a wonderful and mysterious universe it is that we live in.
| 1 |
positive
|
The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques "Spanish Judges" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.<br /><br />The low budget "Spanish Judges" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Tudo Por Dinheiro" ("All For Money")
| 0 |
negative
|
I had been waiting to see this movie for so long and finally got to yesterday. In summary I'm glad I finally did. The humor is off the wall hilarious. The plot is so unbelievably believable that it has to have at least some truth for it . If anything stood out in this movie it is most definitely the coffee shop scene. I have been there every guy has . You get dumped. You find out that your ex has fooled around with some guy who you are sure is an asshole. Now every time you see anything for the next few days you just get horrible thoughts of this placed in all the wrong areas . She is screwing everyone and everyone knows it. I could probably watch that man lick and finger his wallet all day long and look back at myself and laugh for having been there too .
| 1 |
positive
|
044: The Big Trail (1930) - released 10/24/1930; viewed 4/5/06.<br /><br />BIRTHS: Richard Harris, Harold Pinter, Robert Atkins.<br /><br />DOUG: In Hollywood, Raoul Walsh unveiled his latest film, The Big Trail, a western about the trek west across the frontier, starring up-and-coming 23-year-old actor John Wayne. In 1930, we are seeing many "firsts" but few "bests." Besides the first John Wayne film, we have here the first widescreen film (although we only watched the full-frame version). Interestingly, the decision to film in widescreen was essentially the same reason that widescreen became popular later: to compete with television, which hadn't yet appeared commercially but was still an emerging curiosity. All the same, this film was extremely good, giving us a harrowing look at the trek to Oklahoma. The opening title cards let us know that this is a western of the most traditional kind, about America, about the land, who should live on it, etc., and is an excellent demonstration of that. Walsh gives us some astonishing visuals of the wagon company out in the wilderness (when they reach a cliff, they must rope each wagon down one by one), and we also get a revenge subplot involving Wayne pursuing the man who killed one of his friends (I seem to recall something similar in Stagecoach). Wayne's tough cowboy routine is at least partly there, and would surely evolve further in subsequent films. Since this film is representing all of Wayne's early 30's work for the Odyssey, we will not see his face again until Stagecoach, but once we do, we will keep seeing him to the end of the Odyssey and beyond.<br /><br />KEVIN: Ah, our first sound western, and John Wayne's first starring role. It's Raoul Walsh's The Big Trail. This review will be short, since it's been weeks since I watched it. I enjoyed this movie, but it was far from a masterpiece. The mostly predictable adventure had a few surprises, like when the brains of the bad guys, Red Flack (Tyrone Power Sr. in his last role) is killed half way through; I thought he would be the boss at the end, but that ended up being Bill Thorpe (Ian Keith). I remember that I didn't like the way Breck (Wayne) kills Thorpe and exacts revenge at the end. I understood that that's what he was meant to do in the story, but I really didn't like his reasoning when he tells Ruth why he has to do it. I think he had a far greater responsibility to the hundreds of settlers he was leading through the harsh west.<br /><br />Last film viewed: Animal Crackers (1930). Last film chronologically: Soup to Nuts (1930). Next film: L'Age D'or (1930).
| 1 |
positive
|
I only gave this nine stars instead of ten because i really don't approve of pornography all that much. pornography has a useful purpose in society(can't say i can always think of one)but it probably does.<br /><br />personal viewpoints set aside, i really thought this film was pretty funny. i didn't buy this movie because it was pornography, i bought it because i am one of those 'Alice' obsessives who will watch anything about 'Alice in Wonderland'. i own just about every version there is on DVD so it was an obvious choice to complete my DVD collection with this. i must admit i was scandalized beyond my expectations, and the whole thing would have been thoroughly offensive if it hadn't been so damned funny. besides, the music is really good and i like musicals.<br /><br />not everyone can make a good nudie musical. anyone that has seen 'The First Nudie Musical' knows what a stink-bomb that was. considering what a low budget Bill Osco worked with, 'Alice' is pretty remarkable as a musical(it's better than some musicals made on costly budgets).<br /><br />the film can't totally escape the dirtiness of porn. I usually watch the XXX version for full shock effect and some of those scenes are scandalizing(scandalizing because we are talking about Lewis Carroll). i found myself feeling very uncomfortable and embarrassed during the scene where 'Alice'(Kristine DeBell) starts masturbating. it made me feel like a voyeur. and the gratuitous lesbian scenes with 'Alice' and the kitty-cats were a bit too racey.<br /><br />the film has a great sense of humor about everything however. there is one especially funny moment during the Queen's orgy when one of the actresses gets up and says "who do i have to F---K to get out of this movie?". Hilarious.<br /><br />i'm not sure i buy the whole sex is good for you ball your brains out philosophy here, but sex is human, and nothing human disgust me.(i don't know if i really feel that way, but i couldn't resist saying it)some people think everything should be about sex. i dunno. Jeez, just show some frick'in responsibility and decorum. this movie definitely scores points for the sex-minded, but i wouldn't push your luck, next time you might really freak someone out. i mean we are dealing with children's literature here.
| 1 |
positive
|
I did not think Haggard was the funniest movie of all time I like CKY and Viva La Bam a lot more. I think a lot of it was just really stupid and had no plot for being a movie. I highly recommend not paying a lot of money for this movie but anyone who likes viva la bam, CKY, or Jack Ass should see it. I loved many parts of the movie and then there were parts that should have been cut out. I think that Jonny Knoxville should have played in the movie because he is a much better actor then most of the people from Haggard and probably could have made this movie allot more funnier. I think Ryan Dunn was probably the best actor and it should have had bam skating more.
| 0 |
negative
|
A classic late 50's film. The superannuated headliners (Joan Crawford and Louis Jordan) are not at their best, but the direction, cinematography, and acting of the younger cast are compelling. In a 50's sense (which I love).<br /><br />The look and feel of the artsy (over-artsy?) contemporary film "Far from heaven" reflects exactly this sort of film (and I suspect this film may be one of the models). A silly plot, of course (hey, it's 1959!), but as a film-- glorious! As a reflection of the society, extremely interesting. And as witness to how Hollywood breaks away from the idealistic portrayal of American sexual mores, fascinating.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is ageless and would probably appeal to children today, even if there isn't a Jedi in the entire thing. Of course, Elizabeth Taylor was the most beautiful child in the world and her acting is great too. Even Mickey Rooney is good; so are Anne Revere and Angela Lansbury. The world was a different place when this movie was released, and it certainly is a great place to visit.
| 1 |
positive
|
From the dire special effects onwards I was absolutely gob smacked at how bad anyone can make a film. Lets put it this way, I have absolutely no directing experience whatsoever and for the first time ever when watching a film I thought 'I can do better than that! whilst sat watching this pap. The acting in this film was terrible, I suppose the best actor was the guy from Lawnmower Man but the French guy from Aliens3 was so wooden I wondered how he got the former job in the first place. The storyline was mediocre and I suppose, like most films, If the rest had been done well it would have stood up. I don't usually write reviews here but after seeing a couple of people gave this film a good rating (must be cast/crew) I felt I had to say my piece to save anyone from accidentally hiring it or wasting their money on buying this cack.
| 0 |
negative
|
If you are 10 years old and never seen a movie before, maybe this film may be entertainment for you, but if you've seen several movies, this one will be a silly fully-cliched cheap and predictable for you. Don't waste your time with this.
| 0 |
negative
|
The best thing about "The Prey" is the tag line..."It's not human and it's got an axe"! The movie itself is a padded stinkaroo....endless insect and wildlife shots make the viewer wanna die! No slasher fan will like this garbage.....Watch "Friday the 13th" again and burn any copy of this film you find! <br /><br />It also rates as one of the 25 worst films ever made!
| 0 |
negative
|
Director and co-writer Alejandro Amenabar didn't make things easy for viewers of his taut, a bit overlong but very disturbing story, accurately based on a Spanish man's struggle to obtain assisted suicide. "Mar Adentro" ("The Sea Inside") is gripping and its impact far exceeds the time spent in the theater.<br /><br />With the award-winning Canadian movie, "The Barbarian Invasions," folks got to see a family along with a coterie of devoted friends address the wish of a beloved albeit irascible man to end his life. In that movie, the center of attention suffered from progressive, incurable cancer and his descent into a terminal stage was fast. Emotional as the scenes were, death was inevitable - the question was how gentle could it be made through solicited intervention.<br /><br />Ramon Sampedro (brilliantly played by Javier Bardem) is a different story. For well over two decades he's been a quadriplegic because of a diving accident. (Very sharp viewers may detect a terrible irony as to why he ended in that condition because of his improvident dive.) Once a world traveler and lover of beautiful women, he now lies trapped in an immobile body, his every need attended to by a truly devoted family who willingly surrender much of their privacy and time to sustain their beloved relation.<br /><br />Rosa (Lola Duenas), a single mom of two small boys, enters the Sampedro household out of what might have been mere curiosity to learn about the paralyzed man's plight but she becomes both an emotionally supportive centerpiece for Ramon as well as an amusing but occasionally aggravating presence. A nice performance by Duenas.<br /><br />The problem, of course, is that Sampedro isn't sick in the normal sense. He may well live for decades more with proper care. So his softly but persistently voiced desire to end his life with "dignity" creates a moral dilemma for friends and relatives who, not surprisingly, react from different ethical and religious perspectives.<br /><br />Ramon is the poster quad of a group dedicated to changing Spain's laws concerning assisted suicide. "Death with Dignity" is their watchword. Gene (Clara Segura) is a sensitive activist who enlists the aid of pro bono publico counsel, Julia (Belen Rueda). Julia has her own health issues which carry an indefinite but catastrophic prognosis. Happily married to a devoted spouse, she bonds emotionally with her client.<br /><br />What follows is an acutely sensitive interplay of values and emotions. Ramon lives with his brother and wife, their technophile teenage son, not the intellectual Ramon is, and his aged dad who can't stop grieving over his son's cataclysmic descent into absolute helplessness.<br /><br />The moral and legal issues are played out through excellent acting and short vignettes including a courtroom scene in which formalism triumphs over any judicial interpretation that might take into account Ramon's feelings and views. It may be Spain but the issues are alive in most countries, including the U.S.<br /><br />Especially amusing is a shouted, first floor to bedroom, debate between Ramon with a drop-in, lecturing Jesuit priest, also a quadriplegic but one whose hidebound dogma casually masks the absence of a soul.<br /><br />Special kudos to Mabel Rivera, Ramon's sister-in-law-Manuela, for a wrenchingly authentic portrayal of a strong woman who holds the family together. And the same compliment fulsomely extends to Belen Rueda, Julia, who segues from objective advocate to close friend to a woman hurtling towards a dark fate.<br /><br />The director imposes no value judgments allowing each character full range to express his or her feelings effectively and, at times, movingly. Like "Dead Man Walking," this movie can support any view about its deadly subject.<br /><br />No one can stop a person from committing suicide if he/she is determined but the universal tragedy of the world's Ramons is that without assistance, life in a body in which only the heart beats and only the head can move is a sentence no court could pronounce on the most depraved of criminals.<br /><br />The cinematography is well-matched to the story and the beautiful Galician scenes are an intended contrast to the limited views the once globe-trotting Ramon experiences from his special bed.<br /><br />9/10
| 1 |
positive
|
I hope the people who made this movies read these comments. The choreography was horrid, the plot was nill, and the actors where so low budget power rangers appears 5 star to this junk.<br /><br />The fight scenes where so slow you could actually see the actors waiting for each other to perform the next move. Camera cut-aways and poor lighting could not cover up the cheap effects. The lightning was just plain stupid. The weapons looked like something out of a final fantasy game, and the dual bow and arrow was just dull as anything I have ever seen.<br /><br />Next movie you decide to make try investing in some wireless mics, better script and try actually spending some time on your stunts.<br /><br />Honestly there are shows on t.v. that play ever night and are thrown together in a few hours that look better than this one.<br /><br />Stick to martial arts (unless its as poor as your acting) then take up quilting.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was not that good at all. Here is the first clue and that it is not gonna be a strong movie, Harrison Ford's name not only appears first but it is also bigger than the title. The music was nominated for an Oscar, What the heck was that? That music was probably the most annoying thing in the movie. The acting was sub par at best, except the Amish boy he did a decent job for being so young. Then you have the story which was weak and a little over the place, and it won for adapted! The music was horrid, I know I already said something but it was really bad. The premises was real good and it should be remade. Well that's all I really have on that.<br /><br />Your Average Movie Guy,<br /><br />-Trever
| 0 |
negative
|
There is a lot to like in this film, despite its humble trappings of a preachy PC tale about rape and the perp always faring better than the victim. The movie did create a fair bit of suspense in the mystery surrounding who was sending the notes. (I, for one, was sure it was the teacher. In fact, that would have been more probable plot-wise because the idea of the best-friend's boy-friend kind of came out of nowhere. I guess the point of that is that "rape is omnipresent. You never know who it is going to be".) Ms. Beller is luminous as always (yet see KB discussion board for my qualification of this statement). Like all preachy films the plot lasts 15 minutes past the climax so you might want to quit watching at that point. Unless you are really curious to find out what happens to Phillip. Blythe Danner, as the mom, is in the role she was born to play: the fretting, over-protective mom. Some good 70s scenes for 70s fans. (The dark bar that the father goes to in order to drink away his pain is all dark-stained beams, barrels, oak and cork). A must for Beller fans and highly recommended for fans of 70s High School melodrama or 70s kitsch in general.
| 1 |
positive
|
Susan Slept Here turned out to be Dick Powell's swan song as a performer on the big screen. Of course he directed some more films and appeared frequently on television until he died. It's a pity he didn't go out with his performance in The Bad and the Beautiful.<br /><br />Frank Tashlin has done so many better films, I'm still not sure whatever possessed him to do this one. The premise is absolutely laughable. <br /><br />Dick Powell is a screenwriter who's looking to do more serious stuff than the fluff he's been writing. He had an idea for a film on juvenile delinquency so two friendly cops in Herb Vigran and Horace McMahon deposit 17 year old Debbie Reynolds on his doorstep. She's not a really bad kid and they don't want to put her in the system. So they give her to Dick Powell at Christmas time.<br /><br />I mean is there anyone out there who doesn't see a problem? The term jailbait comes immediately to mind. Additionally Powell has a girlfriend, the young and sexy Anne Francis. Why Debbie Reynolds is any competition here is beyond me.<br /><br />Susan Slept Here got one Oscar nomination. The song Hold My Hand, sung by Don Cornell in the background, was nominated for best song, but lost to Secret Love. <br /><br />Powell and Reynolds do have some funny moments together and Alvy Moore as Powell's factotum and Les Tremayne as his lawyer also get a few laughs. <br /><br />But it's not enough.
| 0 |
negative
|
An on screen caption informs us that it is 'the Caribbean Sea, May 1891'. A small lifeboat drifts aimlessly at sea containing six convicts from a shipwrecked prison ship, and the ship's Doctor a Lt. Claude De Ross (Claudio Cassinelli). It's night, a strange current takes the boat towards a strange, unnamed and uncharted island. The boat hits some rocks and is torn apart. One of the prisoners is killed by what appears to be a slimy mutant fish-man creature. The next morning morning Claude wakes up to find himself washed upon a beach. He finds a pool of white bubbling water and one of the prisoners dead beside it. Claude warns another surviving prisoner Jose (Franco Iavarone) not to drink the water as it will kill him. They both eventually meet up with the other surviving prisoners, Peter (Roberto Posse), Francois (Francesco Mazzeri) and Skip (Giuseppe Castellano). Francois wanders off on his own to try and catch an animal for food, he finds and kills a large water bird. But in turn he is killed himself by one of the fish-men. Claude, Jose, Peter and Skip continue to explore the island as they put Francois's death down to an animal attack of some sort. Soon after Skip is killed when he is impaled on a spike at the bottom of a pit. Now only Claude, Jose and Peter are left. They stumble across a cemetery with lots of empty graves and signs of recent black magic rituals. Claude spots a snake on a nearby rock, suddenly a shot is heard and the snakes head explodes. A woman on horseback named Amanda Marvin (Barbara Bach) is revealed to be Claudes saviour. She tells them to leave the island immediately as it is owned by a Edmund Rackham (Richard Johnson) and he doesn't like visitors. Claude, Jose and Peter decide to carry on regardless, eventually finding Rackham's large house in which they are invited to stay. That night Peter goes after Amanda and tries to rape her in a swamp, Peter quickly becomes food for the fish-men. And a Voodoo priestess called Shakira (Beryl Cunningham), who lives with Rackham, performs a black magic ritual involving slitting the throat of a chicken at the cemetery. The next day Claude and Jose decide they should leave the island as they feel very uneasy about Rackham and think he is lying to them. Jose rides off on horseback and is lost. Claude is saved from one of the fish-men by Amanda and is again told to leave. Claude wants to confront Rackham again. Rackham reveals that he has a scientist, and Amanda's father, named Professor Ernest Marvin (Joseph Cotten) who he needs to be kept alive. Rackham says that the longer Ernest stays alive the chances of his own survival will dramatically increase. Rackham tells Claude his plan. Rackham has found the lost city of Atlantis at a depth of over 2,000 feet. He is using the fish-men as a means of getting at the lost treasures of Atlantis, and needs Amanda and her father to control them. He claims the fish-men are descendants of the original inhabitants of Atlantis. Rackham offers Claude a share of the treasure if he will help him keep Ernest alive. Later Claude remembers the name Ernest Marvin as a scientist who was condemned for experiments transplanting animal organs into human beings. Finding Ernest's secret laboratory he discovers Rackham had lied to him and the fish-men aren't descendants, their actually genetically altered people turned into amphibious creatures by Ernest's grotesque experiments! Rackham has finally had enough of Claude and decides to put an end to his meddling by sticking him in a large tank and slowly filling it with water, as the islands volcano starts to erupt and send lava flying everywhere. Rackham wants to leave the island with his treasures and Amanda, will Claude escape almost certain death to save Amanda and get off the island before the erupting volcano tears it apart? Directed by Sergio Martino I really liked this film that mixes various genres. The script by Sergio Donati is fast paced, interesting and entertaining. The plot is revealed bit by bit, which kept me interested in watching it all the way through. I must say at this point that I've seen the original version and not the one with added scenes inserted for it's US release by Roger Corman. Barbara Bach makes for an extremely attractive leading lady, but I hated the way she was introduced by shooting a snakes head off, I thought it was more than a little distasteful. Richard Johnson makes a great villain and Claudio Cassinelli a likable hero. The fish-men themselves look a little fake when the camera lingers on them too long but their cool looking and I've seen worse. Some of the miniature effects look a little poor too, but overall again I've again seen a lot worse. There's no real gore, violence or nudity in it, but that didn't really bother me actually. The photography by Giancarlo Ferrando and the production design by Massimo Antonello Geleng combine to create a very nice looking film. Period costumes, props and sets like Rackham's house and Ernest's lab with it's old scientific equipment. The lush green jungle settings also add to the visual splendour on show. I really liked this film and I was entertained throughout it's running time. I'm not sure who I'd recommend it too as it mixes various genres, I guess someone who maybe fancies something a little bit different and generally well made. If you can find a copy give it a go, I'm glad I did.
| 1 |
positive
|
Epic early film, directed by D.W. Griffith. Mae Marsh, her little sister, and their dogs are orphaned - they must go to live with an uncle. Aboard their coach is young couple Lillian Gish and Robert Harron, celebrating the birth of their first child. The coach arrives in Elderbush Gluch. Marsh's uncle tells her she can't keep the dogs, and they are put out. There are Indians (Native Americans) nearby; and, Indians love to eat dog meat (no kidding?). These Indians are hungry! Lionel Barrymore is sympathetic to Ms. Marsh, desiring to help her recover the runaway dogs. While rescuing the puppies, an Indian is shot - resulting in a "Cowboys vs. Indians" confrontation.<br /><br />This "Saga of the American West" is certainly an important film; however, the reliable Griffith performers begin to overplay their hands, and the story is too contrived. Many of the Griffith elements are in place - some good, and a few bad. "The Battle at Elderbush Gluch" foreshadows the later epic, "Birth of a Nation". <br /><br />******* The Battle at Elderbush Gulch (3/28/14) D.W. Griffith ~ Mae Marsh, Robert Harron, Lillian Gish
| 1 |
positive
|
-SPOILERS------------ I am a fan of 60's-70's french cinema but not necessarily of the more modern,so to be honest i watched this because of Bellucci.She is very young here,extremely beautiful and on top of this supposedly this movie is where they met with Cassel,so it gives it some extra importance.<br /><br />The movie begins with a very nice style reminiscent of DePalma.Then suddenly we are thrown to flashback,and the back and forth goes on which gets tiring.I don't mind one flash back,but do it and get it over with man!!!Anyway,the movie is still interesting to me until a point when the first and definite hole in the plot,that allows for the rest of the story,never lets me enjoy the rest.I can allow for little holes here and there,but not to base an entire plot on hot air.This is the story of a man who is literally searching for an old flame.This is the main plot.I will go along,when the story at some point will convince me that there are really mysterious things going on,but in this story there's nothing really mysterious.Bellucci-Cassel are a couple ,then Bellucci urgently has to leave for some job in Italy(not the farthest place on earth from Paris)and she leaves him a message,which for reasons later explained he doesn't get.OK,so what?Don't these people have phones?Supposedly she was away for 2months(not a century exactly) and wouldn't she call her boyfriend in Paris to see how he's doing? Of course not.Instead,even after she gets back she forgets all about him.And thats fine,but later in the movie she tells her friend that it was her greatest love and was ready to commit for the first time in her life.Yet she failed to give him a call for 2months and then never tried to get back with him.And what about Cassel's character?He was supposedly unable to locate her in Italy,really hard to find someone in Italy,its probably like Siberia,especially an actress who is probably listed even in the arts papers.And after 2months when she would be back,really hard to find her and ask for an explanation. One thinks she wanted to avoid him,but no,we find out they simply couldn't meet.So hard to meet in Paris. OK,i don't need to go further,because this is the incident where the entire movie is based. What is even worse,Bellucci is not really the star of this movie but this other girl Bohringer is.
| 0 |
negative
|
I don't usually like TV movies, I reckon that if the thing was any good it would make it to Hollywood. This one though is better than average, pretty high production values, a few interesting story twists and some nice shots of NYC (along with Toronto) hold the interest.
| 0 |
negative
|
My wife wanted to see this movie and I grudgingly went along. I have never been a big fan of the biopic - believing that cinema is more exciting when it isn't structured in non-fiction. Beyond that, although I like Ray Charles' music just fine, I don't consider myself a fan of him or his music.<br /><br />I expected to either suffer or coast through this movie.<br /><br />I was wrong.<br /><br />This is an engaging story told in a classic cinematic style. The realism is in the nuances - the tilt of a character's head after a dramatic moment or the look in their eyes while they sing. I literally discovered myself involved in this movie during the course of viewing it.<br /><br />Jaime Foxx, of which much has been said, heads a cast of immaculate re-creators of not just a time, but an ERA, a LIFE that never really existed to those of us under forty. This movie sinks the audience into time without the gimmicks and grand sweeping panoramas of Titanic or other period pieces of that ilk. This movie doesn't present you with the 50's and 60's music scene, it takes you there.<br /><br />This is a movie about Ray Charles, but your appreciate of it should not be limited to the story of his life. This is the kind of movie, like Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, that does what a movie should do - bring you to another place, another time.
| 1 |
positive
|
Sometimes, but very rarely, a movie tells a story so well that it almost becomes difficult. This movie tells several stories so well simultaneously that it was the first few times a movie I could not watch to completion. It was too real....and the characters SO STRONG that watching it became a personal struggle. Seeing these three men and their families deal with their hardships, one in particular, often hit me too hard. Now, I have watched in its entirety without interruption several times, and I realize what I always suspected. This movie is a masterpiece. The writing, the acting, the blending of several stories without being even the least bit choppy, everything about this movie is exceptional. Seven Academy Awards? No wonder, it certainly must have deserved them.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm not a big fan of musicals, but I was always enamored of Ms. Hayworth's looks, so I thought I'd give it a try.<br /><br />This may be the best showcase for the multi-talented Ms. Hayworth. She's never looked lovelier in a film (with the possible exception of 'Gilda', where she is sex symbol par excellence).<br /><br />Rita is more than ably assisted by Gene Kelly and Phil Silvers. The comedy may be dated, but it is still quite amusing. Kelly does one of his tour-de-force dances, dancing with the image of himself from a window.<br /><br />But Rita drives this whole movie. An excellent cast, featuring Otto Kruger and the always- wonderful, wise-cracking Eve Arden doesn't hurt.<br /><br />Rita sings, Rita dances, all the while looking impossibly beautiful! The music may be short of classic, but the lyrics to most of the tunes are quite clever.<br /><br />I find this movie works better than 'Gilda', which I regard as a flawed film. To Ms. Hayworth's credit, she also drives 'Gilda', and Gilda drives any red-blooded male insane.<br /><br />The film holds up well after all these years. Much leg candy for the male audience is a nice bonus!
| 1 |
positive
|
Tony Curtis and Skip Homier both are wearing black with white trim canvas shoes in the scenes just before and after the swimming pond and the tank being blown up. Must have been too hard on the young stars feet.If the real Marines had been on the mission they would have been wearing boots. IN the first scenes they took off their leggin's just before starting out on their little trip to find the Farmer. When they went to the area where they dug the fox holes Tony and Skip are wearing combat boots, then later when Lovejoy and Curtis run into the Framer and his daughter Tony is wearing the "Tennis Shoes " but hey have been blacken. The movie in about a true story but did they really need the love interest??
| 0 |
negative
|
one day someone said lets redo the mod squad we can make it hip cool and all that YO!it'll make a mint then they actually made it and as you are watching it you can hear your spleen cringe in agony as it twists and binds into a knot from the pure horror of it all any movie ever made has something on this id rather meet wayne newton and sing karaoke with him in a gay bar in idaho and drink a virgin bloody mary than ever watch this again may god have mercy on my soul
| 0 |
negative
|
The DVD jacket in which this movie came describes it as "uplifting and humorous." Those are not the words I would have chosen - not by a long shot. I would choose a word like "sombre," sometimes even "depressing." Which isn't to say that it's a bad movie. It's actually a pretty good movie, featuring good performances from the leads, with enough uncertainty throughout about what's going to happen at the end that you keep watching. The uncertainty comes from the structure of the movie - it seems to revolve around Ellen's reminiscences of her mother's slow death from cancer, as she is interviewed by the DA. So, we know from the start that something suspicious happened at the end - the questions are "what?" and "who?" <br /><br />Renee Zellweger was very good as Ellen - the somewhat resentful daughter who has to give up her life and job in New York to return home to care for her sick mother. Ellen evolves through the movie - moreso than any other character - as she learns to deal with both the strengths and weaknesses of her parents. Her relationship with her father (William Hurt) is quite interesting. My initial impression was that they were quite close, but the warts in the relationship start to show after a while. Hurt was effective as the detached husband - detached not in an uncaring way, but in the sense of being unable to cope with what's happening to his wife, and seeking escape from it in various ways. Finally, Meryl Streep as the cancer-stricken Kate was very convincing in the role, seeking to live out what remains of her life in the most fulfilling way possible, then dealing with the anger she feels at her increasing debilitation. In a way, watching a family deal with this kind of crisis reminded me a little bit of "Ordinary People," although this movie was far less emotionally intense. So, not "uplifting and humorous" (with all due respect to whoever wrote the synopsis on the DVD jacket) but very good in its own way. 7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
This (very) low-budget film is fun if you're a John Krasinski fan, but is otherwise disappointing. At least it was short, so I didn't feel like I had wasted too much of my time. John's scenes are funny enough, but the attempted 'deep' scenes with Lacey Chabert are pretty nauseating. It starts off seeming like it could be a funny movie, but some of the characters are just so outlandish while the others are far too serious that it just falls flat. Don't get me started on the ending. It was totally implausible and didn't even fit with the rest of the movie. I will say that I wasn't bored, though, which is why I rated it above a three. Fans of John Krasinski will enjoy seeing him with a bandanna and stockings around his head, and eating Cheez-Its. Oh, and make sure to check out John's deleted scenes, they're better than some that were actually included in the movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
The acting was horrible. The special effects, while exceptional, dominated the movie. The writing was pathetic, and the dialogue was unbelievable. And the silly little love story between Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck was out of place.<br /><br />But the worst offense of "Armageddon" was the total lack of scientific reality. "The asteroid is the size of Texas," says Billy Bob Thornton. Er, that's 800 miles wide! No one in NASA even sees the asteroid until a midday meteor shower wrecks havoc in New York? Suuuuure. NASA hires a drilling team to join the astronauts and trains them in a week? Yeah, right. Someone brings a sidearm on the Space Shuttle with them? Yeah, that's realistic. And Bruce Willis blows up the asteroid with three seconds to spare. How Disney-esque!<br /><br />How bad was this movie? I rooted for the asteroid!
| 0 |
negative
|
A skillfully directed film by Martin Ritt where a drifter and anti-hero, John Cassevetes lands in N.Y. to escape a tragic incident in his life, where he killed his brother in an automobile accident as well as going AWOL from the army.<br /><br />Cassavetes, always an intense actor, shows grit in his portrayal of a film. Am surprised that Montgomery Clift didn't get this part.<br /><br />Ruth White is his mother and does remarkably well in two scenes on the telephone.<br /><br />Once in New York, he befriends Sidney Poitier as the two work on the docks. Immediately, Jack Warden, a bully and villain in this film,takes a dislike to him and tragedy ensues when Poitier tries to defend his friend.<br /><br />Ruby Dee, plays Poitier's wife in this film, and is brilliant in a scene where she urges Cassavetes to reveal the killer of her husband.<br /><br />This is definitely an interesting film of moral values and the loner in society. With the backdrop of tenements, the right mood is depicted in the film.
| 1 |
positive
|
I must tell you the truth. The only reason I wanted to see this movie was because of Rose McGowan. I think that part definitely worked out...pretty well actually. However, the film was very good too. Some parts of this movie are really good.<br /><br />The film has great action also. The mystery is pretty hard to figure out and Rose [McGowan] does some "Oscar-worthy" acting towards the end of the film, but I don't want to give anything away. Adam Beach and Jurgen Prochnow are also great in the movie, along with some of the other stars.<br /><br />If you like mysteries, or action movies, or just like Rose...I totally think you would like this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
One hilarious thing I'll say off the top, is I'm not the biggest Seisun Suzuki fan. I've actually seen a fair number of his works (thanks to a retrospective the film festival had) and I found his films just a wee too Yakuza-driven for my tastes. So, I went into Princess Raccoon wary of what I was going to see. Boy! Was I knocked out! 'Raccoon' is Suzuki's attempt at a musical, using the elements of Japanese opera mixed in with many modern elements (both Audial and Visual), Raccoon is a treat from start to finish. The lead actor, Joe Ogdari, proves that he's one of the hottest actors in Japan these days in this role. I have to admire that the younger Japanese actors still take roles that take place in Feudal-times Japan, dressing up in Samurai gear to full effect. The story itself does get a bit confusing, if you don't follow it really closely, but even if you don't, prepare yourself for the treasures that Princess Raccoon has.
| 1 |
positive
|
Directors of "The Messengers" Danny Pang and Oxide Pang are responsible for "The Eye" and its sequel and their premiere American picture plays like "The Grudge"-lite set in a farmhouse.A family of four move from Chicago to a run-down sunflower farm in rural North Dakota.Almost immediately their teenage daughter Jess starts seeing ghosts.Of course her parents and the police are skeptical.Admittedly the film is well-made and there are two or three effective scares,but relies too much on 'boo' effect.Still the plot is a carbon copy of many ghost stories and the ending is anti-climatic and stupefyingly awful.Scares are on the low side too with a tendency toward CGI.Overall,"The Messengers" is a pretty weak horror film that simply doesn't deliver.4 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
Shah rukh khan plays an obbsessed lover who would go to any lengths to get his lady. Juhi chawla does a wonderful job of making the best of her character and sunny deol plays the hero and action man. this film is very good and i'd reecommend it to anyone.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is without a doubt the most poorly thought out movie in history. The invention gags by Carrot Top are some of the most awful attempts to be funny in recorded history. I am not familiar with his other work, but if it is half as bad as this then I am just going to cry. I give this movie 1 out of 30 billion stars, and may God have mercy on the souls of those responsible.
| 0 |
negative
|
Its No wonder this was free with the Mail on Sunday, slow going, poor acting, and filming (camera flare, near start of movie, is not even artistic) = Straight to video, but not in this case, why not recoup some of your (Film production costs) by releasing it free with a UK Sunday newspaper, at least this way you get a captive audience, and recover some costs.<br /><br />I have not given this film a 1 out of 10, due to the effort to pull some old actors out their shell, it was nice to see some old faces (Vanessa Redgrave,this an't no Blow Up), but Vinnie Jones as a lead, and I think he was better in Gone in 60 seconds when he did not speak.<br /><br />This Film is dropping in Ratings every day,i think this will find its true mark at the 3-4 out of 10,in the very near Future
| 0 |
negative
|
LIGHTS OF NEW YORK was the first "all-taking" feature film, coming in at a brisk 57 minutes and directed by Bryan Foy (of the famous vaudeville family).<br /><br />The story has two dopey barbers (Cullen Landis, Eugene Palette) yearning for a chance at "big city life" and getting involved with gangsters and bootleg booze. One of the guys gets framed for the murder of a cop but is saved at the last minute by a gun moll (Gladys Brockwell).<br /><br />Much of the story takes place in a night club called The Night Hawk, which is run by a crook named Hawk (Wheeler Oakman) who has his eye on a pretty chorine (Helene Costello) who is the girl friend of Landis. Costello gets to do a brief dance, and we hear Harry Downing (made up to resemble Ted Lewis) sing "At Dawning) in his best Al Jolson style.<br /><br />The acting ranges from good (Palette and Brockwell) to awful (Oakman). A couple of the actors muff their lines but then keep right on with the scene. As noted elsewhere this was intended to be a short 2-reeler and was made on a shoestring budget. Yet the sound quality is surprisingly good, the voices all register clearly, and there is a neat cinematic touch in the silhouette death.<br /><br />The film was a box-office smash even though it was shown as a silent film where theaters were not wired for the new sound technology. No one expected this little film to gross an amazing $1.3 million. It briefly made stars of Costello and Landis and certainly launched Palette on his long career as a star character actor.<br /><br />Co-stars include Mary Carr as the mother, Robert Elliott as the detective, Eddie Kane as the street cop, and Tom Dugan as a thug.
| 1 |
positive
|
Though not a huge fan, I am a Three Stooges purist. I believe that their best work, by far, was with Curly as the third Stooge and their earliest films are generally their best. That's because after a while, they began remaking their films and the gags started to get stale. Here, in 1934, they were still rather fresh (in more ways than one) and funny.<br /><br />Here they boys play very improbably roles--respected doctors in a hospital! The three run amok acting silly, hitting each other and scaring the pants off anyone who expects to get better. The non-stop energy and freshness make this one a must-see for fans.<br /><br />By the way, although I liked this film, I STRONGLY recommend you try to find a much lesser known short from tiny Educational Pictures. NIFTY NURSES is much like MEN IN BLACK but manages to be funnier and is about the best hospital comedy of the era--better even than Laurel & Hardy's COUNTY HOSPITAL.
| 1 |
positive
|
The script seems to have been wholesale (ahem ahem, cough cough) "borrowed" from a certain other movie involving using a self-propelled manned drilling machine. Scene by scene, the two movies were almost identical. Just enough of the serial numbers filed off in this one to prevent a copyright infringement lawsuit.<br /><br />But other than that, I have to say I found this somewhat entertaining as I enjoy deep-underground-in-the-earth genre of movies. It's a little bit on the stupid side as far as the science goes, but if one is willing to squint one's eyes real hard and pretend one didn't notice that scientific gaffe here and there and all over, this movie is almost bearable. Far better than "Supernova" which was another flick that Luke Perry had a leading role in that was so dumb, dumb, dumb that nothing could save it. A note to movie makers: employ someone who knows something about the subject the movie deals with. It would be a very small part of the movie budget, but it would have a big effect overall in helping prevent your audience from guffawing at you for doing dumb science.<br /><br />Production values: almost passable. I've seen far worse in my time.<br /><br />A new thought for disaster movies: instead of them always having a happy ending where the world gets saved yet once again, how about some where things are a tad bit more realistic, where sometimes even the very best efforts still end up in failure. Particularly when the problem that needs to be resolved was caused in the first place by sheer stupidity. Stupidity-caused disaster movies with glowing, heartwarming endings sort of backhandedly justify stupidity by stating, "No matter how awful a problem is caused by braindead stupidity, it can be fixed." Which is definitely not the case. A self-caused disaster movie with an unhappy ending would serve better as cautionary tale of "Don't be so damn stupid in the first place." Should you watch this movie? If you're bored and you've seen everything else in the scifi section at your local video rental store, sure, why not. But do avoid "Supernova" as I can assure you that you're not THAT bored. That definitely was not one of Luke Perry's better movies. This one is better. That's not saying much, but it is better.<br /><br />One dead hoof up for being a deep-underground genre movie. One dead hoof down for naughtily ripping off from the screenplay of another certain movie of the same genre.
| 0 |
negative
|
Ridiculous film where two swinging college graduates move out to California and one becomes a movie star and the other his manager.<br /><br />As 10 years pass, the star's popularity is decreasing so it is determined that there will be a television show where women will compete for his affection. <br /><br />The film is obnoxious and ridiculous. The girls who vie for lover boy are made to look foolish. Only one girl seems to be the choice of the producer of the show. She is really an amateur up against some of the other women, but she is wholesome and brings good ratings to the show as well.<br /><br />By the third scene you realize that the manager is falling for her.<br /><br />We know that Ryan really was meant to be a bachelor. While the ending is somewhat cute, you really know where this was going.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm going to recommend putting this one in the "skip it" pile as well. I was mildly excited by the concept when my fiancée rented it, and a bit more excited when I saw that Milos Forman directed it. Ah, well.....<br /><br />The costumes were nice, sure, but they were typical. There was nothing about them that said they were from anywhere but the Period Costume department of any major Hollywood studio. There was no distinction between Spanish, British and French - everyone dressed like they were at court in Versailles. The sets somehow didn't evoke the qualities of the settings - the prison didn't feel like a prison, the mansions didn't feel like mansions, and the outside scenes looked like they were filmed on a back lot, for all that they were probably practical locations.<br /><br />The score was dramatically less than it could have been. I have been a fan of film scores since my youth, noticing, appreciating and collecting them, by which I mean more than John Williams. My fiancée is a professional film composer, an award winner who has had her works performed at Lincoln Center, and a rising star in the industry. At the start of the film, we had high hopes for it, and it did indeed start off nicely. It rapidly deteriorated, and at several points - including the scene of the release of the prisoners - it actually reached a level of annoyance. I actually reached for the remote to turn down the volume. The score was never anything more than the most obvious choice for scoring a specific tone of scene, and didn't integrate itself into the "soul" of the film (think of the music in Babel and you'll have an idea of what I mean). It never attained the grandeur it wanted to, but then neither did the film.<br /><br />Javier Bardem, as talented as he is, was awful. For the first part of the film, his mannerisms are so distracting that it takes over his performance. During the second half, everything that was his character in the first half is gone, replaced by an entirely different set of annoying mannerisms, and he looked like the love-child of Keith Richards and Stuart Townshend's Lestat. I never got the idea that he cared about the role (which is to say, that the character cared about his life and actions), or that the character was ever drawn by the writers as anything more than an opportunist who, for whatever reason, changes his mind and decides to stick by his principles at the end.<br /><br />Natalie Portman was very good, although her performance lacked the shades of increasing insanity between her release from the prison and taking Lorenzo's hand at the end that I would have needed to call it truly an effective performance. The character of Alicia was never defined enough to truly discern, and if it weren't for the superb makeup on her eyes and cheeks, someone seeing the beginning of the film and the end wouldn't know they weren't the same character. The prosthetic teeth were horrible, artificial and distracting, but that's no knock on Ms. Portman.<br /><br />Stellan Skarsgård was fine as Goya. Not Oscar-worthy, but serviceable and generally believable. I don't know much about the life of Goya, or his deafness, but it seemed to be tacked on to the movie as a requirement of biographical information, rather than anything that was utilized in the film. I am sure it affected Goya's life much more than just requiring the need of an interpreter, but you'd never know it from watching this. For the record, words and sounds can only be correctly interpreted roughly 30% of the time through lip-reading.<br /><br />Don't get me started on Randy Quaid. At least he was a minor character.<br /><br />The script reads like one of the "choose your own adventure" books I used to read as a kid: at several moments through the film, several outcomes are possible, and none of the actions preceding them lead with any certainty to the way the film actually plays out. Ironically, the film is also predictable, especially its meager attempts at leavening the mood through small bits of humor. The joke about the hands? Maybe it's because I paint (not well) as a hobby and know what a PITA hands are to draw/paint, but I saw the joke coming a mile away, as well as the reprise in the second half. Was the baby ever there for any other reason other than to be taken by Ines? There might as well have been a line of bread crumbs.<br /><br />Disappointing.<br /><br />(note: this review is a copy of a reply I made to a thread in the forum)
| 0 |
negative
|
Closet Land is a nasty piece of work with superb actors. Nothing more (or less) happens in the movie besides the unending abuse of an attractive woman prisoner by a sadistic police official. The setting is minimalist. This might be considered soft core S&M porn because the drama is devoid of all reference points such as time, place, and political context. Since what happens is cut adrift in a fantasy futuristic environment, the abuse becomes purely personal. The pornographic aspects are justified by being a warning about the evils of totalitarian government, but because there is no real context for the torture of this young woman, we come away disturbed but having learned nothing.<br /><br />What is the point? That torture exists in the world? That abusing prisoners is bad? That dictatorships abuse innocent people? We know that already. Closet Land has echoes of such works as Darkness At Noon and Ionesco's Rhinoceros, but both those works were made by competent artists whose work had historical context and depth of meaning. This work is amateurish and the dialogue sophomoric. A definite thumbs down.
| 0 |
negative
|
You can take the crook out of the joint, but it seems exceedingly more difficult to take the joint out of the crook. We've seen this kind of character in this kind of situation before (and since): in movies like BOB LE FLAMBEUR, ELEVATOR TO THE GALLOWS, TOUCHEZ PAS AU GRISBI, THE ANDERSON TAPES, etc. Too many times to mention. What helps make this one one of the more notable is (of course) the heist itself, which plays out wordlessly in real time, and the demeanor of the lead. Bogart would think twice before crossing this guy. The ironic ending is perfectly suited to this story (it almost demands it). All around, one of the better films noir.
| 1 |
positive
|
Seeing this show gives me respect for MTV, though i imagine that MTV sees this random, edgy material as its main selling point and is much less concerned with the pertinent truths it expresses. <br /><br />I write and play music for a living and this show gets me really emotionally riled up. For me, Wondsershowzen serves a completely distinct function from most TV. Instead of dulling or distracting the senses, (which can be often really nice at times), it awakens my spirit of right and wrong. It makes me very uncomfortable, but in a very comforting way. <br /><br />I don't think a lot of viewers absorb most of this show's content, but if they do, kudos to television viewers everywhere.
| 1 |
positive
|
MASTER PLAN: have the winning team in a deadly tournament. One of several martial arts action pictures that attempted to capture the flavor of the famous "Enter the Dragon" from '73, this one is an effort from South Africa. The villain's stronghold is a bit different, appearing as a white castle-like fortress in the middle of the desert from a distance. The villain himself, a Baron or general, is a slightly more perverse version of the "Dr.No" or Han mold of master villainy, having strange flashbacks to the glory days of Nazi Germany. He does wear the full regalia Nazi uniform at some points. His main ambition in life is to hold an illegal martial arts competition/tournament against his Japanese rival, an extension of their complicity in the 2nd World War (my army is better than your army). It sounds silly and it is, though the suggestion of madness and crazed machismo almost works. The central hero, Steve Chase (Ryan), resembles a white 'Bruce Lee' character, having a similarly lean, lithe physique, though obviously not on the same level of martial arts expertise. I thought he would be some secret government agent here but apparently not. He and his girlfriend have joined the Baron's team of fighters, but decide to quit (what did they think they were getting into?). Of course, it's not that easy. There's an odd sequence of them escaping through the desert using a wrecked car with a rigged sail - those desert winds can do wonders for travel, it seems.<br /><br />The plot kind of meanders in the 2nd half, as the hero joins the team of the villain's competitor and the girlfriend is held hostage by the villain in a cell, under threat of rape by the hero's rival. The most interesting character turns out to be Chico, a dwarf who is the villain's assistant; he's loyal to the Baron but is sympathetic to the plight of the hero. Much of the fighting utilizes the ballet-like capabilities of the hero, with a lot of leaping and slow motion. The sound FX are also amped up and exaggerated in an attempt to add more impact to the blows. There are a few good fights during the tournament towards the climax, but none really stand out. If one had to pick, I suppose the best involves the brutish muscle man-henchman of the Baron, introduced late in the story (he lifts the back of a car at one point). You wonder how the hero will take him out at the end, since the brute seems to shrug off most of the punches. The acting is very mediocre, descending into camp as far as the girlfriend, who tends to laugh for no reason, as if she's high on grass, though she is very cute. Some of the training scenes are also campy, especially all those guys running over or rolling down the desert sands. And, with such a title, there's surprisingly few actual killings. Ryan, as Steve Chase, returned as a traditional agent in the sequel "Kill and Kill Again." Hero:4 Villain:4 Femme Fatales:4 Henchmen:6 Fights:6 Stunts/Chases:4 Gadgets:2 Auto:3 Locations:5 Pace:5 overall:4+
| 0 |
negative
|
my friends and I are always on the lookout for chuck norris films to just bash and make fun of. One of our favorites so far is Lonewolf. i went to a wal-mart Christmas shopping and i came across this movie in the 5.99 bin. i had to get it. i had high hopes for this movie and although being absolutely hilarious at times, we agreed that bells of innocence is the worst movie we've ever seen, made, produced, thought up, etc... who the hell would think this is a good idea. not only is it confusing at times, but the acting is just hard to watch. the man who plays oren has acting i can compare to my own vomit, and chuck took a dive on this one, he's not the greatest actor, but this was terrible. and what kind of names are oren, conrad and jux........ jux. come on people. if you honestly thought this movie was at all watchable, great for you because it was hard for me and i seriously had a headache and stomach pains after watching it. I'm telling you now if you haven't seen this movie, DON'T!!. For the love of god please do not subject yourself to such a horrible 90 minutes of your life.
| 0 |
negative
|
Forced, cloying, formulaic. Do these adjectives make you want to run to rent his? Miriam Hopkins was brilliant in the original "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde." A few other early movies of hers, notably "The Story of Temple Drake," are never shown but said to be excellent.<br /><br />Here, she is cutesy, bossy, and thoroughly unappealing. Ray Milland as a Greeniwch Village bohemian not at all convincing.<br /><br />The two child performers are creepy and also bear no relation to the Village as it was then.<br /><br />Speaking as a native of Greenwich Village, I find the setting ersatz, generic, and phony. Not that I was around for a couple generations but my relatives were there in 1937. It isn't funny. It isn't remotely authentic. We don't care about the characters.<br /><br />So many movies were made about the struggling masses vs the capitalists at this time, and done with elan. "Easy Living" comes to mind. It didn't take place in the Village. But it rings very true. This rings with a thudding knell.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is not very bad tjough. But one cannot find anything new about the personality of Marquis de Sade from this movie. The movie tries to stay on the borderline between erotic and insightful and it cannot succeed at either. The cinematography is really bad (straigh-to video quality)<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
Being a long-time Steve Martin fan, it hurt to see him in a movie with such a cliched script. The screenwriter must have just rented some videos and taken a piece here and a piece there - it certainly is about the least imaginative movie I've seen in a long time - I knew exactly what was going to happen in each scene as soon as it began. The African-American stereotypes and slave references are pretty offensive as well. But the thing that was the worst for me was to see Martin in a movie without a trace of wit. He probably is one of the most intelligent actors and here he totally sold out to a totally dumbed down script. He must be behind in his alimony to be in such a lame effort.
| 0 |
negative
|
This really is a movie that you need to see twice. When I first saw this film I was really drawn into the story. While the majority of the story takes place inside of a hotel room, the stories that Buddy (Nick Drake, wonderful allusion) and Daphne share take you outside of their room and into their world. Through their conversations you get a feel for the loneliness and pain that each feels. The soundtrack accompanies the movie perfectly, dark, lo-fi and intriguing. When you see the film the second time around you can pick up all of the clues that you missed the first time around leading up to one of the best ending I have seen in a long time. I hope to see this movie find a distributor for the DVD so that it will be more accessible. Great movie, you won't be disappointed.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is said to be the first Polish western and is written and directed by Piotr Uklanski. Known in the U.S. as DEAD MAN'S BOUNTY, this film uses some strange visuals to tell a story that is short on dialog. Val Kilmer plays a corpse and some scenes are through his dead eyes. Some awkward visual situations are actually comical in a sick way. My favorite is a young man building a gallows chops off one of his own fingers and actually hangs himself testing the strength of the rope. A cowboy known only as 'the stranger'(Karel Roden)finds a dead man(Kilmer) that he thinks is a wanted man. He takes him to the nearest town to collect the bounty. He ends up losing the corpse and the potential bounty in a gambling game with the town's drunken sheriff(Boguslaw Linda)and has the few townsmen turned against him when he has a dalliance with the barmaid(Katarzyna Figura). He manages to escape sure death and leads the small posse on a dangerous 'wild goose chase'. One scene has the stranger tending to a scalp wound by cauterizing with gunpowder and a match. The corpse rots chained to a hitching post as the sheriff finds out that there is no bounty to be had. This movie also known as SUMMER LOVE has a haunting theme song sung by John Davidson. Nevertheless this western is like watching a train wreck. There is just something that tells you not to look...but you do.
| 0 |
negative
|
Let me begin with a personal note as a film and television buff, more on the enjoyment side of life: I love what James Woods can do and has done, and I always love Melanie Griffith, and Natasha Wagner was very good in this awful, miserable, stinking "true crime" essay.<br /><br />Whoever really wrote this film apparently never spent any time talking to real criminals with real criminal talents: yes, some thieves are junkies but they have very short careers as thieves. Truly successful thieves are seldom caught because they don't do "junk" or any drugs before going on a score ( job ).<br /><br />The James Woods character was true to this paradigm in the beginning of this film, and then the script fell apart completely. He turns into a raging, alcoholic lunatic .... nice work for a high-strung guy like Woods, maybe, but not in the least bit believable.<br /><br />Most criminals are lazy. If they wanted to work they would work.<br /><br />These people in this film are beautiful, self-indulgent, drug-addled narcissistic losers. They couldn't pull off a real score in the real world, the real world where a big and beefy security guard who beats the living hell out of a skinny kid ( as happens in the early scenes of this "DOG" ), keeps him beat down and doesn't let him up. Ever.<br /><br />How many ways did I find to hate this film ? Many. Even totally vulgar people -- like most sneak thieves and junkies -- have a larger vocabulary than these cretins. And the 'rip-off' scenes with the neo-Nazi bikers ? Puhlease. All rednecks ain't neo-Nazis and those who are neo-Nazi speed dealers just ain't that dumb !!<br /><br />This film earned a two because Natasha Wagner was extremely good in her role as Rose and because Melanie Griffith still has 'that something special,' or at least she had it for this brutal and offensively stupid film. I'm not one to sing praises of real criminals for any reason, but the reality of these criminal types in this horrible film is that they'd all be dead or in jail by Act 2, Scene 1. Watching a lousy Zombie movie would be time better spent than this .... thing ... and I hate zombies.
| 0 |
negative
|
To start this movie was sick. Here your wife is dying and you go strutting around town with this blond chic by your side. Then your wife dies and within 2 months you are together with this chic. Hank (James Brolin) is definitely moving fast throughout this movie. I called him Fast Hank. Fast Hank marries this beautiful lady and before you know it she is having sex with his best friends. The part that gets me is when she is "doing it" in the barn with Kevin and gets caught by another one of Hanks friends. Kevin gets up and leaves, she drops her robe and BAM!! Right into the arms of this other guy and they start "doing it" right then and there. I guess he is finishing up what Kevin started. HOW GROSS!!!! I am like this is lifetime movie??? Its a typical OLD MAN YOUNG WOMAN movie that says you can have my body if I get your money...
| 0 |
negative
|
Without a doubt, one of Tobe Hoppor's best! Epic storytellng, great special effects, and The Spacegirl (vamp me baby!).
| 1 |
positive
|
I was never in the past interested in this play although love Shakespeare and have seen most of his plays now and enthusiastically studied some at school. Something about this story and all the fuss about it seemed to put me off. I never bothered to try to see Hamlet until fairly recently deciding I should at least try to watch it and I borrowed the Olivier version from the library. Well, I struggled with it. Olivier seemed far too old, not only in his looks but in his acting of the part. The play had been enormously cut to fit a more conventional movie length and I think must have missed out too much as I found it difficult to concentrate on it, soon became bored and annoyed by it. I still think Olivier's Henry V is the best version I've seen of that rousing play - tho' admit I haven't rewatched the Beeb version yet and can't recall how it was when first shown.<br /><br />I heard of the Branagh full length version of Hamlet. Although I enjoyed his Much Ado, I think the Beeb version is far better and I wasn't entirely impressed by his Henry V. But I was off Branagh a bit after seeing his disappointing effort at a musical of Love's Labour's Lost which is a play I like and was so well made by the Beeb. <br /><br />Finally acquiring the complete Beeb Shakespeare on DVD recently, I soon rewatched one of my most favourite Shakespeare plays, Richard II, and was simply enthralled by Jacobi in the part so was immediately persuaded to watch his Hamlet next. What a revelation this play now is for me! Yes, it is splendid, but I feel it needs an actor you can emphathise with to play Hamlet and this for me is Jacobi. Amazing. Intriguing to note that although he is older than I understand the character Hamlet was, it doesn't show whilst in Olivier it did. Now I note he's also in the Branagh version and had much to do with training Branagh, so I shall have to watch that to see what Jocobi does with Claudius! I'm interested to discover Jacobi has trained Branagh as yes, you can certainly see the influence.<br /><br />And now I'm going to watch it all over again....
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie has got to be one of the all-time lows of Michael J. Fox's generally respectable career. I should have known how awful this movie was when I rented it and found the movie only half viewed and not rewound by the previous renter. Never a good sign! Fox plays a grown up child star who's now an agent for other show business kids. His character is delusional in that he still believes that everyone should love him for being Mikey. His big break comes when he meets Angie Vega, a talented child. Vega is abrasive and not at all likeable. In fact, the only likeable character in the whole movie is Cyndi Lauper as a Brooklyn accented receptionist for the agency. One of those movies that makes me want to stick a post-it note to the box warning others not to waste their time!
| 0 |
negative
|
This jingoist outing concerns the usual battle Holmes vs. Moriaty,but this time in an effort to save the British war against the Nazis.Sherlock Holmes(Rathbone) and Watson(Bruce),the detecting duo living in 223 Baker Street,again are up against their old enemy Dr. Moriarty(Lionel Atwill).The film starts in Switzerland where Holmes saves from the Nazis to an inventor of a bomb-sight,named Dr. Tobel(Post).Back in London,Tobel hand over four parts of the device to diverse scientist.But Doctor Tobel is kidnapped by Moriarty.Sherlock must to solve his disappearance and some vitally important.Holmes only holds a clue left his girlfriend(Kareen Verne),the detective with an extraordinary mechanism get decode it.But dead body scientific are accumulating but have appeared murdered and Moriarty knows the keys ,as well.Holmes disguised as sailor goes out to investigate ,finding the Moriarty's shelter .The picture is based on¨ the dancing men¨by Arthur Conan Doyle.This is a Rathbone-Bruce effort for the WWII along with ¨The voice of terror¨ in which we are asked to believe the magnificent detective could have lived in this century. Both stories are completely patriotic and flag-waging movies.In fact,on the end there's an advertising buying of war bonds with evident propaganda.<br /><br />The movie is an excellent Holmes thriller with gripping wartime setting and unanswered mysteries and unstopped suspense.In the film appear the habituals from Holmes series.His nemesis Moriarty,,Mistress Hudson,Inspector Lestrade( a funny Dennis Hoey) and of course the bumbling Dr. Watson.Basil Rathbone performance is splendid ,he's the best cinema's Holmes similar to television's Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett.Rathbone as whimsical sleuth is top notch,he's in cracking form,intelligent,broody and impetuous.He's finely matched in battle of wits with Moriarty,his arch-enemy,a first range villain: Lionel Atwill.Nigel Bruce plays Watson with humor,jinx,goofy and mirth.He's the perfect counterpoint of Holmes.Besides appear briefly distinguished secondaries as Paul Fix and Whit Bissell.This classic gets an atmospheric black and white cinematography but available colorized in a horrible version.Adequate music score fitting to suspense by Frank Skinner.The motion picture is professionally R. William O'Neal,the usual saga director and habitual in the monsters movies Universal.
| 1 |
positive
|
I don't want to write too much about the film but basically it's an action/comedy with a little bit of romance thrown in about two men who come together in unlikely circumstances and become highway men together. Fantastic performance by Robert Carlysle and everybody else involved. A brilliant 'baddy' who really makes you hate him. Some great comical lines - actually laugh out loud, amazing action and a great plot. Choice of music and ambiance all fantastic, basically brilliantly directed and brilliants written. I recommend this film to anyone who likes a good British movie or a good bit of action, i don't know why the film never took off, i thought it got no where near as much recognition as it deserved. If for nothing else, watch this film for one of the greatest finale's of all time. Not to give anything away, but this one really get's the heart beating!
| 1 |
positive
|
If you like horror or action watch this film ASAP. If the opening scene doesn't get your adrenaline pumping then someone should check your pulse. Great Action, excellent casting and top one-liners. This is the only film I have seen in a cinema where the crowd applauded each chop, kick & punch thrown. Not perfection but who cares when films can be this much fun. Its a pure rush of dark comic book action. 9/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Mickey Rourke is enjoying a renaissance at the moment... and fair play to him. I always liked his image and his acting ability in such fare as Angel Heart and Johnny Handsome. You know what you are going to get with Rourke - mean, moody, dirty. But this film gives you much more - and you don't want most of it.<br /><br />First and foremost - this whole thing just doesn't make sense. Rourke is a hardened IRA killer who after killing a bus-load of schoolchildren flees Ireland for London. He is on the run from the cops and from his own Army comrades. He has also vowed to never kill again. It looks like the bus full of kids finally did it for him.<br /><br />However, when he gets to London he is tracked down by a local mobster (Bates - looking like his eyebrows and hair came straight off a Burton's dummy) to kill his main competitor in turn for £50,000 and a boat trip to the US. Rourke reluctantly agrees to do it but is seen by a priest (Hoskins) and confesses the crime to him in the confessional in order to keep the priest's mouth shut. He figures it is better than killing him.<br /><br />A wealth of things arise here which just don't add up : 1. Why pick Rourke to off your competition? As is illustrated by a scene whereby an employee is pinned to a wall by a couple of heavies with what look like awls - these London guys are tough enough anyway to do their own killing. 2. Not only that but the Mobster gets a guy to follow Rourke and witness the killing with his own eyes. Why didn't that guy simply kill the competitor and save all the hassle of dealing with Rourke? 3. Hoskins sees the murder take place and the police let him go off - without protection, I may add - to take confession? No way. 4. Rourke hangs around the church (right next to where he carried out the murder ) immediately after the crime takes place to go to confession. Why aren't the cops checking the place out? 5. Rourke hangs around the church and Hoskin's blind niece in particular, for days afterwards without anybody bothering him. What? He's on the run and he stays put by the very place where he committed another murder? Stupid. 6. The cops actually meet Rourke in the church "fixing" the organ and have no idea who he is. Do they not know he is on the run for the school bus bombing? They don't even check up on him? 7. Why get Rourke to kill for you, and then tell him to wait around for a few days to get on the boat? You'd think you'd want to get rid of him immediately. Or kill him. One or the other? 8. Why does Bates' brother suddenly decide to rape the blind niece in the midst of all the waiting? Could he not restrain himself for a few days? At least until Rourke has been safely offed to the States? Ridiculous. 9. Rourke suddenly has inner turmoil after all his years of killing and wins over the blind niece immediately - even after she knows he is a killer, she still loves him? Again - utterly ludicrous. And besides - she falls in "love" with him in record time - a few days !!!! 10. The whole bomb thing at the end is just plain silly from Bates point of view. 11. Things happen in parts of this film that just do not make sense or are simply in there to help the storyline (and I say that in jest) along. Bates' houses Rourke in a whorehouse until the boat is ready to sail and Rourke suddenly displays a moral high ground to respect the whore in the house - but yet will bed a blind girl. 12. Rourke asks a henchman on the boat where Bates is - and the henchman practically spurts out the entire movements of his boss in less than 10 seconds. It was embarrassing - the guy was telling Rourke far more than he even asked. 13. Hoskin's priest is an ex-army guy and we see him beat up three henchmen behind a pub. Totally uncalled-for and yet another cringe-worthy scene.<br /><br />I'm gonna stop there at unlucky 13 without mentioning Rourke's hair (so falsely red it is laughable), his accent (which to be fair is not too bad sometimes but deteriorates to a barely heard mumble at other times), his clothes, walk, looks to the heavens etc. Nor will I mention the music and the choppy editing style.<br /><br />Oooppps - I have just mentioned them.<br /><br />Overall - a disaster of a film with some obvious religious imagery thrown in (Rourke on the cross, preaching from a pulpit) which would embarrass a first year film student never mind a top star and director.<br /><br />4/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
Words fail me for this appalling waste of two hours of anyone's life. The story is contrived to the point of complete incredibility. <br /><br />The acting is leaden and so much of this is laughably dreadful. Vinnie Jones - so wonderful in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is unbearably awful and unbelievable as Mike Sullivan, journalist.<br /><br />I honestly can't ever remember seeing a worse film. It's only worth watching for the appalling continuity lapses. After Jones is handed a huge beating he emerges without a scratch on him. His girlfriend upends a drink over him and he chases her, emerging from the pub bone dry. It's quite dreadful, made all the worse by the talented actors who appear in it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Scott's collection of 80's icons cannot save this teen disaster. But then I suppose that's why it was only a TV movie and not a major motion picture. William A. Schwartz (writer) comes up with something closer to "Stewardess School", except this movie is more boring. This movie isn't really stupid, just boring and completely plotless. The only reason to see this might be to see Tina Yothers in an actual role after Family Ties. After this movie and equally dumb "Class Cruise", I guess Mr. Scott wised up and went back to directing sit-coms, which was his best move yet. 4 out of 10
| 0 |
negative
|
The director, Ramin Niami, delivers the goods with Somewhere in the City. This hilarious farce, I believe, is in the tradition of a Mel Brooks comedy. Niami pokes fun at New York society by creating the believable, eccentric, and tragic characters of one tenement apartment building bringing them to life from the very opening one shots that introduce them. Peter Stormare's performance as a gay Shakespearean actor is absolutely award worthy and the film in general does a good job at showing the hopelessness and laugh-ability of self-centered ambition. Sandra Bernhard is cast perfectly as the straight, self-obsessed therapist. I really enjoyed Sandra's performance immensely especially since I haven't really been a very big fan until now. Bai Ling, Ornella Muti, and Bulle Ogier round out an international ensemble par excellence. I loved the scene with Robert John Burke and his gang of idiot criminals who couldn't plan a robbery if their lives depended on it. With a cameo appearance by Mayor Ed Koch and a solid performance by Paul Anthony Stewart, the revolutionary momma's boy, Somewhere in the City entertains without missing a beat.
| 1 |
positive
|
Foolish hikers go camping in the Utah mountains only to run into a murderous, disfigured gypsy. <br /><br />The Prey is a pretty run of the mill slasher film, that mostly suffers from a lack of imagination. The victim characters are all-too-familiar idiot teens which means one doesn't really care about them, we just wonder when they will die! Not to mention it has one too many cheesy moments and is padded with endless, unnecessary nature footage. However it does have a few moments of interest to slasher fans, the occasional touch of spooky atmosphere, and a decent music score by Don Peake. Still, it's business as usual for dead-camper movies.<br /><br />There are much better films in this vein, but over all The Prey may be watchable enough for die-hard slasher fans. Although one might be more rewarded to watch Just Before Dawn (1981), Wrong Turn (2003), or even The Final Terror (1983) again.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of ****
| 0 |
negative
|
Imagine a GILLIGAN'S ISLAND set in the African desert in modern times. Add people nowhere near as jaunty as the Skipper or Marianne--and enough angst to fill a German psychiatrist's office. Throw in a plot that manages to be interesting only episodically and literary parallelism that never delves deeply enough to truly satisfy. Season with a truly morose topic that's been exploited since the first world travelers found themselves very, very lost.<br /><br />If THE KING IS ALIVE weren't a product of the reigning czars du jour of Dogme 95, would this film be garnering as much attention? Dogme 95 is to Hollywood as Danish modern is to rococo. A byproduct of digital technology, this Scandinavian movement seeks--quite dogmatically--to strip away artificiality in film-making, by using more natural elements and returning to the essence of storytelling. PEARL HARBOR, for instance, is the Dogme Antichrist.<br /><br />Director/co-author Kristian Levring's saga ponders interpersonal relations and human nature when placed under the fire of a life-threatening situation. Eleven people aboard a bus riding through the Namibian sand dunes suddenly find themselves stranded in the remains of an abandoned town. An African local who does not speak their language serves as observer and narrator (whose insights are among the film's most trenchant). As the strongest heads off for a five-day walk to the nearest village, the others stay behind, surviving on dented-canned carrots and circumambulating their likely future as vulture chow. Former thespian Henry decides that this rather unappealing crew needs a diversion, and hand-writes KING LEAR from memory. He assigns roles, and the group passes many days learning lines and rehearsing, in an effort to divert their attention from the seemingly inevitable.<br /><br />Gradually the cast begins to lose it, and the savageries of their natureor, William Golding might say, human naturebegin to surface. If you've ever seen LORD OF THE FLIES, you know that these things can get ugly, that being in a lifeboat situation can turn even Mother Teresa into the PMSing termagant of Calcutta.<br /><br />The film was shot using an international ensemble of American, English, French and South African actors, who, the Dogme dogma dictates, develop themselves and their roles quite organically. THE KING was also filmed chronologically, adding a sense of realism to the ever-increasing desperation of its characters. After up to three hand-held cameras shot in digital, results were transferred to 35mm film.<br /><br />The performance that compels most comes from Jennifer Jason Leigh, who plays a boho Pop Tart trying to bolster the spirits of the group in any and every way she can. Henry (David Bradley) is another finely played character, whose passion for his life's work ultimately saves the gang from utter despair. It's hard to feel too sorry for the otherscruel wives and their oafish husbands, hirsute old womanizers, sulky French intellectuals, wealthy men who have more important places to be than marooned in the Namibian desert. Beckett might hate this question, but why is this group riding a bus together through remote Africa in the first place? Life-threatening morbidity! Utter despair rendered in graphic detail! A relentlessly tedious pace! Enjoy.
| 0 |
negative
|
Well we definitely did see and I and many other people were actually expecting worse. It did have some good parts too it that I was not expecting it still did fail in other areas though.<br /><br />First off the acting was above average. I love Phillip Seymour Hoffman in this movie and I liked Tom Hanks. Hoffman was the glue to this movie. If it were not for him this movie would have crumbled and hit rock bottom. His performance was by no means stunning but absolutely necessary. He gave a good witty, cynical performance in what most other actors could have easily made his character into a cliché. Tom Hanks really gave a nice loose performance and did not disappoint but he certainly did not impress. What I could not stand was that Julia Roberts was involved in this movie. She was as big of a miscast as I have ever seen. For one she is a bad actress, at least to me, she was to young for her character and was to phony even for the character she was playing.<br /><br />The directing was average to me. I'm not really a big fan of the recent Mike Nichols movies and I'm not exactly impressed by this one either. It was made with such a Hollywoodish, cartoonish touch hat I could not stand. The worst part about it was that he tried make it be a really meaningful movie at the end. I love meaningful movies but not when a movie tries to rush a scene or two at the end and show something that tries to justify the rest of the garbage spread throughout the whole movie. That is something that Mike Nichols has seemed to have done a lot in his recent track record.<br /><br />The one impressive part of this movie was the writing. The dialog was put together very well and was able to let the story play out. The writing was what was able to really able to take this movie to an above average level. In so many scenes I found myself laughing in part by the writing.<br /><br />Well that is some of what we saw at least. A lot of the scenery was good in the movie if you get what I mean but not a lot other than that. I did like that this movie did not glorify everything America had done. It is obvious that during this whole war in Afghanistan the U.S. gave weapons to the people who are now against us. This movie kind of show we are too blame for that. It shows that what may seem good in the short term may turn into something horribly wrong in the future. This movie did have a good original message but it just did not deliver it right. Overall though it was entertaining.
| 1 |
positive
|
After recently seeing, Cry Uncle, by the same director, I decided to seek this out and am I glad I did!? This is an extraordinarily good film. Far, far better than it would seem likely given the ingredients. How many times have we had to suffer the embarrassment of someone playing a middle class Dad mixing it with the flower children aagh! And yet here thanks to a perfect script it is made believable. Not ideal, not good or bad but believable. Peter Boyle, as the working class, hippie and ni**er hater and Dennis Patrick as the uptight suit, play their respective parts immaculately and I can't remember ever seeing the two classes getting together like this without things getting sentimental. Susan Sarandon is effective as a hippie chick but doesn't have all that much to do in her first film. This is a truly, must see film capturing as it does that very short period in western and in particular US times when the counter culture was about to bust itself wide open.
| 1 |
positive
|
OK firstly, if your not a fan of the whole low budget horror genre then don't bother with this. You really need to be a fan to get the gag.<br /><br />The move is basically about snakes ..on a train. Lots of them.<br /><br />There is an ancient curse involved and a crazy ending which I wont spoil. The gore effect are full on and real icky... but the movie is mainly one big gory gag about snakes scaring the hell out of a bunch of people trapped on a train.<br /><br />The suspense is built up well and there are some memorable and well composed scenes.. some of the acting is a bit hammy (watch for the surf dudes) but thats not really the point... Give this movie a go. Know what to expect and you wont regret it!
| 1 |
positive
|
I liked this film a lot. The actors were great, particularly Potente, who is different in every role; Fürmann, who is also able to play anyone; and Loos, who spices things up (she is also a talented singer - she sings the song "My Truth", heard when one character cranks up the stereo in the lab).<br /><br />Anatomie is a good horror flick, which pays attention to its characters. It is also very gory at times, and the set design is innovative. It is too bad they had to make a sequel, which is nowhere near the original.<br /><br />On a side note, two other things definitely worth mentioning. The DVD is not dubbed, which makes for a better experience of the film. Also, make sure to keep watching after the final credits start rolling.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was playing on Lifetime Movie Network last month and I decided to check it out. I watched for the first 20 minutes and then shut it off b/c I am sorry but plot holes that are integral to a movie's plot make the movie nothing but garbage.<br /><br />The movie is about a woman who accidentally runs a child on a bicycle off the road, leaves to get help, returns only to find out that it's being called a hit and run and there's a hunt for the 'monster' that hurt (in the end killed) her.<br /><br />This is a movie about a female in an affluent neighborhood who has 2 small grade school children and who is an active, sociable woman and yet in order for this movie to work, it needs to be believable that she does not own a CELL PHONE. Sorry, but that's complete BS especially when everyone else seems to have one - they used theirs to call 911 when they found the girl lying on the side of the road - when our lead female left the scene of the crime to go phone 911 at some payphone. When the lead female comes back, the ambulance is already at the girl's side and there is chatter about how horrible the person is who hit and left her.<br /><br />Just DUMB. Sorry but I am not willing buy that this woman doesn't own a cell phone which is needed for the movie to work. Please don't insult my intelligence movie, thanks. Maybe if this took place in 1970 or 1960, I'd buy it but it's clearly a present day (1999 at the time) movie. ..but wait, if she had a cell phone, there would be no movie. Pfft.<br /><br />The woman clearly knows about technology since she had computers in her house, ones the kids played games on so all the movie had to do was make her cell phone dead in the car, making her resort to another way to call the cops.. leaving out a cell phone altogether just created a ridiculous plot.
| 0 |
negative
|
How did so many talented or at least charismatic actors wind up in this baloney? Nothing is very good about this movie but the worst things probably are the screenplay and the directing.<br /><br />Apparently this is director Damian Niemans heart-piece as he's both written and directed it (and acted in as well). He's a card magician himself and seems to have named characters in homage of other famous magicians. This was his first feature film as far as I know, and chances are it's his last.<br /><br />It's hard to point to exactly what makes it so poor but I'd say the story and character's are not believable (the screenplay) and the directing doesn't give it any boost (the director). Plus the poker scenes are bad in the worst Hollywood manner (super-hands, Hollywood rules)! The supposed twists in the movie are either totally predictable or totally unbelievable. They just end up tying a knot to a story that at best can be described as "a few decent scenes"!
| 0 |
negative
|
It may be a remake of the 1937 film by Capra, but it is wrong to consider it only in that way! It was supposed to expose Hilton's novel in a completely different way. As a musical is excellent. The scenery is terrific, the characters good and anyone like "Leonard Maltin" who considers the Bacharach music awful must be completely deaf! I strongly recommend it.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's times like these I truly wish I was a more avid reader of Clive Barker's literary repertoire, since very few things feel worse than not being able to fully comprehend a movie of this stunningly 'visual' caliber. Based on the novella "Cabal", the story of "Nightbreed" involves a behemothic amount of lavish and bizarre creatures and settings in an underground society of demonic ghouls. A normal guy becomes linked to the strange world, called Midian, through his dreams and his psychiatrist coerces him into believing he is responsible for a series of gruesome murders of families in recent months... Thinking this to be true, he retreats to Midian - located under a rural cemetery - where he is reluctantly accepted. The shrink, however, is right on Homeboy's heals with a diabolical scheme to whip out the community of Nightbreeds...<br /><br />Wanting so much to love this movie, I was very let down in the long run. I have regretfully not read the story so Barker's fantasy world and the purpose of it and all these monsters was horribly confusing and the premise was painfully uneven. I understand how the final cut was diced to hell and even Barker show's moderate dislike for the overall product, but I just didn't "get" it. Even if it is crucial to read the story, I feel like it should at least be translated to film in a way that it is still comprehensible for those unfamiliar with the literature. If "Cabal" is as convoluted as this film than Barker really milked a dead concept. Couldn't help but feel a bit bored after a while, especially when things started getting increasingly ridiculous (somewhere around the jail scene I realized just how bored I was) - like a police department fearlessly going to war with Midian like it happens every week! No one seems to think the idea of immortal monsters is a tad... strange. I DID like the visual effects and all that crazy sh*t that went on in Midian, especially that porcupine lady and that big headed SOB... Definitely an epic flick when you consider the massive quantity of effects and convincingly morbid decor. David Cronenberg fills his position well as the loony shrink with his cool zipper-head potato sack mask, but we ALL wish he had done some behind-the-camera work to help save this heap... <br /><br />So, if you have a boner for Clive Barker material and fully grasp what exactly Midian is, why they show the creatures during the opening title sequence (terrible idea!), and why these creatures reside there and how some punk kid shares a telekinetic link to it, you should probably check out "Nightbreed". I'll look for "Cabal" one of these days and hopefully gain some perspective... Or maybe I'll just forget this travesty completely... Until then, this is a poorly constructed and fairly tedious mess of a movie... Watch "Hellraiser" instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
boring, horrible piece of Italian euro-trash about a scientist who seems to spend most of his time guzzling beer(this is what makes him American, right? Our scientists spend most of their academic life soused out of their minds, sure. That's where all the really great theories come from), who's studying something(dolphin calls, fish migration patterns, who knows). He hears a weird sound through his headphones, proving that his radio is picking up a station in Jamaica. At the same time, a Jack Skellington girl with one of the worst, most bleached manes of bad 80's hair that it has ever been my pleasure to witness is trying to calm down the dolphins in the Seaquarium she works at, as they're apparently upset about the amount of fish she's been doling out lately. The beginning of the film was a really badly colored storyline about two annoying, very Italian people who's boat is attacked by something unseen under the water. The whiny woman is never seen again(best part of the story), and the guys' corpse is found with no legs. The dim, alcoholic scientist(who has an inexplicable, English- American- Italian accent) and the stick girl with the hay hair begin to theorize that there's some kind of giant monster lurking under the seas off the coast of Italy...err..Florida.<br /><br />They enlist the help of an electrician to set up an underwater mike, so that the monster can sing karaoke. This guy has a beautiful girlfriend, who's only drawback is that she pronounces Peter "Pey-tah", but for some reason he's sexually drawn to the anatomical skeleton with the frizzly hair, a situation that leaves one blinking.<br /><br />The dubbing is awful, the editor a spaz, and the storyline generally a yawn. There's a bit about how this weird scientific corporation genetically engineered this monster giant shark-squid-barracuda thing for some reason that makes no sense, and a really unpleasant greasy haired guy goes around killing women, again for no apparent reason. A stupid sheriff and his bulked up deputy are along for the ride, along with a female scientist(who we know is smart because she wears huge glasses). At one time the woman scientist takes on the huge, terrible monster(yeah, right, Ed Wood's giant octopus was more believable) with only a small handaxe, and she wins the contest. Hooray for skinny little women, who obviously make the best monster hunters!<br /><br />The solution to the problem of the giant thing is to blow up half of the Everglades, leaving a dead zone for several miles in every direction. To Hell with ecology and the environment, right? We have to kill this giant monster! At the end, the electrician and his broomstick love ride off into the sunset on her Vespa, which is o.k. since she's gotten over her colleagues' death and he's not very upset that his girlfriend got whacked by the crazy guy with the greasy hair. Hooray for true love! Wait a minute, isn't there something fishy about all this...
| 0 |
negative
|
For all those bewildered by the length and pace of this film ("like, why does he show spaceships docking for, like, 15 minutes?"), here's a word you might want to think about:<br /><br />Beauty.<br /><br /> Beauty is an under-rated concept. Sure, you'll often see nice photography and so on in films. But when did you last see a film that contains beauty purely for the sake of it? There is a weird belief among cinemagoers that anything which is not plot or character related must be removed. This is depressing hogwash. There is nothing wrong with creating a beautiful sequence that has nothing to do with the film's plot. A director can show 15 minutes of spaceships for no reason than that they are beautiful, and it is neither illegal nor evil to do so. <br /><br /> '2001' requires you to watch in a different way than you normally watch films. It requires you to relax. It requires you to experience strange and beautiful images without feeling guilty that there is no complex plot or detailed characterization. Don't get me wrong, plots and characters are good, but they're not the be-all and end-all of everything. There are different KINDS of film, and to enjoy '2001' you must tune your brain to a different wavelength and succumb to the pleasure of beauty, PURE beauty, unfettered by the banal conventions of everyday films.<br /><br /> "All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde.
| 1 |
positive
|
Where do we start with an offering like this? I nearly said film but that would be going a step too far. The only thing hellish about this film is that it is certainly a marriage made in hell, between nothing and nonsense, baloney and balderdash. These films should carry a physiological health warning so as not to damage one's spirit to the point where one might believe that all good film makers have left the planet and their resources have been handed to the dunderheads who have make this classic piece of trite garbage just like it's sister in arms "League of Extraordinary Twaddle". They are neither science fiction nor fact, entertaining nor thought provoking, humorous nor weighty but lay in a twilight zone devoid of any and all accoutrements that entice people to give up their valuable time, sit in a darkened room and generally be more enlightened, enlivened or happy at the end of it. If we could award "Turkey" points for films like this, this would be a turnip, as we would gone through the turkey, ham, potatoes, sprouts, gravy and all other embellishments before reaching rock bottom.
| 0 |
negative
|
Let's get one thing straight, this gets an 7 out of 10 not on a normal scale, but out of the bad movie scale. this is the kind of movie you rent on purpose, where you intentionally walk in knowing that it is a horrendous knockoff and shun'd by everyone else. <br /><br />I went in with one promise from the movie, that there will be snakes on a train, and it Delivers! <br /><br />The gore itself is really good, and the characters have awesome roles. Come on, it has everything from stoned train pilots to teenage girls trafficking drugs, even a Electrical Engineer getting his pimp on! You get to see some topless nudity, explosions, snakes, gore, and a Mexican main lead running around curing his girlfriend by hitting his crack pipe and blowing the smoke in her face!! As I mentioned and many others have, the movie pacing is a bit off, but respectable nonetheless. <br /><br />Movies like this keep our group tradition of banding together and all chipping in a buck or two to watch masterpieces such as this. There can be no better time spent then coming together to enjoy a good bad movie. <br /><br />It could learn a thing or two from the likes of other such fine flicks as Alien Lock-down or Boa vs Python, but those are some big shoes to fill. <br /><br />A solid 7 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
There was some good build up of suspense throughout. The cinematography was surprisingly good considering such minimal budget. We witness occasional spells of good acting, however, this is quickly deflated by some quite cheesy lines. Understandably there would not be much of an intellectual conversation to be had, sitting up on trees while a crocodile is stalking you. Silence would have been golden here. There could have been a bigger play on suspense than dimly uttering, "I sat in the cupboard for fear of my brother..." Something tells me there's a slight difference in getting a beating from your brother than being eaten by a mighty 15ft croc. You decide. Throughout the film I can't seem to find a connection or for that matter, sympathy with the characters, perhaps thats because they don't develop one throughout the film, character that is. There are some occasional good scares when the crocodile sneaks up on the characters, overshadowed again by some questionable scenes. In one instance we should be terrified by an ear floating in the water but later we sit beside a decapitated, limbless corpse and only worry about a broken finger. A definite roller coaster of a film when it comes to logic.
| 0 |
negative
|
Aah yes the workout show was a great. Not only did many women get in shape, but many teenage boys got a great workout as well. I am not saying that the show was in any way not appropriate for family viewing, but if you check the other works from the shows producer, you will find more adult themes in his works, which are also excellent. Many of the viewers looked forward to the show, men and women alike all gained good information and a wonderful release,from the workouts. The girls were perfect, and Beautiful, the show is a classic and should do well in syndication. The show should still be on, as there are never enough choices to view when it comes to health and beauty.
| 1 |
positive
|
the subspecies series is an always will be the best vampire movies ever. there is something about them that makes them special i think it`s the feeling you get when you watch them .<br /><br />they are set in modern times and yet they feel as if they are set in the 1700`s or 1800`s i think it has some thing to do with the set`s that are used if so then it`s working keep it up guy`s :).<br /><br />in a quick round up of what`s happened in the first part - Radu was supposedly bannished from his home land years ago by his father and he has decided to come back and take what he thinks is his birth rite. the blood stone and all his father has so he kill`s his father who is played by Angus Scrimm (the tall man from the Phantasm movies). and takes the blood stone which has emense power to who ever has it because who has it need never kil anyone again because the stone is supposedly meant to drip the bloody of the saints and every time the Radu takes a drop from it he is slowly going insane. (thats all we need an insane vampire as if a normal vampire aint bad enough). well Radu`s brother Stephan try`s to put a stop to his evil ways all while trying to stop himself falling inlve with a tourist who is staying at a house/fort which belongs to a friend of his.<br /><br />well one thing leads to another and the two brothers clash and well you will have to see the movie to see what goes on from here on in.<br /><br />i will review/comment on the other sequels soon .<br /><br />the difference between this and buffy is buffy is too commercial and this is not so this will not appeal to everyone but this has an atmosphere far superior to that of buffy although Radu does not look as good as the wonder full Sarah Michelle Gellar :).<br /><br />rating for this movie 10/10 a fine example of how a vampire movie should be done :).<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
As a fan of the old Doctor Who, and after the mediocre Fox movie, I was dubious of this new series of Doctor Who. I gave it a chance though, and am so glad I did.<br /><br />Yes, some episodes aren't as brilliant as others, but they are all enjoyable, and yes, Eccleston's Doctor is far from any we've had before but... Eccleston's Doctor is just about the best there is. His performance is at times comical, at others dramatic, sometimes completely crazy but always fantastic.<br /><br />This, and Bille Piper as Rose make this series a cut above the rest (Camille Coduri is also fantastic as Rose's mum), and there is a depth to this series not present previously. This series is incredibly powerful, especially considering its Sci-Fi. I mean who'd have thought you could ever have felt sorry or even cried for a Dalek prior to this, how many times in this series' history have we had moments like those with Rose's dad, the Emergency Doctor and the 'You were fantastic...so was I' final speech? I advise anyone, whether a fan of Doctor Who or even TV drama to buy this set on DVD, it truly is "Fantastic!".<br /><br />Now only 4 episodes through the latest series (and looking forward to the new Cybermen) I have to say that David Tennant's Doctor is just not as good, of course you may disagree, but I don't think his Doctor is capable of those emotional moments seen in the previous series. I also have to say that in my opinion so far this series has not been as good as the last, however the return of Sarah Jane & K9 was a fantastic episode, a true gem. Not to say this series is not good, just not quite AS good.<br /><br />So whether you like it or not, and whether you prefer Tennant or Eccleston, The Doctor is back, and he's here to stay. "Fantastic!" - Almost as many "Fantastic!"'s as The Doctor! -
| 1 |
positive
|
This film by the well-known Czech director and writer collaborator Petr Jarchovský is remarkable for its particularity but annoying and distracting in its details. Taking its theme and title from a Robert Graves poem, it deals with a woman with several men and some obnoxious relatives in her life who's trying to survive and protect her two children, 15-year-old Lucina (Michaela Mrvikova) and little blond asthmatic Kuba (Adam Misik).The poem is much in evidence, but the theme--it gets a little lost.<br /><br />Marcela (Anna Geislerová), the Beauty, and Jarda (Roman Luknár) have lost everything in the Prague floods of 2002 and have nothing left, it seems, but good sex, which they go at with such a vengeance in their tiny apartment that Lucina and Kuba, in front of the telly, must hold their ears against the noise. Hrebejek relishes such explicitness and skates on the edge of embarrassment or shock. There's no good explanation precisely why, but financial desperation has led Jarda to processing stolen cars in the big garage that adjoins his flatlet. His car-thief cohort drives off a posh Volvo the easygoing Benes (Josef Abrham) has left with the keys in the ignition while visiting a large property he owns. Benes is a super-nice guy, but no fool. His Volvo is wired for tracking by satellite in cases like this and that leads the cops straight to Jarda's garage and he and his cohort are off to jail.<br /><br />"Beauty in trouble flees to the good angel,/On whom she can rely," begins the Graves poem. But actually this fracas leads Benes to Marcela, when he meets her at the police station. He introduces her to sushi and how to drink wine and plies her with a picture book about Tuscany, where he, though Prague-born, owns a lovely villa and has lived most of his life. He's here to reclaim the house in Prague now occupied by a couple with an ancient and infirm mother, whom he allows to remain. Benes' every gesture is benevolent, even though he doesn't prevent Jarda from going off to jail.<br /><br />In the circumstances Marcela must retreat with Lucina and Kuba to depend on the charity of her mother, Zdena (Jana Brejchova) and the far less tender mercies of Zdena's present husband, the scrawny diabetic Richard Hrstka (Jiri Schmitzer)--who, for the kids, starting when they commit the cardinal sin of consuming his dietetic cookies, proves to be the uncle from hell. Jiri Schmitzer hijacks the film at this point, and never quite lets it go. Even in the final scene he is a figure of leering menace. It is surprising that the obnoxious Richard doesn't sexually abuse one or both of the children. He is insistent that Marcela needs to get out on her own, and when Benes offers to take her under his wing he and Richard become improbable allies. Improbable--perhaps implausible. Why should Benes like him? But then, what is Benes's whole story? About some things the film gives too much information and about others, not enough. <br /><br />Clearly the "good angel," Benes is infallibly kind--and a polished, good-looking older man whose manners befit his Italian upbringing. It's only at the end, when he's pushed to the limits over his Prague property by the devious occupants, he proves that he is not one to won't lie down and be walked over. <br /><br />Also to be dealt with is Jarda's religious fanatic mother Sdena (Jana Brejchova), and her interactions with Zdena and Richard are something to watch. But she is just another wild card that does not augment the deck. <br /><br />The poem has been set to music in a Czech translation and is sung on screen by the accordionist-vocalist Raduza, first in a tiny scene, then in a more extended one staged at a prison performance witnessed by Jarda and the car thief pal. If you revere Hrebejk as an auteur you may relish this sequence; otherwise it tends to feel gratuitous. Also included are a number of songs by Glen Hansard/Marketa Irglova of the Oscar-award-winning Irish musical film 'Once,' including the latter's theme song, "Falling." They feel more out of place than they would otherwise because of their familiarity from 'Once'--though this film came first.<br /><br />Hrebejk's people are arresting; even little Koba has his Shakespearean-child moments and a wealth of charm; but the director and his writer seem unable to resist the temptation to digress and to over-expand. The property hassle Benes endures may be useful for showing he has a tough side. But such an elaborate demonstration wasn't necessary. The acting is fine, and there is a wonderful with quirkiness and specificity, but the basic themes of love, sex, and money get lost in the shuffle and Marcela's conflicts and how she resolves them never become clear. It's fine that there is no resolution and true to the theme and to Graves's poem that Marcela still has hot sex with Jarda during a revisit to Prague after moving to Tuscany with Benes and her kids. But there are too many questions remaining about what to make of the obnoxious Richard or of Jarda's annoyingly pious mother (Emília Vásáryová). How come all of a sudden we learn Koba is getting letters from "India" purported to be from his dad, who's in prison? When did that come about? Interesting details, hastily pasted in. This seems a world in which you can't see the forest for the trees.
| 1 |
positive
|
One of those TV films you saw in the seventies that scared the hell out of you when you were a kid but still gives you an eerie feeling. No great actors or expensive production but everytime that phone rings......
| 1 |
positive
|
David Attenborough brings his fascination of wild life, this time the creatures under the sea, in this extraordinary 8-episode trip to all the animals under the sea!<br /><br />The cinematography is astounding, bringing to the screen truly breathtaking footage of those whales! But the best thing about it, as well as seeing each episode, is how they made it! Whether it is making models of creatures, or those impressive shots of the whales, they explain to you in about 10 minutes how they did it!<br /><br />2001 had some great tv shows to our screen. But, in contrast to this documentary gem, they make them pretty lame! But to even boast this documentary series as the best tv series of 2001 just does not sum up the sheer brilliance that this series provides in quality entertainment!<br /><br />Overall, this is the best TV series of 2001, with no competition, and, maybe, the best TV series of 2000s!
| 1 |
positive
|
Bhagam Bhag was a waste of money and time big time! I wonder y Govinda did this movie? Govinda...dude...m your big fan, u have to make right decisions now in choosing movie? i wonder he had any role in that movie.Govinda's role could be given to Johnny Lever. Akshay Kumar steals the show here! Akshay...dud u rock! u have created space in everybody's heart all over the world! Lara Dutta, Tansuhree ....u guys deserve better. Paresh Rawal is good at his witty! overall there were few scene where i laughed...otherwise i was just wondering "y the hell did Priyadarshan made such a stupid movie?" Anyways, lets wait and watch upcoming movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Ordinarily, Anthony Mann made westerns with 'the big guys' - James Stewart, Gary Cooper, Henry Fonda . . . the A list cowboy stars. But in this B+ film, he tackled something notably different and had quite a bit of success with what turned out to be a truly one of a kind western. The main character, played by Victor Mature, is a trapper/ mountain man, and ordinarily they are romanticized in films - Robert Redford in Jeremiah Johnson, that sort of thing, where the hero is not in fact a typical mountain man but a clean cut heroic figure who hangs out with real mountain men. Not here. For once, a true mountain man - vulgar, crude, animalistic - is the central figure, and it's something to see, giving Mature one of his better later roles. The real acting chops are provided by Robert Preston, excellent as a self-absorbed Custer type cavalry commander, and James Whitmore, the poor man's Spencer Tracy, as another of those old timers who feel themselves trapped between ever more hostile Indians on the one side and the oncoming force of civilization on the other. Even more impressive is a very young Anne Bancroft as the officer's wife, who is initially repulsed by the very sight of Mature's grisly character, then finds her own veneer of civilization slipping away as she begins to realize, to her own shock, that she's attracted to him. Rarely if ever has a remote frontier fort been so accurately realized on screen, without the romantic allure that John Ford gave such a place in his masterful Fort Apache. The battle sequences are big scale and notably violent, and particularly impressive if you seen them in widescreen format. Good show, and underrated movie, all around.
| 1 |
positive
|
We open in a doctors room of some sort. A girl is escorted to a seat across from the doctor. He asks her questions. Silence follows. He continues to ask questions, ignoring the girls obvious traumatised atmosphere.<br /><br />The story is about two girls who are taken home, after spending some time in a mental home after an 'incident' that happened before hand. They are greeted on their arrival by their trying-way-too-hard-to-be-nice-but-so-totally-evil Stepmother, who the girls obviously hold resentment for. As time goes on at home, the evil Stepmother finds new ways to torment the girls. And, to top it all off, there is a vengeful ghost that is far from helping the girls' recovery...<br /><br />This film is amazing. It has twist, turns, and definitely leaves you a lot to think about without not making sense. The relationship between the two girls is so heartwarming, it almost makes you cry at some points (I know I had a teary moment of two, specifically 'the cupboard scene'). But what I love most about this film is the total feeling of dread all the way through to the rolling credits. The soundtrack is faultless, the furnishings in the house, and the use of colour are fantastic. A pure joy for the eyes. This is a definite must-see for all Asian Movie Fanatics. Or ANY sort of movie fan! An easy 10/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
The first season of Bones is playing in Finland and I can't believe the amount of bullshit that this show puts on - the characters are shallow, poorly directed and clumsy.<br /><br />It's a poor mans' CSI. Or actually, CSI without coherent plot. Although Bones has potential, it fails due to the lacking of the director who hasn't been able to extract the essence of the show from the actors. It's actually sad to see a show throw it all away when it could had been a descent show with just a pinch more thought. From the start you get the feeling how awkward the acting is.<br /><br />Long story short - don't waste your time on Bones.
| 0 |
negative
|
this attempt at a "thriller" would have no substance at all! Some may state that this movie "has it all?" Autism, arson, robbery, lost love, a bag of money, cut throats, murder, blood, a snub nosed revolver, clenched teeth groaning, boobs (various definitions can be used), large flashlights, tribal people, a brother duo attempting to out-portray "dumb and dumber," white wolves, fight scenes that resemble "happy slapping," snow mobile(s), a large tracked vehicle, and a motel under renovation? All this, with an "Enyanesque" melody toward the end ...<br /><br />Perhaps my rating is a bit harsh, but one viewing will certainly be enough for the sane cinemaphile with nothing else to do. <br /><br />Yeowza!
| 0 |
negative
|
"The Puffy Chair" was a supreme waste of 84 minutes of my life which cannot be retrieved and spent in a more worthwhile way (even "The Blair Witch Project" was a better use of life's precious moments). It must be called "The Puffy Chair" because only 'puffy' chairs could accommodate the extremely 'puffed-up', self-important brothers who drooled it out for public consumption; and, obviously, they are SO full of themselves that they have assumed the public would actually want to consume their drool. "The Puffy Chair" made "The Wooly Boys" seem like a cinematic masterpiece! "Valley of the Dolls," "Beyond Valley of the Dolls," "Pink Flamingos," "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Night of the Living Dead," "Urban Cowboy," "The Blob," -- all of these would be a better use of one's time, than viewing "The Puffy Chair." The characters portrayed are either too predictable or too lacking in normal, emotional reflexes to even come close to being likable or believable. Also, at one point in the film, while the characters are supposed to be in the same small town, if one watches closely, one can see that one part of the town is apparently in the southern United States, and the other half is located in Maine. That's some town, eh?
| 0 |
negative
|
I loved this movie! It's the finest parody of Russian cinema to date. Who else but Sokurov could lampoon Tarkovsky so brilliantly. You thought "Stalker" was slow? Well, step up to the plate. "Mat i Syn" makes "Stalker" look like "Raiders of the Lost Ark". By no means should you miss this film! There's no excuse - even if you live a busy life, you can still enjoy this film to its fullest by holding down the fast-forward button on your VCR. Sokurov has given us the first feature length film that can be appreciated in 12 minutes.<br /><br />I suppose the next great masterpiece of the form will come when someone has the vision and courage to exhibit a film that consists of no sound or image at all - 45 minutes of a black, silent screen (wasn't this already explored in "In The Soup"?).<br /><br />Apparently the filmmaker (and fans) have forgotten that "motion" is the first word of "motion picture".<br /><br />!!!MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!!<br /><br />Want to reach the heights of genius that this film achieved? Here's a step by step guide:<br /><br />1. Find a talented photographer.<br /><br />2. Find some subjects and a suitably picturesque landscape (think Tuscany!). If you need inspiration, watch some luxury car or perfume commercials.<br /><br />3. Shoot about 3 rolls of film.<br /><br />4. Photoshop the results to play around with saturation, blur & aspect ratio.<br /><br />5. Now just get out your movie camera, film 40 of the best pictures and have your "actors" mumble their lines off-screen. Don't worry about writing it ahead of time - just let the actors say whatever they want (lines like "Do you want a drink?" and "Let's get something to eat" are really all you need to fill up 8 minutes or so). If you can't think of enough dialog - no problem! Just have them repeat what they say a few times. If that still isn't enough, just let the camera run anyway.<br /><br />Congratulations, another masterpiece! As a bonus, if you want to distribute it over the internet, no problem! The static images will compress down to nothing with standard mpeg encoding - a 73 minute movie would probably be about 2-3 megabytes, even at the highest quality levels.
| 0 |
negative
|
Anyone looking to learn more about the development of skateboarding should find Dogtown and Z-Boys adequate research material. This is not to be confused with Lords of Dogtown, that sorry Hollywood attempt to cash in on the success of the original Dogtown revival. <br /><br />Directed by Stacey Peralta, a former Z-Boys himself as well as pro skater and mastermind behind the 80s Bones Brigade, and co-written with skateboarding photojournalist Craig Stecyk, this documentary traces how a group of surfing kids from Southern California's mean streets (known as Dogtown) who formed the Z-Boys skateboard team (actually there was one girl--Peggy Oki) revolutionized skateboarding. The film contains interviews from nearly all of the Z-Boys (Chris Cahill's whereabouts are unknown) with the most noteable being bad ass Tony Alva and the youngest, Jay Adams, who's talents (along with Perlata) seemed to transcend the rest of the teams. There are interviews of the team's (and the Dogtown shop) founders, surfboard designer Jeff Ho, Skip Engbloom, and Craig Stecyk. There are also interviews of folks like Tony Hawk (obviously), Ian McKaye (Fugazi), and Henry Rollins, who were young kids in the 70s when Dogtown was making it's influence on skateboarding (skateboarding was a whole other context in previous years as the documentary explains). <br /><br />It really shows you not only who the Dogtown team was and how they formed, but why their style changed not only skateboarding tricks (pool skating became immensley popular, and thus gave way to vert skating), but also facilitated the sport (though not into the extreme commercialism it is today) as more than just the fleeting fad it had been earlier as these surfing kids who's waves ran out in the early morning needed ways to spend their time and eventually got into skateboarding. The days of Russ Howell and Alan Gelfand were long over as the Dogtown, at least through the publicity of their skate team, paved the way for the new generation of skaters. Because Dogtown got all the attention, they were able to push skating to the next step.<br /><br />It's a great documentary in the way that it is put together, though Stacey Peralta always knew how to do this even when producing the Bones Brigade mini movies/skate demos like "Ban This" and "Search for Animal Chin." Narrated by Sean Penn, the film is accompanied by a fantastic soundtrack, contains lots of terrific archive footage, and lots of interview to give you a genuine feel of who the Z-Boys were and how they made their mark on skateboarding.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is no walk in the park. I saw this when it came out, and haven't had the guts to watch it again. You will never see a more horrifyingly devastating or depressing movie. I felt like I'd been severely beaten. What kind of world are we living in when we have children who are treated worse than garbage? This is our world, what we have created, what we have allowed to happen. And I would hesitate to say that I-ME-WE are not responsible for this. Babenco made this film to wake us up, to shake us to our very core, and he succeeded. How can we be cruel, or self-indulgent, or neglectful of our children, when we see the graphic results of such behavior? He is pointing a finger of accusation at us all for doing this to the lowliest and least powerful of our society. And if you aren't doing something each day to prevent it, then you are part of the problem. I am NOT a religious fanatic, but this movie made me think about the state of my soul.
| 1 |
positive
|
Not a bad movie but could have been done without the full frontal nudity of a 10 year old boy in one of the opening scenes. This movie has excellent dialog; which is certainly common among foreign films. Foreign actors still know how to act as opposed to American actors who let the CGI, stunts, and special effects do all the work for them. This film is just good old fashion acting. Gerarde DePardieux did an excellent job as always. The costumes and scenery are accurate with the time. My only complaint is that they should have dubbed the English words over the french instead of using subtitles; this could just be because I hate reading subtitles.
| 1 |
positive
|
Overrated mob comedy. Director Demme makes the actors pause after some funny lines to let audience laugh, and not miss next line. Seems odd - this director did "Silence of The Lambs" - now there's the way to use pauses! Casting seems off. Mathew Modine too young for FBI agent and Pfeiffer's love interest! Dean Stockwell is doing a Jack Nicholson-thing with a squint, and he gets a nomination for it! Plus we have to accept Pfeiffer and Stockwell as Italians? Charles Napier as a hairdresser and Al Lewis as a mob lawyer are underused with only one line each - they should be the bumbling hoods. Song score by Chris Isaak is totally out of place - better for a flick like "Pretty In Pink." Re-make this movie, it's worth it, but with proper casting and director and the satire will come through... even the often repeated "Forgedaboutit."
| 0 |
negative
|
I loved this film, Independent film-making at its best. The cinematography , pacing, rhythm , and acting were perfectly in sync. Fred Carpenters best work to date! The movie is well written with lots of plot twists that take you to a great ending. It moves well and keeps you involved. Being a photographer, I was most impressed with the cinematography. the lighting creates mood and a beauty that is usually found in a much bigger budget film. This gave the actors a great canvas to start from, to work their magic. And that is just what they did! Great performances from all the actors and each one was well cast in their roles. As I said in the beginning, the is a wonderful film, and one of Fred Carpenters best movies. You will love it.
| 1 |
positive
|
I thought this movie was great! I saw this when it came out in the theaters so I do not remember all the details. I remember it being based on Homer's tale on Odysseus. Names places and events are changed but you can still see the resemblance to the tale. <br /><br />I found it funny how they would get themselves into trouble and how they would get themselves out of it. I really enjoyed this version of modernized old tales much better than the Romeo and Juliet with Clair Danes.<br /><br />I will agree that in some parts of the tale it does get a little to silly at times but all in all it is a great adventure with some big name actors.
| 1 |
positive
|
Talk Radio is of course, probably not the most well known of Stone's films, but don't let that put you off, this film is ripe for discovery, I defy anyone not to be entranced by it. Along with the best performance of 80's cinema by Eric Bogosian, for me (along with JFK)this remains Stone's finest moment. Stone doesn't seem to comment much on it these days and didn't do a director's commentary on DVD like all his other films. Stone has nothing to be ashamed of, most directors would kill to get a shot @ a film like this.<br /><br />The claustrophobia of the studio is intense and the opinions of Champlain are still very crucial arguments for today. The "legalise all drugs" speech is powerful and you might find yourself agreeing with him.In my opinion the film is about freedom of speech and how sometimes people don't like hearing things they don't agree with.The speeches and conversations with the listeners are very compelling, even disturbing, a chill ran down my spine when a crazed man calls Champlain saying he has to rape again because the city drives him crazy is totally shocking.The tension is sometimes unbearable with a scene when Heavy metaller Kent becomes unhinged, of course Champlain does himself no favours by ridiculing him. Champlain(or should I say Bogosian) is fearless in film and performance, totally mesmerising, a shame th@ Bogosians other big role was the villain in Under Siege 2(dear god!!)One scene th@ didn't ring true was when Barry's boss Dan(Alec Baldwin) gets him to calm down, Barry doesn't seem to be the kind of person who shuts up and does as he's told, it seemed a bit contrived and clichéd.The scenes outside the studio are criticised for being too formulaic, it's true because Stone is trying to make the film more cinematic and allow the viewer to see Champlains beginnings but it doesn't entirely work. <br /><br />It is a brilliantly cinematic film with extreme close-ups, deep focus, extremely fast cuts a fantastic 360 set which is used for the final breathtaking monologue. Must see cinema, it makes it rare because it was ignored @the time but is now receiving attention again which it so richly deserves. A classic th@ should be studied by generations of film students. <br /><br />10 out of 10 for inventive use of "Bad To The Bone" before T2, brilliant supporting cast including John C Mcginley(Dr Cox from Scrubs) as the sleazy Stu, Leslie Hope(24)as Champlains girlfriend, John Pankow and Alec Baldwin as the suits and Micheal Wincott who plays three roles( a very underrated actor), the tension between the listeners and Champlain which is very heart-racing @ times and of course kudos to the stars Bogosian and Stone for such a fantastic piece of cinema. Enjoy!
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.