text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
POSSIBLE SPOILERS<br /><br />No one is likely to pick up a DVD of Red Dust without knowing that it is about South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Hilary Swank stars as a South African exile who returns to her home town as a lawyer representing Alex Mpondo (Chiwetel Ejiofer), a member of the South African parliament who was tortured by a prison guard, Pete Muller (Ian Roberts), who is seeking to escape prison by testifying before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They could certainly have found an actress who has or could imitate a South African accent; Ms. Swank makes no attempt whatsoever to cover her unmistakably American accent. Nevertheless she is the only well-known actor in the movie, and it would probably not have been made without her or someone equally well known. She does a passable job. However, Ejiofer and Muller (pronounced in the German way with an umlat over the "u") are outstanding as is Jamie Barlett as the chief of police, responsible for murdering Mpondo's comrade and fellow prisoner. The torture scenes are shown in brief flashes but they are vivid and believable. What is not believable is the Truth and Reconciliation process -- except that it actually happened. "Red Dust" should be seen for that reason alone because it was and is unbelievable that the ANC prisoners could actually forgive the torturers, and this is as close as we are likely to get to seeing the process in action.
| 1 |
positive
|
Finally I discovered what I thought I remembered as a four year old. After seeing the 1960 color version on VHS, I kept saying I remembered seeing it in black and white 2 times before. Now the IMDb has helped me to know the truth, that it was broadcast twice (2 productions) in black and white in 2 successful years, 1955 & 56. These are the ones I remember best as a four year old. I didn't realize the 56 broadcast was not the same as the 55. In 1960, I was 9 and the color production just didn't do it for me. The black and white version was wonderful with just as much awe and wonder impact as the high tech films of today, even without any computer effects. You had to have been there! Please comment if you had a similar reaction to the b&w version.
| 1 |
positive
|
I really really liked this one. I know, it's rampant with what are now cliché plot lines, and plenty of overacting, but it was hell of a lot of fun.<br /><br />In our quest for 70's and 80's horror cheese, we come across many flicks that are so bad they're good. We also have some that are so 'good' they suck, and then, we have some that are so bad they are just bad. This is definitely so bad it's good.<br /><br />Some teens traveling come across an 'oasis' in the middle of nowhere, a forgotten slice of roadside America, and they decide to 'check it out.' They cross every line of inappropriate until it is absurd and they pay for it. They pay dearly.<br /><br />I would not normally give a movie like this a 9, but the girls in this one are the type that we miss from the 1970's: ditzy, scantily-clad and FIT. These aren't the anorexic broads from today's horrible horror; they look awesome in booty shorts.<br /><br />I give it a 9 out of 10, kids.
| 1 |
positive
|
(This review contains a huge spoiler, but I don't know how to explain how cool it is without giving it away) I saw "pinoccio's Revenge" a while ago.<br /><br />Now, you might think it's just a rip-off of Child's play. Indeed there are similarities.<br /><br />However, Chucky was a possessed doll who works independently of the kid. It is POSSIBLE that Pinoccio is possessed with a demon or cursed or something. however, the puppet itself is actually completely inanimate. The KID is insane, and THE KID is the one killing people! Everyone, including the audience, the survivors and the Kid herself thinks it's the doll. But it's the KID.<br /><br />The nudity is almost a pity, because otherwise I could tell everyone to see it, because it really is an interesting horror movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
I feel that this movie is different from so many others in that it shows a family of girls who actually care about each other. They may have faults, but bitterness and put-downs have no place with these girls. Try to find that on TV or in the usual movies. It is a breath of fresh air to see girls being feminine--wearing beautiful, feminine dresses and shoes. Contrast that with the apparel in stores today, i.e. raggedy and faded jeans and jackets, etc. The story line has an evil thread running through but that is what makes it more realistic and interesting. I know that it is animated, but it still gives you a feeling that families can stick together and come out okay. I would recommend this movie for boys and girls alike.
| 1 |
positive
|
Set in 1945, Skenbart follows a failed Swedish book editor who decides to take a non-stop train to Berlin. Unfortunately for everyone around him, he's a walking disaster, causing mayhem everywhere he goes. The train also holds a man and his mistress scheming to murder the man's wife (who's also on the train), a soldier on his way home, two gay elderly gentlemen, an angry train conductor, two nuns, a bunch of refugees, and even more people.<br /><br />Meant as a mix of noir-ish thriller (which it does quite well - at least to begin with), and comedy, the film fails with both. It doesn't sit right as the film changes tone with every new scene. And as the train races towards its final destination, the film turns more and more bizarre, ending on a truly surreal note.<br /><br />The good bits are wasted in a myriad of pointless plots and characters. Skenbart is packed with famous Swedish actors, no matter how small the part is. It feels like the filmmakers rang everyone they've ever worked with and offered them a part in the film. Too bad that the performances are just as bad as the script (act your lines - don't read them!).<br /><br />The comedy is more or less slapstick, with the same jokes repeated over and over. The pace is incredibly slow at times (quite often, actually) with on scene in particular dragging on for about ten minutes for no good reason. The screenwriter also seems to think that swearing is a good way to replace decent dialogue. The film looks great though, in moody B&W, but it's wasted on such inept film-making in every other department. [1/10]
| 0 |
negative
|
I have recently become a huge fan of Patton Oswalt. I think he's the most deliciously original comedian to come along in ages. He is refreshing and fearless in his routines, which run the gamut of topics from how much Bush sucks to the sleazy exploits of 1970s producer Robert Evans. I'm a longtime fan of Maria Bamford and her wide-eyed innocent/schizophrenic routine. Whenever she effortlessly switches her naturally high-pitched voice to one that is clipped and throaty, I can't help but giggle. I liked Brian Posehn long before I even knew he was on "Just Shoot Me", and there is something so innately funny about his aging nerd persona. All three of these talented, unique comedians headline "The Comedians of Comedy", a Netflix documentary about their U.S. tour. They truly deserve to be stars, and this tour gave them the recognition they so richly deserve. I thought,no, I KNEW I'd like this movie...<br /><br />But I was wrong. Instead of the three comics each getting their own routine segments, "The Comedians of Comedy" is bogged down by meandering and dull documentary scenes that contain no humor, no insight, nothing of real interest. I think there is a total of 30 minutes of intermittent stand-up routines total in the 109 minute movie. What a rip-off! Come on, is anyone really interested in seeing our stars banter in their RV? Where's the humor in seeing Posehn in an arcade and a comic book shop? Does anyone find random diner scenes particularly funny? If this movie couldn't have shown our comics strutting their stuff, at least make it about what life is like on the road. It's not even about that. Worst of all, the comics never appear to be having real fun. Oswalt admits how bored he is doing a radio interview, Posehn sheepishly admits to how much he sucks at giving a tour of his home, and Bamford nervously improvises every time the camera is pointed at her, and her humor there is only sporadic.<br /><br />Sheesh, these guys deserve a chance to show the world their unconventional, amazingly crafted humor that is a refreshing change of pace from the brainless entertainment of mainstream comics like Dane Cook. Instead, we have to sit through their mundane, everyday routines on the road in a substandard bore of a movie whose quality could easily be surpassed by any student film. If you can locate any of Oswalt's, Posehn's, or Bamford's performances on DVD, by all means do. Their talent should be a joy to behold, not a chore like it is here.
| 0 |
negative
|
Evocatively directed and slickly photographed psychological mystery thriller with an exceptional lead performance by a sombre Donald Sutherland, and potent support roles from Donald Pleasence and David Hemming. The material decides to keep it all glum, and moves from the investigation period into the back-story of the victim. The seldom, and quite sullen nature of investigation pulled me in, but when it flashback to the victim's side showing her final days weren't as compelling, and became somewhat stodgy and stock-like. While the script is strongly detailed and to a certain degree complex in stringing us along, however the final and surprising revelation should have been more bone-jarring and it's not helped out by its sloppy execution. Howard Blake's music score has an emotional sting to its cues that simply linger, and director Claude Chabrol's capable handling (well for most part) has a strong stylistic and tight manner, which gets the best out of moody locations and flexible cast. The young faces Lisa Langlois and Aude Landry do an incredibly good job as well.
| 1 |
positive
|
Not only is The Great Rock N Roll Swindle thoroughly inaccurate, but when it comes down to it, not much about it is interesting or even entertaining. Malcolm McLaren apparently squandered the majority of the Sex Pistols earnings on this waste of film, which makes it that much more obnoxious. The intention, from the beginning, was to create a monument to the "genius" of McLaren, who to this day takes full credit for creating punk music, creating the Sex Pistols, and at times even writing all the songs. Viewers follow McLaren to various settings, where he tells his story to his sidekick, a female dwarf, and simply takes credit for one thing after another. One particularly irritating scene has McLaren in an abandoned airplane hangar, waiting for a plane, being hounded by reporters and giving them their "big story". The most entertaining elements of the film are the animated short pieces, however, even these reek of McLaren's overbearing self-importance.<br /><br />Even as a farce, this film doesn't work. Little about it is entertaining, except for Steve Jones, who is surprisingly decent as a pseudo-detective type person. 20 years later, Julien Temple, who wrote and directed this film, also directed the Sex Pistols documentary "The Filth and the Fury". While that movie is much better and more interesting than "Swindle", it still is full of Temple's "artistic flourishes" that just don't work, like interviewing band members in shadow, as if they are some kind of crime witness trying to hide their identity. An interesting bit of trivia: Film critic Roger Ebert was one of the original scriptwriters for the movie "Who Killed Bambi?", which eventually became "Swindle".
| 0 |
negative
|
...in a TV-movie 70's kind of way. It's one of those movies that show up in the wee hours, but rarely because more modern late-hour schlock movies bump it off. It has likeable performances by Graves and Wynn. Generally, it's just a harmless little piece of nothing that doesn't offend too badly. Nothing good, a lot that's mediocre.
| 0 |
negative
|
OK, this 'horror' film was meant to be a joke, right? Please tell me it was supposed to be a joke, then I'll understand.<br /><br />A big cawing bird with giant claws - or one claw, anyway - swoops down on unsuspecting folks on the ground and gobbles them up. Mara Corday and Jeff Morrow sufficiently overact in order to keep things interesting, but at least you'll enjoy a hearty snicker when you see the 'monster'. It looks like a cross between a deranged chicken and Mortimer Snerd.<br /><br />Either director Fred Sears just made this picture in a hurry and knew the bird looked utterly ridiculous, or he really thought his film and creature were genuinely frightening. I prefer to think - and hope - it was the former.<br /><br />P.S. The bird needs a haircut.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have never read the book, but had always heard good things about it. So when the movie came out I considered going to see it, but never did. Now it has come out on DVD and I have thought of renting for a few weeks now. Last night I finally picked it up. I am very glad that I did.<br /><br />Cinematography was incredible in this movie. The scenery, etc,... all made you feel like you were in Kabul. The acting was all very good, although I am sure some of the emotions were lost in the translation. And the story itself was good and pure and uplifting. Yes the story was very sad, but at the same time uplifting.<br /><br />And I will be honest, as a white American,... made me see aside of Kabul and Afghanistan that I never picture in my mind when I think about it. Showed me a Afghanistan before the Taliban. Showed me a place that was beautiful. Showed me a place with good hearted people. I community that was like a family, aside from a few bullies.<br /><br />Anyways, I recommend this movie to everyone. It is one of the best I have ever seen.
| 1 |
positive
|
Frank Langella steals my heart in everything he has ever been in! I love watching him!! i was 10 yrs old (1979) when i seen him for the first time.i eagerly await each and everything he'll be acting in. hopefully one day i can see him in person. he's very hypnotic and mysterious and that voice is commanding and strong! he is very attractive, even now at 65 he is absolutely stunning!!!! In my opinion he is the greatest actor iv'e ever seen! i adored him in "Dracula" ( along with a lot of other girls out there) and in "god created woman","house of D","Jason and the argonauts" and many more. i thought he was genius!!!!!! can't wait to see him in "good night and good luck"
| 1 |
positive
|
An insane assault on viewers senses. This is a mish-mash of assorted Hindi and English movies - poorly done. The name carries over from a 70s' multi star cast, which the 2002 version also boasts of. The story is taken from the 70s' Sunil Dutt/Reena Roy starrer - "Nagin" and visual effects taken (a horrible attempt) from The Matrix, Terminator 2 and Mission Impossible II.<br /><br />Set in a college environment (Sunil Shetty, Akshaye Kumar, Manisha - college kids!!!???!!), Manisha Koirala is the victim, who mistakes a fatal assault on her by two students as a collective effort on the part of our heros. As it turns out Manisha is a Cobra (Nag) snake reborn as a girl in this life and her mate from the previous life, now a super powerful-all-and-any-shape-assuming (Ichadhari Nag) - Munish Kohli, is out looking for her in this life. Manisha appeals to him to avenge her violation and murder.<br /><br />So begins the mad killing spree, where the avenging lover starts singling each male of the group, with increasing powers and tricks with successive attempts. The effects are extremely cheap, with computer generated skeletons, morphing bodies and motorcycle stunts completing the farce.<br /><br />Carry over from Nagin includes Raj Babbar playing a catholic priest who provides temporary relief to our boys with a more "Religiously correct" multi-religion locket (the original Nagin only had an "Om") . Sunny Deol plays Manisha's love interest in her current life and the ultimate saviour against the all powerful Munish Kohli.<br /><br />Music and songs are below average.<br /><br />Avoid if you don't fancy cheap thrills.
| 0 |
negative
|
It may be difficult to believe, but the basic plot of this abysmal flick has been lifted from Hitchcock's perennial classic, "Vertigo". To see Edward James Olmos in the part once played by James Stewart is heart-breaking; Sean Young is better, but still a poor substitute for Kim Novak.
| 0 |
negative
|
A really terrible movie, really low-budget, with terrible acting, a convoluted and inane plot, a modest reworking of the vampire tales mixed with modern science.<br /><br />The result is a total mess, without meaning for most parts, with very limited and cheap effects. It is not even fun, like several of the low budget independent movies of this kind<br /><br />A waste of time
| 0 |
negative
|
Well, it is a Monogram quickie from the dreaded period of the '40s when poverty row studios put out a good many "horror" films that are almost unimaginably dull... So I was expecting the worst. <br /><br />The story concerns a doctor who has been working on a way to restore life to the dead through the use of a room full of non-utilitarian electrical devices which spark nicely. There is a dog's heart hanging under a bell jar and twitching fitfully, which we are informed is proof that his method is perfected.<br /><br />A brief discussion of the metaphysical implications and mention of an important plot point precede the inevitable death of a young man who is revived in a rather undramatic sequence - undramatic even with the sparks. The important plot point is that a convicted murderer is being executed just at midnight, which turns out to be exactly when the young man is revived. It is no surprise that the young man is very different after his experience; apparently amnesiac and with a strange desire to visit the haunts of the underworld and become acquainted with certain gangsters...<br /><br />It's hard to explain why this all is not completely unwatchable, but perhaps it suffices to say that it's mildly interesting and contains several murders and a couple of interesting characters. Towards the end it even begins to move along with a bit of real tension and a confrontation that is downright Hitchcockian. SPOILER<br /><br />I have to warn of a very, very bad ending. A tagged on unnecessary, pain in the ass sorta ending. After the plot resolves rather effectively...<br /><br />You know the sort of thing... It's all a dream. Never happened.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw this film on TV in the UK some 25 years ago and it has resonated with me ever since. My interest has recently been rekindled by visiting Hilton Head - the next island over from "Yamacraw" (Daufuskie actually), and reading Pat Conroy's excellent "The Water is Wide". With the benefit of knowledge I have reappraised Conrack and consider it a masterpiece. Jon Voight captures the spirit of Conroy and the atmosphere of the film brings the book to life with some accuracy - a Hollywood rarity. <br /><br />Three things still strike me about this tale: 1. The issues of educating the poor and disenfranchised and being inclusive remain the same. 2. Education is about more than reading and writing. 3.. These kids were my peers, I was 6 in 1969 when Pat Conroy spent his year on Daufuskie.<br /><br />Why this has not made it on to DVD yet?
| 1 |
positive
|
It is surprising that a production like this gets made these days, especially for television. Considering the strong sexual themes and explicit lovemaking scenes, not to mention lesbianism, this has been given superb treatment and direction.<br /><br />The sets and costumes are flawless, the direction is stylish and the characters are likeable. There is a fair amount of humor but it has surprisingly dark interludes. The protagonist is really a tragic figure, but not devoid of happiness. Also, this production avoids the mistake most films/shows make when dealing with homosexuality/lesbianism. The characters are very human. It seems that to allow people to be comfortable with watching gays and lesbians on TV and movies most shows fill it full of cliches and make the characters obsessed with being gay. Not so with this. In Tipping the Velvet, the protagonist is hardly aware of what being lesbian means!<br /><br />The BBC have made some wonderful productions in the past, and this adventurous period piece only confirms their standard of excellence on all fronts.
| 1 |
positive
|
This program is certainly my favorite non-sitcom television comedy. Australia produces very little good programs - most of the TV which I watch (and I live in Australia) is from the US and England.<br /><br />The funniest part of this show is just how controversial it is. Like when they went past numerous security barriers at the APEC summit pretending to be Canadian diplomats.<br /><br />The show is made up of pre-filmed stunts, general satirical discussion of current world events, and sometimes on-stage skits. These all come together to make a fabulous, extremely funny TV show. The segments like "Ad Road-test" and "Message from Osama bin Ladin" are hilarious. For anyone interested in watching hilarious satirical TV comedy - then this is definitely the show you should watch.<br /><br />All the guys are great and do an excellent job in entertaining you for half an hour.<br /><br />I would rate it 10/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this last week during Bruce Campbell's book tour. I thought it was amazing. Almost everything I would expect from a Bruce Campbell sci-fi movie. Its campy and very funny. Ted Raimi was also hilarious and extremely goofy. The plot is wacky, an American business man goes to Bulgaria and is killed. Stacy Keach plays a mad scientist who saves/brings Bruce Campbell back to life by implanting half of the brain of an ex-KGB turned cabbie. Bruce Campbell spends the rest of the film trying to avenge his death and has many internal arguments between himself and the KGB agent. The movie has all the great Bruce Campbell slap stick and humor. The movie is somewhat predictable, I knew once the wife was killed that she would be sharing a brain with her killer. However I didn't go to see this movie because I thought it would have an Oscar winning script, I went to see it because it was a Bruce Campbell sci-fi movie and I was not disappointed in the least. I highly recommend that you go see him on his book tour or wait and watch it on the sci-fi channel next month. Although before the movie he said the Sci-Fi channel did cut some of the movie out to make it TV friendly. If you are a fan of Bruce, I highly recommend it.
| 1 |
positive
|
Dear reader, Watch out! This movie is not really a movie, though its creators have the impertinence to call it so. If you have not been warned about its content, here it goes: the film is simply a sequence of imagines which flow continually and are trying to transmit a certain feeling, concept. They could be called, therefore, symbols. The images are accompanied by a soundtrack, it's purpose being to create atmosphere as well. However, the images the director has chosen can only transmit feelings to an American audience, because they are, in an overwhelming number, American icons. Though the film is intended to express the idea of "civilized warfare", it fails to do so not only because of the general chaos, but also because it is far too long and tiresome, and I strongly felt that a lot of the scenes have not to do with "war", in whichever conception. To conclude, I was greatly disappointed by a documentary which is not a documentary, a movie which is not a movie, a "something" whose only strong point is the extraordinary use of technology in image processing.
| 0 |
negative
|
I like the "Star Wars" series. I like a good, cheapo sci-fi flick every once in a while, too. Heck, I even like the Roger Corman-produced nickel-and-dime jobbies.<br /><br />I do NOT like "The Ice Pirates", though. <br /><br />For one, it just looks too cheap, you know? For a movie that's supposed to take place in outer space, it feels cramped and closed-in like it's being filmed in the front seat of someone's Mazda. And the special effects, while appropriately cheesy, look more than anything like foam rubber painted metallic gray.<br /><br />Usually, I don't let things like that bother me, especially if the story and the characters are worthwhile.<br /><br />They ain't.<br /><br />The whole storyline, about these ne'er-do-well space pirates who decide to find a planet loaded with ice they can melt down and sell as water (a hot commodity in the future, I guess) is about as original as the jokes, which is not a compliment.<br /><br />The humor comes in at about crotch-level (like that castrating machine you'll see early on), and everyone seems to have a cranky attitude. And who told John Matuzak that he was funny? Whoever did, shame on them. Good old Robert Urich tries, but he's a reliable actor on board a badly sinking ship (or starship, in this case). <br /><br />I watched this one about three times and ended up feeling the same way every time - shanghaied.<br /><br />No stars. In spite of of the presence of Huston (one year prior to "Prizzi's Honor") and Carradine (at the tail end of a once-lofty career), these "Pirates" should walk the plank.
| 0 |
negative
|
Watch this movie just to see Shahrukh Khan say "I love you,K-k-Kiran..." It's both heartbreaking and frightening at the same time when he says this, from the beginning to the end. This movie made him famous, and I totally recommend it :D It's highly entertaining, the music's wicked and you will laugh right along with Shahrukh here...You'll genuinely feel scared for the hero and heroine and oddly enough you will identify with at least one of the characters. You will feel sad and happy and relieved and afraid at the same time. Go see this classic Bollywood movie with your good buddies and some lovely food and have a day in. And after you see the movie, have the songs and scenery playing in your mind...forever.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have just seen Today You Die. It is bad, almost very bad.<br /><br />1) The direction and editing are awful, just awful. Almost made me turn off the movie, Fauntleroy (the director) has no idea what he is doing, he seems to be filming things at random and some scenes don't make sense at all. Also, I hate it when the same scene is used again in the same movie, in this movie some scenes were used 3 or 4 times. Pretty bad.<br /><br />2) The dialogue is sometimes good, sometimes awful. I like the fact that they wanted to make Seagal's character and Treach's character seem like they were in a similar relationship to the characters in Lethal Weapon, but it did not work simply because some of the dialogue DID NOT MAKE SENSE, and I speak English very well, it's not that I did not understand the words, it was the fact that the jokes and dialogue lines had no meaning whatsoever.<br /><br />3) The script is pretty bad. Why do they always try to complicate DTV action movies? Seagal's wife in the movie has psychic abilities, why? Is it useful to the movie? NO. Seagal eliminates a whole bunch of people who work for the guy who betrayed him and he knows these people without having ever met them in the movie. STUPID. The story sometimes goes off track and the jumps back without any reason. The story is messy and pointless sometimes. They should have kept it simple and it would have worked.<br /><br />4) In some of the action scenes it is not Seagal, it is his stunt double. You can tell because they only film him from behind and never show his face. He also beats the guys with movie martial arts, not real ones like the aikido Steven knows. The stunt double uses cheesy kicks and punches.<br /><br />5) Steven is good in the movie. 90-95% of the lines are said with his real voice. The rest is dubbing but it is not that bad. This was good. Also Steven seems to be enjoying himself in the movie and is more into the action that he was in Submerged. He likes Treach as a partner; at least he does not seem to dislike him. Also, he seems to have been in better shape than in some of his recent movies. I hate the fact that he wears clothes to hide his body, but in the same clothes that he wears on the DVD cover he looks more than OK and he should have wore those clothes for most of the movie not the stupid long leather coat.<br /><br />I really think that Seagal was willing to make a good movie. The fact that he came late and took off early from the set ON TWO MOVIES directed by Fauntleroy does not look like a coincidence to me. I think he realized that the crew were amateurs or only in it for a quick buck and he did not give a damn anymore.<br /><br />In the hands of a better company and crew this might have been a damn good action movie for Seagal. Something like Out for Justice or Above the Law. I honestly believe that. But the people who made the movie are not very good at their jobs or they did not have enough money to do the job properly. Too bad since I liked Steven in the movie and Treach was cool (Ice Cool ) too, but the rest was bad. Hey, at least this gives me hope for Black Dawn and Shadows of the past. I think that Mercenary might be just as badly handled. But hey, Steven seemed to be back into the same mood he was in while making his better movies and at least THAT is reason enough to watch the movie.<br /><br />I liked it, but it could have been SO much better. 4/10
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is excellent ( i watched the French version ). There are many subplots (which usually detracts from the whole ), but they nicely unfold and concur to the "discovering of one's real self" main theme. In fact, the whole movie (besides his background ) is the journey to the discovery of one's ( or someone else's ) self. Is the King really a "good peacenik monarch" trying to wage a "war to end all wars" or is he just a disturbed, blood thirsty hoodlum? Is he a true king, after all? Is the attendant to the queen mother just a lusty, career-driven, spineless sock puppet or rather a sharp thinking, bold individual? Will the dame/concubine realize who the king truly is? What's between the king and the old chancellor? What's the secret everyone knows but won't tell? What's the true reason the assassin quit his "job"? Subplots (something i'm not particularly fond of ) are handled well and keep one watching until the end. Scenes are well crafted and CGI fits nicely in, without going overboard. Suspense is properly maintained and actors are upto the task. There is a lot of brain-damaged smiling, but that is how one was supposed to behave at the king's court ( as the dame/concubine complains about ). Realistic movie without superhero moments. This Chinese movie really puts Hollywood cardboard colossals ( Gladiator etc ) to shame.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a great movie. The best role Peter Strauss ever did. The music is good, the message harsh, the actors great and the story is both emotional and raw. Only in the seventies did they make them like this one!
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is simply one of the best movies I have the privilage of owning. It took me years to come up with this movie and it was well worth it. The movie is meant to be anti-drug propaganda but turns itself into the opposite while not even halfway through the movie. The relished look on the faces of the players as they receive their bounty of drugs is pleasing to all those who observe. Untill the final phase pf their drug induced lives, heroin comes for its say. YIKES! This is the anti-drug message that was so fabulously sought. The soundtrack for this movie kicks butt! By far it is one of Pink Floyds best albums ever! If ever the chance, take a look, listen, and moment to witness a spectacularly made movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
I know it's rather unfair to comment on a movie without seeing the complete piece - but I am going to anyway! I waited for a laugh, I tried to give it time. I think 20 minutes is long enough to wait in a comedy for a laugh. My laugh never came, so I gave up.<br /><br />It's stupid humour, not so stupid that you have to laugh, though. It isn't anywhere near that high grade. Let me correct that, it's just *stupid* - not stupid humour. They may have intended for certain scenes to be funny, but they weren't. I suppose, if you were really bored you could somehow blend the movie with a hallucination and end up with a mildly entertaining experience.<br /><br />A very pathetic effort.
| 0 |
negative
|
You think the police are always right.<br /><br />You believe that "eye-witnesses" are always right.<br /><br />You believe the prosecutors will not take a case to court if lazy police have failed to perform 98% of a basic investigation.<br /><br />You believe a U.S. city might have a "few bad apples" in law enforcement, but that the "good cops" will quickly nip those who systematically engage in evil-for-evil's sake in the bud.<br /><br />You believe that the possibility of an ex-football lineman being instated as a detective solely because his dad is the county sheriff, and being allowed to beat "confessions" out of randomly-selected teenagers with absolutely no fear of negative consequences to himself could happen in the America of the 1930s, but not today.<br /><br />You believe a judge will NOT send a case to the jury if anyone with a brain in their head can see the defendant is a totally random passer-by nabbed by the police because it was hot, and they did not feel like working that day.<br /><br />You believe that all the innocent people imprisoned six months here or 20 years there are "exceptions to the rule," and an injustice like this could NEVER involve your family member, someone in the middle class, or someone like YOU.<br /><br />You think that you are aware of every terrible, indisputable, 100% proved outrage of the last 10 years in America--yet you haven't seen this film.
| 1 |
positive
|
Wesley Snipes latest straight to video film is a convoluted mess, horribly reminiscent of Steven Seagal's latest works. The script is horribly written and makes no account for the low budget it is and tries to be too clever for its own good. Sadly too, Snipes has fallen into the trap of having an ADR voice double doing much of his dialogue, and an entire narration that comes every now and again through points in the movie. It's sad to see a guy of Wesley Snipes talent doing garbage like this film, and producing a tired and clearly bored performance, barely bothered to produce his own dialogue. It's become somewhat of a joke with Steven Seagal, the fact he doesn't perform his own dialogue, but it's not something I'd have expected from Snipes. Perhaps it's due to the producer, Andrew Stevens who has worked with Seagal previously, or the director Po-Chi Leong, responsible for Seagal's epically bad Out Of Reach.<br /><br />The plot involves shady government officials, terrorists who coach soccer teams, disks with incriminating evidence on and a hefty chuck of missing money. Oh and biological weapons. Now how they are connected I don't know but what I can tell you is the diabolical script is pretty hard to fathom and like many of these DTV movies, this likes to include one twist too many. The plot is also uninterestingly told, playing out it's cards with people having shady one to ones in offices and dark alleys etc. It's all kind of "lets have a sit down and dish out some plot points for the sad bastards watching this film!" The pace of the movie as such suffers because despite the dullness of the performances and the storyline, the film does have some nice action scenes. As an example of how a DTV film has successfully put across a storyline of a twisting nature, I give you Dolph Lundgren's directorial debut, the Defender. That movie had it's share of twists and over complexity but the movie has a last hour of almost entirely action, with Dolph under siege form terrorists. The plot points are told in the context of action, on the move, while avoiding death. The movie doesn't stop to tell us what's happening, it doesn't break up the pace. As such although the plot was a little convoluted, it was more forgivable cause the action never let up. The Detonator like too many of these films, stops everything to give us a convoluted walk through of who's bad, and who isn't, before inevitably shifting that round in the pulled from the rear end twist at the end. These movies can often suffer with pacing issues.<br /><br />Snipes himself as I mentioned is pretty bland here. At the beginning he's putting on a camp persona as he's undercover with some arms dealers. Initially it seemed as if he was enjoying himself but unfortunately the rest of the movie sees him and his occasional voice double sleepwalking through the role. Snipes only comes alive when he's called upon to kick ass. There's some nice action here though, with some swift and crunching martial arts and some nicely punchy shootouts. The film also features a decent car chase. Silvia Colloca co-star and she's not much of an actress, but she is gorgeous, with a costume that screams "look at my cleavage!" The rest of the cast flit in and out with clichéd and uninteresting roles.<br /><br />Snipes thankfully has better projects lined up from now. He has another team up with Mario Van Peebles, called Hard Luck, then he will do Chasing The Dragon, from the director Chris Nahon, who did Jet Li's Kiss Of The Dragon. Finally Snipes is apparently doing Toussaint, a biographical drama, directed by Danny Glover. The future is suddenly looking brighter for Snipes, but lets remember he was getting extremely well paid for his DTV films, around $7million a movie, possibly more. It's also funny to consider that of all these DTV god's Dolph Lundgren is doing the better films, directing himself, with the enjoyable Defender and the supremely violent and nicely done The Russian Specialist, and what's more he's doing them on a fraction of the budgets of these diabolical offerings from Wesley and Steven Seagal are producing. *1/2
| 0 |
negative
|
I was truly and wonderfully surprised at "O' Brother, Where Art Thou?" The video store was out of all the movies I was planning on renting, so then I came across this. I came home and as I watched I became engrossed and found myself laughing out loud. The Coen's have made a magnificiant film again. But I think the first time you watch this movie, you get to know the characters. The second time, now that you know them, you laugh sooo hard it could hurt you. I strongly would reccomend ANYONE seeing this because if you are not, you are truly missing a film gem for the ages. 10/10
| 1 |
positive
|
If you like your sports movies to be about dignity and the best values then this'll work for you big time. Oversentimental in places? Sure, of course it is - and proud of it. It is the biggest and best ride in the Carnival and should be enjoyed as that. <br /><br />Big production values, simple telling, with creative shots: it is not complex, is a very nice and remarkably sweet film. It really feels like a labor of love from Bill Paxton; and I bet his son gets that.<br /><br />The build-up is slow enough to be enjoyed, the conflicts feisty, and the British vs. Americans handled with a degree of vaudevillian villainy, but the dignity between the two main transatlantic protagonists is always to the fore. I have minor gripes: the score wants to be James Horner but is too overblown, and there are too many close-ups, and panning shots for 2005, but if you want a straightforward, decent, and good-looking sports film then this is it.<br /><br />So here's the thing, and I feel like I know my film, but I actually liked it more than Seabiscuit: which is a better film, but Greatest Story is simply Disney at its core and hugely enjoyable! Thanks, Bill.
| 1 |
positive
|
All in all, an excellent movie from that time and source (coming from Warner Brothers as it was peaking in craftsmanship and style just before WWII), provided you don't take it at all seriously. The movie really makes no claim to being historically accurate, and is certainly no more or less accurate or believable than say, JFK. (This one may actually be more honest about it, though, as it essentially admits along the way that it's not to be taken as particularly fact-based, but more of a stylishly semi-heroic portrayal.) It's worth noting that audiences of the time were no more naive about the story than we are today; the NY Times review conceded that audiences would "dismiss factual inaccuracies sprinkled throughout the film," described the biographical account of Custer's life as "fanciful," and pointed out that the presentation of Custer's motivations regarding the final events were at odds with various historical accounts. They could have really gone overboard in building up Custer, one supposes, but they succeed admirably in depicting him as not necessarily the sharpest or most diligent guy around, but appropriately determined, principled and inspirational.<br /><br />Flynn and DeHavilland, doing their 8th movie together in 7 years (and their last), are so comfortable together, and play off each other so easily at this point, that it's not too difficult to overlook how thinly their courtship is written here. With a first-time pairing, it would be hard to imagine what could really draw Elizabeth to Custer, but these two make it work. The movie is also missing their director from their previous seven films together (the greatly underrated Michael Curtiz), but given that he had worked with them on the previous year's similar-themed Santa Fe Trail, it's understandable if he chose to opt out of this one. (They all started together with Captain Blood and The Charge of the Light Brigade - both terrific - so we can't really blame them if they started having a tough time keeping it all fresh.)<br /><br />Raoul Walsh, the director here, is certainly more comfortable with the action sequences - which are outstanding - and everything else outdoors. The interior scenes are a little more uneven, but the studio craftsmen succeed in compensating for that very well, as does Warner Bros' outstanding cast of "usual suspects" and new faces (Greenstreet, Gene Lockhart, Anthony Quinn, Arthur Kennedy, etc). I would have liked it better if Kennedy's character had been a bit less standard (I generally like his work), but here he seems to be hitting roughly the same notes in every scene; the part could have been better written - and I suppose they might have been unsure of what he could handle, as he'd only been in films for one year (Walsh probably took him for this after doing High Sierra together).<br /><br />Various highlights include the depiction (probably imagined) of the genesis of "Garryowen" as the cavalry theme. The last half hour is particularly outstanding, especially with the parting of the leads echoing the end of their screen partnership, followed by the final battle scenes. A thoroughly rousing adventure.<br /><br />8 of 10
| 1 |
positive
|
This super creepy Southern Gothic melodrama stars Clint Eastwood as a wounded Confederate officer in the Civil War who's taken in by a rural girls' school and nursed back to health. A weird clash of genders ensues, with the supposedly "dangerous" male falling prey to a batch of seemingly harmless women, who prove themselves to be every bit as brutal as the men waging war on one another at the battle fronts. This is a classic spider and the fly story, but here there's one lone fly and a whole bunch of spiders.<br /><br />Geraldine Page plays the head mistress of the school, and she gives a characteristically sensational performance. Page was trained as a theater actress, and it shows in all of her performances. No matter what role she played, she always committed herself 100% to it, and never once let herself drop out of character. So it is here, with this lethal spinster, who takes her sexual repression out on this helpless man. Each of the other girls responds to him in her own particular way as well. The two most prominent are the slutty girl who can't wait to throw throw herself at him, and the virginal one (played by who else but the mannered Elizabeth Hartman?) who acts like she would fall over in a dead faint if someone so much as said the word "penis" to her. The schematic Madonna and the whore storyline would seem heavy-handed if the movie didn't keep you so off-kilter and so completely unsure of what was going to happen next.<br /><br />The most memorable scene in the film for me occurred when the group of women perform an amputation of Eastwood's leg, which has become infected with gangrene. Again, the spider/fly allusion is clear: they hobble him so that it's that much harder for him to escape their web.<br /><br />A classic chiller. Not a great film, but a morbidly entertaining one.<br /><br />Grade: A-
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw the movie at the Nashville film festival on May 1, 2003! It was amazing! All the things that I had read about Stuey were portrayed incredibly well by Tony Vidmer (writer, director, producer, editor), Michael Imperioli (incredible job as Stuey), and all the others involved in this. I'm glad he (Vidmer) didn't go down the "Leaving Las Vegas" routine with Stuey's bad habits, but instead put us inside his life, family, and his gift. Tying the whole story from the motel room where he died was a great vehicle and showed his screenwriting skill. A big "thumbs up" on this one!
| 1 |
positive
|
***SLIGHT SPOILERS*** This installment of the Full Moon franchise changes the storyline a bit and implements some new elements. First off a new puppet master is established. Secondly, the puppets turn good in this sequel. Finally, It introduces some scifi/fantasy elements as well.<br /><br />A new tenant of the infamous hotel by the bay, his girlfriend, her psychic friend, and that psychics boyfriend, stumble upon Andre Toulon's puppet trunk. They also learn about some demon from another dimension that holds Toulon responsible for stealing the secret to animating the unliving. So Sutekh (the demon) sends the totems, a bunch of craven little creatures that look like ear-less gremlins. Then it's up to the puppet troupe to take care of the inter-dimensional threat that's trying to kill there new friends.<br /><br />Like most low budget movies this film is rife with continuity problems. How did the puppets get put back in the trunk? How come nobody remembers the last rasche of killngs in the hotel? Who bought the hotel? Why would a contractor by a building with a history of mass murders? All this and many more questions, will not be answered...ever.<br /><br />The real suprise of this movie is the acting. It's actually pretty good. The actors take it with a enthusiasm unusual especially for a bunch of Full Moon nonames. Teresa Hill was especially impressive as the shy, nervous, psychic Lauren. Chandra West (Susie) was also a pleasant suprise also. Gordon Hill was a tolerable protagonist. But Cameron was far too annoying to stomach. Thank the norse god he dies before halfway through.<br /><br />The puppets are there usual animated selves. With some improvements as well. There emotions (especially Jester's) are much more human due to the sounds that have been given to them. Blade's hisses, Pinhead's grunts, and Six-Shooter's snicker have all been improved and sound much better. The stop-motion animation is only average at best, especially the totems. They just don't seem to move as fluidly as the previous installment in the series. Also the Sutekh costume is absolutely awefull. How are we supposed to afraid of a creature so humorous looking.<br /><br />The story seems a bit juvinile for the series. I think Charlie Band was looking to focus in on a younger demographic. The violence being toned down in this movie also seems to speak the same. Gore fans will be disappointed.<br /><br />I think the above is the main problem this movie can't really stick with many people. It doesn't have the violence for gorewhores. The language is a little cleaner. Yet it's too violent and harsh for the wee ones. Which is why the movie gets low ratings. I have to say that the common reviews are mostly fair.
| 0 |
negative
|
I felt compelled to give some feedback on this movie that I rented from Blockbuster. This movie has it all - comedy, drama, crime, suspense and "realism".<br /><br />This movie also had a lot of action with just the right amount of humor! I will definitely watch it again! There were some funny parts as well as action-packed drama. I enjoy movies that keep you wondering what's going to happen next.<br /><br />The writer/director, Travis Milloy, should make more movies!!! In my overall opinion, this movie was great! I'm looking forward to his next one! Travis Milloy has real talent as a writer and director.
| 1 |
positive
|
Role-reversal remake of 1942's "The Major and the Minor" has Jerry Lewis stepping into the part originally played by Ginger Rogers, but unfortunately this anemic outing is missing a lot more than just Ginger. Lewis attempts to pass for a child when boarding a train; he's successful, but the deception leads to a string of comic and romantic confusions. Sidney Sheldon adapted the screenplay, tossing in musical moments for Dean Martin (playing yet another in his stable of second-bananas) and a jewel-robbery subplot (which is dire). Diana Lynn, who played the wily teenager in the original film, plays Lewis' love-interest here. She's cute; Jerry isn't. *1/2 from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw this movie with my girlfriends and we all loved it! It is so sweet and heartwarming, a real tear-jerker! I was still thinking about the story days after i'd seen the movie. It's such a beautiful story about the difficult things all families go through, it's something anybody can relate to. I really recommend this movie to anybody looking for a Saturday night rental. With your girlfriends, your family, your boyfriend, everyone will really enjoy it! :D It's a real story about a real family that would pull at anyones heartstrings. Not to mention, beautiful landscape shots and fantastic acting. See it, i'm sure you'll love it as much as I did!
| 1 |
positive
|
Having just seen Walt Disney's The Skeleton Dance on the Saturday Morning Blog as linked from YouTube, I used those same sources to watch a remake done in Technicolor for the Columbia cartoon unit and animated by the same man-Ub Iwerks. The colors, compared to the earlier black and white, are really used imaginatively here and many of the new gags-like when one of the skeletal band players hits a wrong note constantly or when one loses his head and takes another one's off or when one dances with the other with part of that other gone-are just as funny as the previous short. It does get a little repetitious near the end. Still, Skeleton Frolics is well worth seeing for any animation buff who wants to compare this with the earlier Silly Symphony.
| 1 |
positive
|
I know a lot of people would claim certain films as 'the worst of all time' but I think Redneck stakes a claim for this prize. A combination of quite dreadful acting from both Mark Lester and Telly Savales and plot progression that defies belief.<br /><br />On Telly Saveles: was he drunk when he acted in this? He seems to play a slurring, laughing lunatic with no sense of conviction. Maybe he mixed his medication with his whiskey, I don't know.<br /><br />On Mark Lester: A performance more wooden than a carpenter's workshop. His clipped British tones don't belong in this film; and his transformation from sheltered teenager to gangster's apprentice in 24 hours is mad. And the strip scene with Mosquito does not have any relevance to the plot at all; perhaps the director likes this sort of thing.<br /><br />Plot logic: when Memphis and Mosquito ambush the car at the beginning, why doesn't Mark Lester's mother do or say anything to get her son out of the car, before the loonies drive it off? She just lets them all go, without saying a word!! On the other hand, Redneck has to be seen - you won't believe how bad it is otherwise!
| 0 |
negative
|
The hero John Keem is going after some drug dealers who kidnaps girls for some reason. On his journey he uses karate and kung fu moves and I don't believe he got hit a single time during the movie. This is Crap.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is truly abysmal. I just got a copy of "Disco Beaver From Outer Space" after hearing good things about it, and I have to say, this was just so incredibly unfunny and bad, it will leave you numb and mystified how this ever got made.<br /><br />I mean, what was it? Is it that this is typical late 70's humor? I don't think so. This is just so bad, and believe me, I don't mean "so bad it's good" either. This is a collection of extremely unfunny skits as if you are watching cable TV. Sure enough, this was an HBO program, and to think this may have been considered groundbreaking is scary.<br /><br />There is one somewhat pretty girl in it, and there is some old NHL footage of the NY Islanders hockey team, which is fun to see even though I am a lifelong NY Rangers fan. But they even mess that up, as they try to get some humor out of two hockey players scuffling on the ice as if they are "dancing" and, even worse, reverse the videotape of two hockey players fighting to make it look like they are having sex. Oh, how funny! In one slight bit of cleverness, there is an interview a hockey player named "Chico" who resembles NY Islander goalie Chico Resch, but they even blow this by having him wear a Rangers jersey! Well, maybe that was intentional, who knows.<br /><br />The bottom line is, "Disco Beaver" is just so blatantly horrible, so unbelievably bad, you will definitely feel cheated after watching this and wasting almost an hour of your life. You'll wonder what possibly made the makers of this garbage think they had something funny here, and you'll also wonder why these skits can't even come close to the worst Saturday Night Night slop. Incredible. Just incredible.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is like so many biopic TV movies I have seen: formulaic, exaggerating, poorly acted, and most importantly, happening too soon.<br /><br />What I mean by that is the movie was filmed and, for that matter, aired before Michael Jackson's acquittal from his child molestation charges, which I think was one of the most significant periods of Jackson's life and career so far. It probably would have made a great ending to this docu-drama. However, this movie already bites off more than it can chew, cramming too many details in this overly ambitious project.<br /><br />It's no doubt that Michael Jackson has led perhaps the most interesting life so far of any musician, let alone modern day pop star, to date, and his story would probably take six Behind The Music specials to tell accurately. This movie tried to tell too much in three hours, and needless to say, it failed.<br /><br />Flex Alexander did what he could in playing Jackson, but he came off more like an SNL caricature by the likes of Tim Meadows and Amy Poehler. It would admittedly be pretty hard to find someone who accurately portrays Jackson without meeting with the King of Pop himself and studying his methods of madness. On a shoestring budget, though, one can only depend on what they see in the tabloids, and those do not necessarily give an accurate representation.<br /><br />Furthermore, the director's efforts to make Alexander look like Jackson are completely foolish. The Caucasian makeup on Alexander's face makes him look more like a reverse minstrel show, and everyone who has been in a grocery store knows that Jackson's nose is not as big as Alexander's. It's also amazing to me that the film documents Jackson going under the knife to get cosmetic surgery, yet in the next scene, Alexander still has the same size nose. This kind of suspension of disbelief that the director expects can't hold up to TV viewers in the 21st century.<br /><br />It was even more distracting when footage of the real Michael Jackson (i.e. the time he hung his infant child over a balcony in Germany) was interspersed into the movie in real time. It was a nice try, but it just didn't work.<br /><br />If this movie as it is was released into theaters, it would gain a profit only because of its tackiness. It even pales in comparison to "Mommie Dearest", and that's saying a lot. Above all, this was a movie that was probably rushed into making, like many TV movies that aren't on HBO. It could have been done a lot better if it had just told of one aspect of Jackson's life. Even if it just covered the child molestation allegations, it probably would have been done a lot better and would have even been more intriguing.
| 0 |
negative
|
I like "Hack." Think the "Lone Ranger" reincarnated as a 2000s cab driver, a decent but flawed guy, in Philadelphia doing his best, while seeking to work out issues from a troubled past, and you've got the synopsis. David Morse is nearly perfect as Olshansky. He helps people but instead of riding "Silver" in the old west he drives a cab through the mean streets of contemporary Philly, without handing out silver bullets. The supporting cast is first class and well above average. At times, the witty dialog almost reaches the level of that 70s classic series, "The Rockford Files." This show deserves a return, hopefully in a better time slot than 9PM Friday(eastern).
| 1 |
positive
|
Donald Pleasance and Peter Cushing united in one horror film; that always sounds like a terrific plan. Two of the most versatile cult actors of their generation, who previously already starred together in terrific genre outings like "The Flesh and the Fiends" and "From Beyond the Grave", pairing up in a mid-70's satanic themed exploitation flick. How can this possibly go wrong? Well, unfortunately, it can. To my deepest regret "Land of the Minotaur" can hardly even be called mediocre, and that in spite of the cast, the exotic setting, the appealing title and the potentially great sounding premise. In a remote little area in Greece, more particularly near an archaeological site, multiple tourists vanish because Baron Peter Cushing and his docile followers keep feeding them to a fire-breathing Minotaur statue. Cushing, who never looked more bored and uninterested in any role he played before, owns a giant medieval castle and apparently in Greek this means you also own the complementary archaeological ruins and an underground network of caverns. That is of course quite handy if your hobby is the kidnapping of random campers and amateur archaeologists. When three of his young friends also mysteriously disappear in the same area, Father Roch - the priest of a couple of towns before) - decides to investigate. "Land of the Minotaur" is a boring and extremely slow-paced horror effort that never really undertakes any major attempts to generate a satanic atmosphere and doesn't bother to elaborate on all the potentially fascinating elements and pagan trivia details. The titular Minotaur, for example, is an intriguing creature of Greek mythology with the head of a bull and the body of a person, but for some inexplicable reason the script never deepens out the significance. Instead, the film focuses on tedious and overly talkative sequences and loud inappropriate music altered with experimental noises. The only reason to even consider giving this major disappointment of a film a chance is because of Donald Pleasance. His portrayal of rude, bossy and old-fashioned priest who criticizes everything that represents modern youth is powerful and reliable as always.
| 0 |
negative
|
A group of people goes deep into the jungle for various reasons, and finally find a lost city (where apparently King Solomon's Diamonds are) and a race of super-gorilla's... Now, you know you're in trouble when you put fine actors like Linney and Curry in one movie that stars... a talking gorilla, and that is just the beginning. Okay, what else...?<br /><br />For an action/adventure movie the film is... well, lacking just that. The first hour (!) of the movie they aren't even in the jungle, just trying to get there, with subplot after subplot (something about a local military regime, whatever), and when they finally do... it's just no fun anymore.<br /><br />The effects of the movie are only so-and-so (and really bad compared to the earlier Jurassic Park movie).<br /><br />Now, the ending... The father not caring for the death of his son, but just interested in the diamonds? Uh-huh... only in the movies folks, only in the movies.<br /><br />A complete waste of talent, this Chricton (Jurassic Park, Twister, ER) adaptation. 2/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
Total Garbage!!! No reflection to Washington heights what so ever. If I had four arms, I'll give it four dumbs way down. Acting performance worst than storyline. Truly over rated. Hour and a half of visual torture.Rather watch Ben Aflec movies for the rest of my life. Feel bad for the films that lost to this crap. What were the judges at the film festival watching? Total Garbage!!! No reflection to Washington heights what so ever. If I had four arms, I'll give it four dumbs way down. Acting performance worst than storyline. Truly over rated. Hour and a half of visual torture.Rather watch Ben Aflec movies for the rest of my life. Feel bad for the films that lost to this crap. What were the judges at the film festival watching?
| 0 |
negative
|
I have some great memories watching "Robin of Sherwood" on TV as a kid (but I think I only saw Michael Praed´s episodes, by some reason). And recently my brother bought the new released DVD-boxes of the complete series. It was great to see it again, and it is the best of all the Robin Hood movies and TV-series. The cast is great, and the locations mixed with Clannad´s music adds this very special feeling. I personally think that Praed is the best of the two Robins, but Jason Connery was a great choice to continue the series with. Ray Winstone, Nicolas Grace and Robert Addie is terrific in their roles as Will Scarlet, The Sheriff of Nottingham and Guy of Gisburne. It´s a pity that a fourth season never got made, and I´ve also heard that the writer Richard Carpenter actually had plans to make a feature film following the events of the series. Robert of Huntingdon (Connery) could finally have married Marion (Judi Trott), or maybe Herne the Hunter could resurrect Robin of Loxley (Praed), and he could take his revenge against the sheriff. As have been mentioned before; if the producers of "Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves" would have been smart, they would have got the cast from "Robin of Sherwood", and made the movie to a sort of sequel to the series. As Ray Winstone puts it in the DVD bonusmaterial, it would have been great to see them as old men, just like in Sean Connery´s "Robin and Marian". Who knows, maybe we will se more of this perfect interpretation of the legend in the future. In any case, we can now watch our favorite series over and over again!
| 1 |
positive
|
Well it is a good movie. However, you have to admit that Van Dame's movies haven't been so great lately. On the other hand if you are a hardcore van Dame fan you should watch this as there is a huge improvement with fighting scenes. Also What i really liked is the music beautiful music. am sure this will kill time if you are action fan. As for Isaac Florentine the director of Undisputed 2, i don't think he did a good job as he did with Undisputed.I cant wait when one day Van Dame's movies hit the cinemas before the DVD. Maybe, one day:).<br /><br />In the end it worth the watch if you got no other action movies to watch, this could make your hour and half fun.
| 1 |
positive
|
It stars war correspondent William Holden separated, who falls in love with a stunning Eurasian doctor Jessica Jones set against the stunning backdrop of Hong Kong. The cinematography is magnificent as they rendezvous on a hill overlooking Hong Kong. The story deals with racial tensions, society frowning on mixed relations and extra marital affairs. But what I love about it is the strong character of the heroine portrayed by Jessica Jones, who is a Eurasian doctor, who stays humble and steadfast in her altruistic mission and stays loyal to her love. Despite that, she gets sacked at her hospital for cavorting with a married man by gossipping high rankers. One day William Holden is called to the Korean war which he covers and then that ill fated day, she gets the news of his demise. The end, of course is tragic, I cried when she went to their hill. It was a very sweet ill fated love affair. It defeats all the odds, the fact that she got fired from her job, how his wife would not grant him a divorce yet their great love persevered--they experienced a great love despite it all. I personally do not believe in extramarital affairs, and think he should have not started something when he was bound to someone else and she should not have allowed herself to let it happen, but despite that a truly magnificent movie. I think the heroine overshadowed the hero. Jessica Jones is sultry and gave a magnificent performance although I thought it strange they didn't not hire a real Asian actress or someone with Asian blood. I agree with one review, Jessica Jones oozes sexuality when she lays on the ground and looks up at William Holden speaking calmly but her eyes say come take me now.<br /><br />I find it a pity most great films were made before I was born, it seems many Hollywood movies are lacking in depth, great acting and depend entirely on stunts and heavy sex scenes. This is truly one of the greatest ill-fated love stories in movies.
| 1 |
positive
|
Let's face it, this is a pretty bad film.However if you go in ready to make fun of it you can survive the experience.Okay, you'll scream in agony a lot.African jungle fun in a dopey kind of way.<br /><br />Tom Conway (who spends most of the film wearing a funky chapeau) is using the local witch doctor and mad science to create a "perfect" being.It looks like a varmint that has been on a six week drunk and is in a sack dress.Ugly is being kind.But it won't kill for him because he's using a good girl as his subject.He needs a bad bad girl.<br /><br />Marla English and Lance Fuller are two petty crooks in search of African gold.Acting lessons for Ms English should have been at the top of the search list.She's a bad girl and lets everybody know it in a performance worthy of a junior high school play.Mike "Touch" Connors is the white guide English & Fuller con into leading the expedition.<br /><br />English & Conway finally meet and it is a match made in hell.She is the perfect subject to become his voodoo creature because she'll do anything (stress anything) to get what she wants.You will do anything to stop the agony of this movie at this point.<br /><br />What made this movie interesting for me was Conway wearing that funky tribal hat/headdress/floral piece!Still trying to figure out what kind of dead animal it was.Guess he thought if he pulled it down low enough over his eyes nobody would recognize him.<br /><br />Truly bad cinema.
| 0 |
negative
|
E. Elias Merhige's Begotten is a one of a kind, surreal depiction of the mankind's treatment of religion. There are a couple of different ways you can interpret things, but the plot itself is simple: A god disembowels himself, and out of his corpse springs mother earth. Mother Earth then felates the god's corpse post-mortem, and then impregnates herself with what remains of his seed. Following this, she gives birth to a messiah figure who quivers, presumably in infancy, but possibly with terror at being brought to life on earth. This all takes place in the first 15-30 minutes, and after that, the rest of the film consists of robed figures dragging the messiah (who is incessantly quivering, or seizing) across a desert landscape. The robed figures pause only to brutalize the messiah, then continue to drag him around.<br /><br />There are a couple of ways to interpret this, depending on your level of optimism and your world view. It can easily be interpreted as a bleak nihilistic atheist allegory about the total lack of apparent power that Christian "deities" can be perceived as having in a modern society that only invokes their names to advance its own selfish goals. Or you can interpret it as a postmodern pro-Christian allegory, in which you view the film as being about how mankind has twisted Christ's message around so much that it's original purity and innocence can no longer have relevance in a world where that message and image are inappropriately used to endorse everything from interpersonal violence, to war, to totalitarianism.<br /><br />The visuals of this film are phenomenal, and you will not see anything like it, period. If you can, watch the original VHS release, I recommend it. I'm not sure if the visuals are changed on the DVD, but I have seen clips of this streaming on you tube and the effects are seriously diminished. On the VHS version, Merhige achieved TOTAL BINARY CONTRAST. Meaning, there basically aren't any mid-tones except for some grain in some of the shots. Other than that, this film offers the rare opportunity to see PURE white and PURE black, and the result is stunning, hallucinatory, and quite unsettling. This film makes Film Noir look positively washed out and mediocre. The shots fade into each other in a surreal manner that recalls Un Chien Andalou without completely aping it, for an effect that has been called a filmic Rorschach test.<br /><br />That being said, the film can certainly try a viewer's patience and commitment. There isn't any dialogue for starters. The only sound throughout the film is a fairly constant loop of crickets chirping, peppered occasionally with the gurgling and death rattles of the dying deities, and an amelodic droning synthesizer texture. Personally, I find that the film is best enjoyed listening to experimental industrial music like the instrumental NIN remixes from the Downward Spiral era, more abstract noise/experimental music like F*ck Buttons and Odd Nosdam. It also works quite well with apocalyptic black metal. Basically any music with extreme textures and/or hypnotic rhythms. That's one of the most amazing and versatile aspects of this film, it is PRIME for postmodern re-contextualization, like projecting it during a performance of avant-garde music, or composing avant-garde music to accompany it.<br /><br />Once the messiah figure is born, there really isn't much change for the rest of the film, meaning that you are basically sitting through at least 45 minutes or more of the messiah figure being drug around the desert and beaten. It looks bleakly beautiful, but there isn't really anything new unfolding. It helps to cement the filmmakers intentions of communicating that for thousands of years now people have been using Christ's name and image for personal benefits, but can be tiresome to a casual viewer or someone with a short attention span. Basically, if you are looking for a modern horror film with suspense, look elsewhere. If you are looking for a unique film experience, and you aren't particularly fond of mainstream Hollywood cinema, this could be your quivering messiah.
| 1 |
positive
|
Some would argue that Argentinean director Esteban Sapir's La Antena is an exercise in anachronistic futility; that, while the silent films to which Sapir's pays homage were at the cutting edge of cinema when they were made, they are outdated today, leaving La Antena a meaningless oddity.<br /><br />I would disagree. Fervently. La Antena melds the conventions of the silent film with 21st century technology, making it the ultimate exercise in post-modern film-making.<br /><br />The film is set in the timeless "The City Without a Voice", so called because the citizens have been rendered speechless by Mr. TV, a dictator/media mogul with his hair painted on. The City resembles the titular one in Fritz Lang's seminal Metropolis (1927), perhaps 100 years before that film. It is all expressionist skyscrapers, TV aerials, and animated billboards.<br /><br />The citizens of the City are mollified by La Voz (The Voice), the only person with the gift of speech. Her face perpetually shrouded by a hood (kept on even when she is naked), La Voz is forced to sing on Mr. TV's television network. But when Mr. TV concocts a plan to steal the written word as well, La Voz and her eyeless son join forces with a renegade family in an attempt to return the freedom of speech to the people.<br /><br />La Antena is nothing but pure cinema. Burdening himself with the conventions of the silent film, Sapir has to rely upon images to tell his story. There is sound, most notably in the almost continuous score by Leo Sujatovich. It evokes the best of silent movie music, as well as ingenuously working itself into the film's diegesis, such as the beeping of car horns, or the rhythmic ra-ta-tat-tat of gunfire. And, underlying the whole film is a familiar whirring, as if it were being shown on an ancient projector.<br /><br />There is a fair amount of dialogue as well. But instead of using intertitles, Sapir has the characters' words appear in the frame. They are larger or smaller, filling the screen or hovering meekly in the air, depending on what is being said. Think a more imaginative version of the subtitles in Night Watch (2004).<br /><br />Thankfully, the words don't distract from the images. Which is very fortunate indeed, because La Antena boasts some of the most creative and original images we've seen in a long time, all captured by Cristian Cottet's sumptuous black-and-white photography. There are the expressionist cityscapes. The hooded singer and her eyeless son. There is the city's abandoned aerial, which looks like the decayed remains of some colossal spider. And there's the sinister Dr. Y, whose jabbering mouth is displayed on a television screen attached to his face.<br /><br />La Antena has been criticised for relying too much on its imagery, while skimping on the allegorical depth. But, again, I would disagree. It is true that the sudden appearance of a mind-control machine shaped like a swastika, or the eyeless boy seemingly crucified on a Star of David, feels out of place, a tad over the top in what is otherwise merely a well-crafted fairy tale.<br /><br />But the lack of overt symbols (the two previous examples aside) works in the film's favour. It allows us to make up our own minds: to decide whether to infer political meaning, to see La Antena as an allegory for fascism, the danger of capitalist monopolies, and the power and responsibility of the media; or to just take the film at face value, as a visually stunning adventure through a world simultaneously unique and familiar.<br /><br />The sacrifice of explicit depth in favour of unique imagery may seem like a compromise. But, really, when a film looks as good as this, it's hard to care. There is more imagination and artistry in every frame of La Antena than Hollywood can shake a derivative stick at. Evoking films almost 100 years old might be futile, but in doing so, Sapir may be showing us what is lacking in the films of today. He may be telling us that it is time for another artistic revolution. And he may be right.
| 1 |
positive
|
We'll never know The Truth about 9/11. And this shoddy movie proves it.<br /><br />I recently watched a YouTube report claiming there were no planes involved in the Twin Towers' destruction; that all the news programs were supposedly provided with same-angle shots of the Towers from a mysterious source (probably the gubmint?), and in that provided footage CGI planes were substituted for real-life MISSILES which actually hit the towers....<br /><br />It's a compelling video, and though I am not a Wacko Conspiracy Theorist per se, I am still not sure myself whether actual planes hit anything that day (the Towers, the Shanksville field, the Pentagon) - because there is no plane wreckage available. (And what about those infamous "black boxes"? None recovered.) A million other theories abound, all of them courting a droplet of Truth awash in an ocean of speculation. But you'll drown in malarkey before you find anything truthful or worth speculating about in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, a no-budget movie that is trying to close the barn door after all the horses and jihadists have escaped.<br /><br />Writer-director Leigh Scott is obviously a concerned American citizen who wanted to enlighten audiences on what the 560-page report might reveal. It would help if his movie had actors, instead of a guy who looks like David Duchovny, a chick who looks like Gina Gershon, a guy who thinks he's Russell Crowe and another guy who I'm pretty sure is trying hard to be Sean Bean. It would help if his camera operator didn't have Parkinson's; if the lighting director wasn't trying to save on electricity; it would help if his editor didn't have Attention Deficit Disorder, or if the soundtrack wasn't some tuneless new world order esoterica; and the looping should have probably been inserted when people were actually moving their mouths.<br /><br />We can't even call this propaganda. It's too funny. And by funny, I mean unwatchable.<br /><br />You can't squeeze an issue this complex into a two-hour film, but Leigh Scott tries anyway, including all those sexy catch-phrases we've grown inured to: bin Laden's intent to attack, purchasing weapons from Somalia, non-aggression agreement with Iraq, Mussawi attending flight school, weapons of mass destruction...<br /><br />The problem is: we know it's all retrospect, so every discussion the concerned intelligence operatives have with each other reeks of fake hindsight all crammed into a neat conversation. Like contrived reverse engineering, everything pertinent is mentioned succinctly so that we can shake our heads in wonder at how incompetently all these branches of government screwed up.<br /><br />There's a ludicrous interrogation scene with a lubricious bimbo beating up on a guy with tomato sauce on his face. Now - that would be considered torture if most guys didn't consider it a turn-on.<br /><br />The tagline is: "What if the attack could have been stopped?" By this movie's account - and, we presume, according to the Commission Report - the CIA and other underground agencies were all set to capture bin Laden and didn't. Everyone involved with the "terrorism" reports (you mean you actually read these reports?) is so concerned we just want to slap them for their bad acting.<br /><br />Yet the whole story goes so much deeper than the banal soundbytes the negligent Ku Bush Klan foisted on the American people after 9/11. We now know that even capturing bin Laden before the 9/11 attack would not have changed or achieved anything - the wheels were in motion with or without that Taliban figurehead whose involvement was the possible figment of someone's fevered imagination to unite America against a common enemy. Contrary to popular belief "they" didn't "attack us." As Ron Paul tried to elucidate, it was a case of Middle Eastern blowback - "they" were so sick of America planting their infidel feet "over there" that they brought the war "over here." So though George W. Death likes to tout the nonsensical, "We're fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here," in reality "Because we're Over There, the fight has been brought Over Here." <br /><br />The 9/11 attack was not so much about the intricate planning of terrorists, as it was the gross negligence of the Bush administration, who we know (without the probing of Commissions) had all the intel from the Clinton administration onwards; information about terrorist cells reaching critical mass and their intent to cause chaos. But the Oil Idiot of Texas, who refused to read his Daily Briefings and would rather vacation at his Crawford ranch than spend one extra day at work, abrogated the duty he swore an oath to perform - protect the American public.<br /><br />And then the scum who called himself president used the attacks brought about by his negligence as a political hammer against his own dumbed-down countryfolk to score a second term, shred the American Constitution and take America into a Fake War on the basis of a lie (WMD), with a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Strangely enough, the movie never treads near the Ku Bush Klan, offering no opinion or judgment, Leigh Scott wanting to remain neutral. Tell that to the raped and pillaged hundreds of thousands in the Fake War on Terror in Iraq.<br /><br />Out of pure coincidence, I realized I was watching this DVD while wearing my "Bush lied. Thousands Died." t-shirt.
| 0 |
negative
|
I did not enjoy the film Eraser whatsoever. It's awful acting, boring storyline and average special effects made this an annoying arnie film, as it had a mountain of potential. With other action films of the time Eraser fell very short!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
Hip, distinguished doctor James Coburn (as Peter Carey) arrives to accept a position as pathologist at a Boston hospital. Almost immediately, Mr. Coburn beds beautiful nutritionist Jennifer O'Neill (as Georgia Hightower). While sleeping with Ms. O'Neill, Coburn is awakened by an emergency involving a botched abortion - the fifteen-year-old who bleeds to death happens to be the daughter of the hospital's big donor, Dan O'Herlihy (as J.D. Randall). Coburn doesn't believe the man arrested, doctor pal James Hong (as David Tao), committed the crime; although, Mr. Hong admits to performing illegal abortions on the side. While trying to clear his friend, Coburn wades through a thickening plot
<br /><br />**** The Carey Treatment (3/29/72) Blake Edwards ~ James Coburn, Jennifer O'Neill, Michael Blodgett, James Hong
| 0 |
negative
|
This was one of the shows that I wanted to follow-up on. But, I'd just couldn't bring myself on devoting my time to this show. To have a show that centers on the topic of politics, you really need a strong plot with twists and turns to enhance the mood of the show, something like "The West Wing" or "Commander-in-Chief." Rob Lowe was OK, but actors like Kyle Chandler just couldn't act (he was awful in "Early Edition"). It was a pain to sit through this show. With its lack of suspense, urgency, and characters who can actually act, I just had to give up on this show and am glad it was canceled so I would have nothing more to miss.<br /><br />Grade D-
| 0 |
negative
|
I would just like to say that The Cure was a fabulious movie to help inform how people who are HIV positive have to function in life. Expecially a young boy who cant go to school because he could contaminate someone. and the ignorance of the boys who called them FAGGOTS. that just shows how much children are not educated about aids.
| 1 |
positive
|
Thank God that there are films out there that don't follow the same old Hollywood crap formula. I think the digital revolution and the DVD revolution is actually making it possible for more interesting work to get out there even if you have to dig harder to find it. I love it when a film takes its time to draw you in deeper and deeper into its inner emotional reaches. It really was like taking a trip through the soul of America and that soul is disturbed and confused. What really blew my mind was the way they used Martin Luther King's speeches about Vietnam and references to his assassination in a way that hit me hard. I found myself choked up every time i heard his voice. I've heard him speak before, of course, but the way they used the speeches here made me feel like I understood his message in a way I'd never thought about.<br /><br />What can you say about a movie that has heavy statistics about war, oppression and a plea for compassion at the end of it where a credits crawl would usually be? In fact, there's no credits at all in the film. You have to access them by selecting them in the features. Somehow that made me think a lot. All in all I can't say enough about this DVD. Brilliant.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am still waiting for years a new DVD issue of this marvelous film. I own a beta max recording with FRENCH language. Unfortunately, MGM omits the french track on his recent DVD... Just English spoken an french subtitles...I don't know how make MGM to be advised: I wrote emails to them but, of course, no answer. If I insist, it's because exceptionally, the dubbing track in french was spectacular, funny, well written etc... George C. Scott acting is always outstanding and, for people born like me during the 50ies, Diana Rigg represents something very different than Madonna (for example). Thanks for help... Kind regards...
| 1 |
positive
|
What bird is that ? A maltese falcon. The only thing remotely funny about this movie is Michael Caines hair. Which has more depth and character than the man underneath it.<br /><br />The Malta settings are as dry and as barren as the dialogue. Salutes to Raymond Chandler and Humphrey Bogart and crime fiction etc... seem obtuse and just plain silly without the salvation of any humour or pertinency. The reason this film has no 'longevity' and near forgotten is it's so vacuous, an hour and half of pointless time spent in the company of second rate actors and film makers - This film is what the title suggests...
| 0 |
negative
|
Rugged David Innes (solid Doug McClure) and doddery Dr. Abner Perry (a delightfully dotty Peter Cushing) drill their way into the earth's core in their spiffy mole machine. The duo discover an ancient prehistoric world populated by dangerous gigantic beasts and human beings who are used as both food and slaves by evil telepathic pterodactyl men. Director Kevin Conner, working from a blithely silly script by Milton Subotsky, maintains a constant brisk pace throughout and treats the exceptionally foolish premise with astonishing seriousness, thereby giving this picture a certain clunkily earnest quality that's amusing and endearing in equal measure. The lovably hokey (not so) special effects are quite (unintentionally) funny. The cheesy array of cut-price creatures in particular are positively sidesplitting: cruddy guys-in-obvious-shoddy-rubber-suits pterodactyl men, equally rinky-dink savage ape-man brutes, and a hilariously ludicrous fire-belching frog thing who blows up real good. One gut-busting highlight occurs when McClure mixes it up with a fat and clumsy giant reptile. Another priceless scene depicts a dinosaur clutching a doll in its slavering jaws. Moreover, we also get some rousing rough'n'ready fisticuffs and an exciting climactic slave revolt. It's a total treat to see Cushing gleefully ham it up in a rare broad comedic part and become an unlikely, but enthusiastic arrow-slinging action hero in the last third of the flick. The ever-luscious Caroline Munro looks positively yummy as the fetching Princess Dia, plus there are nice supporting turns by Cy Grant as gallant warrior Ra and Sean Lynch as treacherous coward Hoojah. Mike Vickers' neatly varied score alternates between jaunty orchestral music and wonky droning synthesizer stuff. Alan Hume's crisp cinematography adds a glossy sheen to the infectiously inane proceedings. A complete campy riot.
| 1 |
positive
|
It is hard to imagine anyone making a Tom Cruise film look good; hard indeed, but this one makes him look good. Very good. Actually, it makes him look like Sir John Gielgud celebrating Very Good Acting Day with a bravura performance.<br /><br />The acting from the entire ensemble struggled to rise above the risible and failed. The fault was, in part let us be fair, that the plot bore as much resemblance to the HG Wells original as did the butchered carcasses of the human victims in the film to their living predecessors: both were bloodied and violated remnants of more attractive predecessor. But to describe a plot such as this to be a bit holy is to say of the Colander "My, this kitchen utensil has a remarkable lot of holes", unless, that is, holes are your bag; in which case this film will commend itself to you.<br /><br />The fault in the other part was that these were demotivated, jobbing, DVD actors who knew full well, one assumes, that this was their exhibition that would wind up on the $5 DVD shelf. And overpriced at that.<br /><br />So should you watch it? Why yes, of course, you should. You are a miserable sinner and deserve punishment.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is not just good, its amazing. Besides providing us with good performances, original plot, fantastic special effects, thoughtful messages and a lot more, it was an, until then, completely unseen world to the public. This is the first sci-fi movie that takes us out into the unknown space of our galaxy with such splendid effects and mind bursting reality that the audience is left without words. I am only 16 years old, and therefore I was raised into a world of modern effects and 3D animations in the movies. But nonetheless I was really, and I mean completely, blown away by the quality of these effects, even after almost 40 years. The visual effects was just one of the merits of this movie, the camera was in true Kubrick style amazing and enchanting. It feels like you are consumed by the screen and sucked into this surreal world (especially in the round control room or whatever you call it). The effects, the camera and the sheer size of this movie caught me of my guards even though I had seen the rating before I bought it. But this movie has more to it than this. The meaning of this movie can also be interpreted as you wish yourself, even though I think there are some clear points concerning humanity (also true Kubrick style). How humanity on top of its evolution is just maintenance on board, and therefore not needed by the computer, one of humanities tools. How we in space appear like babies, learning to walk once more, losing control of our tools in zero-gravity, breathing through equipment as fish out of water. On the peak of evolution, we set out into the never-ending adventure as simple primates. Many might think that the length and slow pace of this movie is, boring? ridicules? or just a waste of time. But before you can jump to those conclusions, think about why Kubrick spends time with calm music and a spaceship in the middle of space for several minutes. This is to illustrate the beauty of it. Beauty, beauty is in many cases not granted the rightful respect by viewers. Kubrick wants to show us beauty, and if we do not succumb to it and relax, we can not enjoy this film as it was intended. This is not an ordinary movie, we can not just sit and watch as we can with some other movies, this requires time, thoughts and above all commitment and feelings to watch. All of this together, makes this one of the greatest achievements in the world of moving pictures. 10/10 Let me know if you agree with me.
| 1 |
positive
|
As is the case with many films of this ilk, my non Catholicism got in the way of my understanding it. The church has this mass of rules which have been put together over centuries. We have a short time to learn them and have to accept them at face value. Then, throw in some bad guys getting revenge for a long distant act against them, working under these rules and attempting to circumvent them, and you have this book and movie. I found myself thinking, "That's pretty cool. Why did they do that?" There's this casual thing in the Robert Langdon character where no matter what the issue, he seems to always make the right first move. I suppose it's like watching CSI where they solve incredibly complex cases in a matter of days. They know the lay of the land. In this film, there is so much land and so little time to really understand everything that is going on. But if you create Robert Langdon, you need to set him to work. That's OK because heroic nerds like him have been saving the day forever. I thought the film was fun. I thought the Da Vinci Code was fun too. Interesting and not as bad as people seemed to think. This is a marvel to look at and never stops for a second.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is the first porn I've ever tried to review. It demands a different approach than usual, since the allegory will not reward dissection. "I'm American. I'm a prudish virgin." "We are European. We are cultured and sex-mad." "It is nice when we all screw each other." Lots to talk about! Well, there kind of is in fact, relative to your average 60s topless volleyball number anyway. And the enervating patina of 'class' at least delivers clean, detailed compositions. But what the hell kind of thing is that to say about a porn? OK then: the only scene I really (rhetorically) got off on was the first time Brigitte Maier steps in. There are efforts to toss in a nice variety of race and age while letting no two men anywhere near each other; the one black guy suffers a premature bout of editorial coitus interruptus. And multiple takes or not, one perhaps undescribable-on-IMDb act does look like it was partially simulated by a surgical hose. Still, I stayed awake, and it was eight in the morning...but what does the last shot mean?!
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is not worth seeing, at least not at a cinema. The story is hard to follow and understand (it starts with 10 minutes of something happening 3 years earlier). It's hard to know if this movie is trying to be a comedy or just is so bad/weird that it sometimes seems like it. American sirens and lights on Swedish police cars is just one example. The acting of Persbrandt and Bergqvist is good as usual, but I think Jenny Lampa acting as Jasmin acts very poor. Zara Zetterqvist acts pretty well, she's not been seen as an actor in Swedish movies for a long time. If you still want to see it, wait until it's released on DVD or is shown on TV.
| 0 |
negative
|
For the record, I hate spoof movies. Except for Mel Brooks and AIRPLANE! because those are classics and make fun of the clichés, not the actual movies itself. I think that spoof movies are the bottom of the barrel for both comedy and film. I especially hate things created by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, the "geniuses" behind DATE MOVIE, EPIC MOVIE, and MEET THE SPARTANS.<br /><br />I decided to give THE COMEBACKS a look. Since Friedberg and Seltzer had nothing to do with the production, I was as objective as possible. It was just like one of their movies. It was basically every sports movie rolled into one with lame kindergarten jokes, and disturbing images of bodily injury that's supposed to make me laugh and failed.<br /><br />Only someone high would laugh at these jokes. Toilet bowl? Who wrote this? an 11 year old? I was surprised to see that this was the creation of the producers of WEDDING CRASHERS, which was actually pretty decent. But there attempt at the spoof genre was about as funny as a burning orphanage. The only reason that I gave this two stars (when it clearly deserved one) was because Friedberg & Seltzer had nothing to do with this.
| 0 |
negative
|
The English are a little too evil, the Scots are a bit too<br /><br />heroic. The dialogue is overly dramatic at times, and the<br /><br />transitions between scenes could be smoother.<br /><br />Still, "The Bruce" has the feel of authentic, if unpolished,<br /><br />history ... even if it does play loosely with some important<br /><br />facts.<br /><br />Sandy Welch is no Gibson or Branagh, but he makes a stalwart<br /><br />Bruce. And Brian Blessed chews the scenery in delightful<br /><br />villainy as Edward I.<br /><br />While lacking the budget needed to make the final battle truly<br /><br />impressive, they still marshalled an impressive crowd for the<br /><br />English and Scottish armies. It is, according to filmmakers, the<br /><br />"largest filmed reconstruction of medieval battle ever staged in<br /><br />the British Isles."<br /><br />Allowing for a few failings and shortcomings, the film still<br /><br />does a convincing portrayal.
| 1 |
positive
|
With the dialogue in the dubbed version of this film, I don't think that Shakespeare is in any great danger. This is the story of an ancient Aztec mummy who has been disenfranchised. His stuff has been taken and this really ticks him off. He seems to know who's doing this even though he's a gyrating, raving entity. I loved the two dull men who tell the story of how the mummy was found and the doctor who is determined to destroy the creature. There are all these scenes in this ridiculous graveyard, full of cheap crosses and other junk. There's a mausoleum where the mummy is kept. I can't begin to reproduce the idiocy of this, including a snake pit where the good doctor is thrown (there is a door next to it so he can crawl out) to the robot, a mass of metal cans with a guy inside. The dialogue is awful. There are long pauses between speeches as if someone offstage is feeding them their lines. I love the scene where the two little kids accuse their mother of going out at night (she goes into this zombie state or something). Nonetheless, if your looking for a film that you can laugh at and never takes itself seriously, watch this. Have a couple beers first. Like a direct line from the mummy's tomb, "Watch this and your eyes will bleed and your breath will stink." What more can I say?
| 0 |
negative
|
I do think Tom Hanks is a good actor. I enjoyed reading this book to my children when they were little. I was very disappointed in the movie. One character is totally annoying with a voice that gives me the feeling of fingernails on a chalkboard. There is a totally unnecessary train/roller coaster scene. There are some characters and scenes that seem scary for little children for whom this movie was made. The North Pole scenes with Santa and the elves could have been cute and charming. There was absolutely no warmth or charm to these scenes or characters. It usually doesn't work to make a short children's book into a feature film. This movie totally grates on my nerves.
| 0 |
negative
|
Except for the glossy look, this show had little to recommend it. The writing was patronizing and convoluted. Without exception the characters were shallow and unsympathetic. The female characters came off the worst... reduced to spoiled, selfish airheads whose soul ambition was to run around in slip dresses and stilettos, and try to bag a man. This aspect of the show is all the more curious as the series was produced by two women! The acting for the most part was dull and humourless with the cast playing one dimensional characters attacking every scene on the same note. This is not entirely the actors fault. Had they spent more time developing the characters and the storyline, adding a little injection of style and humour, MVP might have been a hit. What we're left with is something flat and vaguely unpleasant.
| 0 |
negative
|
My wife invited my son and I to watch this on cable TV on a lazy Saturday evening, thinking that it might show an unusual role for Juliette Lewis. On this promise, at least, the movie delivers: her character is ineffectual, adhering to nearly every slasher-type horror movie cliche. As does the movie. A cataloguing of its studied adherence to them would be an exercise in recall of something I hope to quickly forget, so I won't make one. Basically, this is a whodunnit, heavy on the red herrings: everybody appears guilty, rather than just the two one suspects from the beginning. The "rule out the logical and obvious, and what's left is it" rule of bad horror movies works well on this one. The only surprise to have any impact on me was its final snagging of the indeterminate ending cliche: will Jane keep her appointment with her attempted rescuer, who will tell her the (obvious to the audience) identity of the 2nd conspirator, propelling her into another round of hysterical victim-play. Mercifully, I will never know.
| 0 |
negative
|
For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. It was even worse than I'd expected. Ashton Kutcher makes the worst movie mistake of his career, since 'Dude, Where's My Car?' Tara Reid co-stars as the girl of Ashton's dreams, who asks him to babysit her father (and his boss)'s pet owl for the weekend. The rules: 1. No shoes in the house. 2. No people in the house. 3. The boss' son stays out of the house. 4. Don't touch the furniture.<br /><br />Well, you can pretty much guess by the end of the first twenty minutes, how the rest of the film is going to turn out.<br /><br />You know, there are films like, "Meet The Parents", where bad things happen to someone, but it's entertaining to watch, and it's delivered in a way, that you can't wait to see what happens next. This, is not one of those films. You know right from the start that bad things are going to happen, and they're mostly stupid things that would never actually happen. It's an extremely frustrating movie to watch, and there were about three times when I nearly turned it off, because it was so bad. But, I paid the rental fee, and figured I had to watch it now.<br /><br />Tara Reid was good, and I would like to see her in more films. Though, I'm not surprised if this had a hand in hurting her career.<br /><br />The end result is a happy ending...but of course with the kind of film it is, you would expect nothing short of that.<br /><br />Don't watch it. You'll sincerely regret it!
| 0 |
negative
|
First of all this is one of the worst soft-core straight to cable "erotic thriller" I've ever seen in my life. Of course, like all erotic thrillers are want to do, it's about a brothel madam and is set in a brothel. This, of course, makes the softcore simulated sex that pops up every other 10 minutes seem "in context." Whatever.<br /><br />Forget for one moment that this was never meant to win any awards. The actors are terrible and their line reading made me cringe. The woman who plays the female cop is so bad it's beyond description. She must be a really REALLY good friend of the guys who put up the movie for this terrible adventure, if you know what I mean.<br /><br />The production values are only slightly higher than porn. Other than that? I suppose if you're really drunk and you need something to laugh at, this would be a perfect film. And if that's the case, I recommend fast forwarding to all the scenes with the female cop. What's that accent, Brooklyn? Hilarious!
| 0 |
negative
|
Starting on or around 1965 American movies took a turn for the shocking and the iconoclastic which was great for the times -- sort of the seeds that would pave the way for grittier, daring dramas. However, because the very decade that gave birth to these films was so ruled by its own convictions, most all of the films released at this period have dated. CACTUS FLOWER is no exception. Its very title suggests a "sunny" romantic comedy with occasional lapses into the risqué. This is not to say that it's a bad thing: quite the contrary, films about risqué subject matter have to begin somewhere and America being a culture rooted in specific traditions, themselves laced in deep hypocrisies, shocks itself for the sake of it when seeing an indirect reflection of the mores of the time. Meanwhile, European films address these same situations, walk off looking like a million bucks, and have a longer shelf-life because what we consider scandalous, they shrug off, say "Next," and move on. <br /><br />Toni Simmons (Goldie Hawn in her breakout role), a young, very sixties bright young thing, is carrying on with a much-older dentist named Julian Winston (Walter Matthau), who has commitment issues. He can'r marry her: he's already married. Toni decides instead of wilting away she actually wants to meet his wife and "set things straight." Into the picture comes his assistant, Stephanie Dickinson (a luminous Ingrid Bergman, returning to American cinema after a twenty-year absence), a woman closer to his age who acts as if she and he had the perfect marriage and household. There is a reason for this: she has harbored quiet emotions for Julian, emotions he is unaware of, even when he asks her to play his wife to ward Toni off from wanting to step their relationship further. And then he steps it up a notch when Toni's blissfully innocent actions veer the action off into the unexpected and he introduces Harvey Greenfield (Jack Weston) as Stephanie's "lover". By the way, Harvey is also an older gent who is having an affair with a much younger woman (Eve Bruce) whom he also lies to in one very funny scene.<br /><br />It's funny how the person whom we're looking for is the one who's always been there. What could have been a thankless role for Rick Lenz who plays Igor Sullivan, Toni's next door neighbor, turns into the man who not only sees the true beauty in fellow outcast Stephanie but the one who saves Toni at the start from killing herself. (Not the stuff of comedy, suicide. Then again, this is not your average comedy.) And needless to say is Ingrid Bergman's subtle, poignant portrayal of a woman who's somehow missed her chances at love, who's become prickly, who due to a lie said to another she becomes the real person she was always meant to be. I can't imagine anyone else in this quiet but deep role.<br /><br />Movies like these can be enjoyed at face-value and seen as escapist fun -- a product of its times -- or be viewed for the deep symbolism that, like its title, it carries deep within. It's a tricky film, the same way Hawn's and Bergman's performance are equally tricky because in seeming so simple, devoid of flourish and pose, neither come out and proclaim what they are about. Their acting becomes "not really acting" but playing real people, warts and all. CACTUS FLOWER is a story that never appears to take itself too seriously, but reveals itself to be deep and very human after all.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is just dreadful. I regret every second of the 80 minutes I spent watching this dreck. I think it's supposed to be a comedy, but I don't remember laughing much, except at a few blatant inconsistencies and downright glaring errors.<br /><br />An unattractive middle-aged man called Lester meets up with rich unattractive middle-aged women via lonely hearts ads, and then murders them for the money he needs to feed his gambling addiction. That's the whole plot, and that's really all that happens. Along the way there is an attempt at intrigue when Lester starts to get phone calls from a mysterious stranger who taunts him about knowing his secret, but its so badly implemented, you may not realise what is actually supposed to be happening. The sequences in which Lester murders the rich widows are all quite brutal but also seemingly dressed up as comedies. One sequence has a woman bludgeoned with a wooden pole and then shoved into an oven. It's very cruelly depicted, but it is played out against blaring big-band waltz music, with Lester pulling faces and adopting comedy poses throughout. Another scene has the victim murdered while she constantly sings shrill opera songs...you have to see this to believe it! Actually - you don't have to see it at all, in fact I strongly recommend you avoid this flop. Fulci does not seem to know which hat he is wearing and there's no evidence of any of the flair seen in his earlier career. One sequence stood out to me as particularly wretched: the revelation when Lester suddenly realises that he has no shadow. Fulci seems unable to think up any visual representation of this phenomena on screen, so from this point on he just films the actor as normal, shadow and all!! And thus totally blows the whole angle. Either he had zero budget for effects, or he just didn't care enough to think up any way of showing it. Whatever it was, that should give you a taste of how lame this whole project is. I couldn't even understand most of the film, and there certainly wasn't anything on screen worth looking at half the time. Even the ending was as flat as a pancake. A real dud.
| 0 |
negative
|
London 1862, a young orphan named Susan Trinder (Sally Hawkins) grows up amongst the petty thieves known as Fingersmiths, under the guidance of Mrs. Suckerby (Imelda Staunton).<br /><br />One evening, Richard "The Gentleman" Rivers (Rupert Evans) pays them a visit.<br /><br />Rivers has an elaborate plan to defraud the wealthy heiress, Maud Lilly (Elaine Cassidy).<br /><br />Susan agrees to help for a cut of the money, and is quickly installed as Muad's maid.<br /><br />Upon arriving, she discovers that Maud is virtually a prisoner in her own house, as Uncle Chritopher (Charles Dance) controls every detail of her life.<br /><br />As the plan begins to unfold, Susan finds herself developing an intimate relationship with the lady of the house.<br /><br />Adapted from the novel by Sarah Waters.
| 1 |
positive
|
Great story, great music. A heartwarming love story that's beautiful to watch and delightful to listen to. Too bad there is no soundtrack CD.
| 1 |
positive
|
Its perhaps unfair of me to comment on this film , because , for the first time ever , I switched off a movie because it was so bad. I can watch anything , but this movie was so very boring. I was bored before I put on the DVD and thought this might be a laughable action horror/ action movie to lighten the mood. It is not even that , it is a device which increases the level of boredom by the power of 100. Had to switch it off after 45 minutes because all that had happened in that time was some people had been scuba diving , and a big mole had been discovered. Seriously , this movie is not worth the time, even if you can enjoy a bad movie like i can , avoid this film like the plague.Worst thing I have seen in years.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a really really bad movie. However It's good to laugh at the horrible ideas and "special" effects. The plot centers around an EU space agency that discovers a 10th planet that orbits directly opposite the Earth. They send a maned mission (they have been to Mars and have yet to discover this planet? Is anybody stupid enough to fall for this?) to the planet and can you believe it, it's the mirror image of the planet they came from. Most everything is predictable from that point. Honestly from the title of the movie you can guess just about everything. The only surprising thing here is a maned space program run by Eurpoeans :) There really can be no excuse for the plot concept or execution. So it's good for a laugh or maybe if you are in an altered state of consciousness.
| 0 |
negative
|
In my work with the only nationwide non-profit organization, Security On Campus, Inc. dedicated exclusively to the issue of college campus crime prevention and student awareness I see all too often the type of campus violence and `cover-up' through secret campus courts portrayed in the movie `Silencing Mary.' In fact we receive numerous calls and requests for information every month from campus reporters such as `Mary' who are facing similar situations.<br /><br />Its depiction of a campus rape and the subsequent crusade by `Mary,' the victim's roommate and a student journalist played exceedingly well by Melissa Joan Hart, for justice was very well done and accurately researched.<br /><br />This was the first television movie that I have ever seen that I felt truly reflected and encompassed all of the various complex issues associated with how rape and other violent crimes are dealt with on our nation's college and university campuses. Although it would not be possible to address all of these issues in depth in 2 hours, this movie comes closer than any others I've seen.
| 1 |
positive
|
Watching this series will probably make you feel like how our parents felt when watching Star Trek for the first time.<br /><br />This series has it all. The kind of stories that makes you forget how to blink, the kind of characters that makes you want to jump into the TV to join the action, and the kind of atmosphere that makes your hair curdle in awe and endless admiration.<br /><br />In short, we start out with John Chrichton, an astronaut, who gets shot into a wormhole and ends up with a gang of prisoners on the run from the badguys in black, ironically known as Peacekeepers.<br /><br />Other colorful characters consists of D'argo, big dude with a short temper and a sword/laser-rifle. Aerun Sun, former peacekeeper and a Ph.D in buttkicking. Zotoh Zhan, who's a plant. No really, she is. She's also a priest, but with a mean streak. There's also Dominar Rygel XVI, an fat lazy bastard who farts helium and generally does more harm than good.<br /><br />Later in the series we meet the most sexy alien that has ever been on television, namely Chiana. A young and seemingly chronically horny Nebari. She is played by Gigi Edgley, which is a name you should remember.<br /><br />One of the many things I love about these series is that since John Chrichton ended up in this part of the galaxy by mistake, he keeps giving references to "Real Life". Namely, when John is having a bit of difficulty accepting the fact that he will be frozen as a statue for 80 years, one of his many complaint is that when he returns, Buffy The Vampire Slayer will be dead.<br /><br />So Frell all the other series, get your Dren together and spend an Ahn on one of these episodes. I can assure you, Sci/Fi as you know it, will change forever.<br /><br />This series has it all. It's sexy. It's actionpacked. It's hillarious. It's Farscape
| 1 |
positive
|
Paul Telfer, who plays Hercules in this TV film, has to be the hottest thing on two legs EVER. Wow.<br /><br />But this film is a 100% distortion of the Hercules story. Just like "Troy," this film has nothing to do with the original story. Zero. What makes it especially insulting is that they actually contrived a gay character just so people could hate him, making him as dastardly and evil as any character in the history of TV or cinema. This is triply insulting since Hercules may have had a wife, since that was the expectation of those olden days, but he also had at least a dozen male lovers. So it is ironic that they should create a gay royal adversary character for this film. No, not ironic. Evil. The creators of this travesty should hang their heads in shame.
| 0 |
negative
|
And nothing wrong in that! Heartily endorse the comments of boblipton and Snow Leopard.<br /><br />I'm thrilled to find this movie is available on US DVD - I've only ever seen it through once - I persuaded the Goethe Institute here in London to show it in their Conrad Veidt season some years ago - and long to see it again.<br /><br />Barrymore is resplendent when engaged, as in this movie, possibly because of the prick of having a renowned German actor as a foil. And Veidt is such a wonderful scene stealer (doesn't he pick his nose at one point?) This is one of the seminal films to connect 'Dr Jekyll' with '20th Century', 'Grand Hotel' or 'Midnight'; and 'The Cabinet of Dr Caligari' or 'The Student of Prague' with 'The Spy in Bladk', 'Contraband' and 'Casablanca'.<br /><br />See it!
| 1 |
positive
|
I was looking forward to Dante's contribution to this excellent horror anthology series from Showtime, but this was easily the worst of the bunch. It's really too bad. Part of this may be due to the poor, if odd, choice of source materials. Why Joe didn't just write an original, I have no idea. Instead, we get this soapbox episode where the "message" overwhelms the script, the characters, the staging, everything, and by the end I was just wondering whether it could get any worse, and I won't spoil it...but it ended up getting worse. What a stinker by such a talented creative team. Skip this one and buy the John Carpenter one instead. It manages to balance all of the elements: horror, humor, character, vision, and it's fun. Homecoming is about as fun as having a bear take a dump on you while you sleep.
| 0 |
negative
|
This begrudging and angry film is against not just the war during which it was made, but all war. It doesn't care what war it is. It might be the most emotionally involving experience I have ever had with Ingmar Bergman's work. There are no sides to the two main characters in this impacting drama, which doesn't intimate a point in any ceremonial symbolism as per Bergman's usual, but plainly showcases people and their lives and exercises what Bergman has already proved he understands about a person's reaction to a movie.<br /><br />His top-drawer regulars Liv Ullmann and Max Von Sydow play an internalizing but bickering married couple who were once orchestra musicians. Now they live in a weathered farm house on an island. Part of the building frustration we grow to share with these two people fertilizes in the detail that nothing in their house seems to work. They are not reclusive intellectuals, either. They are a rather familiar marriage that has more or less resigned from life and is essentially apolitical; they only get wind of distant rumors of a war that has been going on forever. Ullmann is concerned with the danger to their lives and to her desire to bear children. Her husband Von Sydow shrugs off that the war will pass them by. Their serenity is interrupted by screaming fighter planes flying low over their house, the killing of a parachuting airman, the arrival of dubious troops, their inquisition, and eventually their capture by what appears to be the local side, but loyalties have long since splintered. <br /><br />They are sent back to their home, witness gratuitous destruction and suffer the vindictive consequences of such an agonizingly distrustful marriage. This, one of my top favorite Bergman efforts, is a study of a couple jarred from their safely self-unaware lives and violated by a manipulative despair, testing them both to reveal who they really are. She lacks compassion to some extent, too self-serving and restless to have any patience for his capricious breakdowns into crying. His suppressed emotional issues have led to the repression of the very initiative and excitement that attracted them to begin with. The immense last twenty minutes, sporadically interrupted by images of the overwhelming gray sky, are among the closest to real emotion that Bergman ever filmed.<br /><br />All systems of dogma and faith are the antagonists in this very essential and downbeat portrait. The basically clearcut personalities of Ullmann and Von Sydow's characters are hurled into the degenerate world of war because they are accused of being "sympathizers," but the film, shot on Bergman's small home island of Faro, doesn't give any information about where or when it's set, who the two sides are, and for what they're fighting. To an uninvolved civilian caught in between, the knowledge base is likely to be quite similar.<br /><br />Ullmann and Von Sydow are not sympathizers for the apparent enemy, but they're partisans for who are apparently their side. This 1968 reactive allegory could be about the common noncombatant citizens of Iraq, or Kosovo, or Vietnam, or Israel, or Palestine, or...
| 1 |
positive
|
As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.<br /><br />I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.
| 0 |
negative
|
In Halloween, three friends seek an ancient cemetery in the suburb for fun and remove a cross from a tomb, where Jack-O was buried many years ago by the farmer Arthur Kelly. The evil creature is unleashed, kills the trio and seeks the descendants of the Kelly family for revenge.<br /><br />The cheesy "Jack-O" is a combination of a terrible story with awful acting. I was curious with the name of John Carradine in the credits and I can not imagine how a relative authorizes the use of archive footage in such a bad movie, showing a total lack of respect with the name of this great actor. It is impressive how bad the acting is, shifting the film to a comedy instead of the proposed horror genre. This is the type of movie good to see with a group of friends, drinking beer, making comments and laughing a lot. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Jack-O Demônio do Halloween" ("Jack-O Demon of the Halloween")
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one great, sweeping, movie you will remember for a long time. It is about history, America, the change of times, Teddy Roosevelt, Morocco, a kidnapped American and her children, and the leader of the Berbers, with the blood of the Prophet in his veins.<br /><br />This movie is based on a true story--like Jesse James was a banker. An American WAS kidnapped in Morocco and the Marines went part-way to the shores of Tripoli to rescue him. So much for that. You know Hollywood. Sean Connery is the Berber chieftain and Muslim leader. Candice Bergan is the guy who was kidnapped, along with her two kids; the son is Rex Harrison's grandson, Simon, no less. John Huston is Secretary of State, with a great John-Huston-style straight line at a State Dinner, watch out for it. Brian Kieth IS Teddy Roosevelt, all-American, all-male, a character that is an interesting commentary as modern as today.<br /><br />The sweep and beauty of the desert and Morocco are shown beautifully in the cinematography in this film, which will stay with you, a haunting and compelling memory. The score is as sweeping and exotic as the images.<br /><br />This is a story about two cultures, both with grand ideas and historic pasts, struggling for the future without an idea at all about one another. In any event, the struggle comes down to might versus ingenuity.<br /><br />Then at the last, there is the little boy--remember the little boy? What do you think HE thinks?
| 1 |
positive
|
It's interesting to watch how late 1950's society is depicted in this film. Men are lecherous, chain-smoking boozers with one thing on their minds (time hasn't changed men all that much, but "sexual harassment" has) & women are in the workplace only passing time until they find a husband & settle down. Some of the dialog is cringe-worthy but yet it's charming in an innocent, passé way. I love the opening credits that show a romantic, exciting view of Manhattan with Johnny Mathis singing "The Best Of Everything" on the soundtrack. I want to jump right into some scenes, filmed on N.Y. streets, circa 1959 & experience a time I've only seen on film & in photographs. Some scenes in this movie reminded me of Melanie Griffith's "Working Girl". Especially when Hope Lange (who's a cross between Grace Kelly & Dolores Hart) gets bombed in handsome Stephen Boyd's apartment, he tucks her in & just watches her sleep (like Melanie, she wants to know if "anything" happened between them the following day). Joan Crawford is definitely comparable to Sigourney Weaver's horrible female boss except she was outwardly nasty (with a soft core), but Sigourney's character was sweet on the outside & horrible on the inside. I found it distressing how the Suzy Parker character (Gregg) started out as an independent woman with career goals to be an actress, who supposedly didn't need a man to complete her, ended up. She becomes a stalker/lunatic/nut-job when she lets the man she falls in love with drive her bananas after he's done with her. I loved the character Mary Agnes, the office gossip, with her thick New Yawk accent. If you enjoy films like "Valley Of The Dolls" you'll like this one too.
| 1 |
positive
|
What a stupid idea. Ewoks should be enslaved and tortured. Utterly useless as a species... Fine you want ten lines of text regarding my unending hatred of Ewoks? Fine, here it is, fool. First of all, they are an inferior race that would be slaughtered en mass had Lucas not pussified the entire series with their foul presence. They're little bears with large asses, and they probably smell like donkey crotch. Yeah, I said it, donkey crotch. They have little to no technology whatsoever, resorting to using sticks as makeshift weapons. I'm surprised they even had access to fire. Their guttural language makes my skin crawl. Can't...suppress...anti-Ewok...RAGE! AHHH!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
I loved the film "Eddie Monroe". The film had all the components that kept me interested while watching it. I especially loved the plot twists along the way and the surprising ending. Craig Morris has Brad Pitt potential both in looks and talent. His blue eyes reminded me of Paul Newman's. Fred Carpenter took this movie to a new level.I loved the cast. The music score, cinematography, talent, locations and script were awesome. I loved seeing some of my favorite actors in Eddie Monroe. Fred Carpenter is an incredibly talented and gifted director. He gives his work 200%. The film has great texture. I hope that there will be an Eddie Monroe 2. I would love to see how Nicolette turns out after getting her windfall of money. Fred Carpenter's Eddie Monroe is Hollywood level.
| 1 |
positive
|
I did a screen test and read the script for this turkey in 1988. It was awful then and even worse now - I spotted it on VHS at the local HollowWood Video and said, "oh, what the hey, for auld ang sine". Yech.<br /><br />They had to shoot most of it in Mexico after they ran out of money, a couple of the "stars" pitched bitches because they ran out of some kind of exotic fruit drink crap. The movie's plot is OK, I suppose, but I happen to know that the writer intended for it to have a spy catcher thread running throughout.<br /><br />Dr O ended up being a cartoon character. He must still be whirling in his grave over in the Kremlin Wall.<br /><br />Technical errors were all over the movie, not only with the infant atomic technology but with the uniforms, insignia, and military jargon. They were too cheap to hire a professional military adviser, of course. Even Mr. Newman's august and expert presence couldn't have saved this bird from being stuffed for Thanksgiving.
| 0 |
negative
|
Mixed group of "experts" (explorers, divers and scientists) venture a mile underground and go another 2.4 miles underwater to a spot even more remote, where they find salamanders, giant albino moles (??) and some big, razor-fanged, winged, computer generated creatures lurking about. The cave is sealed off by a rockslide and then the monsters attack and start killing everyone off as they search for an exit. And that's all she wrote with this low-aiming effort that even fails to combine action, science fiction and horror on the most elementary of levels. Imagine if someone gave the folks at the Sci-Fi Channel 30 million dollars to make a monster movie. That's precisely what THE CAVE is like; almost startling in its ineptitude at times, full of clichés and almost entirely dependent on the special effects to entertain. The only difference is they had more money to build sets, more money to polish up the monsters and more money to hire supposedly professional actors who give awful performances anyway. Otherwise, it's business as usual. Some of these movies are still fun to watch. This one is not and there are loads of reasons why: <br /><br />1.) It takes itself far too seriously and has no sense of humor whatsoever. So you get a completely unoriginal and predictable movie that doesn't even recognize how unoriginal and predictable it is. <br /><br />2.) The opening sequence serves no purpose whatsoever other than killing a few minutes and adding to the redundancy.<br /><br />3.) Unoriginal looking CGI creatures are not impressing anyone in this day and age. <br /><br />4.) Utilizing shakycam and quick-cut editing for your horror scenes is simply lazy, unimaginative film-making. And why further obscure the action by making things too dark AND adding annoying distractions, such as fire and explosion of bubbles? It makes these scenes not only difficult to see, but also impossible to enjoy even on a no-brainer action level.<br /><br />5.) Even though it wants you take to it seriously, the script is full of clichés, the dialogue is awful and there's no attempt whatsoever at characterization. Casting 25-year-old-looking model types in roles as brilliant scientists and gruff veteran explorers might provide some eye candy but it completely kills the credibility of a movie that otherwise plays out completely straight. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.<br /><br />6.) There were two exceptions to the model rule, as they did decide to cast an old guy and an average looking Joe. These were the first two characters killed off. <br /><br />7.) For a little diversity, they also squeezed in a black guy and a Chinese guy. Strangely, neither are given much of a voice in this film and basically stand in the background as whitey discusses what their next move will be. Insulting. <br /><br />8.) Furthermore, how many movies have to be made where a black character sacrifices his life at the very end just to ensure Hot White Female Lead and Hot White Male Lead end up together at the end? Ugh. Give me a break already.<br /><br />9.) Much of the acting was HORRIBLE. Cole Hauser's performance was completely laughable. The other male lead looked like he just walked off the set of a Soap Opera and coasted by using the patented dimpled-smile-makes-all-the-ladies-swoon technique, which is the PG-13 gender-switch equivalent to my-large-breasts-make-all-the-guys-swoon technique often used by ladies in R-rated films. Either way, his performance was completely phoned in. Daniel Dae Kim (from the TV series "Lost") and Piper Perabo also stunk up the room with their stilted and monotone line delivery.<br /><br />10.) Was the ending a joke? Absolutely terrible. Please God, we do not need a sequel to this garbage.<br /><br />So basically I wouldn't bother with this one, unless you've never seen a monster movie before or if you're just really desperate and the only other thing on is "The Simple Life." The sets were good, the blue-tinted photography is OK and a few of the actors (Lena Headey, Marcel Iures...) tried their best, so I decided to boost the rating up one notch to a "2."
| 0 |
negative
|
I only heard about Driving Lessons through the ITV adverts, and to be honest, I didn't know how much I would like it. I switched on the TV last night and was totally surprised. Driving Lessons is a modest, simple film which draws you in right from the start. Rupert Grint plays the part of socially awkward teenager Ben brilliantly. He's definitely one to look out for in the future. Dame Eve Walton is played by the fabulous Julie Walters. I loved the simple plot and the way the actors portrayed their characters with great sensitivity. The highlight of the film, for me was Evie's rather colourful poem. It shows how friendships can form between the most unlikely pairs. In my opinion, watching Driving Lessons is a great way to spend 2 hours. The scenery was also striking, especially the countryside. Anyone who can call this sparkling comedy forgettable, I strongly disagree with
| 1 |
positive
|
The Battleship Potemkin is now the oldest film I've seen and it is also the first silent film I've seen. I heard a lot of good things about this movie so I got the tape out at home and I watched it. When it ended I just thought that this was a classic masterpiece. The story is based on the real-life Russian Battleship Potemkin. You wouldn't think it but some of it was sad and disgusting. Sad being that the mother dies and the pram rolls down the stairway and disgusting being they have to eat rotten meat with maggots in it.<br /><br />Today it is still considered to be one of the best silent and Russian films ever made. I think that everyone should see it (if they can find it.) You will be presently surprised at how good it is. It's a must see classic. 5/5.
| 1 |
positive
|
Irwin Allen put all his talents behind this one: he's co-screenwriter, producer and director of this cartoonish "epic" about an atomic submarine and its efforts to reduce a ring of radiation circling the Earth. Potentially exciting story fails to take off, despite an eclectic cast. Varied players from Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine to Frankie Avalon and Barbara Eden are interestingly intermingled and provide a dash of color, but this soggy sci-fi is pretty cheesy. Good for a few stray laughs, but Allen didn't seem to know the difference between strong, solid adventure and campy nonsense. Later a popular TV series. ** from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.