text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
I saw this at a drive-in when I was 9. All I remember are a few scenes (the ones where the main character Elle is being chased by a guy in a mask) and being scared spitless. Seeing it now, my opinions have changed. It's a pathetic "horror" film about an ophanage run by Gloria Grahame (sad) and dealing with a young, talentless girl Elle who is sent there after her mother, the town tramp, was beaten to death with a hammer (graphically shown). The film has adolescents (actually actors in their 20s) being beaten, tortured, killed, starved, attacked with meat cleavers, raped etc etc. The brutal hammer murder is the opening scene and then it gets worse and worse. There is NOTHING to recommend about this crap. The plot is stupid, all the dialogue is bad and the acting...the less said the better. How did this sickie get by with a GP (now PG) rating? It would get an R now. Worthless. One last thing...a truly repulsive twist ending suggests incest!
| 0 |
negative
|
The film Soultaker is essentially an older form Final Destination in which several car wrecked teens have their souls separated from their bodies and must cheat death who is chasing them... The film has its moments, and its concepts, the idea of disoriented souls being separated from their bodies is a pretty nifty idea... If this movie were remade with a few good actors/actresses and some awesome special effects it could turn out to be extremely awesome... As for the actual film, I recommend watching the MST3K version, the pure version might be too boring to sit through, unless you love bad movies staring Martin Sheen's brother...
| 0 |
negative
|
I thought this film was a poor effort by the British film council - fell flat as hey, come on, Tim Robbins is an old guy and here is this beautiful young woman who falls straight for him as well. Like lost in translation its really hard to suspend disbelief in this context. It's a good looking film but lacks punch. When Tim Robbins is pretending to be psychic it looks like he has a small migraine. He looks uncomfortable and life less. The part where he is screening suspect employees at sphinx is laughable. If an investigator came to my factory the last thing I would do is tell him about my freckle fetish. It's obviously over-intellectual. Clumsy. The city is as it is, a convenient backdrop. They obviously picked the most futuristic city they could (shanghai) as a backdrop but the city never really comes out and effects the characters as in for example blade runner, where the characters of the city often intersect the story. slow as a wet week. No chemistry, real dramatic high points, so so plot.
| 0 |
negative
|
An absorbing exploration of virtual reality, although it is not yet clear how much the director himself intended. This film deliberately takes you through several layers of artificial reality, leaving only subtle clues about which layer of virtual reality you are in, positing an ontological confusion for the viewer to ponder. <br /><br />Also can be seen as a satire of video games-- the whole movie though may fall into the fallacy of imitative form here. It seems unable to escape from the video game genre which it imitates; thus the satire becomes problematic. <br /><br />A number of interesting ideas crisscross throughout though: the biological mutant is one; the interface of technology and biology, the cyborg urge to transcend reality-- and philosophical allusions such as the title's to Heidegger, along with existential questions: i.e., the game characters are partly scripted or determined and yet partly free to alter their fate, and they wonder at how strange that feels in the game. One character then notes that this existential confusion is just like real life, thereby erasing again the distinction between the virtual and the real. Likewise with the observation that it is unpleasant to stumble around in a world where you don't know what will happen next and you're not sure how to play since you have to stumble around just to find out the goal and the unknown rules. A virtual game within the game is titled "TranscendenZ". Also a critique of how virtual violence makes us unable to feel the effects of real violence. Even the heroes at every level of ontological existence find themselves confused about violence. They don't like it but it is thrilling and part of the "game", which then they fear is real. <br /><br />The game creator, the god of the system, is assassinated in the end; yet that very scenario is played out in direct parallel to a video game we've just witnessed-- and the onlookers believe that it is still just part of the virtual reality. In the end, the film does not resolve the doubt about whether or not this is "real" but the point is clear (to me anyway). Existenz means Da-sein: You are there. You are thrown into a set of rules and mysteries at every level. Ontologically, virtual reality recapitulates reality. And its common game motifs express, like a royal road to the unconscious, our own fascination with violence.<br /><br />Nevertheless, while Cronenberg affirms these philosophical allusions in an interview about the film, he claims that he is very much against the "Reality ... {underground name of terrorist group} portrayed in the film both in the game and in the 'real' level." Seems that Cronenberg himself did not put that much thought into the film, though his impressive education comes through. The interview in Cineaste gives the impression of a middle brow intellectual who's trying to be avant-garde by inclination. Cronenberg is simply on the side of free imagination -- the clichéd bourgeois modernist credo-- despite the acknowledged ambivalence there. (My impression here might be due to one limited interview.) Still, Cronenburg seems to miss the point that his film betrays the fallacy of imitative form (here imitating computer games while doing a satirical critique of them, but a critique that is unable to "transcend" the same form) probably because he actually thinks that it is "imaginative" and radical. Yet the film's imaginative world is less bearable, and more jejune, than our own all-too-real world. It remains trapped in the computer game worldview.
| 1 |
positive
|
I wandered into Blockbuster with a friend the other night having decided that we were too broke and too lazy to do active. She decided she wanted to watch Closer, which seemed like such a repellant idea that I had to rent another film for once she'd gone to bed. Looking around I didn't see much that interested me, but saw The Doll Master in the new releases section. Just based on the cover sleeve (A woman with a doll-like face crying tears of blood) I thought this would be interesting enough to rent.<br /><br />As for the film itself, watching it in an almost empty house, with all the lights turned off it was pretty scary. I must admit I've always had a bit of a phobia of dolls since I was a kid (and watched an awful film called Asylum, one of the stories in it involved a mental patient creating a doll which killed people. Lame, but scary at the time) and the first three quarters of this film really hit the spot for me. The first half hour in particular was awesome. The creepy foreboding atmosphere really set the scene well, and without moving the dolls seemed genuinely threatening. But unfortunately as soon as they did start to move it all got a bit cheesy, I was a bit disappointed when moments that could have been genuinely frightening made me laugh because of the way they were filmed.<br /><br />As for the characters, it's a horror film, you're not really expecting anything memorable. I found I remembered names and faces better than most Asian horror films I've seen, which suggests there must have been some hidden character development that I didn't consciously notice. The typical stereotypes are out in force in this movie each one having some kind of character quirk that sets them apart from the others, from shy and quiet Yeong-ha and her doll Damien, to the outgoing bimbo Seon-yeong.<br /><br />The plot itself was fairly cool, even though the ending, which bought together many of the loose strands of plot, seemed a bit confused and didn't really do anything for me, although it did have a couple of really cool plot-twists that I won't ruin here. The basic plot is a bunch of kids are invited to be modelled as dolls by a famous reclusive old doll maker, they have to stay in the creepy house (adorned with scary dolls, some big some small) and things start to happen as our heroine Hae-mi starts to explore areas of the house and things start happening to the other inhabitants.<br /><br />Overall, I would definitely recommend the film, not to watch with too many people as some of the moments would probably make you laugh if surrounded by friends, but as something too watch on your own in the dark, with the windows and doors open just a bit, just in case any dolls feel like watching with you. It really does leave you guessing for most of the film, allowing you to go off on wild conspiracy theories only to completely destroy them later on. If you really get into it and ignore it's cheesiness in places I can guarantee you'll check under your bed before you go to sleep and maybe even leave the lights on.<br /><br />Or maybe that's just me :P As for Closer, it was OK but I preferred this.
| 1 |
positive
|
AristoCats is such a terrific Disney classic that I just loved so much as a kid. Still to this day I can't resist watching it, it's just such a wonderful and charming film with great animation and lovely songs. I really miss the animation films like AristoCats, they had perfect voices not to mention the hand drawn animation that makes it perfect for the family. AristoCats is also very witty and clever, the story was just so wonderful. This film is just beyond irresistible, I think the most memorable moment for me was the cats playing the piano learning the appecio's, lol, it was just so cute with the piano playing and painting.<br /><br />Douchess and her kittens are very pampered in their huge mansion, mainly because their lady is very rich and treats them like they were her children. But when the lady feels it's time to make her will, she leaves everything to the cats and not to her butler. The butler gets angry and takes the kittens on the road and abondons them in the middle of no where. Douchess and the kittens wake up and with the help of a smooth street cat by the name of Thomas O'Malley, they head back home to their lady, but learn the coolness of being a skat cat.<br /><br />The AristoCats is just a perfect Disney movie that I feel is a bit over looked. I would always highly recommend this movie for kids or families, it could be enjoyed by anyone. The songs and story is just memorable. I will always join in for the movies best song "Everybody wants to be a cat", such a great tune. I also love those dogs that guarded the farm where the cats were abandoned, they were just so cute. This is a terrific film, please watch it, you won't be disappointed.<br /><br />9/10
| 1 |
positive
|
"Shadows" is often acclaimed as the film that was the breakthrough for American independent cinema. Whether thats true or not, it is an undeniably important film, one whose influence can be traced all the way to today's Sundance fodder. Here is a film which tackles controversial topics of the day (namely racism), and refuses to give easy answers and show them in a manipulative fashion. Also, it deals with sex in a frank manner that Hollywood wouldn't even discuss until "The Graduate".<br /><br />Still, the question remains is it as powerful today as when it was originally released? The answer is yes. While many important films are hard to watch and dated nowadays, "Shadows" retains every ounce of emotional resonance when viewed now. It deals with racism as a personal issue and not a political one, so its still relevant. Plus, it works as a great time capsule, capturing the 1950s beat generation and New York art scene in a way possibly no other film has.<br /><br />On a technical level, its admittedly uneven. Cassavetes had yet to gain full confidence as a director and the choppy editing reflects the film's low budget. Still, the film's story is remains powerful. Plus, the acting, considering the inexperience of the cast and improvisational nature, is phenomenal. All around, the actors create realistic characters, ones who remain sympathetic despite their often less than admirable actions. "Shadows" is absolutely mandatory viewing for film buffs. (9/10)
| 1 |
positive
|
I found this movie to be educational, entertaining and very moving. I was impressed when I learned of just how much Justice Arbour had contributed in during her time in Kosovo.<br /><br />Wendy Crewson is highly under rated and it is good to see her again in a Canadian production. Other easily recognizable stars are Leslie Hope (24) and John Corbett (Sex in the City.)<br /><br />While the story line of this movie may not be completely factual it did leave me with the desire to learn more about the word of Arbour. A great movie for inspiring young women.<br /><br />I say the movie is a "must see."
| 1 |
positive
|
I first heard of Begotten when a girlfriend of mine picked it up in a "cult classics" section of my local video retailer. She knew I liked obscure artsy movies so I rented it and brought it home. It sat on my TV for a couple of days and then I put it in the VCR just before going to bed. I thought that maybe I'll see what it's like first then devote more time to it the next day. What followed was that it actually woke me up. I sat through the entire film and loved it. After I went through the closing credits I watched it again. Only after you see the closing credits do you get an idea of who is who. After you know that you can watch it again with renewed appreciation. Don't listen to the people that tear this movie apart. It's not for everyone. If you're someone that doesn't like reading subtitles than this movie isn't for you (not that there are subtitles, there's no dialog at all). If you're someone that actually owns Rush Hour 2 then this movie isn't for you.<br /><br />This movie is truly original and inspiring. It does what other movies have never done. It looks like nothing else and is bolder than just about everything out there - from 1989 to the current date. You can tell that everyone involved in the making of this movie truly love the art of what they do and understand what can be captured in cinema form.<br /><br />If you're looking to be "entertained" then the movie isn't for you. However, it is pure escapism in some extreme way and in film form. It's like someone attached wires to my head and taped one of my worst nightmares. But this nightmare makes sense if you really sit and watch the images, dissect the action of the actors, and don't sit there noodling your guitar passively but watch and not blink.<br /><br />People compare it to Eraserhead but Begotten is so much more. I'm not joking when I say it is my favorite movie. It's an important film, visually stimulating, mechanically inspiring, and hypnotic. One review I read about it is very true though, "no one will get through Begotten without being marked."
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this movie once a long time ago, just once, and I didn't know where it had come from, and I looked for about six years to find it, and I finally found it here at IMDb.com! Just the whole concept of the movie is great, I believe it's got something to do with a race of bioengineered beings, keeping tabs on us and our planet, but there is one person who keeps out of being assimilated into conformity. And the way that he does it,to keep himself from being tracked and located, is what keeps the movie entertaining. I don't remember exactly how it ended, but I remember, it finished with a great climax, and a good twist.
| 1 |
positive
|
Lonely, disconnected, middle-class housewife in the midst of a divorce seeks solace to reflect on her immediate future. At some sort of bed and breakfast by (well, literally in the sea) the ocean that for some sort of odd reason she subs for the owner. Enter lonely, arrogant Richard Gere. He is a plastic surgeon. He is the only guest at the inn in the sea. Diane Lane is the lonely housewife. You'll never guess these two fall immediately in love. A tropical storm makes them true lovers.<br /><br />The subplots in this melodrama make little or no sense. The locations, photography are fine. Gere remains one of the most over-rated actors in cinema and does not disappoint. Ms. Lane must've needed the money, but phones in her part with grace.
| 0 |
negative
|
(A possible minor spoiler) The first "Jurassic Park" was an effective, but silly film that did it's job and was actually pretty good. The sequel "The Lost World" had a few decent moments, but those were ruined by the lame end portion of the film which had a T-Rex running amok in San Diego. Now in "Jurassic Park III," what little story there was in the first one and the sequel, has been thrown out the window and replaced by a mere 90 minutes of basically non-stop action, which would have worked had the film not been so poorly done.<br /><br />Sam Neill is back as Dr. Grant, who is given a proposition by a couple (William H. Macy & Tea Leoni) to come with them to an island to help them find their son, who's been lost for over 2 months. But of course this island just happens to be populated by dinosaurs and of course the plane the are on just happens to crash leaving them stranded with a bunch of dinos after them.<br /><br />This one was obviously intended as a thrill ride, with no real story whatsoever, but even on that level the movie doesn't deliver. Director Joe Johnston ("Jumanji") somehow managed to take what little magic was left in the "Jurassic" movies and squeeze the life right out of it.<br /><br /> The dinos look okay, though by now they're just standard fair and not very scary. The bottom line is it's not a very good film, even as a thrill ride. * out of 4 stars.
| 0 |
negative
|
Two stars <br /><br />Amanda Plummer looking like a young version of her father, Christopher Plummer in drag, stars in this film along with Robert Forster--who really should have put a little shoe black on top of that bald spot.<br /><br />I've never seen Amanda Plummer in a good film. She always plays these slightly wacky characters in films that don't quite add up, and she does so yet again in this one.<br /><br />Firstly, we have two young women, sisters, who don't resemble in the slightest, who allow themselves to be picked up, separately, by questionable men along the roadways.<br /><br />Amanda's character, Sandra, does at least have a good reason for allowing Dr. Jake (Robert Forster)to pick her up in the first place. She has been run off the road, seemingly by a maniac, and her car is pretty much destroyed.<br /><br />Warning - Spoilers ahead! <br /><br />However, as we go along, we realize Dr. Jake is not playing with a full deck any more than Amanda is. He makes every decision based on the flip of a coin.<br /><br />When Dr. Jake and Amanda arrive at a motel, who do we see but the maniac's car, and what does Amanda do but get inside his station wagon and start snooping around. What her motive was for doing this is never clear considering the man is apparently dangerous and might try to kill her. One would think the last thing she would do is place herself in such a precarious situation.<br /><br />Not only does she snoop around, but she finds some money and takes it.<br /><br />Shortly after this we have several other things that don't add up.<br /><br />Dr. Jake, with Amanda as his passenger, runs out of gas, and the two of them abandon his car and begin walking. One would think crossing a desert, he would have checked his gas gauge--this seems a very unlikely thing for him to allow to happen. Then later, he is seen driving the same car. When or how did he get the car back? <br /><br />Dr. Jake tells Amanda he knows she has taken the money. Now how would he know that? He didn't see her do it as far as I know, and she didn't tell him she did it.<br /><br />Then later we have a character named Santini (David Thewlis), the man who was driving the station wagon, give the two of them a lift and I'll be darned if he doesn't know Amanda took the money as well. How would he know that? <br /><br />It loses credibility at an alarming rate the further we go.<br /><br />When Alice, Amanda's sister (Fairuza Balk)gets in the clutches of the killer and decides her fate on the toss of a coin - one would think she would be very, very careful that the coin she swaps for a trick coin would definitely be the trick coin - but apparently it isn't.<br /><br />It's jarring things like this, that destroy any credibility this movie may have had.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Cat In The Brain" is a series of extremely violent sequences knitted together by a plot that feels more like an overview, describing director Lucio Fulci's most notorious years of film-making. The movie could also be seen as a dark comedy of sorts, effectively spoofing the various claims that violent cinema causes violence in real life. Fulci goes further than that, he casts himself as the star, the central figure of the film thus showing the audience who is the man behind all the cinematic gore. "Cat in The Brain" is not about presenting a clear story and following it. Instead it pokes fun at some of the clichés that have been surrounding the horror genre for years.<br /><br />Lucio Fulci plays himself as a horror director struggling to keep his humanity intact. Years of violent film making have finally began to reach him. It starts slowly, steaks and meat in general begin to disgust him, his colleagues assure Fulci that all he needs is some rest. But that doesn't help and soon the grotesque ideas for his movies begin to overwhelm his daily thoughts. In an attempt to find a cure for his dangerously maddening mental state Lucio starts going to the local psychiatrist. Unfortunately that does more wrong than good and Fulci is thrown into an even bigger mess, as the psychiatrist turns out to be a psychopath, who mimics the murders from Fulci's films in real life.<br /><br />The film retains all the trademarks of Italian splatter cinema, good or bad they are all here. So any comments about the acting or the technical aspects and budget constrains are quite irrelevant as to the quality of the film. It is a visual experience, no doubts about it. Fulci throws in an incredible amount of violence easily surpassing pretty much everything he's made. Amputated by chainsaw limbs, cannibalism, child murder, decapitation, these are just some of the many grotesque acts witnessed in "Cat In The Brain". Some of them are obviously recycled from a few the director's less profile movies but they don't stand out of the context, and actually feel quite at home here. As I noted before the movie exists much better as a satire of the genre rather than a serious piece. The way some of the violence is presented does help establish that idea. Such sequences shortly after climax are rejected by the reality in the film, as they are revealed to be actually scenes inside a movie that Fulci's character is directing. This sort of "film in film" presentation lessens somewhat the impact of the gore. But in no way does it make it an easy to watch film. Oh no this is far beyond and above the levels of gore found in mainstream horror, and gorehounds will in no doubt be satisfied with that fact.<br /><br />Lucio Fulci was a very polarized figure. People either hate his work or love it. "Cat in the Brain" won't convince any of Fulci's detractors in the opposite but it is nevertheless an interesting part of his filmography. One that fans should really check out.
| 1 |
positive
|
There is not much to add to what others have already commented, the movie fails hard where it shouldn't, it has no depth in the planning of the heist and the characters are so unbelievable.<br /><br />One thing that got me thinking, was that although the rest of the gang is trying hard to remove the pins from the doors of an armored truck, because there is supposed to be no other way of opening it, the guy inside the truck, with great ease manages to remove the floor of the truck which happens to have a hole in it so he can get out, and then get back in, without being noticed by anyone, because no one else could think that he could get out from there or even better, that they could have gotten into from there.<br /><br />Promising but not quite there.
| 0 |
negative
|
This Gundam series only follows Gundam 0083 Stardust Memory. The story takes place during the same time line as the original Gundam in the year U.C. 0079 the time of the One year war, but the mobile suits are designed as new models are and are as a result look more articulate. The Hero of the story is a young Lt. Shiro Amada, who may lack any real combat experience but makes up for it with creativity and effort.<br /><br />His life get complicated when he meets Aina Sahalin a Jion ace pilot (the enemy), the to end up falling in love and begin to change their attitudes about the war around them. The other cast of characters in the story are not there for background either, every one in this story has a history to them.<br /><br />There is also another Ace mobile suit pilot in this series that can be added into the pantheon of ace mobile suit pilots. Right up there with Char Aznable and Anavel Gato is Norris Packard, not the top villain in this series, but his presence give the 8th mobile suit team a hard fight. 3 of them against Norris and his single MS-07B Gouf custom mobile suit.<br /><br />In conclusion This Gundam along with Stardust Memory is a must see!!<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
Let's see... a couple dozen Gary Larson gags, as well as his illustration style, a possibly legally difficult wholesale appropriation of an Aardman character, a more than generous sprinkling of art direction from various Pixar films, positively Lion King-esquire villains living in what amounts to an elephant's graveyard IN THE MIDDLE OF FARM COUNTRY, oh, and a stinking' Riverdance joke ten years after any possible relevance. The kids (three and five) liked it, but boy, it was a haul for dad. Just another weak attempt from Nickelodean Films to hitch on to the animation explosion. I really, really wish they had spent a little more money on character design, on rendering, on a script, on a director.
| 0 |
negative
|
Garlin outdoes himself as writer-director-actor in his indie production about a big guy (Garlin) wandering around Chicago with an eye for every woman he sees. The laughs keep coming almost every minute. It's a somewhat dramatic and serious story about a man looking for love, but done with great comedic writing and acting. The supporting roles are also very well done and very funny and really make the movie rich.<br /><br />Rose Abdoo is hysterical in her receptionist role taking you right into the mood of the rest of the film. Sara Silverman is awesome with some of the great bits she does with Jeff. Bonnie Hunt is classically great in her role. I only wish there was more of her in the film, as I think most will agree. It's certainly refreshing to see her in a tight leather outfit.<br /><br />David Pasquesi was the aloof detached sidekick, and voice of reason. Mina Kolb plays Jeff's mother who he lives with. There were numerous other cameos, all of them done very well.<br /><br />At the premier Jeff mentioned his inability to do more with Bonnie due to production issues. Still, it's good to leave you wanting more. I think it's that indie thing of keeping some things ambiguous to let the audience do some thinking for themselves to fill in the blanks. The wordy title should clue you in to this.<br /><br />Jeff said some of the basic characters were based on his past relationships. This explains why they work so well. Real life people are always unusually colorful and makes great characters. He departs quite a bit from what you might expect, having seen Curb Your Enthusiasm and some of his other work. It's one of those break out things where an actor takes some risks to do something they maybe always wanted to do but couldn't.<br /><br />I think it's noteworthy that Garlin's improv Second City background, and Hunt's for that matter, set the style here of acting being the focus of the story and the directing. It's perhaps a new innovative hybrid of improv meets indie film-making.
| 1 |
positive
|
I know it's hard for you Americans to find European films on video/DVD, particularly from the 80's but please seek out the original version of the Vanishing - title Spoorloos (1988) - and you'll see why the Hollywood version of The Vanishing screws up bigtime, particularly at the finale.<br /><br />I really like Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland and particularly Jeff Bridges, but this is just so so lame compared with the original. What where they thinking? Can you imagine Seven with a happy ending with Gwyneth Paltrow running happily into the arms of Brad Pitt in the finale? The whole point the original was such a major international success was because of the shocking finale. So why do you accept this kind of shyte remake? Really, avoid this and GET THE ORIGINAL.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a Very Very VERY bad movie !<br /><br />The plot is weak the acting is bad and the science is worse.<br /><br />The special effects are unconvincing. The dramatic scenes are a joke. Every step of the way you can see coming a mile away. The end is disappointing and there is no suspense. The best aspect of the film is the soundtrack.<br /><br />The only reason not to give this a lower vote is because it is a TV movie and i believe the budget was low to start of with.<br /><br />I do believe that the young female fans of Luke Parry will still see this movie however he has done better work. Again this is Terrible. Very very very terrible. If you have a choice, look at something else.
| 0 |
negative
|
Greeted with derision by most critics when it first appeared, 'Frenzy' has recently done the rounds of UK TV. I remember seeing it on its original release, and thinking then that if Hitchcock wanted to parade some kind of screen confession about his ingrained misogynism, he couldn't have found a nastier little vehicle to do so.<br /><br />But Time alters perspective, and so what was nauseatingly bad in 1972 might, all these years later, be worthy of upward re-evaluation.<br /><br />Might. . . but not. 'Frenzy' is dross. The dross of an ageing director who desperately wanted to exploit the artistic freedom of 70s movie making without seeming to realise that freedom imposes its own obligations -- notably, the need to bring integrity to one's work.<br /><br />There's none here. And not much evidence of the earlier directorial brilliance, either -- the switch from spine-tingling implicit to odious explicit is neither shocking nor, for a supreme stylist, stylish: it's just banal (the prolonged murder scene is precisely that: prolonged, without pace, without reason, without purpose other than the cheapest of directorial desires to appear as contemporary an artiste as, say, that other acclaimed practitioner of cheap sleaze, Michael Winner).<br /><br />And it goes from bad to worse, with dialog that defies any human provenance (not least in the ludicrous diversion into the Home Life of Our Dear Wooden Inspector, and his wife's cooking).<br /><br />Perhaps the scene that best sums up 'Frenzy' (and endures as the most explicit indictment of Hitchcock's persona) is the clunking exchange between two lawyers in a bar, where they discuss the serial killings and then agree that at least the women had a good time first by being raped.<br /><br />I remember my revulsion at that scene back in '72, and it's still undimmed, because this wasn't Hitchcock being clever, or sardonic, or trying to make some universal point (big themes, big truths, were not Hitchcock's forte, nor personal preference.) It was just Hitchcock, allowing a reflection of his own distorted mirror on life to shine through the texture of the movie.<br /><br />Calling 'Frenzy' Hitchcock's last great masterpiece is to betray little if any understanding of just what Hitchcock actually achieved in the way of cinematic trickery, cinematic thrills, and dazzling cinematic mastery.<br /><br />'Frenzy' is therefore now what it always was: a cheap, nasty, and ham-fisted movie that did no service to any of those involved, or to the memory of a film-maker who really was, in his Hollywood days, one of the greatest there has ever been.
| 0 |
negative
|
When George Sluizer was told he could direct an American version of the book "Het Gouden Ei"/the movie "Spoorloos"(outside Holland, this movie has the name "the Vanishing" too), he was told that this would only go through if the ending was changed - He was told that 'the American Audience' wouldn't approve the original ending. Of course, the original ending is much better, and without it, the movie loses its impact. Because I have already put this in the trivia section, I won't give the original ending and keep my comment spoiler-free. If you want to know the original ending, watch "Spoorloos" or read the book. This movie is absolute rubbish, and the first Kiefer Sutherland movie I don't like. Watch the original Dutch movie, which is one of the best thrillers in the world.
| 0 |
negative
|
Even if you're not a "theatre person," I highly recommend that you see this. Based off of a play of the same name by Christopher Bond (which, in turn, had been based off of an old London legend), Sondheim did a wonderful job bringing it to the musical theatre stage. The score is just amazing-- by far Sondheim's best, and probably one of the best scores written for a musical ever. The show was cast extremely well, my only complaint being of Betsy Joscelyn's portrayal of Johanna. It;s good, mind you, and she's a very versatile actress, but she just doesn't sing "Greenfinch and Linnet Bird" too well. But other than that, it's all phenomenal-- Angela Lansbury *made* the role of Mrs. Lovette, and she just does it so well. George Hearn was a good replacement for Len Cariou in the title role, and Ken Jennings gives a great performance as Tobias. The ending will give you chills. Top marks for a wonderful show.
| 1 |
positive
|
I think it is very interesting this movie is called a thriller. It is anything but thrilling.<br /><br />Most of the time you hear piano sounds. Then you hear piano sounds. Then some people talk about facts which do not concern anybody.<br /><br />Then again piano sounds.<br /><br />To be honest, this movie was the reason for me to register at IMDb, because I think this movie is one of those which humankind has to be warned of.<br /><br />Spoiler: By the way, the most action-like part happens when a can of hot chocolate is spilled.<br /><br />Also very interesting: The "actors". Yes, the quotes are intentional, as you can think, because they do not act. They play piano and do smalltalk, but it's not acting they do.<br /><br />I think before this movie I never left a cinema and felt angry. Really, this film made me angry. Angry for the time and money I spent on it.
| 0 |
negative
|
At it's core, this is a fairly typical revenge Western, heavy on the spaghetti, and if you follow it as such, the protagonist comes through successfully defeating the main villain. However there's so much going on that has no bearing on the story that you have to wonder what the film makers were thinking about. I'm referring to stuff like the way Miss Rosie's singing number just pops up out of nowhere and the boxing match in the middle of town. OK, they have a loose connection to the influence villain Mash Flanagan has, but why all of a sudden does he turn up with an alias - Mr. Donovan.<br /><br />On the flip side, I thought it was pretty innovative how the camera shot showing the wounded Wallach's view of the trail might have been filmed by someone with an actual bullet in his shoulder. And wasn't it great the way Donovan's girl uses the old headache routine when he gets a little frisky? Don't let me forget either the great stunt work by the gravel pit bad guys as Wallach guns them down as part of the finale.<br /><br />Still, there was one thing unaccounted for, and I kept waiting the entire movie for it. Whatever happened to that trio of hoods that Flanagan/Donovan hires near the start of the picture? You know, the guy Martel that a funeral parlor wanted to hire for his gun prowess, the devil's henchman Mitchell with the rifle, and the knife thrower Lincoln Tate. Each had a five thousand dollar bounty on his head, and they were supposed to protect Donovan from the guy who survived the massacre of the opening scene. They were never heard from again! I like to think that maybe Donovan just had them killed and kept the 15K all for himself.
| 0 |
negative
|
Although this film is set amongst the sophisticated English upper classes it is a simple story of a couple torn asunder. It has a slightly dated air, being an adaptation of "A Way Through the Wood", a 1950 novel by Nigel Balchin (once hugely popular and now forgotten). Julian Fellowes, who despite an academy award for the script of "Gosford Park", has a somewhat anachronistic persona himself, wrote the script and directed (the latter for the first time). With the DVD version I saw there is a most illuminating audio commentary by Julian. His primary focus was on getting his characters right, and by and large he has succeeded. In this he was helped by two outstanding performances from Tom Wilkinson as James, the stitched up City lawyer, and Emily Watson as his attractive wife Anne. He also kept it short; the running time is only 80 minutes.<br /><br />James and Anne have a town house in Chelsea and a comfortable former vicarage in Buckinghamshire. Anne is some years younger but they are childless. Outwardly they seem happy, but James, one of nature's moralists (unusual for a city lawyer), is a control freak. Just down the road is the aristocratic the Hon. William Buel, who is not one for middle-class morality, and he is more than happy to take advantage. But there's a complication, a road accident, in which an elderly cyclist is knocked over in a country lane by a ruthlessly driven Range Rover just like the Hon. Bill's. Soon James, Anne, Bill and the victim's widow (who happens to be James' and Anne's cleaner) are drawn in to a conspiracy to conceal what really happened. The primary focus is on the corrosive effect of all this on James and Anne's relationship.<br /><br />The third person in this ménage a trios, Bill, is played by Rupert Everett. From the point of view of casting, his languid, superior manner is right for the part, yet somehow he doesn't quite get there. Partly this is because he is supposed to be sick for some of the time and he looks well when he is supposed to be sick, and vice-versa. The part seems underdeveloped. It is interesting that John Neville as Bill's father who has only one significant scene manages to establish his character beautifully in the time he has.<br /><br />The world of five star hotels and superior restaurants is nicely evoked. As Julian Fellowes says in the audio commentary, these people are able to convince themselves that the Edwardian age still exists. At bottom though, the film is about what draws a couple together and what tears them apart. Nigel Balchin was going through a marriage break-up when he wrote the book, and Fellowes has made a good fist of conveying the atmosphere. As he says, his is a fairly free adaptation, but the central theme is the same.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Gargle with old razor blades. Can I help it if I'm not cousin Basil? I think the piano's out of tune. Ginger Grey. This is your little snookums." Laughs throughout the entire 20 minute short as the boys spoof gold diggers and opera singers. They even manage to show us how to properly demonstrate to some attractive ladies how to handle both a rifle and a bear trap. Wonder how many times they rehearsed the scene with the phone booth. Adding Christine McIntyre and Emil Sitka, 2 frequent collaborators, to the mix makes it even better. Only Vernon Dent is missing. The Stooges did some great individual scenes, but this was their best overall.
| 1 |
positive
|
Complete entertainment! Although there are many strange things in the movie that the fairy tale itself doesn't have them including the autumn characters (mother and daughter) the general concept rocks.
| 1 |
positive
|
For some unknown reason, 7 years ago, I watched this movie with my mother and sister. I don't think I've ever laughed as hard with them before. This movie was sooooo bad. How sequels were produced is beyond me. Its been awhile since I last saw this "movie", but the one impression that it has stuck with me over the years has been, "They must have found the script in a dumpster in the backlot of a cheap movie studio, made into a "movie", and decided that it didn't suck enough, and made it worse. I'm pretty sure that they spent all the budget on camera work and the so called "special effects", and then had 13 cents left toward the script AND to pay the "actors".
| 0 |
negative
|
OK, so I know better than to watch movies on SciFi . . . er, sorry . . . SyFy. Or shifafa. Or whatever it is now. So sue me. I spent my whole Saturday doing advisory-board brainstorming for a nonprofit. I can be forgiven for flopping into my armchair and wanting to watch some movie I'd never seen, rather than read Proust in the original or learn how to play the oud.<br /><br />Which is to say, I didn't deserve Open Graves. Of which I saw none, incidentally. Were there any? Did I fall asleep? Why is it called this?<br /><br />Some icky visuals. Not many scares. As with too many films in modern horror films, no reasons are given--apart from shared humanity--to care about any of these people. Half a point, though, for the legless entrepreneur, who was clichéd but did have one good scene.<br /><br />It all sort of plays like Final Destination delivered via a board game. The game does have an intriguing look to it, and it involves one of my favorite old conundrums. I'll give it that much. The drawback there is that the game possessed more personality than most of the characters.<br /><br />As for the end, if you didn't see it coming, then I think YOU fell asleep. Somewhere back around the dawn of the genre.
| 0 |
negative
|
I cannot believe I never added my two cents about this film as yet!<br /><br />This is one of the best films of all time. Many critics and movie-goers alike talk of John Carpenter's "Halloween" for setting trends and being "his best work". Those folks have not seen this version of "The Thing" because it is right up there with "Halloween".<br /><br />John Carpenter's work shines in this film. He took a film that was already made and instead of "re-making" the film, he made the book the first film was based on! Brilliant.<br /><br />The casting of each man was great, the tension between them was real, it made me scream, made me scared, made me guess, made me laugh, made me question, even up to today "who goes there?" in that film. This film had no Hollywood sweetie pie or funny-type ending, and what a bold move not to have one in 1982. Another brilliant move.<br /><br />I was at the screening for this film when I was on vacation in Southern California. The audience at the screening went wild! I carry those memories for years, it was so much fun! We all thought that there was no way on God's green earth this film was not going to be a hit. But by box office receipts, it was a dud because of "ET, The Extra Terrestrial" and "Poltergeist" two very good family oriented films took the box office in 1982 when this film came out.<br /><br />This film was what I, as a horror film adult buff was looking for, a horror/thriller with an adult script, and real adult actors. Not kids playing adults. Not little Miss "big-breasted" scream-queen of the day running around screaming for titilation BUT real guys with real problems delivering some of the best monologues you'll ever hear. Heck, being a feminist, I didn't even MISS women in this film! And good for Mr. Carpenter by not putting one in there, it really wouldn't have made sense! (Unless, "The Thing" was actually feminine! Something to think about!)<br /><br />I saw special effects of that time I had never seen before, I saw makeup that made me sit up a few nights. This is what horror/thrillers of today are missing. Today, the Directors wimp out. Today, the Studios wimp out. Too much CGI and not enough belief, too much CGI and not enough story, not enough imagination. You leave the theater and in a week -- or less -- you forget about the film and move onto the next grand film opening. This one stays with ya. That's one of the marks of an excellent film.<br /><br />On many reviews I've written how now paying $10 for a film is horrid. For films like this one, you'd pay it and not feel slighted. This film is NOT for everyone.<br /><br />I find it horrific that they lable this film a "cult" film. I find that the audience is broader than many would lead you to belive and although not a commercial success in 1982, this is an example of how releasing a darn good film on the wrong date can make a darn good film look bad. After John Carpenter's film, many people copied many techniques, make-up, special effects and story lines from this version of "The Thing".<br /><br />I am now excitd to go on record and state that this film is one of the best films of all time, very much under rated. Please see it uncut, please see it in letterbox and please hear it digitally. You'll talk about it for years as well.
| 1 |
positive
|
Three words: What a pile..... Two words: Don't bother! One word: Sucked! There are zero reasons to see this movie. Even those Seagal groupies should shy away from this movie. The martial arts, the typical Aikido, are horrible. The martial arts moves themselves are fine but the cinematography is pathetic. The movie actually goes into slow motion whenever Seagal give his "kill move" to his victims. Worse yet, is shows the same move three times in rapid succession from three slightly different angles. How stupid. Seagal's acting was plain stupid, but I still give this movie a "6" for acting because of the supporting cast whose "villain" roles were actually quite entertaining.<br /><br />The plot is just dumb. Seagal plays a Federal Express agent with a license to kill. His character also has that dedicated work ethic which means all of his packages get delivered to the correct people on time - at no extra charge - and nothing stands in his way. Not assassins, political leaders, explosions, or even death.<br /><br />I expect a certain level of violence in a martial arts film, but there are several scenes in this movie of random and horrible acts of violence that lend itself in no way to the advancement of the movie or its story. There is a reason this movie went directly to video and there are tons of reasons to avoid it. No one should bother with this tripe.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
This is truly a kung fu classic. This film appears to have influenced martial arts films for decades. The Spanish guitar background music, the competing schools, the impossibly high leaps onto the edges of rooftops, catching thrown spears, cheating in tournaments, the secret training for an exotic karate technique, themes of patience and perseverance, and more were copied by many later films such as "The Karate Kid" (1984), "Hero" (2002), "Kill Bill Volume 2" (2004), and "Kung Fu Hustle" (2004).<br /><br />I feel lucky to have first seen this film in 1972, shortly after it was released, just before kung fu films became mainstream and before Bruce Lee became a household name. I saw it with two buddies of mine in a downtown San Diego theater frequented by sailors, and although the scenes of the glowing red hands and gouged eyeballs got some laughs, clearly the audience was getting into it, as was our little group. It was a very memorable movie for me. Decades later I could still recall several specific scenes, even after I had forgotten the film title. This film is extra special to me now because one of those two buddies with whom I first saw it (sailor Kenneth Lee Hines of the Kitty Hawk) has since passed away, so this film serves as a memento of that day together before we took judo and karate lessons in subsequent years.<br /><br />Relative to kung fu films, I'd rate this film as 10/10. But since I have to keep the larger film audience in mind, I'll more objectively rate it as 8/10, due to obvious technical flaws. I just recommend that neophyte viewers consider those technical flaws to be proof of its vintage nature and of its authenticity, and then merrily proceed to enjoy its testosterone-charged mayhem.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am a big fan of Larkin's works, I believe that he was amid the greatest 20th century poets. The film itself does a great justice to the bard of Hull. Wonderfully portrayed by all the players in their roles. Bonneville does do a service to the sexually repressed Larkin, he avoids an impression and strays from becoming a caricature. The use of his poetry was the highlight of the piece itself. Rather than acting out the massive intensity with which Larkin felt, the use of his words themselves give a better insight into plot and add a much more sombre but altogether more fascinating atmosphere. Most enjoyable.
| 1 |
positive
|
What exactly do people expect when they watch an Al Adamson film? Are they expecting classic cinema that is wonderful beyond belief and will leave them with lasting memories? You'd think so by some of the reviews. Al Adamson's films are trashy and sleazy and cheesy, not much more, so if you go into them knowing that already it helps, and they aren't necessarily to be taken at face value, especially when they have so much unintentional entertainment value. First off, this starts by ripping off the end theme music from Outer Limits, so you know things are looking promising. This is the story of some wacko cult that lives in the hills and while trying to raise a dead body, the leader suffers a heart attack and ends up in the hospital. Of course Nurse Sherri tends to his needs and all, and when an operation is needed she just happens to be hanging out in the operating room when the guy passes on so his spirit invades her. And Nurse Sherri begins to change. No longer the nice nurse, she develops a taste for blood and sharp objects. There's a couple little side stories going on like folks trying to burn the body of the dead cult leader and a blinded football star that has become the love object of one of Sherri's co-workers who also just happens to dabble in voodoo. This is not bad if you're a cult film fan, but it may be bad if you're a "Spiderman" fan because you won't like it. At times this actually lurches towards "respectability" (for Adamson, anyway) but then it "unredeems: itself with some ridiculous event. If you enjoy Adamson's films and similar trash you may well like this, for anyone else who may be looking for a lost treasure, keep digging. 7 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie gave me recurring nightmares, with Alan Rickman's voice representing an omnipotent, insidious, fascist ruler. The scariest movie I have ever seen - psychological terror more powerful than anything any "horror" movie has ever achieved. Alan Rickman's voice will always represent to me the power and terror of a totalitarian state, reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. This movie describes to those who don't care the reality of a large part of current world governments. This film is disturbing, but in a way that everyone should watch it - it's a description of a reality that no one should ever have to experience, but so many do.
| 1 |
positive
|
How this character ever got hired by the post office is far beyond me. The test that postal workers take is so difficult. There is no way that a guy this stupid can work at the post office. Everyone in this movie is just stupid and that is probably the point of the movie. How they could go their entire lives and not see an elevator is also puzzling. I didn't take this movie too seriously but it was so stupid. Then he tries to start the car without his keys? Lots of horrible scenes and horrible acting and this movie is not funny at all. It's just a sad stupid mess. I liked the moms dress though.<br /><br />Send it back to sender as soon as possible.
| 0 |
negative
|
This trio of 30-minute short films on gay-related themes are all quite respectably executed. Each coming-of-age story is played out with pleasant charm and naturalness. This film deserves to be widely distributed and easily obtainable. However, it isn't. I had to order my video copy; none of the local video stores or even the libraries had it in stock.
| 1 |
positive
|
(Some Spoilers) Early 1930's educational movie about the horrors of contracting a social disease and the consequences that come along with it: blindness madness loss of ones abilities to function as well as infecting other people with it, even one's unborn children, and finally death. "Damaged Lives" is far ahead of it's times in educating it's viewers about the dangers Venereal Deasise. viewed now over 70 years after it's release back in 1933 is as good, if not better, then the many films about that subject made back in the 1940's 1950's and even 1960's.<br /><br />Donald Bradley, Lyman Williams, is a top executive of a major shipping company who's been going study with his girlfriend Joan, Diane Sinclair, for some time. both are finally planing to get married and raise a family. Out at a party one evening Donald meets Elsie Cooper, Charlotte Merriam, and together they have one drink too many and before you know it end up spending the night together in Elsie's home. <br /><br />Thinking nothing of his one night stand with Elsie Donald later marries his long time love Joan and they both plan to have a child, or so they thought. At the office Donald get a panicked call from Elsie telling him to come over to her place right away about something very important. Rushing over Donald finds out, to his horror, that Elsie has a sexual infection that she got from her boyfriend Nat, Harry Myers, and that she may have given it to Donald, and he in turn may have infected his wife Joan. Telling Elsie that she's wrong about him being infected and that she should seek medical attention Elsie shoots herself as Donald is just about to leave. <br /><br />Getting over Elsie's tragic death Donald gets another surprise later when his doctor Dr. Bill Hill, Jason Robards Sr, comes over to his office telling him to immediately come with him to the hospital to talk to Infectious Disease Specialist Dr. Vincent Leonard, Murray Kinnell, about his wife Joan who's just been admitted there. The terrible truth about Donald and his wife Joan hits him like a bolt out of the blue and leaves him speechless, just like it did Joan earlier. Both have been infected and the infection is the dreaded and unspeakable,back in the 1930's, infection called Venereal Disease. <br /><br />Told by Dr. Leonard that it would take some two years of treatment for both Donald and Joan to be completely cured it leaves Joan in a state of dangerous suicidal thoughts. Later in the film Joan, feeling that she has nothing to live for, closes all the windows in her and Donald's apartment and turns on the gas stove, full blast, in order to kill herself and Donald who was asleep at the time. <br /><br />Honest film about the ravages of Venereal Disease and the damage that it does to those who are infected by it, both psychically as well as mentally, and how it could be cured if given immediate medical care instead of hiding it from one's doctor and keeping it hidden, for fear of shame and embarrassment, until it's too late.
| 1 |
positive
|
I enjoyed the movie very much. Everything in The Italian Job is simple. An explosive guy, a safe-cracker, a computer genius, a wheel-man and a man with a spectacular plan of stealing 35 million without using a gun. This film is entertaining although it has no central idea. It is a non-stop movie with lots of actions. All the stunt work is gorgeous. From the speedboat chase in Venice at the beginning to the chase on the busy roads in Los Angeles involving three mini coopers and even a helicopter. The best boast chase I have ever seen. I like the mini coopers. The expert thieves used mini coopers for the getaway cars. The chase between the mini coopers and the motor-bikes is amazing. They chased underground. I can say there was not a moment I was bored. Mark Wahlberg (Charlie Croker), Charlize Theron (Stella Bridger), Donald Sutherland (John Bridger), Jason Statham (Handsome Rob), Seth Green (Lyle), Mos Def (Left Ear) and Edwin Norton (Steve) really did a good job. I like the actors in this film. I have seen a lot of heist movie but The Italian Job& is one of my favourites. A great Hollywood action movie without a drop of blood. After all, I do love this kind of movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm just throwing in this review to show that I'm not crazy -- I like a lot of Wynorski's work -- Deathstalker 2, Chopping Mall, Against the Law are fast-paced and highly enjoyable -- just to prove I'm not blind, I have to mention this, along with some Shannon Tweed "Body Chemistry 3 or 4 or something", are the lousy ones -- I've got nothing against drawn-out sex sequences, but Julie Strain's breasts are so unnatural looking you can't help but stare at them - which may be the desired effect but I didn't enjoy staring at them -- and several members of this cast seem depressed or disinterested -- The "erotic thriller" was the worst thing to happen to low-budget flicks ever, and thank God that their day has more-or-less done.
| 0 |
negative
|
The video opens with a scene from a horror movie, in which a man proposes to his girlfriend. He begins to tell her that he is "different." As the full moon rises, he morphs into a werewolf. He then pursues her through the woods, and right before he attacks, we're taken to the inside of the movie theater. Inside the theater are Michael and his girlfriend. She's too scared to watch any longer, so they leave. As they exit the theater, he begins to tease her. ("It's close to midnight, something evil's lurking in the dark...") Michael then sings and dances his way down the street with his girlfriend. This scene shows Michael's skill with the camera. He never once acts "aware" of its presence, as many other artists do. As they make there way past the graveyard, the graves begin to open... Once they arrive at an alley, they are confronted with a horde of the undead. We then see the horror stricken face of Michael's girl. Who wouldn't have a horror stricken look if their date morphed into a zombie? Yep, he becomes one of the undead. (A very bright and shiny one, though.) He and his fellow zombies then begin what may be the most well known dance choreography of any music video. To tell you any more would give the ending away.<br /><br />This is my favorite music video of all time! You don't want to miss it! I give it a 10/10. (Yes, I know you can see the curtains in the back of the sound stage, and the werewolf looks kind of cheesy by today's standards.)
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is so over-the-top as to be a borderline comedy. Laws of physics are broken. Things explode for no good reason. Great movie to sit down with a six-pack and enjoy. Do not - I repeat DO NOT see this movie sober. You will die horrible death!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
This is definitely one of the ultimate cult classics, and is a must see for all psychotronic fans. Why? It has everything a great 70s exploitation film should have. Over-the-top dialog, bad acting, enthusiasm, sex, sleaze, political incorrectness, violence, and many other elements of a good cult classic are included. In other words, Dolemite is a must-see.<br /><br />As with a lot of these films, the plot makes little to no sense. What I picked up from it is that pimp-hustler Dolemite got framed up for having stolen furs and half a million dollars worth of narcotics. While he was doing time, his arch nemesis Willie Green (the same man who framed him) took over his nightclub. However, the sympathetic warden (the only white character in the whole movie that isn't completely evil or incompetent) decides to spring him free to stop the evil Willie Green and his drug trafficking. Luckily, he knows kung fu, as does about 50 to 75% of the characters in this film do. And even more luckily, while he was locked up, the madam Queen Bee sent all his "hoes" to kung fu school. With this army of kung fu fighting "hoes" (his words, not mine) on his side, he plans to take back the nightclub from Willie Green. However, two racist white cops try to frame him up again and have him thrown back in jail.<br /><br />As I said earlier, don't try to follow the plot. I've seen this movie about five times and there are many elements that seem to have no connections to anything else. Supporting characters wander in and out of the film. I'm still attempting to figure out what was up with Reverend Gibbs, the Mayor, and the Hamburger Pimp. Who cares ultimately? The scenes with these characters are all priceless. As for the dialog, its horrible with even worse delivery. Since Rudy Ray Moore was originally a comedian, I begin to wonder if this film was meant to be a spoof or a serious action film. It seems he couldn't decide which one. Lines such as "Yeah, I'm so bad, I kick my own ass twice a day" call for further investigation. Either way, the film is hilarious, and the plot has more holes than a swiss cheese factory. Another hilarious element is some of the most unerotic uses of sex and nudity ever in film. Actors that you would never want to see naked get naked (including the Mayor and Queen Bee). Not to mention the fact that the boom mic seems to show up in every other scene.<br /><br />Most of all, Moore shows incredible enthusiasm. He seems to be having a generally good time and is certainly charismatic. His comedy raps proved to be a huge influence on latter day gangsta rap, including Dr. Dre who sampled him on his groundbreaking 1992 album "The Chronic". As technically inept as the film is, it is culturally influential. Even more important, it is an all around good time. The biggest crime an exploitation film can commit is being boring, and this for all its flaws is quickly paced and entertaining. In other words, if you dig this kind of film, you'll love "Dolemite". If you don't dig it, you're a "no-business, born-insecure, jock-jawed motha-f***a!" (7/10)
| 1 |
positive
|
It finally hit me watching my VHS of Christmas in Connecticut what other film this one reminded me of. If it weren't for the fact that the other was done 20 years later, I'd say it was a remake.<br /><br />Just as Rock Hudson was a phony fishing expert for Abercrombie&Fitch who had to get some on the job training at a fishing tournament, Barbara Stanwyck plays an forties version of Martha Stewart.<br /><br />Stanwyck's a cooking columnist who's built up this whole image of living on a small Connecticut farm with husband and baby cooking all these marvelous delicacies. Trouble is she's unmarried, childless, writes her column from her apartment in New York and doesn't know how to boil water. But her writing is a hit with the public.<br /><br />Trouble comes when she's hijacked into cooking a home Christmas dinner for a war hero sailor played by Dennis Morgan who gets to sing a couple of songs as well. Got to keep up the image at any cost. And her publisher Sidney Greenstreet likes the idea so well that he invites himself to the dinner.<br /><br />So with borrowed farm, baby, and Reginald Gardiner who'd like to make it real with Stanwyck she tries to brazen it through. <br /><br />Christmas in Connecticut's now a Yuletide classic and deservedly so. The leads are warm and human and they get great support from the assembled players. S.Z. Sakall as the Hungarian restaurant owner/friend of Stanwyck from whom she gets her cooking information and Una O'Connor as the housekeeper have a nice chemistry between them. Reginald Gardiner and Stanwyck have no chemistry at all, obvious to all but Reggie and he's funny in his stuffed shirt way.<br /><br />Most people remember this film as one of Sidney Greenstreet's few ventures into comedy. If he's not an outright villain, a cynical observer of life or a tyrannical tycoon, Greenstreet is few other things on screen. Christmas in Connecticut gave him a rare opportunity to burlesque his own image and he made the most of it.<br /><br />In a biography of Barbara Stanwyck, she mentions she enjoyed making Christmas in Connecticut as a welcome change from some villainous parts like Double Indemnity she'd been doing recently. One of the things that made doing the film so enjoyable was that between takes, director Peter Godfrey and Greenstreet would do some impromptu entertaining of cast and crew with English Music Hall numbers. Made for a relaxed and warm set and the cast responded accordingly.<br /><br />Now if only someone had been filming those numbers.
| 1 |
positive
|
Was this supposed to be a comedy? The black cape and skeleton mask are hilarious. There is like zero plot. The movie starts out with an archaeologist and his assistant. They make a small mention of their dig site being cursed. And then, lo and behold......in drops Halloween Costume Man, dressed in the shiny black cape, with a skeleton mask face, holding an axe. So, he kills off these two people. Then we cut to the woods with a bad imitation of Predator, only the commandos are being hunted down by Halloween Costume Man who is now riding a horse! More commandos show up, but these people are supposed to be disguised as a hiking group. Yeah, production probably ran out of commando costumes. Can you say, low budget? Anyway, they come upon a lone old Indian guy sitting in the woods. He's just too funny. And he starts babbling about something, but you really don't know what he's mumbling about, so they flashback to some Indians getting killed. None of it really makes sense. And then we go back to our commandos where more of them get killed. And that's really basically the plot. It's so laughably bad, you just can't really look away because you want to see just how low it sinks. You could make the same movie with a camcorder, a Halloween Costume and a bunch of your friends with fake guns. Don't see this thing if you want a horror movie. If you want a comedy, maybe? Or just skip it and get something like the real Predator.
| 0 |
negative
|
It is definitely not worth spending either money or time. It is the same hackneyed plot of a guy and a girl meeting and falling in love. But this is with a western touch. But it fails miserably in either depicting a love story or giving it the western touch. Never do we feel that the hero and heroin are in love. There is no depth to either of their characters. Probably, with a better cast, some justice could have been brought about to the characters. Finally, it is a movie with no fun, no acting, no theme, no plot, no comedy , no action, no thrill, no romance (i associate romance to something more passionate). Definitely not a movie you would want to go with your family. Overall, if you are looking for a movie with some content, this is definitely not an option. I shall wait for the day when bollywood movies are something that i can wait to watch and i can refer to my friends as a "must watch" movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
one of my favorite lines in Shakespeare.<br /><br />i.e. *we're not finished with you by a long shot* so not only does Shylock not get his pound of flesh, or the 3,000 or the 6,000 or the 36,000 (each of the 6 parts were a ducat) ducats, in a matter of minutes he is ruined by having to forfeit all his possessions. and his daughter has long abandoned him already.<br /><br />vengeance is a dish best served cold. but Shylock's attempt at revenge totally backfires. <br /><br />I suspect this play was and is popular because it caters to the wish we have for justice. but the hard reality is the world is engulfed in injustice and most of it stands. a few big names get tossed in jail, sme gang punks lose their turf to the 'good guys' but in reality most of the time it's the other way around.<br /><br />but not in this play. the long howls of racism and antisemitism forgets that it could well have been any other social outcast group that gets the comeuppance, it's just that the money lenders of the time were Jews and therefore the needs of the story line puts Shylock the Jew into the role of villain.<br /><br />Merchant of Venice is my 3rd favorite work by Shakespeare, 1 and 2 being Hamlet and Macbeth. this production gives excellent treatment of the moral of the story. the scenes with the suitors alone is worth watching. also the awkwardness of the new husbands squirming and minimizing the fact they let the rings so easily slip away that they had sworn to keep forever. in real life, this trick is the thing that spouses coyly use to remind their better half that promises MUST mean something and not be made frivolously. there is far deeper significance to this play than just the comedy/dramatic aspect. it is about loyalty, commitment, and love.<br /><br />well worth watching over and over.
| 1 |
positive
|
I don't usually comment on films or TV shows but had to post a comment about Las Vegas.<br /><br />Naturally here in the UK we are about 2/3rd's through the 3rd season and though i have managed to watch the last series of season 3 ( via other means ) i'm still glued every Friday at 9pm.<br /><br />From the very first episode of season 1 i have been a big big fan of this show and own all 3 seasons on DVD, yes i cannot wait for season 4 to start in October.<br /><br />So why do i love this show so much, well i have to agree with the last poster.... James Caan, i know one person cannot make a team but Big Ed Deline was made for Caan or maybe it was the other way around, i read that the producers were considering Martin Sheen for Ed Deline.... Do'h no way!!! i also agree that Caan's character is getting very soft, i also preferred the tough take no sh*t Big Bad Eddy D that we saw in season 1 & 2, he seems to have mellowed out.<br /><br />As i said no one person makes the team by themselves's and of course the other cast members Josh Duhamel/Danny, James LeSure/Mike, Vanessa Marcil/Sam, Nikki Cox/Mary, Molly Sims/Delinda all contribute well, even outside cast members such as Cheryl Ladd as Jillian Deline, Harry Groener as Gunther, Dean Caine as Casey, Mitchell Longley as Mitch who may feature 6 or 7 times during a season can fit in just as well as if they've been in every single episode from day one.<br /><br />This show has everything, drama, action, suspense, laughs, romance, glitz's, glamour and big time celebrity's who often play themselves's.<br /><br />Many may disagree but this is one of the best shows on digital TV and i hope it may long continue after season 4.
| 1 |
positive
|
This story starts at the end ! So the film's opening credits advise us. Unfortunately that's not true as we then are treated to around 70 minutes of a typical B science fiction movie of the 1950's. The story is dreary; the plot is very weak and has clearly been filmed on a low budget, as was often the case in those days.<br /><br />The story could have covered any situation where people are taking refuge in an isolated house and being threatened by someone outside. it just happened to be adapted to fit round a sci-fi story.<br /><br />The scenery consisted of a few rocks, bushes, and smoke. - Oh yes there was a pool of water as well. Someone wore a rubber mask with a beak like face and what looked like feathers.<br /><br />Written by Lou Rusoff, who penned several sci-fi stories around that time including The She Creature and It Conquered The World The filming was completed in a matter of days, not allowing the actors time to develop their characters to better advantage. The low budget restraints also prevented this film reaching its potential. It could have been a much better film than it turned out to be.<br /><br />Mike Connors and Richard Denning brought some life to the film, but even they could not lift this film into the category where you could say- 'I enjoyed that film' Richard Denning's acting career began in 1937. He starred with Gregory Peck and Deborah Kerr in An Affair to Remember and later became more well known on television in the series Hawaii Five-O and The Flying Doctor series.<br /><br />Directed by Roger Corman who has many films to his credit both as a director and producer. He has made some good films and is still making them. He became very well known for his direction of films from the stories of Edgar Allan Poe, often starring Vincent Price. He also made other low budget films; some were good and entertaining for one reason or another, and most were much better than this.<br /><br />I would not recommend this film to anyone.<br /><br />Darnmay <br /><br />10th September 2007
| 0 |
negative
|
Tug-3 is absolutely right. Although I am sure that Mr. Osmond wanted to make a sincere, heartwarming Christmas movie, this one is as cynical and creepy as they come. The religious significance of Christmas is forgotten and replaced with cute kids, clueless grownups, and dopey villains. The production values demonstrate that this was either filmed on a shoestring or by truly inexperienced filmmakers-- I suspect the latter, unfortunately. The worst part, oddly enough, really is the music. You would think someone with a long-standing musical career could do better than the title song, but you would be wrong. Even my mom didn't like this movie, and she likes the Osmonds AND sappy stuff.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a movie, that has all the basic elements of its genre. It makes you wanna cry, it makes you laugh, it disgust you, it makes you angry etc. <br /><br />The topic of the story is fortunately not about some disease or drugs, what is the common trend in gay themed movies in these days, but it focuses on the social interactions between characters what could be considered not to be in the high school elite. The play and the direction could be a little bit more sophisticated, but on the other hand it's somehow better so, because it really shows the distress of the characters, that they are experiencing. If this was intended, then this is a remarkable job and assuredly an achievement, specially for such an young director. <br /><br />It's actually a good story that gives you a little inside into, how it is to be a fat girl and to acknowledge it to yourself.
| 1 |
positive
|
Darr, although a copy of some Hollywood flick, is one of the best films I have seen. It is not only beautifully portrayed but also has great songs and beautiful scenery. Shahrukh is his usual self. His expressions and voice matches his character. I was pleasantly surprised by Sunny Deol's portrayal in the film. He is a bit romantic and lovable in the film, unlike his other characters in his other films.At times you feel like Justice hasn't been done to his character. Sunny was intended to be portrayed as the good guy in the film but ends up looking like the villain at the end. Juhi Chawla is beautiful and bubbly. She is her usual self. In short, A great love story with passion.
| 1 |
positive
|
A professional production with quality actors that simply never touched the heart or the funny bone no matter how hard it tried. The quality cast, stark setting and excellent cinemetography made you hope for Fargo or High Plains Drifter but sorry, the soup had no seasoning...or meat for that matter. A 3 (of 10) for effort.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Midnight Clear" has a great premise. A group of over-educated, overly bright GI's are sent out by incompetent leaders on a vague mission to patrol around an isolated farm house on the eve of the Battle of the Bulge. The GI's encounter a group of battle-weary German regulars, and it becomes clear that they don't want to fight anymore.<br /><br />Therein lies the problem. It's really pretty simple. If the Germans want to surrender, they do so and that's the end of the movie. If the Germans want to fight, they do so and that's also the end of the movie. So instead of doing either the GI's and Germans play games with each other, even throwing snowballs at one point. Interesting for one or two scenes, but it soon becomes very annoying. After all, these are GERMANS. The enemy. Nothing in this film makes me think they should not be either taken prisoner or shot. The film does noting to make them more human. In fact, much of what the German characters did made ME want to shoot them, including one scene where the German officer refuses to deal with a Jew or to surrender to a mere enlisted man! Why should I care about such characters? Just shoot them and let's move on to the Battle of the Bulge. It's much more interesting, anyway.<br /><br />One good scene: The GI's are returning from a recon of the German position, where they had the Germans in their sights but did not fire. While walking across a clearing, they realize a group of Germans have their Mausers leveled at them. The Germans are about 100 yards away. The GIs then do something I've NEVER seen any GI's do in any Sillywood movie. They throw down their rifles and throw up their hands! Unusual as this may be in films, it is an entirely sensible reaction to having a rifle aimed at you from that distance. Though it seems far, in reality it's point-blank range for those rifles. I'll lay odds that someone working on this film was a cruffler!
| 0 |
negative
|
I've seen this movie quite a few times and each time I watch it, the quirkier and funnier it becomes. Perhaps its the lack of research that went into Nicolas Cage's character's 'punk' persona or just the cheesiness factor because it was such a typical eighties film...nonetheless it's a cute love story with extremely funny, unique characters. I think it's right up there with "Fast Times" and "Weird Science" (quintessential eighties flicks!)
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was utterly and unequivocally terrible. The plot was so predictable and boring and the script so corny and pretentious that by the end I wanted to stab my eyes with the nearest pen.<br /><br />Normally I don't write reviews, but I was astonished by the number of positive reviews it got. While I admit that the acting was okay at some parts, the script's deficiencies more than outweighed the decent acting. The only reason I watched this was because a few of my friends were watching it, introducing it as most likely the worst movie ever made, judging by the trailer. We were not disappointed in the least. Its only saving grace is that it contained my new favorite pickup line:<br /><br />BRANDON: I just want to get to know you.<br /><br />GIRL: You just want to get into my pants.<br /><br />BRANDON: I want to get into your mind, your heart, your soul. I don't see you wearing any pants in this equation.<br /><br />Overall, I would rate this movie as the worst movie I ever saw that took itself seriously.
| 0 |
negative
|
A true comedy.The dialog is fast and very witty.Eleanor Parker at her physical peak .Flynn as only Flynn can be"the charming rogue'..although now past his prime.. Most of the scenes between the principals are short so the movie moves well. If you haven't seen this movie please give a look.You will be surprised at Flynn's comedy timing.The scenes between him Tucker, Parker and "Cudddles" Sakal are hilarious.Just on the basis of the outfits worn by the most attractive Parker,this movie is worth a look.The romance of this 40's movie will not be lost on those so inclined to watch movies from Hollywood's golden past. My bet is that Never Say Goodbye won't disappoint.
| 1 |
positive
|
But I still enjoyed watching her, so I gave it a 3 instead of a 1. Her expressions are priceless. Some of the other cast members (e.g., Michael McKean) are really slumming, too. The cat himself is somewhat amusing. Aside from that, the movie is all cliche, culminating in a much-too-long car chase. (It's also at this point that the movie becomes unnecessarily crude, having been very "family" until then.)
| 0 |
negative
|
I caught this flick on the trail end of a tape I had used to capture a movie I truly wanted to wanted to see again. When I saw Raquel Welch's name in the opening credits, I decided to watch it. It was actually mildly entertaining, and took me back "in the wayback machine" to the farcical movies that Hollywood churned out during the sixties, much in the same genre as the current Austin Powers stuff. Oh the acting was not superb, nor was the plot, but it was worth watching. There was some delightful scenery, although Ms. Welch provided the most pleasant of such. Tape it if you get the chance and watch it when you have absolutely nothing else to do. It is not a snoozer, but it won't have you rolling in the aisles wanting more, either.
| 1 |
positive
|
I give "Flashdance" a lowest rating of 1 out of 10 because it's nothing more than a series of music videos with a movie short surrounding the music videos, in order to clock in as a feature length film. Since when does that count as film? Jennifer Beals plays Alex Owens, an aspiring 18-year-old dancer, who, incomprehensibly, has a job as a welder in a Pittsburgh steel factory. Not a line of work most older women find their way into, much less 18-year-olds fresh out of high school. Meanwhile, at night she works as an exotic dancer, who never actually takes off her clothes, in a greasy spoon bar called Mawby's. Yet looking at the well choreographed and well polished dance routines the girls do every night at Mawby's, you would think they were working at the best casino on the Las Vegas Strip.<br /><br />Alex ends up having a predictable romance with her boss, Nick Hurley (Michael Nouri), who is about twice her age. After resisting Nick's advances, because going out with the boss isn't a good idea, she wastes no time in going all the way with him after their first date. Alex and Nick make no effort to hide their relationship on the job, which makes no sense given how it is likely to look to Alex's co-workers.<br /><br />When Beals isn't being doubled for the many dance sequences in the movie, her character spends most her time throwing temper tantrums. Alex's dream is to get an invitation only audition at the prestigious Pittsburgh Conservatory of Dance. Inexplicably, when her boss/boyfriend helps her get the audition she's been dreaming of, she's throws one her tantrums. She angrily tells Nick she isn't doing the audition because of his intervention, and then gets out of his car in the middle of a busy tunnel. This is just one scene that leaves you wondering what the hell the makers were thinking when they were making this.<br /><br />Of course, Alex does eventually get her audition at the Conservatory. She puts on a dance routine before the Conservatory board that is so ridiculous that you would think it was in a movie marketed to the MTV generation. Oh yeah, it is a dance routine in a movie marketed to the MTV generation.<br /><br />I don't think I can judge whether or not Beals can actually act well on the basis of what I saw in "Flashdance". This is because the character she is forced to play is so poorly written, that I don't think it is a fair litmus test of her acting abilities.<br /><br />You have to hand it to the makers of "Flashdance" though. This movie is proof that the poorest film making can be covered up by a slick marketing campaign. In this case a best selling and award winning soundtrack and music videos for said soundtrack in heavy rotation on MTV. If they had devoted more of their energy to the writing of the script, then they might have been able to come up with a plot and a story with characters that I cared about. Instead what we get are stock characters put in ridiculous scenes any viewer with a functioning brain can't take seriously. A truly forgettable "film".
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is not only about feelings and human emotions, it is also about everything that could be but it's not. Poetry in movies can be awfully boring and annoying, but this movie is delightful to be watched. Not to mention the amazing Irène Jacob, a great actress in France - one of the best, actually. When the movie ends, you can only feel sorry. After all, when something is truly great, we want more (Well, for another great movie by K Kieslowsky with Irène Jacob we can always watch La double vie de Veronique)
| 1 |
positive
|
"Shivering Shakespeare" could be considered the first classic of the "Our Gang" talkie era. By now, Hal Roach Studios began to hit their stride in making talking pictures, and "Shakespeare" is the happy result.<br /><br />The Gang is appearing in a version of Quo Vadis produced by Kennedy the Cop's wife. The kids don't find the play very fun to be in and are distracted by people in the theatre and cannot remember their lines. Among the funniest bits are Kennedy the Cop as the giant, who pulls off his makeup to fight an overzealous man in a bull costume; and the terrible dancing girl (played by director Bob McGowan's daughter.)<br /><br />Several filmographies mention that "Shakespeare" has the first pie fight in a talkie. This may be true, seeing as they tried different speeds with the film during the fight. Buster Keaton's brother Harry is at the receiving end of one of the pies. Very funny and an early Gang talkie classic. 9 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
Julie Brown hilariously demolishes Madonna's attempt at a rockumentary with gut ripping humor and truly original and catchy songs that rival Madonna's own. Cinematography and sets are top notch.<br /><br />Kathy Griffin and Chris Elliott offer their own injections of comedy that enhances and compliments this film. Appearances by Bobcat Goldthwait and Wink Martindale, as themselves, is an added bonus.<br /><br />It's hard to tell if Brown's performance is meant to insult or playfully tease Madonna, though I hardly think the Material Girl would find humor in it.<br /><br />My Favorite line: "Why don't you come here (to the Phillipines); all they eat is dog and I'm a vegetarian."
| 1 |
positive
|
Where should I begin with this movie. All I know is that it is a mess. Be the script, story, or the actors. First of all, this movie is very disappointing from Salman Khan who gave us a fun Dulhan Hum Le Jayenge and Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega before this. Second Rani is getting really annoying, appearing in every stupid movie since Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (glad Saathiya stopped this nonsense). The story is stolen from The Wedding Singer, but ruins the funny movie. The dialogues are lacking. I may have laughed here and there, but entertained? NO!!! Salman Khan was tolerable in the above mentioned movies, but here he is insane. His character is poorly written. One minute he is poor and next minute you wonder how is he poor. Rani Mukherjee looks like a plain jain and wasn't putting any effort. She luckily redeemed her career with Saathiya because her career was going haywire around this time. Pooja Batra put a little charm here with her looks but it is still not enough. Jackie Shroff is wasted. Kashmira Shah's beauty and acting has ran away from her because she chose such a horrible script. Raveena Tandon looks beautiful, but puts little performance. Mohnish Behl gets the award for Worst (Supporting) Actor (they need Razzie's because there have been terrible movies in India). He says stupid dialogues, dances terribly, looks weird, and is not in his regular form. Just to tell you, there is more to the cast who are also terrible. If it weren't for Raveena's awesome beauty in Aa Meri Life Bana De, I wouldn't give the movie a point. Otherwise the dancing by Salman was terrible. Pooja Batra was dancing like a wind in Savariya, otherwise I wish the costumes were given a make-over and the rest of the cast (and their monkey dancing) had been blown away from the wind. The good song of the album was O Priya O Priya which doesn't have a good enough picturization. Same goes for the half way decent title song. Otherwise this movie (and the rest of the songs) are a no-no for everyone.
| 0 |
negative
|
This documentary is not only one of the best documentaries I've seen, but also one of the most moving and quietly beautiful movies I've seen period. It follows the lives of two Sudanese young men, Peter and Santino, as they try to make their way into the American culture. Peter and Santino are friends at first, but they gradually drift more and more apart, as Peter goes to Kansas City, and Santino stays in Houston ("a land called Houston"). Santino's beauty is in his eyes. He takes people onto his back, he supports an apartment full of other Sudanese, paying the rent, doing everything for other people. He is a quiet sufferer. Peter looks out for himself, getting a high school education while playing basketball and making Christian friends. It seems that director Megan Mylan did not know what she was getting herself into with the beauty of this tale. Peter and Santino are amazing characters that move you. But the real strength in this movie lies in its commentary on American society. It is not judging. It shows the strengths and weaknesses of our world, and how difficult it can be to outside people. I suggest you find this film, and look at America through the lives of these two fascinating and beautiful people.<br /><br />My grade: 10/10
| 1 |
positive
|
I can't honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of John Landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . I suppose you can't really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in London: An American tourist visits a famous European capital , he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague , he embarks ( Pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession , he turns into a werewolf , he's visited by apparitions of his dead victims , etc etc . and reading the previous line I've just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . The difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the Landis movie is <br /><br />With this Paris based movie there's no scenes that really stand out . There's no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he's going to get back home with no money or clothes , there's no bizarre dream sequence of Naziwerewolves and there's no spectacular climax . AAWIP does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour ? I'm thinking of the scene where Andy McDermott has to convince someone he's got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms ! Perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there's no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . You really do feel sorry for the protagonist's fate and dilemma in the London movie , here you just feel Andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . There's also a large number of plot holes visible . Is this the first time The Lunar Club have carried out a massacre ? If not then aren't large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world's press ? Why haven't the police got leads ?<br /><br />Everyone else has mentioned it and so will I - The visuals are poor . Look at the bungee jumping scene at The Eifell Tower , it's painfully obvious that it's achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish CGI . I won't put Anthony Waller in the same bracket as Stephen Sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on CGI ( The major problem with AAWIP is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but I would have preferred the Rick Baker type special effects used for the transformation . To be fair it's reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget didn't stretch that far . But at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that didn't need to be made and DOG SOLDIERS is much better entertainment
| 0 |
negative
|
The Director loves the actress and it shows. The actress inhabits the character, whom we love at first sight and sound. The character loves her jealous unprepossessing husband and he loves her. His childhood friend secretly loves his wife and the fact that his friend is a beautiful woman makes the love tragic and ironic. His wife is jealous of his childhood friend and thinks her attentions are out of secret love for her husband.<br /><br />Then there is a murder and the investigating police lieutenant, who loves only his bi-racial son, and resents being taken from his company by the above characters, who have had some unpleasant contact with the deceased and are all lying to one degree or another, unravels the mystery with some of the most precise and authentic procedural detail ever captured on film.<br /><br />And then there are the atmospherics of a post-war Paris, where coal is in short supply, music is filled with erotic longing and wistful memory, and innocence has long ago been washed away by the rain.<br /><br />All of this in a milieu of magicians whose tricks don't always work, dogs who walk on their hind feet and express music criticism, hungry news reporters and exhausted cops.<br /><br />And then there are many of the finest actors of their generation who have been through some very bad years directed by, to come full circle, a man who is in love with his lead actress and who, with full justification, was a respected friend of Picasso.<br /><br />I've seen this film often and I love all of them and it.
| 1 |
positive
|
Ok, everybody agreed on what was the best season. The first. And killing off Boone was a bad desicion. Also killing off others was bad. Blame the directors and writers for it. Bad boys. BUT. I still think this is the best scifi series ever! Sorry guys I can't help it! I see that the quality of the series was decreasing after the first season. Still it's easy to accept Liam as the new main character, if you are over Boone. He is really... mysterious. The thing that shocked me most was when Lilli was written out of the story and how. That was something she didn't deserve! And what do we get? Some blonde chick called Renee, with absolutely no character! But these Taelons stay mysterious, and you stay wondering about theyre true plans till the end. True Suspence. The conversations between Zo'or and Da'an are sometimes brilliant.<br /><br />I understand that, when you jump in on an episode from the 3th,4th or 5th season, you may not understand this show. But when you watch from the beginning, you just cant break loose!<br /><br />The acting is great, the special FX are marvellous, the music is beautiful and the plot intriguing. Gotta see this, guys!
| 1 |
positive
|
Shame is rather unique as a war film (or rather quite the anti-war film) in that it not only doesn't focus on the soldiers or politics involved (there is politics but not how you'd think it'd be shown), it deals with its two main subjects as the only two beings that can possibly be cared about at all in this brutal, decaying society they inhabit. Ingmar Bergman, in the midst of his prime, and following two other heavily psychological films, Persona and Hour of the Wolf, is far more interested in seeing what the effect of war has on usually civilized beings, that it brings out the worst in them, and also in a cathartic way is a reminder of what is truly crucial in living. His two key actors are frequent collaborators and friends Max von Sydow and Liv Ullman (as the Rosenbergs oddly enough), who are musicians living on a farm on an island (not too dissimilar from 'Wolf' when one thinks about it).<br /><br />They see the tanks roll by, and a couple of old friends already getting worn down, but they try not to put it too much to heart; there's a sweet scene where the couple just talk, rather frankly but with heart (all one shot, as is repeated through the film is to perhaps create a sense of being provoked)...Then comes the trouble, including a fake film of propaganda made at gunpoint with the Rosenbergs, the psychological turmoil in being prisoners of war, and the terror involved with a 'friend' in the military (one of Gunnar Bjornstrand's most subtle works with Bergman). Needless to say this is not one of the easier films to go through in terms of Bergman's filmography, however for some it may be one of his more accessible works. His religious themes this time is kept very low key, even as the idea of keeping a sort of faith pervades the film's atmosphere. When there is war action it's shot in unconventional, quick ways (via great amigo Sven Nykvist).<br /><br />And the deconstruction of the relationship between Jan and Eva is corresponded successfully with the backdrop of a chaotic kind of war-ground where the lines are never too surely drawn. In a way this film, shot right at the height of the worst times in Vietnam, is even more relevant for today; I couldn't help but see chilling, uncompromising coincidences between Iraq and elsewhere with some of Jan and Eva's scenes with the fighters, or those 'in charge'. The very last scene, by the way, is one of Bergman's very best, all around (acting, directing, lighting). It's not the kind of war picture (or, again, anti-war, I find little of the John Wayne spirit in this Svensk production) that I would recommend right off the bat to my friends all into Saving Private Ryan- it has a little more in kinship with Paths of Glory, looking at the effects of the hypocrisy of war. But in reality, like any of Bergman's "genre" films, it stands alone, however one that packs a wallop for the art-house crowd.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a better-than-average entry in the Saint series - It holds your interest and, as mysteries should, keeps you guessing until the end and has several suspects to choose from.<br /><br />Many films from the Golden Age are not for all tastes, especially younger viewers. They date themselves by clothing, cars, settings, etc. Who nowadays asks for a highball? Or wears a suit and tie everywhere? And the legal process was so much simpler - must have been a dearth of lawyers back then. Frankly, much of value is missing from those days.<br /><br />In any case, go with it and enjoy. It's good - in an old-fashioned sense.
| 1 |
positive
|
Not sure I've ever seen a black comedy from Denamark before but this is quite good actually. The humor is suitably low-key and deadpan to go with some of the gruesome activity. Svend and Bjarne are fed up with working for their boss, because he's always putting them down (in fact he mentions that they weren't bright enough to unzip before peeing at one point). They do what they have to to start their own butcher shop and when a workman is accidentally locked in the cooler overnight while fixing a light, they hit upon something that makes their butcher shop far more popular than their old boss's. In fact, he's the one they sold their first "filets" to, and it's partly his fault, since he served them at a Rotary dinner at his house and the guests raved about it and showed up at Svend and Bjarnes the next day. Bjarne is somewhat horrified what Svend has done but it doesn't stop there. Svend has risen above his sad little existence to be someone of some popularity which is new for him and he doesn't want to let go of that, so the freezer continues to fill up with all manner of acquaintances (and, at one point, "a small Swede from the park"). Suspiccions arise, though, because ex-boss Holger thinks something is wrong. Bjarne is also haunted by his twin brother Eigil, who lived in a sanitarium for years in a coma and whom Bjarne wanted the plug pulled on so he could get inheritance money to help open the shop. When Eigil was taken off the respirator he was revived, much to Bjarne's horror. And Bjarne has a love interest too in Astrid, who works at the cemetery. Neither Svend nor Bjarne are well adjusted individuals and so things start to spiral out of control. The deadpan humor really makes this, and while this isn't exactly laugh out loud material it certainly is amusing. It is somewhat creepy though considering the cuts of meat and body parts casually lying around, especially since these two take it all so matter-of-fact. If you're a fan of black comedies this is recommended, I liked it quite well myself. 8 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
I've never watched a file in a language I don't understand just because I wanted to see the movie and I couldn't find it with English subs. I don't know how much I missed but it wasn't much. Probably just specific details which sounds silly until you see the emotional level of this movie and how the characters interact together. I want to mention to The Diceman from Germany there's no reason to feel that he 'sucks' when it comes to commenting on the emotional strength of the film. Like I said, I don't understand Japanese -or at least only the very small amount I came away with from reading the very lengthy novel -pro- bably my favorite all time book which I could not put down & took the next day off from work just to finish reading! I don't know if there's an English dubbed or subbed version but if the film but if there is I'd love to see it. The film was incredible in Japanese anything better is icing of the cake!! Slainte', Maegi
| 1 |
positive
|
A very watchable film, and one which was eagerly awaited having seen the trailer a number of times.<br /><br />The whole thing looks superb, from the ludicrous efforts of the effete upper class to distance themselves from the mediocrity, to the lower class scum just trying to keep their heads above the filth, the film captures the spirit of the 18th century brilliantly.<br /><br />Jonny Lee Miller plays Maclean extremely well, though the part does not exactly stretch him, and Robert Carlyle seems a little wasted on Plunkett, Miller's highwayman colleague.<br /><br />The real star of the show was undoubtedly Ken Stott, who plays Mr Chance (a kind of 1740's chief of police) with an evil glee that set him out from the rest of the cast.<br /><br />A great film, and anyone that enjoys the colour and style of Peter Greenaway's films will love the look of this, although the thinness of the plot becomes apparent before the 2 hours are up.<br /><br />Well worth a viewing.
| 1 |
positive
|
Last week I watched a Royal Shakespeare Company production of Macbeth. It was 25 years old, filmed w/no props except swords, no furniture except chairs. It was RIVETING. The acting was super - all the actors trained Brits. Contrast that performance to this...yawn yawn yawn. Al Pacino, as Shylock, was tragic, heavy, and couldn't quite lose the New Yorker accent, despite the long....pauses....between.....lines.... The whole thing was soporific, even the "comic" scenes were barely even worth a smile, let a lone a belly laugh. This is supposed to be funny. They tried to make it tragic. It was neither, just boring. I give it four points for costumes, scenery, and Jeremy Irons, who is good at playing a dull, depressed, deep-voiced guy (can he be anything else???)
| 0 |
negative
|
About as hilarious as 50s British comedy can get, THE BELLES OF ST TRINIAN'S has almost a gag a minute... and at 91 minutes makes for a terrific time. Other films I equally recommend of the same period are THE TITFIELD THUNDERBOLT and THE GREEN MAN. In fact any film with Alistair Sim or Terry Thomas, George Cole, Richard Wattis or Joyce Grenfell or any combination is a delight. in ST TRINIAN'S we get a double dose of Sims playing two roles with that hilarious disdain he constantly lets ripple across his face. Joyce Grenfell as Ruby Gates (oh dear! that name!) plays her 'jolly hockey sticks' constable-incognito to hilarious perfection. Possibly the best laughs come from George Cole as Flash Harry (who comes out of a bush when whistled at) and various visits to classrooms by Ms Fritton (Sims) reacting to explosions ('Oh poor Betty!") or science lab gin production ("just send a few bottles of that up to my room"'). Every part of the film is funny from the characters, their costumes the antics and the setting. There were sequels but the first three are the best: including this one, BLUE MURDER AT ST TRINIAN'S and later in color THE GREAT ST TRINIAN'S TRAIN ROBBERY.
| 1 |
positive
|
Fellowe's drama about a couple's marriage which is threatened by a younger third party which interests the wife of the house (Watson). Wilkinson plays the role very well as the troubled husband who cant control his wife's cheating, and deals with the issue. I also like Rupert everett a lot in his role as William Bule, the man that Watson has the affair with. Although i think Emily Watson is a great actress, i had a bit of a problem with the way her character was written, did not make her too likable (i know a cheater is not supposed to be likable, but some of her actions and things she did had no reasoning behind them). The screenplay was perhaps the weak part of this drama, although Fellowes' direction was good and the performances were also quite good. This film is better than Unfaithful, but not a masterpiece by any means. ---IMDB Rating: 6.7, my rating: 8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Gosh, I am learning pretty fast that sometimes when you see a film as a youngster and then again 20 years later you gain a different view -- primarily because in 20 years you learn more. For example, I had no idea who George Cukor was - how great of a director he was and how much of that made this film fly. All I can say is..I really liked this film for it touched on an area that paralleled my life: lifelong friendship between two women. Can that EVER exist? Well, in certain doses, yes...and this film let out in a bit on ... "how".<br /><br />Being a youngster with not a lot of life experience at the first time I saw this so I focused more on the "rich" and "famous" part between the two. At the time, I had no idea there was a difference and what would happen to two women who discovered there was...and how that would effect their friendship. Through their men, their career, the decades that defined them. And coming to realize one thing remained stronger than anything else...their friendship and knowing each other more than anyone else could have.<br /><br />Then I got older, studied film a bit... and watched this film again with my best friend from High School. We do understand the 'rich' and 'famous' angle ... and we are still the best of friends...but this film is not a cinematic masterpiece...it can be seen as a bit campy at times...a little over the top at points (kinda on a 'Dynasty' and 'Dallas' level to me..) and honestly I can identify with the "teddy bear" scene for we do share a bear that means a lot more than a stuffed fun toy through our trials and tribulations with men/careers, et al..so its not as over the top as it seems....! As many already said, seeing Meg Ryan and Matt Latanzzi and Dack Rambo and David Selby are great in this 1981 piece. this is a nice "chick" flick!
| 1 |
positive
|
"Crossfire" is a justifiably famous 1947 noir that's a murder mystery with a strong message. It stars Robert Young, Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, Sam Levene, and Gloria Grahame, and is strongly directed by Edward Dmytryk. We witness the murder in shadow at the beginning, and for the rest of the film, Young, as the detective, Finlay, in charge of the case, seeks to figure out which of three soldiers is responsible for the death, and just as important, why. The victim, Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene) is someone the soldiers meet in a bar; they go up to his apartment to continue their visit, and Samuels winds up dead.<br /><br />I don't know about 1947, but seeing "Crossfire" today, one knows who did it and why the minute we see the suspects. I don't suppose it was so apparent back then, as these actors were just getting started. Nevertheless, the film packs a big punch with its powerful acting, good direction, violence, and unsparing anti-Semite language.<br /><br />The characterizations are vivid, including that of Gloria Grahame in a smallish role - she's a woman who meets Mitchell (George Cooper), one of the suspect soldiers, in a bar and can provide him with an alibi. The big performance in the film belongs to Robert Ryan, but everyone is excellent. Robert Young especially is effective as a tough but intelligent police detective. Mitchum is very likable as a soldier trying to help his confused friend Mitchell, a lonely man unsure if he still has feelings for his wife.<br /><br />Truly excellent, and a must see.
| 1 |
positive
|
A couple of cowpokes help a group of Mormons cross some rough country on their way to a new settlement. This low-key Western is unusual for Ford in that it lacks any big stars. Johnson gets top-billing but his is basically a supporting role, although he and Carey work well together. Dru is given little to do other than provide the love interest. The best performance is given by Ford favorite Bond, playing the leader of the Mormons. In fact, this role helped him land a starring role in the long-running TV Western "Wagon Train" before his untimely death at age 57. Featuring beautiful cinematography, Ford regarded this as one of his favorite films.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this movie for the first time when Quentin Tarantino showed it to a bunch of us at the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin. He prefaced it with how freaking awesome he thought he was and how funny it was and in the context of his explanation, it was HILARIOUS. I can see how it would be damaging to some audiences, and the subject is not funny at all, but there are at least three lines in the film that had me laughing so hard I thought I'd pee. They don't come until after the halfway point, but when they do, oh God...you will die. Oh and Jim Brown is brilliant. He's not in a lot of the movie, but when he's there, you know whose movie it is. Naturally, the best line in the movie (and the funniest) is his; you'll know it when you hear it.
| 1 |
positive
|
The only reason anyone remembers this steaming load of fecal matter is because it was scored by Pink Floyd. (Or as they were known then, "The Pink Floyd".) Stefan, a really annoying Eurotrash hitchhiker, hooks up with American model Estelle and they proceed to get high and naked throughout the whole movie...<br /><br />And the point of this is, what exactly? That drugs are bad? Or only heroin (horse) is? The problem becomes that you don't give a crap about the characters, and for that matter, even Pink Floyd wasn't up to their best work. When Steffan overdoses at the end, you are almost glad to be rid of him because he was so annoying.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Ealing Comedies constitute their own specific sub-genre in the history of film. They were wry, droll reflections on British life in the late Forties and early Fifties. They are always amusing but I feel it is misleading to characterise them as comedies. They are breezy and good-humoured, rather than laugh-out-loud funny. However, the best of them are laced with understated satire and shot through with an occasional dark streak (epecially Kind Hearts and Coronets and The Ladykillers).<br /><br />I have an affection for all of them, but The Lavender Hill Mob is probably the one I have most difficulty with. Compared to the others, it seems somewhat perfunctory. To me, it is an outline sketch for a movie, but one that needed to spend a lot more time in development before it was ready to go before the cameras.<br /><br />Everything about it is a bit undercooked. For example, nobody is given any real context or background. Henry is simply a dutiful drudge, whose secret dreams and hidden ambitions go unrecognised, while Albert is a frustrated artist forced to prostitute his talent by making gift shop trash for a living. This establishes a motive for their crime, but nothing that subsequently happens is a consequence either of their characters or their plan.<br /><br />Other characters are introduced but play no real part in the story. The elderly resident in Henry's guest house could (with her love of detective stories) have been made an unwitting thorn in his side, but is merely used as background 'colour'. Similarly, the various policemen who pop in and out of the action are simply there to keep the plot ticking along.<br /><br />As a result, the movie is driven entirely by its contrived plot devices, which I find both frustrating and faintly irritating. The not-very-ingenious robbery is accomplished with minimal problems, despite Albert being prevented from carrying out his part in the plan (by Sidney Tafler's Clayton). The gold is then smuggled to France without mishap. Everything would have gone smoothly if it wasn't for a minor hitch, lamely based on the French pronunciation of the letter 'R', which results in six of the gold Eiffel Towers being accidentally sold to some English schoolgirls.<br /><br />This leads to a series of frantic chases as Henry and Albert seek to retrieve them. These scenes are well executed, but at each point the conspirators are frustrated in their pursuit of the schoolgirls by a series of wholly factitious accidents. It is as if God is deliberately intervening to give them a hard time. This kind of plotting always has me grinding my teeth.<br /><br />When they finally track the last Eiffel Tower to a Police Academy exhibition and snatch it from under the nose of John Gregson's Police Inspector (why is he there, anyway?) all shreds of plot logic are abandoned. The final car chases are then simply filling up screen time until we are returned to the framing device with which the picture began.<br /><br />The movie doesn't even bother to tell us the fate of Albert (Stanley Holloway), Lackery (Sid James) and Shorty (Alfie Bass).<br /><br />This genial little caper has the professionalism of the Ealing team behind it, so it is far from being a bad movie. I suspect most viewers will find it considerably more enjoyable than I do (and why shouldn't they?), but I cannot help thinking there was a much better movie waiting to be made, if only more time and effort had been expended on fleshing out both the characters and the story.<br /><br />By the standards established by Ealing, Lavender Hill Mob is a missed opportunity.<br /><br />PS: One curious footnote is that Audrey Hepburn gets a credit for her single line early on, but Archie Duncan remains anonymous despite his much more substantial contribution. I guess she just had a better agent.
| 0 |
negative
|
<br /><br />It sucked.<br /><br />I returned the video after watching half of it. Not funny,<br /><br />just a cheap and desperate attempt to cash in on a very very funny original. junk, forget it, don't waste your time etc etc
| 0 |
negative
|
I thought this was a great action flick. A very good role for Geena Davis. She is a very versatile actress. One of my favs next to Angelina Jolie. I actually watched The Long Kiss Goodnight right after seeing the new Tomb Raider movie. It got me thinking, Charlie or Lara? Which one would win in a fight??? Either way, both women are very strong, intelligent characters that are fun to watch. Especially when they're kicking butt. I just hope to see Geena in another film soon. Seems like she's been out of the spotlight a bit too long. It would be especially nice to see her in another film with Samuel L. Jackson. Now they make a great duo. Watch this film if you haven't. You won't be disappointed.
| 1 |
positive
|
Cheerleader Massacre was supposed to be the fourth installment of the Slumber Party Massacre series; if that's what they were doing (which it is considering ONE actress from the original returns in a small cameo role), they have failed miserably and made, by far, the worst installment of the 'quadrilogy'. Cheerleader Massacre seamlessly combines bad acting, a horrible plot, a dumb killer, dull and boring deaths, boring scenery, and hideous camera work to make it one of the worst films ever made. Did I already mention how bad it was? Don't get me wrong: this cheesy and retarded excuse for a horror film is nowhere near as bad as Napoleon Dynamite, but it is undeniably a horrible movie.<br /><br />Cheerleader Massacre is an exact polar opposite of the original Slumber Party Massacre. Stay away by all means! This movie is utter garbage!
| 0 |
negative
|
It didn't take too long after Halloween had kicked off the slasher boom for the category to be cursed by continuous mediocrity. As early as 1983 the genre was already struggling to release more than three decent offerings per year and by '88 the stalk and slash flick had become pretty much the whipping boy of horror cinema. By that time major studios were all aware that repeating the tired formula was no longer a lucrative direction, which left it up to independent and mostly inexperienced filmmakers to continue the legacy that John Carpenter had created. Although there was still an impressive number of features hitting shelves in 88, most of them were weakly produced and taken as a whole they were eminently unappealing. With that said there were a couple of gems amongst the rubble. Scott Spiegel's Intruder in its uncut form was a superb gross out classic, whilst Evil Dead Trap proved that the cycle had not yet completely run out of style and panache. William Lustig's Maniac Cop was successful enough to launch a franchise and two years later Dead Girls and Mirage proved to be the last beguiling breaths of life in the ailing category.<br /><br />It was the continual release of schlock like Berserker, Blood Lake and Rush Week that cursed the slasher movie to eight years of obscurity. It finally took the big budgeted flamboyance of Wes Craven's Scream to provide the necessary resuscitation. Having not heard anything about Demon Warrior before I came across it unexpectedly, I instantly assumed that it was part of the low brow trash that led to the downfall of the slasher phase. But with that said the movie boasts an intriguing premise that sits comfortably beside Scalps and Camping Del Terrore as another welcome addition to the Native-American influenced catalogue.<br /><br />A truck pulls up on a woodland road and out step two laughably dramatised rednecks. The hillbilly lumberjacks are only on screen for around for ten seconds and then they are murdered by an unseen menace. Next we meet a troupe of five young adults that are heading to the same location for a spot of shotgun-target-practice on some of the local wildlife. The area is owned by Neil Willard and has been passed down through three generations of his family. His Grandfather stole the land from an Indian medicine man that was rumoured to have left a curse on the property. According to legend, every ten years a Demon Warrior with an extreme hatred for mankind stalks the forest reaping revenge on those he deems responsible for the pilfering of the tribe's home. It wouldn't be much fun if those myths were a falsehood, so regular as clockwork a maniacal assassin turns up with a taste for blood. Will the kids be able to stop this phantom killer
?<br /><br />Demon Warrior is best described as a bigger budgeted (but still woefully cheap) re-imaging of Fred Olen Ray's Scalps. The bogeymen from both films are virtually identical and the director even throws in a scalping sequence to confirm my suspicions. Things start promisingly with some crisp Friday the 13th-style first-person cinematography and a couple of shock-jolts that were composed with finesse by director Frank Patterson. Thomas Callaway did a good job with the photography and the tribal-drum score makes a refreshing change from the more traditional late-eighties synthesizer rubbish. Flourishes of suspense are juxtaposed with a couple of credible directorial embellishments and there are even a few attempts at humour. The killer looked successfully creepy in demon attire and the inclusion of a bow and arrow as the main murder weapon was a deft touch from the director.<br /><br />Fred Olen Ray's notorious slasher was notable for its stark and credibly unsettling atmosphere. Unfortunately despite being produced on twice the budget, Demon Warrior never comes close to the film that it so desperately emulates. Rumor has it that the majority of the actors were drafted from the Texas Baylor University and were not even paid for their inclusion in the feature, so of course it goes without saying that the dramatics are appropriately abysmal. I especially enjoyed the hilarious John Langione an 'Italian' Native American (don't ask) that portrays about as much emotion as the trees in the forest that surrounded him. Warrior started with some credible glimpses of panache from the director that actually led me to believe that this could be a welcome inclusion to the slasher index. Unfortunately, the poisonous cocktail of heinous acting and an ending plucked directly from stupidsville seriously changed the initial plan I had in mind for a rating. It's a shame that the dramatics were so scraped from the bottom of the thespian barrel, because at times Demon Warrior showed flashes of potential.<br /><br />All in all, Patterson's movie is a mixed bag of ideas some of them were good, but mostly they were staggeringly mediocre. Because this was released at a time when the slasher genre had been watered down to avoid the scissor happy censors, there's really no gore worth mentioning. Even the scalping sequence is relatively tame compared to Olen Ray's graphic depiction. Demon Warrior has the odd moment of credibility, but not often enough to warrant a purchase. Not as bad as the aforementioned Berserker, Blood Lake et al, but not really THAT good either
..
| 0 |
negative
|
I can remember a college professor commenting as to how disturbing this film was, reflecting the apathy of adolescents (this was before Generation "X").<br /><br />In a way, most of us are products of the same consumer culture; these high school kids spend their time drinking, getting high and wondering what to do about the body left on a riverbank.<br /><br />What would they do today? Would things be different?. Some very important questions. There are some excellent scenes with Keanu Reeves, and the dysfunctional family he lives with; his 11 year old brother going out to get wasted; the mother has no idea what to do- spends her time drinking with her boyfriend.<br /><br />This film was a bit before its time in that it addresses the problems in lower class American society; these kids had no outlet; what is available for them in this dirt-water town? . All in all a few interesting social commentaries are presented, and there are no solutions. 9/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
Enhanced by the expressive cinematography of Agnes Godard (Beau Travail), Golden Door is a visually striking tone poem that follows the journey of a peasant family from their primitive home in Sicily to Ellis Island in New York at the turn of the century. It is a surreal, enigmatic, often strange, but ultimately deeply rewarding experience. Interweaving dreamlike and symbolic imagery with gritty realism, the latest film by Emanuele Crialese (Respiro) is like an impressionistic painting - a cinematic artist's rendering of what the immigration process may have been like for our parents and grandparents. Crialese's "magical, mystery tour" came about as a result of his visit to the museum on Ellis Island, the looks on the faces of the immigrants depicted in photographs he saw, and his research into the harsh policies and procedures used during the admission of immigrants.<br /><br />Guided by letters he read of immigrants sent to relatives who remained at home, Crialese identifies with those impoverished immigrants who were able to see the positive side of things beyond their ordeal. To Salvatore Mancuso (Vincenzo Amato) and his older son Angelo (Francesco Casisa), America is a distant dream that they know nothing about. After climbing a rocky mountain to pray to the saints for a sign, they are rewarded when they are shown post cards by Salvatore's younger son, Pietro (Filippo Pucillo), a deaf mute, that depict the new world as a land where they can bathe in rivers of milk, sit under a money tree, or harvest giant onions and carrots.<br /><br />After disposing of their animals in exchange for shoes and suits, Salvatore, his two sons, and his elderly mother Fortunata (Aurora Quattrocchi) set out on their adventure with more hope than trepidation but the equation soon shifts the other way. As they board the boat and settle into their crowded third-class steerage compartments, the most-talked about scene in the film takes place. Using an overhead camera that shows masses of people standing, as the ship pulls away, the frame is divided into those aboard the ship and those waving goodbye from the dock and the way they are separated implies they are being torn asunder from everything familiar.<br /><br />Aboard the ship is a mysterious English woman named Lucy (Charlotte Gainsbourg). Crialese does not reveal her past or the reason she is traveling to America but she seems to stand for the onset of the modern world they are entering. Though they eye each other cautiously, Lucy becomes interested in Salvatore and asks him to marry her in order to allow her to enter the country. The voyage is treacherous with a violent storm buffeting the ship. Shot in almost complete darkness, passengers in steerage are tossed against the side of the boat and, afterward, bodies lie tangled and twisted on the floor as if in a macabre Totentanz. The rite of passage through immigration processing at Ellis Island does not become any easier and Crialese attacks the way illiterate peasants, in the name of preserving "civilized" society, are forced to put puzzles together, perform mathematical tasks, and undergo humiliating medical examinations to prove they are "fit".<br /><br />A marriage brokering ceremony feels like an auction block and the young women look despondent when they are matched with overweight middle-aged men. This is the only way they can enter the "Golden Door", however, since single women are rejected unless they have partners, ostensibly to prevent the threat of prostitution. Through the fog the immigrant's can barely see the land of milk and honey and there is no Statue of Liberty asking for the tired and the poor, the humbled masses yearning to breathe free. In their imagination, however, the river is still flowing, waiting for them to jump in. Though the ending is ambiguous and one door opens on to a blank wall, another door symbolizes a rebirth of the soul and the passage we must all take from the old world to the new.
| 1 |
positive
|
The plot is simple: an American couple is in vacation in Thailand. Somehow they are attacked by the 'almighty' Chinese vampires, and the girl is kidnapped by the big boss of the vampires. This is OK till now. The girl's partner is left to search for her. And now the horror begins. He comes upon a strange group of semi-vampires or something (they only drank animal blood). These vampires are in conflict with the bad guy for about...800 years. However, with the help of the 'good vampires', the guy begins to search his girlfriend.<br /><br />Now the fight scenes begin, what a karate movie without fight? Another thing i have noticed is that the vampires are very ugly guys. I mean....a vampire is an old-fashion guy(he is alive since...for ever), he's got style. There are also modern vampires, but in this movie, the vampires are....weird. Like, come on, they ride a bike, they are all dressed in leather and they destroy everything in their way.<br /><br />The worst thing is that you can clearly see that this movie it is an low budget one. The script is boring and the actors aren't too talented. The music is pretty good, but the effects are not that great.<br /><br />To sum up the movie it is not that great, but if you have a free afternoon, watch it and tell me if i'm right or not.
| 0 |
negative
|
Famous as the British film so bad it had to be given away for free with a newspaper, the quality of this sub-Children's Film Foundation "thriller" can be guessed from the abnormal number of 10/10 votes it gets and the large number of rave reviews from posters with no posting history and no other reviews to their name. The regulars know what this mean, the gullible might be conned. If they do dip into the waters of this one they won't last long before it drags them under. Technically inept with the boom mike getting into shot or the reflections of the crew visible it just goes on forever in a forgetful sub-DAVINCI CODE on $5 a day way. The end is just insulting but don't worry. It's not as if you'll get that far!
| 0 |
negative
|
I remember watching Police Squad! when it first came on ABC in 1982 and I thought it was a very funny show, thanks to the many sight gags, non sequitors and scripts filled with word play. In one episode, there was a line where a man named Once was shot twice. <br /><br />But unfortunately, ABC canceled the show after only six episodes. I felt it deserved a much longer run but a network executive thought the show demanded too much attention of the viewer because of all the sight gags in each episode. One that I remember was in the opening where the episode's title was different from the one shown on the screen. <br /><br />Leslie Nielsen's portrayal of Frank Drebin was deadpan, yet very funny and his role was in the narrative style of Jack Webb of Dragnet. Alan North did well and Peter Lupus, in one of his few roles since Mission: Impossible wasn't bad as Norberg, But the one character that stood out was Johnny the Shoeshine Boy, played by William Duell. After giving advice to Drebin, there were cameos from Dick Clark, Dr. Joyce Brothers and then Dodger manager Tommy LaSorda. <br /><br />Even though Police Squad! had a short life on ABC, the Zucker Brothers didn't give up on the concept which turned out even more successful in the Naked Gun movie franchise. I'll close with a regular closing gag. Freeze the ending right here.
| 1 |
positive
|
This joins the endless line of corny, predictable 50's sci-fi shlock out there. As usual, it's pretty bad. There isn't much of a plot that I could detect and the over-exaggeration of the leads only adds to the unintentional laughs. The title is misleading also. Catching this on MST3K is probably the only way for it to be viewed, and it's better left that way.
| 0 |
negative
|
In 1984, The Karate Kid had some charm to it, even if it was little more than a poor man's Rocky. Alas, producer Jerry Weintraub failed to realize it was best to leave the story at the point where it had ended, and convinced Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita to make an extra effort to turn the film into a trilogy. Part III was the definitive low in the franchise, yet someone must have thought the series still had some potential. What other explanation could there possibly be for the existence of The Next Karate Kid?<br /><br />Wait a minute. Next? Yep, Macchio's gone (at least he was smart enough to stop eventually), and his replacement is Hilary Swank (!), playing a troubled teenager (what else?) named Julie Pierce. Now, the girl has family issues. She also gets in trouble at school. Said school has a sadistic gym teacher (Michael Ironside). As it turns out, though, one of his students is actually a nice guy, and Julie falls for him. This gets her in bigger trouble than before, of course. Lucky for her, she is currently living with Mr. Miyagi (Morita), an old friend of her grandfather who happens to know how to get back at the bad guys.<br /><br />All those factors ad up to seven clichés, and that's just a generic plot summary - imagine what the detailed scenes must be like! From beginning to end, The Next Karate Kid is a tired, flat and dull marathon of idiotic lines and set-ups. Swank does, thankfully, have the likes of Boys Don't Cry and Million Dollar Baby to redeem this disaster, but why did Morita accept to come back? He may have received an Oscar nomination for the first movie, and was quite enjoyable in the sequels, but has nothing to speak for him here - even the revival of the "wax on, wax off" gag is stillborn. As for Ironside, he is slightly better than Martin Kove and Thomas Ian Griffith in Part III, but that's hardly a stretch.<br /><br />So, is this picture really that awful? Not exactly. There is one sequence that manages to achieve a weird beauty, but when the best bit in the whole film involves a group of Asian monks dancing as they hear pop music for the first time in their lives, it doesn't qualify as a recommendation to see the rest.
| 0 |
negative
|
I found this movie on one of my old videos, after "Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster" (which should INSTANTLY give you an idea of it's tone) and I hadn't seen it in a while so I decided to watch it. I didn't remember much about Rainbow Brite except I used to like the cartoon and that it was cute. Most people feel that way about her. You probably do to.<br /><br />Well, when the movie started, I wondered if it was the right one! It didn't fit the mold of Rainbow Brite as I remembered her. But it turns out she kicks butt! This has to be the strangest animated movie EVER! I can't believe these characters were so popular (the series isn't much different) while being so bizzare. As soon as I watched this movie again, it became one of my favorites.<br /><br />I really don't want to give too much away. Just know that if you see the movie in the video store, rent it and watch it. No questions asked. You will get a kick out of it. Especially the outrageous Princess character. And the robotic horse. And the hypnotized sprites. <br /><br />If you can't tell by know, this is an 80's cartoon that is really an undiscovered "head" movie in disguise! Have fun!
| 1 |
positive
|
According to the budget information given on this web site Dark Harvest had an estimated budget of $130,000. Where this money was spent I'm not exactly sure. Let me see....costumes...no...location and sets...hmmm, think not....special f/x...NOT...acting lessons...ah, no. Dark Harvest tells the epic tale of a young man who inherits a family farm in the hills of West Virginia. His girlfriend talks him into taking their friends up there to check the place out. Once there our intrepid hero learns that his great grandfather used a unique method for getting his crops to grow and now it's revenge time. Killer scarecrows out for revenge!!! Ewww scary. Well no, not really. We all know there have been some terrific movies made with very little money but this is not one of them. This film contains pretty much some of the worst acting and dialog I've ever seen. Terrible clichés with terrible delivery. All in all do not be fooled by the half way decent cover and avoid at all costs. I'd like to give the film makers at least a D- for trying but I'm afraid they didn't even do a good job with that. GRADE: F
| 0 |
negative
|
There's some nice scenery to look at here,if you can keep your eyes open long enough to see any of it.I'm a big fan of slice-of-life movies,but these people are just plain bland.Although there's nothing political here,the entire film can be looked at as a political statement,in that it shows how Communism destroys the individual,making everyone the same bland animal that just spends its life sleeping,eating,and occasionally making love.
| 0 |
negative
|
Susie Q. is one of those rare, and sweet movies that give you a warm feeling. It's bittersweet, but wholesome, and it's characters are fun, and captivating. At first, I thought the movie would be the cliché cuddly movie that would bore me after five minutes, but was I wrong. It made me tear up at times, and it's plot was enticing, making me root for the good guys. I loved the movie, and still remember it today, 9 years later!! I recommend it highly to ANYONE, and the movie is family oriented, so you won't have to worry about unsuitable content. Truly, if Disney would show more movies that are up to par as Susie Q., it would be the most popular family oriented channel in the world. Now if only Disney would show it just ONE more time!^_^ Go Susie Q.!!
| 1 |
positive
|
I have to admit that I had low expectations for this movie. But I was surprised to find it entertaining, interesting, and funny. It's an entertaining thriller and not so much a horror film. There were moments that made my hairs stand up! Even better, though, were the highly amusing, occasionally hysterical, comedic moments in the film (you'll know which ones I'm talking about). There also are a few great special effects (and the humor and the special effects aren't necessarily separate).<br /><br />The acting, on the whole, is very good--way better than a typical low budget horror film. The lead (Jackie), in particular, and many of the smaller, supporting roles (like the lawyer, the couple living next door, the pizza man) are well acted. If they hadn't been, the film wouldn't have kept my interest and I would have lost my belief in the story. This is a good, interesting low budget thriller and definitely worth a rental!
| 1 |
positive
|
Thank God I have fast-forward. I think this is a movie about a guy who rises and falls. Whatever: It's a stupid cliché. It doesn't make any difference. There's this guy, javier Bardem, who constructs buildings or something. It doesn't matter. He is handsome, this Javier Bardem. Who cares? I think there is a car wreck but I watched this in fast-forward, so ...who cares? Car wrecks and handsome heroes who struggle back from them smells like a melodrama to me. Javier likes someone , but he marries Maria de Madeiros instead.She is magnificently, poetically beautiful, with a heart-shaped face. Then Javier has an oral-interface with Maribel Verdu, who washes her vulva, beforehand, for some reason. You would think Maribel Verdu, with her hand-washed vulva would be sexy. No, she is not. This is a tedious story about a bunch of people who don't interest me. Javier, Maribel, and Maria have a threesome: How boring. This film is annoying. I think this might be a minor THEME of (some) Spanish-language movies: The rise and predictable fall of a little guy who succeeds against the odds. Let me just clear this up: this is a high-class melodrama or perhaps soap opera. It is not worth your time, except for a laugh.
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.