text
stringlengths 49
12.1k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
I first saw The Buddy Holly Story when I was about seven years old. I had no idea who Buddy Holly was, nor can I remember what it was that made me sit down in front of the television, tuned in to HBO, and watch this engaging biopic. What I remember was realizing that it was a (somewhat) true story, about someone who actually lived. I recall the music, great songs that I still love today (I can't believe Gary Busey sang his own songs and so well - What a stud!) Then, came the end. He died. He freaking died. I couldn't believe it. I had no warning, no prior knowledge like most coming into this film. It taught me a harsh lesson about life and how it doesn't follow the rules that most movies teach us. I just watched the film again tonight and was engaged all over again... and a little saddened.<br /><br />8 out of 10, but I'll admit to a little bias.
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, after seeing "Beginning" I thought why the hell they burned Schraders Version and did that poor one. But now, after seeing "Dominion" I deeply understand this decision. Even they got it not much better.<br /><br />Sorry, but this movie is really crap. Some good moments, but a really boring story-telling and some major plot-holes are killing this movie.<br /><br />I thing the Exorcist-story has a lot and in a prequel on this you can built on a lot and give references the audience will like to see. But there is so much little of it in the movie. The effects are really bad - not even TV-standard.
| 0 |
negative
|
Having read so much negative press on this movie over the years, I'd always avoided it, but the advent of the cheap public domain DVD encouraged me to finally give it a viewing. <br /><br />Unfortunately, it's been transferred from a poor copy. The modern prequel, shot on tinted stock, is blurry and the contrast, non-existent. Faces are occasionally difficult to make out. Having said that, the actual story is entertaining and Lou comes across as an accomplished actor, more so than in many of the boys' movies.<br /><br />Once the movie switches to the 'Jack' story, the film switches to 'colour' and I use that term loosely. Most hues are orange or brown. The greens look particularly bad.<br /><br />Dorothy Ford as 'Polly', the giant's maid, was a big plus for me as I enjoyed her in an early 'Andy Hardy' appearance.<br /><br />With so many negative comments put down to the actual quality of the print, I'm still happy to give this movie a 7. It gave me a lot of laughs and that's more than the greater majority of comedies I've watched over the decades can manage.<br /><br />One to watch if you get the chance.
| 1 |
positive
|
Korine's established himself, by now, as a talented and impressive image-maker. The promotional posters for Mister Lonely all include the film's most impressive compositions (though there's one in particular I've yet to see in promo material: that of a blue-clad nun teasing a dog with a stick, surrounded by green forest with torrential rain pouring down). The opening images of this film, of Michael Jackson lookalike (Diego Luna) riding a small motorbike round a track, is strangely compelling and beautiful: Roy Orbison's "Mister Lonely" plays on the soundtrack, and the images unfold in slow-motion. There's also a funny and terrific sequence in which the same character mimes a dance, without music (though a radio sits like a silent dog next to him), in the middle of a Paris street; Korine splices in sound effects and jump-cuts that evoke both a feeling of futility and dogged liberation in the character's dance routine.<br /><br />The first instance of the segment dealing with the nuns is also strangely poignant; Father Umbrillo (Werner Herzog) is an autocratic priest about to fly with some nuns over, and drop food into, impoverished areas nearby. In a scene that is both light-hearted and affecting, Herzog must deal with a stubbornly enthusiastic local who wishes to make the plane trip with them in order to see his wife in San Francisco. As the exchange develops, Herzog draws out of the man a confession: he has sinned, and his frequent infidelity is the cause of his wife having left him in the first place. This scene, short and sweet, gains particular weight after one learns its improvised origins: the sinner is played by a non-actor who was on set when Korine and co. were filming - and his adulterous ways had given him, in real life, a lasting, overwhelming guilt.<br /><br />Henceforth, the film is hit-and-miss; a succession of intrinsically interesting moments that add to a frivolous, muddled narrative. Whereas Gummo and Julien Donkey-Boy maintain their aesthetic and emotional weight via coherent structural frameworks, Mister Lonely feels like a victim of editing room ruthlessness. A few scenes were cut from the film, which would have otherwise painted fuller pictures of certain characters, due to continuity errors in costume - a result, no doubt, due to the absence of a shooting script and Korine's tendency for improvisation. One deleted scene in particular - in which 'Charlie Chaplin' (Denis Lavant) and 'Madonna' (Melita Morgan) have sex - would have added much more emotional conflict to a scene later on in the film (I won't spoil it, but it's there to deflate any feeling of warmth or celebration, and, as it is, only half-succeeds).<br /><br />The two strands of the narrative, unconnected literally, are best approached as two entirely different stories with the same allegorical meaning; one compliments the other and vice versa. (It's something to do with the conflict between one's ambitions and the reality of the current situation.) But there's not enough of the Herzog scenes to merit their place in the film, and so any connection between these two allegorically-connected threads is inevitably strained - and the inclusion is, in retrospect, tedious.<br /><br />This is an ambitious step forward from Julien Donkey-Boy that suffers mostly, at least in the lookalike segments, from having far too many characters for the film's running length, a flaw that would have been even worse had big star names played everyone (as was originally planned).<br /><br />With many of the imagery's self-contained beauty, and moments of real, genuine connection with the soundtrack, this feels like it'd be much more suited to an art installation or photo exhibition. As an exploration of mimesis and the nature of impersonation, it'd lose none of its power - indeed, for me, it would perhaps be more impressive. The loneliness attached to iconic performativity (such as that encountered by both the icons themselves and those who aspire to be like them) is well-captured in images such as that wherein 'Marilyn Monroe' (a gorgeous Samantha Morton) seduces the camera with a Seven Year Itch pose in the middle of a forest, or when 'Sammy Davis, Jr.' (Jason Pennycooke) settles, post-dance rehearsal, with his back to the camera overlooking an incredible, tranquil lake.<br /><br />As it is, moments like these, and all those where the titles of randomly-chosen Michael Jackson songs crawl across the scene, are married to one another in a film narrative far less affecting than it should be.<br /><br />(For those who see it, I lost all faith during the egg-singing scene, late on. You'll know which scene I mean because it sticks out like a sore thumb, as some sort of gimmicky attempt at the new cinematic language for which Korine has previously been hailed.)
| 0 |
negative
|
This is an excellent movie and I wish that they would put it out on DVD for people to purchase. It is difficult to try to catch it on TV all the time. As you do not know when one of the stations will decide to air it. Can someone tell me what file company make it so I can write to them and see if they will release it to the public? I only caught the last hour and a half yesterday and I only got to see it once last year. My sisters and I are all looking for it in every store that sells any videos. John Denver is an excellent singer and actor and the plot line is great. They put out some much older movies and I think that is great but there are quite a few that they have not put out and I think if we could contact the producers and voice our requests we might get some of them put out on DVD.
| 1 |
positive
|
Thursday June 15, 9:30pm The Egyptian<br /><br />Saturday June 17, 11:00am The Egyptian<br /><br />"He spent most of his life in pursuit of a good time, and he caught it." - Eric Idle<br /><br />Harry Nilsson left Brooklyn, "
feeling like Holden Caulfield. I was fifteen." Eventually, he ended up working as an usher at the LA Paramount and within a few years fell back asswards into one of the greatest songwriting careers in the history of American music. 'Who Is Harry Nilsson (And Why Is Everybody Talking' About Him?)' chronicles the legendary life of "
the best songwriter of our generation." Writer/Director John Scheinfeld produces a 'who's who' of musical royalty, from Brian Wilson and Al Kooper to Paul Williams, Randy Newman and Ray Cooper, "His voice was a medical instrument. It would heal you." Assorted archives include his 1969 appearance on 'Playboy After Dark' and Nilsson's BBC special. The John Lennon, brandy Alexander, Smothers Brothers at the Troubadour comeback-show heckling debacle is one memorable recounting among so many they seem to virtually squeeze Nilsson's enchanting music out of this comprehensive and bitter-sweet bio-doc.<br /><br />"He was a wonderful perpetrator."<br /><br />"
I woke up three days later, getting a massage in Phoenix."
| 1 |
positive
|
It's always a pleasure to see characters in a movie who are wholly good-hearted and well-intentioned, even when they're surrounded by those who are neither. The film's moderately silly premise is that the conservative, religious Franklin family (mother, father, teen boy and girl) are involved in an accident wherein the parents and brother have a near-death experience during which they meet Jesus, a pleasant but somewhat exasperated soul who removes from them the burden of 'original sin.' When they return to their lives, many of their views and attitudes have changed, much to the consternation of the daughter, who didn't share the experience. The religious side is, I think, presented with a good balance, from the good (Jesus) to the starkly awful (those of his 'followers' who are obsessed with the sins of others and utterly oblivious to their own). It's a movie to make you think, give you a few good laughs along the way, and leave you with the pleasant feeling that the world just might be a nicer place than you think it is.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is one of the best of 1986 with creepy, yet intriguing performances from Crispin Glover and Dennis Hopper! The Reagan years were pretty bleak for a lot of people, not just teenagers, but this flick really captured the desperation and despair. Well-directed with great script (apparently based on a true story), I don't really see any weaknesses in this. The opening shot was brilliant.<br /><br />Keanu Reeves was decent for a change and Miss Skye was right on the money. Hopper had three other great performances that same year (Blue Velvet, Texas Chainsaw II, and Hoosiers). I imagine this has a cult following and I wonder how this picture would fare if it was re-released. Super stuff!
| 1 |
positive
|
I'd never walked out of a movie before this one. I'd entertained the idea a couple of times, but this time I did it, snuck in to see the end of another movie, but had to come back and see the end of the Rage while I waited for my friends. They told me I didn't miss much while I was gone, either. I was generally offended by the entire movie, in such a grand way that I can't even describe it. My gut instinct told me to get myself out of the theatre. It was a visceral reaction to a horrible movie. The plot centered around the cruel actions of some reprehensible teenagers against vulnerable and troubled others. There was no ray of light, no resonsible or likeable person to provide contrast. I found that even the "good guys" of the movie did nothing for me, were silly, stupid, whiney, or just plain ineffectual.<br /><br />The repetitious, graphic suicide imagery was way overdone, unnecessary, and disgusting. (Not in a "I'm easily grossed out" way, but more in the portrayal of disregard for humanity way). And besides the repetition of that scene, in slow motion, from so many angles, the other visual aspects, (interesting camera work, etc) had potential, but just became annoying sometimes. I am a person who loves movies and tries to find good things about them. Usually I can find some good things to counterbalance the not-so-good of any movie. I'm not saying that this movie had nothing good, but I am saying that, whatever that may have been, I can't remember it with all the other crap that drove me mad. I'm really sorry about that, too. Maybe the best parts were the clips from the classic original.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is bad. Just bad. In absolute terms, bad. <br /><br />The dialog jumps off the screen and slugs you in the face with its thoroughly artificial banter, and then defecates on your ability to detect even trace amounts of subtlety. <br /><br />Racism is bad. Racism in Los Angeles can be especially bad. I live in the city of Angels, I can attest to that. What is so terrible about the bigotry in Los Angeles is its insidious nature. It creeps at you with a knowing glance, or a swallowed word. Until just at the edge of a full on fist-fight, It almost never comes right out and says, "why did he have to be black!" <br /><br />I can see quite clearly that the car-jackers are black, the detective's partner is hispanic, the DA is white. As long as there is film rolling through the projector, I can let the visuals, music and words take me to that conclusion without just telling me the conclusion. Characters emote, and we read between the lines to make the connections and conclusions. <br /><br />That is a partnership and trust between filmmaker and audience. That trust is raped by this movie. <br /><br />A good film pulls you in directions as an audience, and it steers you with cues to drive to a point. This movie beats you down with its point and insults you and your intelligence along the way. My unanswered question is, why did we as a society say collectively, "thank you?"
| 0 |
negative
|
This one gets better with each new look. Certainly one of Paul Sorvino's best roles. Outstanding music score which was also outstanding on sound track LP (so why no CD?). One the very early dolby stereo sound film releases. By the way, the original 35mm theatrical trailer for this is really GREAT!
| 1 |
positive
|
The promise of Martin Donovan playing Jesus was, quite honestly, enough to get me to see the film. Definitely worthwhile; clever and funny without overdoing it. The low-quality filming was probably an appropriate effect but ended up being a little too jarring, and the ending sounded more like a PBS program than Hartley. Still, too many memorable lines and great moments for me to judge it harshly.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw the film many times, and every time I am more and more disappointed,which is shame because the films from EX YU are usually very good. The shame here is, that Holiwood tried to make film about the place and people it has no idea. My self coming from the Balkans(Macedonia) found this film disappointing.Simply that the Bosnian characters are not really understood and not truly portrayed. To understand the mentality of a person from EX YU, you need to know their background, way of live, what makes them cry and laugh.And the director of the film didn't took that as guideline. When we(EX YU) make films, lots of symbolism is build in it, which makes the characters recognisable and likable, and mostly portraying the truth(if it is based on true story) The films like "Pritty village, pretty flame", "Tito and Me', "Underground',"No mans land', "Before the Rain","Black cat, white cat","Otac na sluzbenom putu",(When father was away on business),"Ko to tamo peva"(Who sings over there?)Rare the masterpiece of the Balkan cinematography,and nothing can compare to it. Not the half baked story of and Holiwood studio. As somebody from the panel mentioned the story jumps from one end of town to the other with no real connection. I am sorry but when the film is made is not only for the American armchair variety of viewers but for the rest of the World too, and some of them live on the Balkans and Sarajevo too. And to add insult to the injury, half of the things are shoot in Bitola ,Macedonia where I come from. Imagen my shock when I saw the Broad st. of Bitola in the opening scene of the film, when the bride is shoot from the sniper.And what was that inserting real footage of the news covering in the film? Anyway very disappointing, as the truth is far away from the film. Shame that nobody consulted the real people how is to live in Sarajevo under fire, before they shoot the film. book is one thing and real life is other, and this film lets down both.
| 0 |
negative
|
I would recommend this film to anyone who is searching for a relaxing, fun-filled, thought-provoking movie. The absence of sex, vulgarities and violence made for a most pleasant evening. I especially enjoyed the Buffalo scene, but that's probably because I live a short distance from there. Even so, this film could have been produced in any city; it's the theme that's so important here. I'm just grateful that Manna From Heaven dropped down on us. Try it...you'll like it!
| 1 |
positive
|
When one of my friends recommended this to me, raving about how well it was filmed, the underlying themes and the general greatness of the film, I obviously expected an amazing, at least entertaining film.<br /><br />The two hours I spent watching this turned out to be a huge disappointing waste of my time.<br /><br />I understand that this movie is meant to be surreal, but even in surreal movies, there is something which anchors it down, even if it is only in the slightest. This movie, on the other hand, felt forced and fake. A lot of the shots were unnecessary and watching it made me think the director was trying to hard to be artistic.<br /><br />The acting was poor, and the relationships between characters were not nearly developed enough. Maybe that's just me missing something that others could see but I hadn't even realised there was any sort of attraction between Dae su and Migo before they started getting at it like rabbits randomly half way through the film. Then again, maybe this film was just bad.<br /><br />I am not against violence in movies, but in this one, almost all of it was just unnecessary. Throughout all the fight scenes I felt myself cringing at how painfully cliché it all was.<br /><br />And the plot? The word laughable comes to mind. I would be amused if I hadn't wasted two hours of my life following this poorly thought out and ridiculous plot. Despite all the movie's flaws, by the end of it, I was expecting something interesting to conclude it. I won't discuss the ending, because I wouldn't want to "spoil" the movie for those who haven't seen it. Just that the metaphor "Be it a rock or a grain of sand, in water they sink as the same." cannot be used as an explanation for everything.<br /><br />This entire movie was made for shock value and shock value only. I just hope sooner or later people will stop being so pretentious and recognise a bad movie for what it is. I've seen many other great Korean films and it depresses me that people have hailed Oldboy as the best.
| 0 |
negative
|
Since I'm from Norway (one of the top ten (or so) richest countries in the world), it was much fun to watch how we use trucks from the 50ies and live in cottages from the medieval times. And since we have very strict laws when it comes to handguns, it was fun to see how much guns there actually were in Norway during the five minutes of the shooting there. Mr. Direct-to-video even managed to bring his silencer on short notice, so he must have powerful friends in the customs.<br /><br />Please do at least _some_ research before going to an "exotic" country, dudes -- you may hurt the feelings of old fans.<br /><br />Sverre -- old fan with hurt feelings.
| 0 |
negative
|
I felt compelled to comment on this film because it's listed as the fourth lowest-rated sci-film of all time on the IMDb. WHAT!?!? Sure, this movie is crappy, but it's HILARIOUS! It's not awful on an Ed Wood level, it's more surreal and uneven.<br /><br />There are some classic moments in the film. The brain surgery is gross and great- and even nuttier when you consider that the film was rated PG! Gor chasing after his dolly before getting battery acid dumped on his face- "Mine! Gimmee!" Zandor Vorkoff's speeches at the beginning of the film- "Before Amir, Kali was but another weak nation struggling to break free from centuries of stagnant feudalism!" Angelo Rossito also has some great lines- "No, Gor! No!" "You want these keys, don't you, my pretties?" It is absolutely wrong that this is the 4th lowest-rated sci-film on the IMDb because it is ENTERTAINING. No matter how bad a film is, if it still manages to be weird, quirky, unsettling, or entertaining, it has merit and doesn't deserve to be dumped on and dismissed. I won't defend most of Al Adamson's films, but this one, along with Dracula VS. FRANKENSTEIN and BLOOD OF GHASTLY HORROR, are entertaining enough to make up for their awfulness.
| 1 |
positive
|
After seeing the Harry Potter movies, I've been a fan of the trio actors Rupert Grint, Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson; yet, we've been waiting to see if they would do other projects besides play the same characters year or every two years of the J.K. Rowling series. Mainly instead of a trio, the cameras and magazine articles concentrate more on Daniel and Emma, being that they're the leading male and only leading female in the saga leaving Rupert dead-end. No matter, every actor has a time to shine and Rupert's light hits him for once in this movie.<br /><br />"Driving Lessons" is called the Harold and Maude of this generation with Rupert Grint playing the role of Ben Marshall, a young British lad who lives with his domineering mother (Laura Linney) and a wimp of a vicar (priest) father for which he wants a job in the summer but can't find work while at the same time taking his driving tests (and failing) and writing poetry for a young girl who doesn't have any interest in him.<br /><br />Ben seeks an ad in a church newspaper for which the job requires to take care of an elderly lady. He takes the job and realizes that he's in for a fun of surprises as Evie (Julie Walters, Rupert's mother in the Harry Potter series) an out-of-work actress who is also a poet giving Ben the run for his money. They bond where and tell each other secrets along with Evie acting like a child and getting into mischief where she drags Ben along for a country road trip. From their not only does Ben drive all the way from Britain to Scotland since Evie needs to recite at a local library, but at the same time an older lady falls for the young man in which Ben starts becoming a man.<br /><br />There is mishap and at the same time rejoice with Ben and Evie along with saying that I was very pleased about the film when it came out in theaters and I was impressed with Rupert Grint's acting, especially if he showed the rest of the world that even though he brings a bit of Ron Weasley within Ben Marshall, there's no stopping the actor on his brilliant performance.
| 1 |
positive
|
I've been intending to write a review of this film for some time, but only now have I actually managed to get my thoughts down for the perusal of others.<br /><br />I never had the pleasure of seeing this film on the `big screen' which is a shame, as it is often visually stunning, but I have revisited it on video numerous times over the years, enjoying it immensely every time. It definitely is on my personal list of favorite movies, and for more than just starring Kiefer Sutherland and Kevin Bacon, two of my `actors to watch.'<br /><br />Perhaps I appreciate this film so much because it appeals to my slightly off-kilter taste in entertainment. I like my movies a bit left of center - unpredictable and fresh. And whether or not you `believe' the story line of the film, you have to admit, it is different!<br /><br />Everyone has different tastes and opinions, but my impression of some of the negative reviews of this movie is that the viewers never really saw past the surface level of this film. They got caught up in technicalities, `Why would there be green lighting in a subway?' or `Why would medical students pull such a stupid stunt?' and failed to see the artistry and psychological depth of the piece.<br /><br />Yes, there are some medical and technical aspects that do not make logical sense, but if you are willing to suspend disbelief just a tad, this can be a very engaging film.<br /><br />First, a note about the artistic quality of the movie. Some have complained about the murky lighting, and the illogical nature of the sets - but for me, the use of innovating lighting techniques, the plastic and sheet draped sets, the unusual settings in old buildings and dank, dripping tunnels, the use of statuary, rain and billowing curtains - all add a poetic flavor to this film, a haunting beauty that suits the dark nature of the questions being asked about life, death and forgiveness.<br /><br />I will focus on just two examples; in an alley scene, a change in lighting allows for certain elements of the set to come dramatically into focus, then to fade away once lighting returns to normal. It is an innovative means of conveying a shift in the `reality' of the moment, and works beautifully. We are also allowed to see the interior of the character's apartments - contrast the warm wood, bright colors, golden lighting and cluttered comfort of Labraccio's rooms with the stark, white void of Nelson's. Both are reflective of the characters themselves. Nelson's lack of `objects' reflect our lack of knowledge about his past. and his carefully constructed mask that keeps his companions at a distance. His past, we come to learn, is one of chaos and conflict. He has determined to leave that behind in favor of an uncluttered emptiness. unfortunately, the emptiness is also reflective of his relationships with others, a realization he comes to along his personal journey of self-discovery in this film.<br /><br />Flatliners is not your typical horror film. Nor is a typical drama or suspense movie.it is rather more of an amalgamation of all, having the best elements of all genres intertwined in a complex, suspenseful plot.<br /><br />This is an ensemble piece, and the cast does an excellent job of breathing life into their individual characters. Your immediate impression is that the characters are each representative of a well-established `stereotype': The female ice queen, the slightly neurotic 'physician', the playboy and the socially conscious `nice guy' etc. However, as the film progresses and the characters are further fleshed out, they take on multiple dimensions and depth.<br /><br />Most interesting of all is Sutherland's character of Nelson. Nelson is not a character that is easy to like - indeed he is a bit of a b**tard, a master manipulator who definitely places self-interest above all else. Yet, Sutherland plays him with a hint of insecurity that lends him a certain appeal. As events unfold, you come to realize that much of Nelson's unpleasant personality is a smokescreen, a protective mask behind which hides a very uncertain and vulnerable young man burdened by a terrible secret.<br /><br />By revealing bits and pieces of Nelson's complex personality throughout the film, the writers, directors and cast gradually lead you towards a greater understanding of and sympathy for him. The character who started out as a `jerk' becomes important and valued in his own right - as you learn to `forgive' his previous behavior in light of new information. Your journey of discovery with Nelson reflects the characters own journeys towards self-understanding, as they too come to realize that everyone has value, and `everything we do matters.'<br /><br />Which leads to my final comment. Although many of the posters here have picked up upon the theme of defying death.. few seem to have touched upon what I see as the main premise of the movie - the importance of forgiveness, and the need to be cognizant of all you do, because it does `matter.'<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
I just recently viewed Shame which is directed by Ingmar Bergman. The film was interesting and very unique. I liked how it was in Swedish with English subtitles and that it was also in black and white. These features allowed me to better relate to the characters, the time period, and their stories. I didn't like how the movie was very slow in the beginning and how you didn't know what was really going on. At first, it was mainly a story of Eva and Jan's relationship. The movie also ended on a very depressing note because nothing good came out of all of the conflicts and changes throughout the movie. I probably would not go see Shame again, but it was a very cultured experience.
| 0 |
negative
|
Now this is classic. A friend of mine told me about this flick, saying that it's incredibly lame, stupid, retarded, and moronic. He also said that I'd love it. <br /><br />To my surprise, I found it available from netflix and rented it at once. I'm just shocked that I had never heard of it before. If I could give it an eleven, I would.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
How does this movie suck? As a fan of Michael Imperioli's work on The Sopranos I picked this up at Blockbuster based on his name and a story that sounded like it had promise. It still does, but this movie doesn't fulfill it.<br /><br />Every turn of the story is entirely predictable; I kept looking for the Lifetime bug on the bottom right corner of the screen. It's all there: the noble woman coming out of hard times, the guy failing to live up to his potential despite her best efforts, the kid who gets stuck in the middle, etc., etc., etc. The mysterious stranger's identity is what really made me want to throw stuff at the TV -- I would have been more satisfied with little Stuey waking up and realizing it was all a dream.<br /><br />The filmmakers may as well have had a "The moral of the story is..." bit before the credits, since as another reviewer pointed out this thing really does roll like an afterschool special. Don't gamble, don't drink, don't do drugs, stay with your wife, spend time with your kids...come on, how about a little nuance? How about some interesting bad guys? Writer/director A.W. Vidmer should be singled out for special notice: not only is the dialogue leaden, the pacing (within dialogue and at either end of many scenes) makes this movie at least 45 minutes longer than it needs to be (and believe me, it feels like longer). The talents of Imperioli, Renee Faia and some of the supporting cast (Steve Schirripa, natch) are the only things that keep this from a "1" rating. All of their good work is nearly offset, though, by the atrocious job of portraying the boy Stuey. Not sure if it was a casting mistake (hey -- it's a mob movie, so let's cast someone from Blue's Clues who can't do anything but over-overact with a big fake grin...next let's cast the sullen, brooding kid in the Disney flick) or just awful directing but those scenes are really painful to watch.<br /><br />I'd be interested in another filmmaker's take on this character and his story; it's a shame Imperioli has already been used up by this flick. Awful, awful, awful.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Zen and the Art of Lanscaping", written and directed by David Kartch is a short film about a young man named David (his friends call him Zen) and what transpires in one strange day of his life. Zen works as a lanscaper for an upper-middle class family. The lady of the house tries to get Zen to help her cheat on her husband. Unfortunately, her son walks in on them instead of her husband. From this point on the movie starts to speed through many revelations between the characters along with the eventual involvement of the man of the house. "Zen and the Art of Landscaping" is witty, smart and overall very well written. The comedic timing of the actors is also very strong. It's a fun, light movie that I would strongly recommend.
| 1 |
positive
|
1 let's suspend belief for a moment and let's stop pretending we could, might or ought know "how it is" or "ought to be" there in space. Human knowledge in that area is probably primitive as say middle ages maps are compared to today's satellite maps, so we really have no clue. 2 considering this is "just" a BBC TV docu-simulation, it gets much better than many big budget Hollywood blockbusters, and that is just incredible. 3 all in all, a show worth watching as it portrays the CGI enhanced and fictionalized account of what we know of the solar system this far. 4 probably fictionalizing and CGI-ing the whole thing is the only way to make it palatable to a large public. Ever watched clips from REAL space missions and REAL space probes? The quality is generally average to poor and the comparison would be between looking at a chest x-ray (and what it tells about the human body ) and compare it with a CGI-ed cyborg movie...which one would be most entertaining? Yet the chest x-ray is real, while the cyborg flick is just fictionalized SFX. 5 actors do a good job. None i'll tell my grandchildren about, but very fair for it being a BBC docu-simulation.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is basically your run of the mill violent biker flick complete with nifty slangs, crashes, and music. OK, so just slangs and crashes. It's a slight notch above much of the other fare featured on MST3K but it's still the equivalent of driving a nail into your kneecap: slow and painful. To give away plot would exhaust my energy so I'll just say you're better off skipping this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
When it opened in London during the Christmas season of 1969 this musical version of James Hilton's famous story was drubbed by the critics. The same reception greeted it when it opened in the US, prompting MGM to withdraw its "Roadshow" status and cut almost all of its songs. What a mistake!!!<br /><br />Watched years later, when the trendy world of the 60's and 70's has turned in upon itself, this version of GOODBYE, MR.CHIPS is a total delight. First of all, as "Chipping", Peter O'Toole gives one of his greatest performances. To watch him turn from the hated, cold, emotionless Latin teacher at a boy's boarding school, to a man who finally can see the colors in the world (after falling for and marrying musical star Catherine Briskit) is to see a genius at work. (If you can, watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE LION IN WINTER, MY FAVORITE YEAR and CHIPS back to back over a number of days or weeks. Then you will see what a truly great actor O'Toole is, and how magnificent he is in CHIPS.) <br /><br />Catherine, as played by the glowing Petula Clark, at the height of her popularity, is ever man's dream; beautiful, loving, understanding, with a great voice to boot. Most of the songs are beautiful and fit the story perfectly, while the direction by the late Herbert Ross brings the proceedings wonderfully to life.<br /><br />Okay, this film may be a bit too romantic for some people, but for those who are looking for a beautifully acted, sung, and directed love story, look no further. (If you can get your hands of the laser disc wide screen version, better yet. I am anxiously awaiting CHIPS' debut on DVD.)
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is horrendous. The acting is cheesy and laughable. If you know anything at all about Rugby the match action is boring. In fact any episode of Power Rangers contains more realism than this movie. The 'action' consists of no more than one pass and a shot of guy landing over the try line or being tackled without the ball and hectic hand held shots of who knows what. It's impossible to tell. There is nothing of the excitement, skill and construction of try scoring that real Rugby contains. As for the haka, this is a bunch of yanks trying to imitate a tradition they know nothing about, much like the white rasta character that should have been left out of the film. Next time there's a Rugby movie made we can only hope that people who know Rugby make it.
| 0 |
negative
|
The book is better than the film mostly because of the writer Ondatje's prose. Before I saw this film, someone who had seen it, told me the love depicted in this film isn't real. After seeing this film, I can see how her suspension of disbelief in this regard could've been distracting to other movie-goers as well. Frankly, some of the intense displays of love were laughable and seem to be on the edge of parody. But by the end, everyone should realize this is a big message piece of art. It is not specifically about love at all, it uses "love" to dialectically reveal the human divide or the arbitrary borders of countries that help justify wars and hatred. It is about misunderstandings and the blind following of the things that supposedly separate us. The critical scene for the real theme of this movie is when the hero or antihero's pleas for help for his stranded lover in the desert is ignored and disregarded for the reasons shown in that scene. This film is also about hope and forgiveness, the hope epitomized in the interracial relationship between Binoche's recovering character and the Indian minesweeper (echoed in the Sikh's buddy-buddy relationship with his white coworker who ends up dying nonsensically) and the forgiveness epitomized in the Caravaggio character's first hunt and then forcing out of what he thinks will be the hero's confessions for his war "crimes" (betrayal of country). I think the film could've been made even better than it is. I don't know if a more realistic portrayal of the circumstances of love would've made the real themes and points of this film even more obvious or not, but I agree this film is not about realistic romantic love, as the people behind this piece of art or film imply in an early scene when the eventual lovers first meet. The hero talks about how a new car, broken-down car, fast car, etc. (I'm paraphrasing) is still just a car no matter what adjective you put in front of it. She replies but parental love, platonic love, romantic love, etc. are very different kinds of love. This is ironic because this film is really about the one love all humans should want which is the love of (or for) peace (not materialistic things which are usually the real reasons for wars, epitomized in something most of us want such as "cars", let's say). Otherwise, we may be left stranded to die in a cave in a vast desert with ancient wall art/drawings of swimmers, suggesting that the seas and life-supporting waters which were once there have all but disappeared. I believe "The English Patient" won the Oscar because of these big messages not specifically for its depiction of romantic love. Awards tend to go that way. The relationship of the hero and heroine was necessary to draw the audience in, unfortunately this view of love may be antiquated in the age of divorce and so many singles who can't seem to get together on so many levels, so ridiculous versions of mythic love are hard to get into, even in daydreams, which film love has always been, especially in good old Hollywood. The film may fall short of what people expect but a 7 out of 10 movie worth seeing, regardless.
| 1 |
positive
|
Christopher Guest is the master of the mockumentary. Werner Herzog is one of many documentary greats out there. Zak Penn isn't good at either but he could certainly take a lesson from the other two. Guest often plays around with reality and fiction but the line between the two is always clear in his films, sort of an essential with a mockumentary. Penn could also take a lesson from the The Blair Witch Project. Even though you knew it was a fake documentary going in you totally bought into the world the filmmakers created. It seems to the audience as if the whole thing is real even though you know, deep down, you're watching fiction. In other words, it was fiction successfully disguised as truth. In fact many early audiences watching it, at Sundance and other premiere audiences thought it was real. Penn, whose forte, by his own admission, is screen writing, should probably stick to that. Documentary or mockumentary film-making (and it's hard to tell where one begins and the other ends with this film) is obviously not. <br /><br />Penn sets the stage for what he tries to sell as a legit documentary on the filming of a documentary, sort of a meta-documentary. Penn, however, confuses the audience, and loses their trust, from the get-go as he enters Herzog's house before the filming of Herzog's film, "Enigma of Loch Ness" about the myth of the Loch Ness monster (a film which apparently was never finished probably because of Penn's interference). Even though Penn is apparently the director of the film we're watching, he starts it by looking at the cameras and saying, "What is the film crew doing here?" and starts shying away from them. He does this on a couple other occasions as well. He will stop and tell the cameras to stop filming, thus forcing the camera guy to hide in the shadows to pick up snippets of dialogue between Herzog and Penn. It seems to be a gimmick, but that is never made clear, and Penn is apparently keeping us in the dark intentionally. This leaves the audience scratching its head wondering, "Who is in charge here?" If Penn is working against his own film crew what kind of a world are we a part of? This is just one of many examples of how he confuses the line between reality and fiction. <br /><br />Penn seems to only fully enter the fictional world (I think) when the crew has sightings of what appears to be the Loch Ness monster. But by the time the monster makes its first appearance we have totally exited the fictional world Penn has attempted to create, so it all just seems silly and pointless. <br /><br />This is a potentially fascinating movie and a real missed opportunity in that Penn has a chance to document a master at work, but completely loses focus and it becomes a movie about Penn and his antics instead of the filming of a documentary. Penn's presence begins to pervade and overshadow everything else in the movie. <br /><br />The Herzog interviews are convincing and we actually believe he isn't acting. We even start to wonder if he and others on his crew are being duped by Penn, much the way the audience is, but you're never sure of even that. Penn, in his interviews to the camera, attempts to be quirky and unintentionally funny, like the characters interviewed in a Guest mockumentary, but he only succeeds in being annoying. In a Guest film this effect is hilarious, while here it falls flat because you're never sure what Penn is about. As a result we, the audience, start to dislike him as much as the crew apparently does. Aside from the beautiful scenery and the superfluous appearance, out of nowhere, of a beautiful model, thrown in to give the movie spice, there is little to recommend here. Perhaps its only redeeming quality (an unintentional one at that) is that it's a great example of why the audience is important; and by completely ignoring the conventions of storytelling your doing them a disservice. For that reason alone I think this would be a good film to show to film students sort of a "what not to do" kind of movie. I have nothing against a movie told in an unconventional way as long it's done skillfully, with a thematic base to give it substance. This film is completely lacking in that.<br /><br />I'd like to call it a valiant effort at something, but I'm not sure what it is, other than a complete mess and ultimately a waste of time. <br /><br />(As a side note: It seems like bad art always calls to mind good. This film made me think of the book "Picture" by Lillian Ross. Ross followed John Huston around during the filming of "The Red Badge of Courage" and brilliantly documented it for the New Yorker. It would make a great movie in fact. If you want a great example of meta-art, read it.)
| 0 |
negative
|
Sometime ago I watched a video of Paul Thomas Anderson in which he express the big interest that he has in porn films and how this industry could've produce better films and in consequence a complete genre and not just sex in video tape. Paul Thomas Anderson put his own believes of porn industry in the character played in a terrific way by Burt Reynolds. His name is Jack Horner, a director whose biggest dream is to make a "real" film that can keep the viewer in suspense because of the great dramatic story and, at the same time, exciting with the beauty
and with the "big cocks and tits". Soon as he meets Eddie Adams (Mark Walhberg), he believes that he has found the new star for his films. And that's how the story of the young Eddie in the porn industry begins.<br /><br />The film begins with a sequence inside a night club where we can see all the persons that will be part of Eddie's life and later we can see them outside the porn industry, living their daily routine. But soon we can see them inside the porn industry and after only one party, the story of the new Eddie begins, the story of Dirk Diggler. All of them will taste the real success with Dirk as the main star, winning lots of prizes and helping Jack to make real his biggest dream with a series of films about Brock Landers, the new character of Dirk. This sort of exploitation films are an amazing success and for Jack are his firsts "real" films. But here is the beginning of the end and the beginning of the "horrible 80's" when there is going to be $ex, DRUGS and Rock & Roll for Dirk and pals. But we all know that the excesses can destroy any person and the erectile dysfunction can destroy any porn star and here the film focuses in their lives after the total success and how everybody is having a real bad time with many problems due to society's bad look to porn industry and to a period with many excesses. In Dirk's decadence, after trying and failing in the music industry, there's a brilliant sequence that can resume in a perfect way how the things are going for Dirk and his friends. That sequence is the one of his first drug deal, with the appearance of Alfred Molina, which ends in a total mess. Is funny for us and a terrible experience for Dirk and pals but there's always a solution if you get back in what you know and when Dirk is back, Brock is back.<br /><br />Well I haven't mention most of the characters in my sort of a summary but I must say that all are amazingly well developed. The cast is just superb with the best performance that I have seen of Mark Walhberg. Julianne Moore has a powerful performance in a really moving character; Reilly, Macy, Hoffman, Heather Graham, Guzman, etc are just memorable, all of their characters with funny and sad moments.<br /><br />Finally, I really love the amazing cinematic style of Anderson here with a unique view to the porn industry of the late 70's and early 80's. I used to say that "Magnolia" was my favourite of Anderson but right now, after watching all except "Sidney", I can't say that I have a favourite because I love them all!<br /><br />PS: somewhere I read that this film is the "Scorsese film" of Anderson so I'm more than sure that if you love "Goodfellas" and "Casino" you will love this one too. I f*cking love "Boogie Nights"!
| 1 |
positive
|
This was one of Christie's later stories. Throughout her long career, she was interested in the shifting narrative and the notion of conflicting agents. Both are essentially the same thing and boil down to questions of who it is that controls or creates the situation.<br /><br />In detective fiction, the game is a matter of conflicting realities. The murderer intends to change reality to fool the detective, the writer intends to do the same to the reader. Both the reader and the detective are in similar battles to create what they see. That's why her stories often include a writer.<br /><br />In her works, she explores every combination of tricks she can think of that deal with this. Along the way, we often have bodies that are not who they seem, and times, and intended victims and such. But the real magic of the books is this notion of control. In 'Bertram's' it was literally a building.<br /><br />Here, it is a dead man. Well, sometimes that happens, but not like this. It is as if the writer were the famous Mr. Rafiel. This is particularly sweet to Marple readers who remember this same character from the 'Carribean Mystery,' which in a way was also framed by her nephew. In that story, Rafiel was the conveyor of the story to the authorities.<br /><br />The producers of this series have an almost wacky commitment to using a different creative team on each one. Sometimes it produces bland work. The 'Bertram's' episode was rather brilliantly staged. This one is the most lavish of the lot, and has an active camera. But unlike the 'Bertram's' work, it has nothing to do with the story.<br /><br />The camera moves and captures merely because it can. The 'Citizen Kane' quote at the beginning was a little too literal and blunt. This story is good, but the adapter took out some pretty critical stuff, and that irrelevant camera annoys.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
| 0 |
negative
|
... in search of the cheesiest "so bad it's good" movie, I've repeatedly laughed at the first fifteen minutes of various films, only to be left disappointed and bored at the end. Not this time!!! My eyes teared up, my belly and my cheeks ached from laughing so hard throughout the movie. Sure, Hulk Hogan is a subpar actor and the plot is utterly predictable, but everyone dives into this movie knowing all this - all anyone wants to see when renting this is Hogan breaking out a can of whoopass, with a bunch of "YEAH BROTHER"s and "WHATCHUGONNADO"s flying from his infamously goateed mouth. And while the Hulkster on the screen pales a bit in comparison to the Hulkster in the ring, seekers of the ultimate cheese will certainly not be disappointed by this backhand gem of a flick. A laugh riot.
| 0 |
negative
|
Walker Texas Ranger is one of the worst shows produced in the past 10 years. The script for James 'Jimmy' Trivette, Walker's sidekick, is about as pathetically written of a part as Wesley Crusher on Star Trek TNG, and is played with about as much conviction.<br /><br />On this show, people don't respond the way people respond to things in real life--everyone is polarized--everyone is either a completely good guy or a completely bad guy (unless Walker himself has a 2 minute talk with them and then they change instantly). That's not how life works, that's not how people are. This show doesn't take place in this reality.<br /><br />The plot lines are about as realistic as Murder She Wrote, a show where an arrogant old lady can just walk into people's houses without them getting angry, and she can demand that police officers do what she wants and they bend over backwards for her. With Walker, everyone on the show, including the "bad guys", act like he's the sort of hero that myths and fairy tales are made of, and time itself bends to his whim. The lines that sometimes come out of people's mouths on this show are beyond ridiculous. It's as if the scriptwriter for the part of Wesley Crusher (for the "serious" parts) and the scriptwriter for Bob Saget's funniest home videos (for the "humor" parts) got together and wrote all the scripts for this show.<br /><br />This show is for people who think that good always prevails over evil. It's for the elderly. It's for wishful thinkers. It's for people who want to be guaranteed to always have a happy ending. It's for people who want to drift away into oblivion. It's for people whose drug of choice is their television.<br /><br />I cringe every time I see even a commercial for this show. My opinion is that it is THE worst show to be on television in the last 10 years.<br /><br />I used to like Chuck Norris, but this show has forever tainted him in my mind. I can't even watch his older movies without thinking of this show.
| 0 |
negative
|
The clever marketeer is he is, Jess Franco naturally also cashed in on the huge temporarily success of psychedelic spy movies like Mario Bava's ultimately sensational "Danger: Diabolik!". Franco is the ideal man to shoot a similar film, as he could freely insert as much sleaze, kitschy scenery and absurdly grotesque plot twists as he wanted to. And he partially understood this very well, as "The Girl from Rio" revolves on a man-hating organization, led by a funky dressed lesbo, that plots to turn all men into obedient slaves! Unfortunately (for them, at least), the diabolical plans conflict with the daily business of a feared crime syndicate boss, played by George Sanders. All the right ingredients are well-presented, yet this is a surprisingly weak and unsatisfying adventure movie. The plot is rich on imagination, but seemingly only on paper, as the action is quite tame. The film is also very colorful...but not too bright and especially shocking was the total lack of vicious sex. There's a bit of nudity, sure, but too few according to normal Franco standards. All the characters are sick in the head, so the least I expected (or hoped for) were more perverted undertones or frenzied themes. Franco obviously had a bigger budget as usual to work with, and I must say he spends that money well on more convincing set pieces and talented cast members. Particularly the veteran actor George Sanders ("Village of the Damned", "Psychomania") is one of the best players ever to appear in a Franco production. Too bad even he can't save "The Girl from Rio" from being a huge letdown. A legendary Euro-smut filmmaker like Jess Franco could and should have done more with this concept. Shame, shame, shame...
| 0 |
negative
|
My wife is a mental health therapist and we watched it from beginning to end. I am the typical man and can not stand chick flicks, but this movie is unbelievable. If you want to see what it is like for someone who is going through these type of struggles, this is the movie for you. As I watched it I found myself feeling sorry for him and others like him. <br /><br />***Spoiler*** Plus the fact that all the individuals in the movie including the people in the mental institution were the actual people in real life made it that more real.<br /><br />A must see for someone in the mental health profession!
| 1 |
positive
|
I thought the this film had an interesting name and just might have proved thought provoking, but was I wrong. This film was boring, especially in the beginning and the middle parts. I cannot comment on the ending because I just couldn't stand watching the whole film. The premise of signing a student researcher just because he walks into your lab makes no sense. This student had an interesting type of moving robot in his apartment and sadly enough this non living thing is more interesting than the characters in this film. So if you are having trouble with sleep then I recommend that you rent this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
About 5 minutes into the movie you're thrown into this brutally tepid cat and mouse romance between the two main characters and it just gets worse from there. The biggest problem is the characters and how completely unbelievable they are. This is what 50 year old producers and out-of-touch Hollywood script writers think stoner life is like, as if they gave the cast of Friends some pot. Bland, dull, annoying and completely unrealistic. I despise this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Now don't get me wrong, i love a good film and after watching The Thin Red Line (and loving it) I was eager to track down Terrence Malicks two earlier films, and, having just watched Days of Heaven, my enthusiasm to see Badlands has virtually disappeared.<br /><br />I have noted much rave about the beautiful photography, but i saw this film on a terribly old vhs tape which made it look pretty awful. All i can say is i hope the photography was superb, because it would have been one of the only things of interest in this film. Not since the Replacement Killers have i fallen asleep during a film. This film felt so long (and it wasn't!), the editing was choppy and disjointed, the storyline non-existent, the voice over was an incoherent ramble, the characters weakly developed, and the whole thing was uninvolving. I know that Malick was uncertain of how to do the film. He consequently shot a heck of a lot of footage then spent around two years editing in an attempt to piece it all together. This is very apparent on screen. Everything looks chopped up, every time a scene seemed to gain some momentum (or some character development) it would obtrusively cut to boring scenes of people doing boring things. It was as if someone had tried to cut together a story out of stock footage of people farming. The few good points are the music and the chase scene near the end, but those things are no where near enough to maintain interest. I would normally let a bad film pass by without being too vocal but when it is so highly over-rated something must be said.<br /><br />Maybe a farmer would like it...?
| 0 |
negative
|
The topic of religion in Buñuel films is a point that one, as an eater of films, as an eater of art or as a person need to analyze hardly. One can see to a satirical Buñuel in "La Voie Lactée", "Un Chien Andalou" or in "L'Age d'Or". Is very hard and effective in its critic, but when you have seen this and then you see a movie like "Nazarin", after you see this work you begin to be questioned about its author. And much have questioned about what seems to be a contradiction for Buñuel thinks, but is better not called in this way, i think that there's not any contradiction in its work, only that Buñuel religion point of view is very diverse as unique in films.<br /><br />This beautiful film is based on the novel of Benito Perez Galdós, which told us the story of Father Nazario, who lived a humble, simple life dedicated to God and to help everyone. He lived in a simple and poor region. There lived too Beatriz, who is an abused and abandoned wife. She don't find any sense of her life without her violent, macho man. She have a kind of repulse to him. In the other side is Andara, one of the towns prostitutes. Father Nazario has been stolen again, he blames to Andara's cousin. Andara hear this and try to fight without success with the priest, who don't believe in violence. That night, Andara find that her cousin is actually a thief, she have stole her bellboys. Andara fights with her cousin with terrible consequences. With this, Andara search mercy from the priest. Nazario decides to help her, knowing well that this could be against his church, obviously this thing going to have some consequences. Since here, Nazario going to be a pilgrim. Without nothing, even without shoes, but with spirit and faith. But Andara and Beatriz want to be with he, and be like he, to serve God.<br /><br />If is the sweetest Buñuel film that i have seen so far, is too the most spiritual. Is clear here that the thing that most confuse people with the contradiction is that here, we don't see a Buñuel against the power of church, we see a Buñuel whose film is about church but not in the typical - and great - satirical way. Whethever like it is, i don't think that the right word is contradiction, actually i find it pleasant and well done and in spite of contain such religious issues (As his "Voie Lactée") i found it more a spiritual film but that don't try to touch in diversity the Catholic religion as maybe he touch, and laugh of it in another films. "Nazarin" is of father Nazario and its perspective front God and the same religion but all of this is at the end, analyzed in the spiritual life of this man.<br /><br />The other two women are, not a contrast, but as very well another two perspectives of faith. First we have Beatriz, the mistreated woman, that lose all the faith in life, first with her husband and then with a little girl who was in her family. This little girl was very sick. At side of her was too Andara, the prostitute who run of the justice. In the family of the child, just religious women, there a big pain, but faith becomes in father Nazario when he arrives with nothing to this town. He bless the child, a say later she is fine. The priest want go on walking, but Beatriz and Andara have recovered the faith in life and want to dedicate their lives to God with father Nazario. After some complains, father Nazario decide to be with them, discovering with some things until the end how he feels about faith, God, religion and the person in necessity, the people who must request to charity to survive. This last issue then must be noted as one possible explanation for the pineapple ending. This ending we listen the drums (Similar to that in "L'Age d'Or) and a father Nazario, walking over asking about this things, when he refuse the fruit at the first time and at the end decide to receive it as a symbol of necessity or maybe, as an answer for its spiritual road that begin being priest. Meanwhile, the two women must take away of the father, Andara for its crime (Beautiful scene where she thanks a man who helps father Nazario in jail and then she damn the man who hit the priest in jail) and Beatriz because she prefer be with her macho man, in spite that he treat her bad, just because she don't accept that she fall in loved with the priest. Father Nazario - and here is maybe the unique place in film to critic church- walk to contradict the church, the religion that he serves.<br /><br />Father Nazario is that then, is a (Soft for much, but not for me) critic for some thing in religion (Father Nazario helping a women who is guilty of a crime, of a sin) but most of all is one of Buñuel analysis of faith and life, and he really got it, with a beautiful, tender, sweet and unforgettable film, that is, without a doubt, one of his best.<br /><br />*Sorry for the mistakes...well, if there any.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Undercurrent" features a top-notch cast of wonderful actors who might've been assembled for the perfect drawing-room comedy. Alas, they are pretty much wasted on a 'woman's view' potboiler--and a paper-thin one at that. Katharine Hepburn is indeed radiant as a tomboy/old maid who finally marries, but her husband is deeply disturbed and harboring dark family secrets. Director Vincente Minnelli has absolutely no idea how to mount this outlandish plot, concocted by Edward Chodorov from a story by Thelma Strabel, and the friendly, first-rate cast (including Robert Taylor, Robert Mitchum and Edmund Gwenn) is left treading in murky waters. ** from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
This was a real let down for me. The original Bride with White Hair is a great kung fu fantasy film but this one was pretty weak. I didn't care at all for the new characters who unfortunately dominated the screen time and the story wasn't well developed. While the first film was tragic and involving this one was tedious (as I merely counted the time to the end when the ill-fated lovers would actually meet). The action was poor in this one as well. The fights were not choreographed very well and there really wasn't much kung-fu at all. Just a few weak sword fights between the highly dis-likable Lui and one of Lin's henchwomen. Lin herself mainly uses a sort of telekinesis to throw people into walls and sometimes her hair, a far cry from the impressive showing with the whip and kung-fu she displayed in the previous film. I still gave this movie a 4 because at least it was fast pace and I did want to see what was going to happen at the end, though I (as most anyone who watched the first one) predicted it would go down the way it did and after seeing it I found it anti-climactic and wished they had either made a proper sequel or just left the story alone. I really recommend the first one but as for the sequel only fans of the genre and those who really want to see Lin as the bride one more time need apply.
| 0 |
negative
|
this is more than a Sat. afternoon special. Exremely well written if very low key there is a lot here if you look for it. Catch the cat companion/scout for instance. It not only could have been a comic book it should have been a comic book. The comic industry (as well as the film's publicists) missed the boat on this. One of the least know really great films. A great script by John Sayles is a strong point but the acting is good as well. Probably the best "super hero" film I've ever seen. Short on special effects but long on believability. This one's a keeper. I have never seen a DVD of this film but i used to own a VHS version. Good hunting
| 1 |
positive
|
I thought this was a really cute movie - inspiring (makes me want to try acting)- I LOVE Kelly Ripa and it's nice that I can watch this in addition to All My Children - I've already watched it 3 times! Of course I also loved seeing Joe Barbara - especially since Another World went off the air!
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie got better with time. I can't believe that it has been forty years since I saw this at the age of 15. Yes, that's right. Movie ratings were not yet a reality, so any teenager could walk into any movie. Imagine what it was like for a kid my age to see both Midnight Cowboy and Putney Swope in the same year. Imagine the times. Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King has just been killed but the following summer had a man walking on the moon and Woodstock. Putney Swope was the Woodstock nation's chance to stick it to the man. You'll see where Robert Downey, Jr. got his sardonic brilliance. His old man was an instant hero to kids like me. No punches are pulled in this classic, and aging hippies will rejoice when they relive this era. Hopefully, new flower children will be emboldened by it, and this current era of fascism will come under the same scrutiny my era was subjected to.
| 1 |
positive
|
This homemade horror movie tells the story of a dude who kills people using the motif of stories by Edgar Allan Poe. The local police have bungled the case for a few years, so now the FBI has taken over. They know exactly who the guy is, but apparently no one has thought to swing by his house, because that's where he's hanging out, running around in his vintage clothing and torturing the random locals. So FBI-chick gets kidnapped, which involves her father, the former lead investigator from the local police. To top it all off, a pack of wacky college kids have decided to camp out at the house and smoke a bunch of weed.<br /><br />Mostly, the FBI agent winds up shrieking and running around like a little girl, and not a single one of the burly college boys thinks to just stop and take a swing at the wimpy Poe-boy. Mostly overacted and sometimes underacted, Dead End Road reeks of a low-budget, cast-with-friends production that has silly points too numerous to cover.
| 0 |
negative
|
I caught this film at an OutFest screening in Los Angeles in July, 2006. It's rough around the edges (sound recording in particular is wobbly) and often very funny. The script is rather jarringly episodic and ends abruptly, but Ash Christian infuses the film with lots of genuine heart. It's also a refreshing change of pace to have a gay film that doesn't star underwear models obsessed with partying and chasing straight guys. Props to a warmly sympathetic Jonathan Caouette as Mr. Cox, a kindred spirit to Rodney (Ash Christian), the lively and spirited Ashley Finke as Rodney's best friend, and Deborah Theaker as Rodney's mom, who is given the best one-liners in the script and steals her every scene. The film is like its writer/director/starlumpy and a bit odd, but also very sweet.
| 1 |
positive
|
You've seen the same tired, worn out clichéd sit-com stories, characters, stories 1000's of times before
only this excels at sucking more than others. First and foremost there isn't a single character in this show that's even remotely likable...in particular Michael Rapaport's. Dave Gold is by far one of the biggest asses ever to grace a television screen ever...repugnant comes to mind. If in real life a father was this unlikable, cruel and just generally unfit to parent...fratricide would be your only option. To call the remaining characters stereotypes, would be too complementary. If these characters ended up on life-support the line to pull the plug would be light years long. How this show finished one complete season, much less 2 is a mystery. FOX cancels "Arrested Development" and keeps this on the air??? You tell me the terrorists aren't winning.
| 0 |
negative
|
Hated it with all my being. Worst movie ever. Mentally- scarred. Help me. It was that bad.TRUST ME!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
The kind of B-movies from the 1950's that were schlocky yet so much fun are to what Predator Island pays homage. Filmed in Connecticut, Predator Island is set on an island called with a lighthouse Hell's Beacon which is inhabited by only the couple who tends the lighthouse. In typical 1950's sci-fi fashion after a half dozen young adults crash their boat into the island's rocky shore hideous creatures from outer space invade the island after a meteor hits nearby. The creatures start both inhabiting the bodies of their victims as well as devouring them. Lots of cursing and lame comebacks are the primary form of dialogue in this movie. It is so hokey that you just have to laugh at times. If you are looking for a movie that is stupid, but in a fun way, then this one fits the bill. <br /><br />Interesting note: I appear in the film as a dead body in the far background of the final scene. During filming they needed about 50 extras, yet around 300 people showed up for the opportunity. They eventually used nearly 200 of them.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Girl in Lovers' Lane: 3 out of 10: Homoerotic subtext in the movies is a well known phenomenon. Plenty of dissertations have come out of film schools about the hidden subtexts in such films as Top Gun and Spartacus. The Girl in Lover’s Lane certainly fits the homoerotic trope. In fact, it is so blatant and over the top even MST3K, whom rarely notes such things in their riffing, simply cannot avoid it.<br /><br />The film is about two drifters. One a rich kid (Lowell Brown) running away from home with a hundred dollars and no street smarts, the other is a professional hobo (Brett Halsey). The hobo saves the kid from a gang of thugs and they end up in a small town consisting of a diner, a pool hall and a whorehouse. Our drifter scholar gets a second look from the diner’s waitress (Joyce Meadows as the titular Girl in Lovers Lane) who clearly is past the age of being choosy and whose only other prospect is creepy Jack Elam doing a Steve Buscemi impression.<br /><br />On the surface, this seems like a strange film for the MST3K treatment. While the cast are to old for the characters they are playing, the acting is actually pretty good with both Brett Halsey and Jack Elam giving solid performances. The story is slight, but hardly The Robot vs. Aztec Mummy material and the production values are cheap back lot, but relatively competent.<br /><br />It is the strange Batman and his ward homosexual undercurrents that make this film both awful and hilarious. Halsey’s over the top objections to the kids attempts to get laid in the whorehouse are hilarious, his inability to commit to the waitress (or at the least get past first base) are telling, and the dozens of glances between him and the kid; a hand on shoulder, the sleeping arrangements, blowing off dates with the girl so he and the kid can shave each other. You don’t have to be Freud to figure out this undercurrent.
| 0 |
negative
|
Reports of this film's brilliance appear to have been greatly exaggerated, and unless the other reviewers were watching a different movie, I fail to see how anyone can find this film anything other than dull, unscary, uncreepy, overlong, and at times, unbearably irritating. I'm not some schlocky horror fanatic. I love j-horrors and euro-horrors over American horrors any day, but I feel the need to warn any potential viewers about this film before they invest two hours of their life in it.<br /><br />It could have been so great. A reporter is investigating a series of bizarre deaths and occurrences, which seem ostensibly unlinked, but a series of unnerving tropes appears to connect them - dead pigeons, thudding noises, the presence of strangely tied knots... Our reporter goes from person to person, interviewing them, filming them and then passing on. Three important characters are among this jumble of people, a young, shy psychic girl, an immensely irritating, insane psychic man, and a crazy old woman and her boy, whose importance is not revealed until later on.<br /><br />The problem is that the film is not even remotely interesting, which makes its two hour running time unforgivable. It's also not even remotely scary or creepy. Supposedly scary scenes, like shots of ghoulish faces are done incredibly poorly, shown twice, or worse, we are told when they are about to happen. Other techniques, such as telling us that a family just interviewed "died five days later" simply don't make me care, let alone mildly creeped.<br /><br />The film does pick up a bit towards the end, as our reporter, cameraman, psychic and cursed woman go to a village in order to 'remove' the curse which is linking all these deaths. However, by that time, I was in a state of catatonic boredom, and couldn't care less, so all the fairly creepy camera-work and shocks were wasted on me. The "final tape" is quite good, but once again, I'd given up caring and just wanted this film to end.<br /><br />Boring and dull, not scary and not creepy, I would advise you keep away from Noroi. It has promising moments, but this is a film that was poorly made and not worth your time.
| 0 |
negative
|
Coen Brothers-wannabe from writer-director Paul Chart relies far too much on ideas lifted from other (better) movies, yet does manage to create a creepy atmosphere that keeps one watching. Robert Forster cuts loose as never before playing a psychopathic psychiatrist (ha ha) who goes on a killing spree in the desert. The film is unusual, but in its attempt to keep one step ahead of the audience, it becomes alienating and off-putting (with a role for Amanda Plummer that is downright humiliating). An admittedly bravura finale, many quirky bits of business--and Forster looking great in the nude--make this a curiosity item, nothing more. Veteran movie-director Irvin Kershner produced, and maybe should directed as well (could Paul Chart be a pseudonym?). *1/2 from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
Czech movie goers may have enjoyed and rated this film highly because it was Czech, but I found it to be trite, tedious, moronic, boring, and insipid. Again, I suspect "ramping" in order to increase sales of this dog of a film. Amazon describes this film as being about a couple of fellows that refuse to grow up, but I will go one further--I think it is about two fellows that have entered a state of dementia and perform actions that make no sense to anyone. I have been told that one of the actors in the film committed suicide after the film, and I would believe it. When he saw his performance he probably realized what a gosh awful job he had done and realized that the only way to avoid terminal embarrassment was to make the "big exit", which I am sure was much more dramatic and a much better performance that he had done in "Autumn Spring." Don't waste your time or money on this pathetic performance. It's nothing but a dog in a manger.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have to agree with the other two comments. I waited over a month to see this great new show A&E had been hyping. What a disappointment!!! The show is pretty much all about Ryan Buell. His voice-overs are campy, not creepy. It sounds as if he is talking into a can. As of the second episode, which is roughly 30 minutes or so (if you take out the commercials) he is being chased or followed by something that he knows is demonic. He can't say the name, anytime someone needs to convey that name, they write it on a piece of paper and hand it to someone else. Not particularly informative or entertaining or believable for the rest of us. Why can't he say the name?...supposedly it would give the demon more power. Funny, I always thought demons wanted to hide their true identities. If you know the exact name of the demon, doesn't it make it easier for you to cast them out. Now the next episode, which airs in just a little while is titled "exorcism". So is Ryan in need of an exorcism already? Not to say that it couldn't happen but the show so far has not given any evidence or proof of anything. I can tell Ryan that if I were a small child, hell if I was an adult, and someone gave me a little bottle of holy water to chase away something that was terrifying me, I would look elsewhere for help!!! Besides which, if you don't use holy water & blessings, etc. in the right way don't you risk just further infuriating whatever is already mad at you? I will probably watch tonight but if these episodes are as ridiculous as the first, it will probably be the last time I watch it!
| 0 |
negative
|
'War movie' is a Hollywood genre that has been done and redone so many times that clichéd dialogue, rehashed plot and over-the-top action sequences seem unavoidable for any conflict dealing with large-scale combat. Once in a while, however, a war movie comes along that goes against the grain and brings a truly original and compelling story to life on the silver screen. The Civil War-era "Cold Mountain," starring Jude Law, Nicole Kidman and Renée Zellweger is such a film.<br /><br />Then again, calling Cold Mountain" a war movie is not entirely accurate. True enough, the film opens with a (quite literally) quick-and-dirty battle sequence that puts "Glory" director Edward Zwick shame. However, "Cold Mountain" is not so much about the Civil War itself as it is about the period and the people of the times. The story centers around disgruntled Confederate soldier Inman, played by Jude Law, who becomes disgusted with the gruesome war and homesick for the beautiful hamlet of Cold Mountain, North Carolina and the equally beautiful southern belle he left behind, Ada Monroe, played by Nicole Kidman. At first glance, this setup appears formulaic as the romantic interest back home gives the audience enough sympathy to root for the reluctant soldier's tribulations on the battlefield. Indeed, the earlier segments of the film are relatively unimpressive and even somewhat contrived.<br /><br />"Cold Mountain" soon takes a drastic turn, though, as the intrepid hero Inman turns out to be a deserter (incidentally saving the audience from the potentially confusing scenario of wanting to root for the Confederates) and begins a long odyssey homeward. Meanwhile, back at the farm, Ada's cultured ways prove of little use in the fields; soon she is transformed into something of a wilderbeast. Coming to Ada's rescue is the course, tough-as-nails Ruby Thewes, played by Renée Zellweger, who helps Ada put the farm back together and, perhaps more importantly, cope with the loneliness and isolation the war seems to have brought upon Ada.<br /><br />Within these two settings, a vivid, compelling and, at times, very disturbing portrait of the war-torn South unfolds. The characters with whom Inman and Ada interact are surprisingly complex, enhanced by wonderful performances of Brendan Gleeson as Ruby's deadbeat father, Ray Winstone as an unrepentant southern "lawman," and Natalie Portman as a deeply troubled and isolated young mother. All have been greatly affected and changed by "the war of Northern aggression," mostly for the worse. The dark, pervading anti-war message, accented by an effective, haunting score and chillingly beautiful shots of Virginia and North Carolina, is communicated to the audience not so much by gruesome battle scenes as by the scarred land and traumatized people for which the war was fought. Though the weapons and tactics of war itself have changed much in the past century, it's hellish effect on the land is timelessly relevant.<br /><br />Director Anthony Minghella manages to maintain this gloomy mood for most of the film, but the atmosphere is unfortunately denigrated by a rather tepid climax that does little justice to the wonderfully formed characters. The love story between Inman and Ada is awkwardly tacked onto the beginning and end of the film, though the inherently distant, abstracted and even absurd nature of their relationship in a way fits the dismal nature of the rest of the plot.<br /><br />Make no mistake, "Cold Mountain" has neither the traits of a feel-good romance nor an inspiring war drama. It is a unique vision of an era that is sure not only to entertain but also to truly absorb the audience into the lives of a people torn apart by a war and entirely desperate to be rid of its terrible repercussions altogether.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Shade" tries hard to be another "Sting", substituting poker for horse racing as the means by which to bring down an enemy, but it fails miserably.<br /><br />I watched the whole thing and still never could quite understand why the young kid wanted to double-cross his partner. Was it because his partner stole his girl? Is there a woman in the world who is worth going to that much trouble over? If there is, it certainly wasn't this shrew. She had no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and really now, did she actually have a special room set up so that a surgeon could remove the kidney from whoever tried to pick her up in a bar? Dina Merrill makes a short appearance as a rich woman who hosts, of all things, pay-the-rent poker parties at her palatial home. And then the players say things like, "I'll see your thousand and raise you another five thousand." Give me a break. You can't call ("see") and raise, you do one or the other. Any kid playing for nickels and dimes at the kitchen table knows this; you'd think grown men playing for stakes this high -- or at least the knuckleheads who wrote the script -- would know it too.<br /><br />One of the other posters mentioned how no high-limit poker game would allow players to actually deal their own cards and I agree. You don't allow two of the best-known car cheats into a game where the buy-in is $250,000 and then let them deal to each other. That's not poker; that's just seeing which one can cheat better. And I'd like to know what person in his right mind would buy in to a game in which two of the best-known card cheats are playing and expect that he might have a chance at winning? And most of all, what Mafia boss would run such a game? Every time Melanie Griffith came on the screen I was so mesmerized by those gigantic fluorescent red lips of hers that I completely lost the storyline, and seeing her and Stallone together was more like a public service announcement for plastic surgery gone wrong than a love connection. Stallone mentions that she used to be a grifter before she bought the restaurant she now runs, but we don't know what kind of grifter she was and we never see her working with Stallone in their younger days so we are left to wonder, if we even care that much.<br /><br />Jamie Foxx is the best character in the whole movie, but he gets killed off right off the bat and we're left with cardboard cut-outs who all sound like they're reading their lines off a teleprompter just off-camera.<br /><br />The ending makes no sense either. The kid gets his cut from the game and just walks down the street with a briefcase full of money and his partner is nowhere to be seen? The Mafia isn't watching every move he makes? Everyone else just shrugs their shoulders and quietly accepts the loss of millions of dollars without trying to recoup any of it? I don't think so.<br /><br />Most of all, this movie does a great injustice to professional poker players all over the world, insinuating that the only way to win is by palming cards and playing with "juiced" decks. And why is it they're always palming kings and aces? Sometimes you need a three or a nine to fill a straight or full house.<br /><br />The best parts of the whole film are the sleight-of-hand tricks during the beginning and ending credits; everything in between is ridiculous.
| 0 |
negative
|
Since watching the trailer in "The Little Mermaid II: Return To The Sea" DVD, I had a feeling that this movie is gonna be great 'cause I am a huge Disney fan. And guess what? I'm right! This movie is a very worthy successor to the original classic "Lady and the Tramp".<br /><br />It tells the story of Scamp, Lady and Tramp's mischievious son Scamp, who wants to be wild and free instead of living a housedog life. Though the movie might not be as good as the first one, it has a great moral that you couldn't find anywhere else until you watch it.<br /><br />I admit that the movie isn't for everyone, but those of you who hate it, all I can say is that you don't have a spirit for this and I suggest that you shouldn't go see it again. But hey! It's really an awesome story, packed with brilliant animation, music, and star-studded voice talents featuring Scott Wolf(Party of Five) and Alyssa Milano(Charmed). So if you haven't seen the movie, why standing there? Go and grab the copy!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
As listed and stated in many previous comments, this unique series has many excellent elements and ingredients to its credit. Indeed, more than 20 years after it was originally transmitted, it is still watched, and watched again, and has a huge global fan-following, something which must indicate that the makers of this series undeniably got something right.<br /><br />The root of the series' brilliance and remarkable appeal has however got to be that it rests on wonderfully written dialogue and timeless characters all of which are brought to life by marvellous actors. The characters are wonderful in particular because of their complexity. In contrast to many other Robin Hood adaptations, and indeed many other film and TV-productions in general, the good guys in this series often make mistakes and can be seen to have apparent flaws, while the baddies, although put forward as evil and ruthless, frequently can be understood and even on occasion seem quite sympathetic. This very much makes Robin of Sherwood into a story about multifaceted, REAL people rather than of good and bad people something which very much adds to its uniqueness and remarkable appeal. Also, although very much being an action-packed series featuring numerous amazing stunts (which are remarkable in themselves seeing as this was made long before today's computer animation, green screens, and so forth. Thus, behind every one of those endless guys falling off castle walls, horses, and catching fire, there actually is a real person who at some point DID fall off a castle wall or a horse or catch fire), there is always amazing dialogue going on between the different characters in each episode. In the final analysis, however, it is generally the series' baddies Nickolas Grace as The Sheriff of Nottingham, Robert Addie as Sir Guy of Gisburne, and Philip Jackson as The Abbot Hugo de Rainault who get the very best lines and who more than often steal the show with their arguments full of wit and cant. "It's a wedding, not a celebration!" is just one of their many timeless "pearls of wisdom" which seems to follow one through life :-).<br /><br />20 years after the fact, it is indeed hard to believe that Robin of Sherwood was originally something made for television and apparently not with a great deal of money in order to provide fleeting Saturday afternoon amusement for small children in Great Britain. Filmed in beautiful locations, with clever, amazing scripts and featuring remarkable stunts and fantastic actors many of whom give the performance of their lives in this show this in numerous ways seems to be more professionally made and have more production value than many a Hollywood film.
| 1 |
positive
|
Don't be fooled by the other reviewers. Although this film contains an impressive array of talent, the material they present leaves a great deal to be desired. Nat King Cole's 3 numbers are pretty lame and not even close to his later efforts, though he does impress with his piano playing. 'Moms' Mabley is not a bit funny, though I remember her as a very entertaining talk show guest from my youth. Actually, the best performances are from a couple of fat guys who impress with a lively tap dance and a Four Tops takeoff, and the jazz band itself, especially in the number featuring the bass player. The print itself is pretty poor quality, and the wonderful Butterfly McQueen is totally wasted in the wraparound plot.
| 0 |
negative
|
What's there not to like?<br /><br />I caught this again tonight and marvelled as to Hugh Bonneville's capturing of the essence of Philip Larkin without resorting to tics and caricature.<br /><br />There are many layers to the depiction of the complexity of the main character and Hugh brings them to life. His prudish mother, his unresolved issues with his father and his inability to commit to one woman. <br /><br />His poetry is interlaced throughout and some scenes are caught in his recounting of them to the wife of a friend whom he later propositions but quite casually, almost innocently. It is not difficult to see where his attraction lay for the many women who fell in love with him (and knew about each other, to boot, and continued to see him!) <br /><br />Cerebral, fun-loving, jazz aficionado, loyal friend. It is always more than looks, women moved beyond his baldness, deafness and short sightedness. And a beautifully nuanced performance by Eileen Atkins as his mum is an added bonus.<br /><br />9 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
Mighty Like A Moose is one of many short films Director Leo McCarey did starring Charley Chase. What a dandy it is! Charlie and his wife both undergo plastic surgery to improve their hideous appearances unbeknown-est to each other. They then meet at a party and become smitten with each other. Now they can't allow each other to find out they're cheating. That's the preposterous premise of this frantic farce. Vivien Oakland, one of the few comic short leads to have a flourishing career long after the silents, is perfect as Charley's long of nose wife. Charley has an awful case of buck teeth, which are quickly dispatched at the dentist's. After a party is raided by police for no other reason then to practice raids, Charley and his wife frantically try avoiding each other at home for fear the alterations in appearances become known. Both have been photographed with their new features at the party. The hilarity back home culminates in Charley trying to teach the no-good-nick cheating with his wife a lesson. The no-good-nick of course is the new Charley, which his wife comes to realize long before Charley teaches a lesson in faithfulness. This is one of Charley Chase's better efforts. *** of 4 stars.
| 1 |
positive
|
Poor Bela Lugosi. Just another day at work. A group of saboteurs attempting to disrupt the American war effort from the inside. It's pretty hard to figure out at first because, while we know these guys are up to something, their method of operation just isn't very clear. I won't spoil it, but the ending in pretty amazing. There are a series of murders perpetrated by our hero. A police force that doesn't know what is going on. What a coincidence that all the victims seem to come and go from the same house. There are comments like, "A true patriot would do this or that." It's obvious while suspicion abounds most of the world wouldn't know a spy or a subversive if it jumped up and bit them. I also was surprised to see Clayton Moore (the Lone Ranger) in a romantic role. I never realized that he ever did anything other than sit on a horse. There is, of course, the smugness of the criminals as they think that they are immune from the killer's guest list. Anyway, Bela is sort of a good guy and a bad guy rolled into one. The best scene in the movie is at the end, but I won't spoil it. As a curiosity, and a period piece, it may be fun to watch for some people.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film would be considered controversial today, but is still very funny. The racial stereotyping is done from the view of humor & not hate. This film strips off & shows how corrupt politicians already were in the early 1930's. This film proves it started before the 1970's & beyond when it has accelerated in the United States. Lloyd is still in his typical genre here, even though his character was raised in China. <br /><br />The meaning of a Cat's Paw in this instance is a person who is running for political office but is being used by the established political machine to advance their agenda. In other words, they think this guy (Lloyd)is harmless when he runs for office. Then when he gets elected, he surprises them.<br /><br />This same theme is used later in James Stewarts film Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Stewarts is more famous & has a stronger message. This film is more clever & subtle which are Harold Lloyds trademarks. <br /><br />There is still the heart of romantic comedy hidden with the facade of the movie but today's mainstream audiences would still appreciate the political humor & the ending is absolutely priceless. I wish someone could beat today's political system in this way. I was surprised how much I enjoyed this film & find myself wishing Harold had done more like it during the 1930's. <br /><br />At least we have this one. I think the person who is quoted most in the movie is fictional Ling Po. I always thought Confusicus was the wise one but this one makes me believe the wisdom of China was not limited to him & is a vast field of comedy Lloyd mined in this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is like porn with all of the good parts removed. It's like all of the porn stars that didn't want to fulfill their obligations banded together around this awful, trite, useless piece of gargoyle abstinence.<br /><br />This is a helpful movie if you're in the mood to torture a loved (or no longer loved) one. It's important that, if you choose to use this movie as a method of torture, that you put in earplugs and put on a blindfold to keep yourself from going insane.<br /><br />If I had a choice between this movie and The 700 Club...I'd choose Girls Gone Wild.<br /><br />Overall, better if you've been drinking. But only because it becomes a drinking game of epic proportions.
| 0 |
negative
|
<br /><br />This is the best mock documentary of a dog show that I have seen in a long time. A very long time. Well lets face it,ever. Isn't that part of the charm ? The idea of actually going to the trouble to make a movie mocking a documentary about an event that most people would find odd in the first place. Even if there were no big laughs, one would still be smirking at the thought. Any movie that attempts something new scores highly in my proverbial book. I loved the dogs too !
| 1 |
positive
|
In his feature film debut `Yellow,' Chris Chan Lee attempts to enlighten Hollywood's portrayal of Asian-Americans by departing from the stereotypes typically depicted in mainstream film. However, in so doing, Lee commits a far more heinous crime: he exaggerates Asian-Americans' own stereotypes of themselves to the point of incredulity. The result? Dreadfully one-dimensional characters and an outrageously shallow script triggers the cast into a frenzy of over-acting, ultimately resulting in a film that is physically painful to watch.<br /><br />Don't be deceived by any of the positive reviews garnered by `Yellow'; each falls into one of two camps. In one corner (e.g., right here on imdb.com), you find Asian-Americans who are so elated that an Asian character can be depicted onscreen without thick glasses and a math book, that they somehow neglect the idiocy of Lee's final product. On the other hand, you find movie critics who have simply presumed that it'd be uncool to give `Yellow' the thorough bashing that it deserves; after all, it's an edgy Asian-American film made by an independent Asian-American filmmaker... protected territory for now.<br /><br />Case example: main character Sin Lee (Michael Chung). Writer/Director Lee accomplishes a monumental feat with Sin, by editing `Yellow' in such a way that Sin never appears onscreen unless he is either scowling or yelling. See Sin resenting his friends' support. Scowl. See Sin walk along the beach and brood. Scowl. (Yelling ensues.) See Sin closing up his father's shop. Scowl. See Sin urinating. Scowl. See Sin breathing. Scowl.<br /><br />Gee, I wonder if Sin is full of Asian-American angst. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Scowl.<br /><br />Just to be thorough, Lee introduces us to Sin's father, Woon Lee (Soon-tek Oh). Throughout the movie, whereas Sin simply scowls or yells, Mr. Lee scowls *and* yells. In fact, this is Woon's principal role in `Yellow': simultaneous scowling and yelling.<br /><br />Gee, I wonder if Woon is an Asian father with an authority complex. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Yell.<br /><br />If Lee's one-dimensional characters don't annoy you, his story line will. Meet Mina (Mary Chen) and Joey (John Cho), two characters that exist in this film solely for the purpose of spinning a tangential and entirely irrelevant love story into the film. You see, Lee learned in film school that every good movie must include some sort of love-related subtext, and these two characters allow him to fulfill the obligation. Mina and Joey's excruciatingly inane flirting dialogue consists of one-liner insults culminating in a kiss: `Nerd!'; `Stupidhead!'; (eyes meet); (understanding smile); (kissing ensues).<br /><br />But rest assured, somewhere out there, Sin is scowling while this all takes place.<br /><br />That neither Mina nor Joey contributes in any way whatsoever to the film's plot does not perplex me so much as Lee's insistence on the most hackneyed movie cliches to accomplish his nonsequiturs. And trust me, the flirting sequence is just the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />Towards the end of the film, we find Woon Lee attempting to explain his constant scowling and yelling to Sin's girlfriend, Teri (Mia Suh), in what I am sure Lee meant to be a poignant moment. What a surprise: as Woon invokes a metaphorical story about the homeland to illustrate his point, ripped straight out of Reader's Digest, his voice quivers in that extra-special paternal way. The camera pans into an obligatory shot of Teri's trembling hands. We feel compelled to roll our eyes, except we realize that Woon's explanation makes no sense whatsoever. But lack of substance didn't stop Lee from making the movie, so why would he cut this particularly ineffective scene? After all, the world can always use another cliché.<br /><br />Well, you say, the movie may be painful, but at least it *must* be a technical masterpiece -- say, like, `What Dreams May Come.' Sorry, on a technical basis, `Yellow' disappoints as well. Lee's edits are awkward and disrupt what little rhythm exists in the film at all, but I'm sure Lee thought they would seem hip. To make matters worse, every frame is either underexposed or overexposed. Although the light meter was invented in 1932, somehow the newfangled technology didn't make it onto the `Yellow' set.<br /><br />In light of the film's utter deficiency, supporting actor Burt Bolos, who plays Sin's best friend Alex, performs relatively well. Although Bolos overacts slightly, you can't really blame him when Lee's script consists solely of scowling and yelling. Bolos' castmates, on the other hand, show no restraint in their overacting whatsoever.<br /><br />I have not seen a film as bad as `Yellow' in a very long time. And I truly pray that I will not see a film as bad as `Yellow' for quite some time, as well. Please do not waste see it; life is already way too short. Thank you.
| 0 |
negative
|
Among the many accolades here for this production, there was one individual whose comments asked if he/she were the only one (who wasn't that enthralled by it) - i.e. giving this film 3 stars. However, the comment went on to indicate an overall liking of the story, and other production of same. Well, this person isn't the "only one," who didn't like this production (include me!) but there I part company even with him/her. If you put a gun to my head and asked me to make a choice between your shooting me or watching this flick again, I'd watch it, certainly - but I'd probably spend 10 seconds thinking about it. I'd much prefer being locked into solitary confinement, or having to watch paint dry on a wall, though. Further, I wouldn't want to see this story again, anytime, anywhere, or in any alternative presentation. Sometimes you feel like comedian George Gobel's "pair of brown shoes when the rest of the world is a tuxedo," and this is one of those for me. I liked Angela Lansbury in a favorite movie of mine, "Long Hot Summer," and while not a huge fan of the show, enjoyed "Murder, She Wrote." But HERE -- I not only didn't care for the story or other aspects, but I found Angela's squealing, squawking, singing, and everything else about her over-the-top performance, perhaps the MOST ANNOYING presence in any movie (or presentation in any other media) I've ever experienced. It was like an unending continuation of Audrey Hepburn's equally "over-the top" Cockney chortling at Rex Harrison - in the earlier portions of "My Fair Lady." But that was incident to the plot, presented for light, comedic effect, and (mercifully) brief. Unmercifully, this was anything but brief, and to me seemed as if it had gone-on for about 10 hours (Einstein's layman's explanation of "relativity" at work.) If I hadn't been with friends, with the necessity to remain, MY viewing would have been brief. I laughed, though, at the "Seinfeld" episode where Elaine pisses everyone off because she tells them how much she disliked "The English Patient." My friends somewhat regarded me the same way when I interrupted their waxing ecstatically over this movie. Give me some dragging fingernails loudly over a chalk board anytime instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
The movie is nice Well pictured, but no originality...<br /><br />this movie is directly copied from "The Hitch" where Salman plays like a Date Dr. like Will Smith, and Govinda like some fat jerk, who is desperate to get in love with her boss by the end the movie comes to an old Indian Flimi style, the bride's father doesn't like the bride's lover and gets some other groom, and Govinda the bride's lover comes in the end and saves her from the new groom and a fancy dance and stuff.<br /><br />the comedy was real good, no doubt when the hitch meets Hindi would be more funnier....<br /><br />Ultimately worth a watch but when it comes on TV after few months...
| 0 |
negative
|
I had the terrible misfortune of having to view this "b-movie" in it's entirety.<br /><br />All I have to say is--- save your time and money!!! This has got to be the worst b-movie of all time, it shouldn't even be called a b-movie, more like an f-movie! Because it fails in all aspects that make a good movie: the story is not interesting at all, all of the actors are paper-thin and not at all believable, it has bad direction and the action sequences are so fake it's almost funny.......almost.<br /><br />The movie is just packed full of crappy one-liners that no respectable person could find amusing in the least little bit.<br /><br />This movie is supposed to be geared towards men, but all the women in it are SO utterly unattractive, especially that old wrinkled thing that comes in towards the end. They try to appear sexy in those weird, horrible costumes and they fail miserably!!!<br /><br />Even some of the most ridiculous b-movies will still give you some laughs, but this is just too painful to watch!!
| 0 |
negative
|
A wonderful story...so beautiful told..so intense so whit no keyboard to describe I think...,go see it feel it...,it tell's a story about love ,romance ,war,and be trail so wonderful so full of romance if you love romance see it ,if you don't love romance ,drama well skip it that's all I can I vote 10 out of 10 stars wonderful...
| 1 |
positive
|
I realize why people hate this film. And, I hated Blair Witch Project,so go figure? This is about as staged as it gets & yes they do insult your intelligence by trying to make it seem real.I really liked the madame lalaurie storyline though it's more than likely made up. But, the main reason I like this film, is fake or not when the ghosts start attacking & kidnapping them,I get chill-bumps every time & have to look behind me as it feels like something's there with me.i know it's my imagination, but hey more than half of the drivel that is horror in today's cinemas & DVD's doesn't give me goosebumps,so that makes this a creepy delight.Not for everyone, as skeptics will hate it & not for gorehounds as with a PG-13 rating there is no gore. And, the females are very annoying!You'll wish the ghosts would take them off & experiment on them before it's all said & done. ** out of *****.
| 0 |
negative
|
Someone once defined what is the definition of AN INTELLECTUAL as being: "A person who can listen to "The William Tell Overture" without thinking of the LONE RANGER!" In this, we heartily concur! It surely would be a tall order to accomplish this, and one that Leopold Stokowski, Arturo Toscanini or .Leonard Bernstein would all find nigh well impossible to do.<br /><br />And in this there is no disgrace. The Radio Series and the Television Series, along with some Movie Serials, Feature Films, Syndicated Newspaper Comic Strip and Comic Books, all did their part to make "the Masked Man of the Plains and his Faithful Indian companion, Tonto" a deeply seeded element of our collective psyche and of our literary folklore.<br /><br />As with most legends, it all started gradually, first with a series of Radio Plays, written for local use in Detroit over Radio Station WXYZ. The Creator was one George W. Trendle and the Principal Writer on the Series was Mr. Trendle's brother-in-law, Mr. Fran Striker. The year was 1933 when the Ranger first rode out to "
the Plains of the Early Western United States!" The Lone Ranger, Tonto and the Radio Series all successfully guided Depression Era Americans through the mid and late '30's up to and through World War II. But the Post-War Era found the country in the midst of a Super-Nova Explosion of invention and technology. There had been a new communications medium standing ready in the wings, but unable to go forth until both VE Day and VJ Day had been achieved. Once these were accomplished and the World and America was ready to settle down to both Peace and Prosperity. The "New Technology" was, of course was TELEVISION! And we would surely need something else than "Roller Derby" and "Wrestling From Marigold Arena" to fill up the broadcast hours. And while at first, the time that a TV Station had anything on, except that portrait of that Mohican Chief (Test Pattern, Schultz!) Very soon and with post haste, the Networks began tapping their existing Natural Resources, their existing programming! Virtually all would be ripe for adaptation to the TV Screen.<br /><br />So, the folks over at Lone Ranger, Incorporated were very interested when Producers Jack Chertok, Harry Poppe, Sherman Harris and Jack Wrather all approached them with a deal to put The Masked Man and Tonto on the Television waves, as well as the Radio.<br /><br />Immediately they went to work and gave us the first season, which made use of the considerable back log of Radio Dramas, all potentially adaptable to TV dramas. They cast Clayton Moore, a fine supporting actor in many a feature film, and with about a dozen years experience. He also had done some work in Serials over at Republic Pictures' "Thrill Factory", which would be invaluable experience in doing "THE LONE RANGER". Cast as his "faithful Indian companion" and partner in bringing Justice to various parts of the Frontier, we had sheer perfection in character-supporting Actor, Jay Silverheels.** We must mention that there was that rift in about '53, when Clayton Moore walked and was replaced with John Hart. After a season or so, Mr. Moore was back in-having been missed so much! Now, Back to Our Story!! The first years of filming gave the episodes a look and a sound all of their own. They made good use of off screen Narrator, which gave these shows a feel of authenticity and an individual, stand-out one of a kind series. The actors employed were all veterans of the movies of the late silent era thru the 1930's and 1940's. A lot of them had been just about exclusively "Cowboy Movie" players. A good example of these is the casting of Glenn Strange (Bartender Sam on "GUNSMOKE") as the vicious, murderous Gang Leader, Butch Cavandish. And it was the Cavendish Gang's massacre of the Texas Rangers that led to the origin of John Reid (thought to have been slain with the other Texas Rangers) as the "LONE RANGER".<br /><br />In addition to the old timers in the cast, you will find a lot of new and up and coming talent (then) in the cast. We see people like Phyllis Coates, Dwayne Hickman, Denver Pyle and others in the cast from week to week. All of this, along with an always calling for fair-play, justice and peace in a western world.<br /><br />The last couple of seasons brought some big changes. First was the use of Colour Filming. That made no difference as a Colour TV Set was still a long way off for our household. The second was a new set of musical themes and queues. (Other than Rossini's Finale from "U NO Wutt!") The new music was never a big deal to us, as we preferred the "old Radio" stock stuff.<br /><br />With this series and two Feature Films done during this period, THE LONE RANGER (Warner Brothers, 1956) and THE LONE RANGER AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD (United Artists, 1958), the character has been permanently and indelibly impressed in our identity as a People, we Americans!
| 1 |
positive
|
===========BIG SPOILER================================== This is a terrible movie with no likable characters. So many clichés and senseless scenes. It needs a good editor but then there might not be any movie left. Please save your two hours. The only decent and unpredictable scene in the movie was when the younger brother refuses to stop his brother from killing himself. The description read "moments of dark comedy". Perhaps I missed those when I blinked. The horrible characters start right with the funeral. The funeral goers are laughing and complaining about the food while at the funeral of a very young man who has committed suicide? Then the father makes digs at the only son left? Right at the funeral? How is it that the next door neighbor whose husband cheated on her with Sigourney Weaver's character is the bad guy for telling the husband? The father doesn't even know his son can play the piano though everyone else around him seems to know he is a great pianist. The movie tries to shove every dramatic cliché possible into one movie: father over-driving athletic son to succeed, dysfunctional family losing a chosen son to suicide, the son left feeling lost and alone, drugs, marital affairs, child conceived via affair but raised as husband's son, incest, homosexual tendencies, bullies, possible terminal illness, etc, etc, etc. DO NOT WASTE YOUR 2 HOURS.
| 0 |
negative
|
Sorry folks, I love Ray Bolger's work but the one thing he ain't is a leading man. Maybe if you pretend he's the last man on earth, this romantic plot might work but come'on now !<br /><br />Here's a movie that exists simply to showcase the title song which was a big hit for the Basie Band the year before (1951). And some pretty nifty singing and dancing save it from being a total disaster. <br /><br />However, the story line is pathetic, even by 1952 musical comedy standards. And the other songs are equally as forgettable as Evening In Paris cologne. The dialogue embarrasses the stars, Day & Bolger. Only Claude Dauphin's Boyeresque charms keep his character three dimensional.<br /><br />So, how to enjoy this movie on video ? <br /><br />A.) Fast forward through all the dialogue...<br /><br />B.) Surrender yourself to Doris Day's vocals and Ray Bolger's loose-limbed footwork. And don't miss Dauphin's hilarious take on a rain-soaked, windswept reprise of "April In Paris"...<br /><br />C.) Finally, keep a couple of bottles of Cabernet chilled and handy.<br /><br />Bob Raymond
| 0 |
negative
|
In the opening sequence of "Where's Poppa?", George Segal rises from his bed one morning, shaves, showers, puts on a gorilla suit and goes into his mother's bedroom, we realize later, to give her a massive heart attack that will kill her and get her out of his life forever. This is about the level of humor one can expect from most of this picture: insanity, blended with what might be taken as morbid daring.<br /><br />Segal plays a New York attorney who lives with his supposedly senile mother (Ruth Gordon), whose life is further complicated when, while hiring a nurse to care for the old bag, meets the girl of his dreams, the pleasantly prim Trish Van Devere, decked out like Florence Nightingale. His dilemma: how to integrate the lovely nurse into his and his pesky mother's life.<br /><br />Segal's performance is about the only thing holding the picture together. His frustrations, his reactions, his comic timing is almost peerless (whatever happened to that guy?); where the film fails is in other areas. Ruth Gordon's characterization is dreadful as the mother. At the beginning, you can't figure out if her character is senile or just being deliberately vague to keep her son from moving out. By the end, it's clear she's just nuts. When Segal brings Van Devere home to meet her, Gordon's eyebrows furrow and she gets a mean, sinister look. She wants the intruder in her son's life removed; she's calculating. This is not the mode of a senile person. You're not getting a consistent performance throughout the picture, which is probably the director's (Carl Reiner) fault as much as Gordon's. Ruth Gordon's old lady in "Rosemary Baby" is much more successful because with the kind of ingratiating, cloying person that Ruth Gordon generally plays, the audience responds to her as annoying. But when Mia Farrow is too timid to fight back, Gordon becomes more cloying, her fangs dig deeper and deeper and we're frightened for Farrow; this kind of imposition is genuinely terrifying. Here, we're being asked to laugh at what we'd normally find annoying, and if Gordon played it as helplessly nutty all the way, we might. But she's selfish and mean as well, and it dampens what little humor there is.<br /><br />There are a few good laughs, though. A courtroom scene with Barnard Hughes as a military officer and Rob Reiner as a counterculture punk is fairly hilarious, and Vincent Gardenia does a nice turn as a Lombardiesque football coach. There's also an inspired bit where Segal's brother (Ron Liebman), having been stripped naked by muggers on his way to Segal's place, asks him for something for to wear home- and he gives him the gorilla suit.<br /><br />But of a lot of the script is poorly conceived and simply doesn't make sense. Why is a New York lawyer with his own practice even living at home in the first place? Why does Segal, if his mother is senile, try to reason with her logically: "If you spoil this for me, I'll punch your f---ing heart out." Why does Liebman keep cutting through the park if he knows he's going to get mugged? Why does he take a taxi after leaving Segal's with gorilla suit? Why wasn't he taking taxis all along? A funnier bit would have been Liebman, as the gorilla, terrorizing the muggers. Why does Van Devere keep coming back- after her first husband was a kook, why does she want to get involved with this bunch? I suppose if I put this to Carl Reiner, he'd say, 'These are crazy people, they don't have to make sense.' Which is a convenient way to excuse a lousy script that's full of holes. The characters' moment-to-moment behavior may not have to make sense, but their motivations do, and that's where "Where's Poppa?" falls apart; the situations are created just to have the gag, and the gags are mostly one-shots, they don't build to anything.<br /><br />Carl Reiner is the most guilty in this whole fiasco. How he has acquired this vaunted reputation as a pillar of comedy puzzles me; basically, his career has been to hold a microphone in front of Sid Caesar and Mel Brooks while they talk in funny voices. His son Rob has ten times the skill and intelligence as a director. In show-biz terms, Reiner pushes buttons; a monkey could do his job. And that is most apparent in his framing of the action. Why is all of New York shot in tight and in close-ups, but the scenes in the country are all distant and panoramic? That's the mentality of Carl Reiner's direction, claustrophobic for the city, spatial for the country. In the final lunatic scene at the old folks home, the camera is so far off, you can't even make out what's going on. The abrupt ending suggests a resolution that Segal could have easily arrived at ninety minutes ago; it also suggests Reiner couldn't figure out how to end the picture. So he just cut it, as another example of "craziness". Reiner seems to think dumbness equals craziness, and craziness without logic is always funny. It isn't, and the creators of "Where's Poppa" are as demented as Ruth Gordon putting Pepsi in her Fruit Loops.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film is superb! Wesley Snipes Plays Blade the vampire hunter with pure class, he kicks butt in such a fluid and violent way that would make Bruce Lee proud. The movie is a fast paced, thrill ride of action and superb stunts. The first action scene and last are outstanding and Wesley looks like a Terminator as he runs around wiping out all suck heads. The script is pretty good and there is sharp dialogue too. Wesley should have done more action films than he has, i know he is a very good actor and in this he is not streched as much as in his more comic or drama roles but as far as action stars go he is the best actor of them all, only Bruce Willis, Stallone and perhaps Tom Cruise (if he counts as an action star) come close. Also aswell as Wesley being quality, Steven Dorff is also very good as the bad guy. It was an unexpected surprise that someone of small stature compared to Snipes should come across as menacing, but he does. Overall the film is sharp, stylish and i hope the sequal is done with the same sort of pace.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Solomon and Sheba" was the kind of film that you just had to go and see back in the late 50's when I was a kid: a biblical epic spectacular with well known performers, unusual costumes, lots of extras and battle sequences. So I went to see it; but I remember that back then "Solomon and Sheba" didn't impress me at all, which was a strange thing since I had enjoyed a lot "The Ten Commandments", "Quo Vadis", "Helen of Troy" and others. The point is that when you are a kid you disregard things in pictures that adults don't (bad acting, for instance) and you are easier to please with warriors in their armors, battles, sword duels and action, so if your'e not impressed then something is wrong with a product of this genre. <br /><br />This film, though it has some of such features, is definitely standard and average. Yul Brynner's wooden performance as the Hebrew king doesn't even light when he has voluptuous and half naked Gina Lollobrigida dancing around him provocatively. She is better and renders an acceptable acting. George Sanders doesn't look interested in what he is doing, and Marisa Pavan (Pier Angeli's twin sister) doesn't add at all as a sort of Brynner's conscience.<br /><br />The final sword duel between Brynner and Sanders is just for the plot and lacks interest and intensity (it had to filmed, that's all).<br /><br />Not a good farewell for director King Vidor, Solomon and Sheba will probably be remembered as Ty Power's last unfinished picture.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm not sure where to start with this. In short, it was a disappointing movie. Having taught the novella, I was aware that it would be a hard story to turn into a movie. The movie has a couple of interesting lines (mainly between Alfred and Aschenbach) but it doesn't represent the debate on art that basically shapes the novella. <br /><br />For one, I was expecting an older Aschenbach and a younger Tadzio. In the book, Tadzio is fourteen, but he is described as pure, ideal, innocent, whereas in the movie he reeks of sexuality and is a tease. He is an accomplice to Aschenbach, he always looks back at him, almost provokingly. In the book, it is Aschenbach who steals glances at the boy. As for Aschenbach, I imagined something closer to the professor-turned-clown in The Blue Angel (based on a story by Thomas Mann's brother Heinrich) than this forty-year old with hardly any gray hair. In all fairness, I do think that Dirk Bogarde did a good job, but either someone else should have done that, or he should have made to look older at the beginning. <br /><br />I know that the discovery of homosexuality is important to the story, but the movie minimizes the talk about art and the duality between the Apollonian and Dyonisian inspirations and focuses instead on Aschenbach's obsession of Tadzio and does not justify it. I liked the fact that Mahler's music was used, because ultimately he did inspire Mann to write his story. I'm not sure turning Aschenbach into a musician was a particularly good move. Or the creation of Alfred who I don't remember in the book.<br /><br />And one thing that really got to me was the sound and how it did not match the actors' lips. I was wondering if it was dubbed because I expected it to be in Italian. But then I remembered that each Italian movie I have watched has this problem. It just bothers me because these directors (Fellini is the other person I'm thinking of) are supposed to epitomize perfection in Italian cinema, and here are their characters laughing without sound, then you hear a noise that doesn't correspond to their faces (I'm thinking of the scenes when Aschenbach almost collapses and starts laughing. This scene could/should have been the strongest, but it was annoying instead).
| 1 |
positive
|
I've avoided seeing this film for some time but finally picked up a copy. Having been born too late to see 'Hair' in its contemporary setting, I have just been familiar with the UK and Broadway cast recordings for many years; and saw it on stage in the late 1980s where it looked a little creaky but still, great fun.<br /><br />The film. It drops some of the songs (The Bed, My Conviction, Frank Mills) and cuts others (Walking in Space). However, what is left is presented very well indeed. All the singers and dancers are excellent, and the key performers (especially Treat Williams as Berger, Beverley D'Angelo as Sheila, John Savage as Claude) are memorable.<br /><br />As a hippy celebration and anthem, 'Hair' manages to be remain potent even in a film made ten years too late. It was no longer the era of peace, love, and Biba, but the time of punk rock ... although watching this film now, in the time of Iraqi problems, gives a new resonance to the Vietnam issues of the 1960s.<br /><br />Milos Forman, who also made 'Amadeus', did a good job on directing. In its scope and feel it reminds me of Norman Jewison's 'Jesus Christ Superstar', especially with the joy of the 'Aquarius' scene and the intimacy of 'Easy To Be Hard'.<br /><br />I really enjoyed this film and consider it a good representation of a musical born out of the first truly hedonistic era.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'll never understand why when a studio like Universal buys a musical it then butchers it when bringing it to screen. My first thought when seeing Ava Gardner and Robert Walker were starring I would be seeing something from MGM which did musicals best at that time. Boy was I wrong and disappointed.<br /><br />One Touch Of Venus which starred Mary Martin, Kenny Baker, and John Boles on Broadway ran for 567 performances in the 1943-1945 season and Gardner, Walker, and Tom Conway play the roles that Martin, Baker, and Boles did on stage. The Kurt Weill-Ogden Nash musical with book by Nash and S.J. Perelman was a comeback vehicle for Mary Martin who reestablished herself as the Queen of Broadway after a disappointing venture in Hollywood. <br /><br />Look at the names that went into this show. Given who was responsible for the book I expected to see some sparkling wit in this production. Instead I got a rather pedestrian screenplay, it was like all the wit was drained out of it. Doing her best to make up for it is Eve Arden playing her usual girl Friday role with Tom Conway, but it's even too much for Eve.<br /><br />The story concerns department store window dresser Robert Walker who kisses a very valuable statue of Venus who springs to life in the person of Ava Gardner. Of course when the statue goes missing, Conway yells for the law and is suspicious of Walker, the last person to be with the statue. <br /><br />The rest of the film is Walker dealing with Gardner and what will happen to both of them. For reasons I don't understand, Ava was of course dubbed by Eileen Wilson and Walker sings only a couple of lines. The singing is carried by Dick Haymes and Olga San Juan playing Walker's friends and coworkers. Of course on Broadway the songs were done by singers Mary Martin and Kenny Baker. You would kind of think that Haymes would be playing Walker's role at least. It was awkward to say the least.<br /><br />Only three songs survived from the score, Don't Look Now, But My Heart Is Showing, That's Him, and the incomparable Speak Low. Haymes's silken baritone is shown to best advantage in Speak Low which was sung as a duet by Martin and Baker on Broadway. For some reason the lyrics of one of the greatest men of verse of the last century, Ogden Nash, were done over by Ann Ronnell. I suspect the infamous Code was at work here.<br /><br />In Lee Server's biography of Ava Gardner he makes mention of a brief fling Ava had with Robert Walker when she had had a spat with her current man, Howard Duff. When Duff and Gardner reunited, Walker took it badly and didn't speak at all to Gardner off camera. I'm sure the fact that both of them were not in their best work didn't help matters either.<br /><br />Hopefully some repertoire company will do One Touch Of Venus and you'll get to see it the way, Weill, Nash, and Perelman wrote it.
| 0 |
negative
|
I used to work in a video store. I saw this title in the horror section and took it home as a free rental one night.<br /><br />This movie was truly awful, there is no redeeming quality about it, because it actually takes a well respected sub genre of film and just goes about destroying it. If the first film wasn't low budget enough then this film truly takes the biscuit, being housed (mostly) indoors and at night...therefore avoiding the scenic cost setting of the first film In the first 5 minutes of this film a college lecturer comically runs over an attractive student. Rather than be mortified, the lecturer half heartedly apologises and the girl mentions that despite being thrown across the cars bonnet (he sped up as he approached her) that there is nothing to worry about...after which he attacks her with a crowbar and kills her! If this isn't strange enough, he wants to perform an experiment upon her, bringing her back from the dead....and so feels the need to remove her clothing to do so.<br /><br />Soft core female nudity (and pubic hair) is rampant throughout the film and is, to be honest,the only real thing to hold the average male viewers interest...like the swimming scene in the first film...but even having said that this film goes from bad to worse with its bad character acting, crappy dialogue and absurd plot turns....why introduce a pivotal character who has survived 29 days from zombie attack only to kill them within 10 minutes....its just a very very bad film
| 0 |
negative
|
Thank God for DVR and the high speed of it's fast forward. Even with that I couldn't sit through any more of that travesty. When they came across the old Indian asking for beans I gave up and erased it. Is this the best that SciFi Channel can come up with for Saturday nights? How about some old classics instead? The idea of a coed special forces unit was bad enough. It seems like they wanted to save money by having everything filmed out in the woods. What more can I say? It was so awful that I don't think I can come up with enough lines to qualify for space to review it. But, it looks like one more line will do it. Save your time, let alone your money on this dog of a film.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is an example of why the majority of action films are the same. Generic and boring, there's really nothing worth watching here. A complete waste of the then barely-tapped talents of Ice-T and Ice Cube, who've each proven many times over that they are capable of acting, and acting well. Don't bother with this one, go see New Jack City, Ricochet or watch New York Undercover for Ice-T, or Boyz n the Hood, Higher Learning or Friday for Ice Cube and see the real deal. Ice-T's horribly cliched dialogue alone makes this film grate at the teeth, and I'm still wondering what the heck Bill Paxton was doing in this film? And why the heck does he always play the exact same character? From Aliens onward, every film I've seen with Bill Paxton has him playing the exact same irritating character, and at least in Aliens his character died, which made it somewhat gratifying...<br /><br />Overall, this is second-rate action trash. There are countless better films to see, and if you really want to see this one, watch Judgement Night, which is practically a carbon copy but has better acting and a better script. The only thing that made this at all worth watching was a decent hand on the camera - the cinematography was almost refreshing, which comes close to making up for the horrible film itself - but not quite. 4/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
I've been looking forward to seeing this film ever since I first caught the trailer, and I'm so glad now that I have. It's truly a wonderful film. The actors are superb, the writing is fresh and real, the whole thing was just spot-on. I love James McAvoy in this, and I can't wait to see him in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" movie this December. Romola Garai is wonderful too. Be sure to check her out in "I Capture the Castle" or "Nicholas Nickleby," two of my favorite films. Overall, I think I liked this movie because it didn't chicken out. It's a difficult subject matter to tell a story about, in that you're very likely to offend a lot of people or mess up and make it into some overly-sentimental-sugary-sweet love fest. But they avoided doing that completely, and instead made a film that's real, honest, and touching, yes, but never over-the-top. Very well done. Amazingly well done. Go out and see it, and you'll know exactly what I mean.
| 1 |
positive
|
I first viewed this movie when it first came out and also bought an LP recording of the soundtrack. I liked it so well, I went back to see it several times..cannot understand why it was considered a flop. Julie Andrews was lovely in this film, her voice was in top form and the costuming was beautiful!<br /><br />The film contains a little bit of everything and even though some of the scenes were a bit heavy-handed, they were still fun. <br /><br />I recently found I could get a copy in DVD form and ordered it......I was disappointed that a couple of songs and sequences in the movie were not included in the version of the DVD I ordered.
| 1 |
positive
|
This may well be the worst remake Hollywood has ever produced, and that's saying something. I'll take it further than that and say this movie is so stunningly, deliriously bad that IT MUST BE SEEN. I don't know if I'm even capable of tackling all the things wrong with it--like the fact that the casting director appears to have pulled names out of a hat, or the mind-blower of Richard Gere's character being allowed to walk away scot-free at the end (I'm sure the people saying, "It's just fiction, who cares" would have no problem if it was a former Al-Qaeda operative who just wants to return to his home country)--so I'll just devote my review to the utter hilarity, which is mainly the scene where Bruce Willis is testing out his gun. <br /><br />In the original version, you'll recall, the Jackal practices his kill on a pumpkin. The pumpkin explodes on impact, an effect known as "understatement." In THIS version, Willis sets up a pumpkin target, but he doesn't use a sniper rifle--he uses a gigantic remote-controlled cannon which costs tens of thousands of dollars and can only be stored in the back of a huge conspicuous minivan (this man likes a challenge). He reveals the cannon by pulling away a tarp, at which point Jack Black, who is there to observe, jumps around and says, "That ROCKS! This thing ROCKS!" about 18 times (I guess Willis didn't have to disassemble it first, he just lifted it, tarp and all, out of the back of the van, despite it probably weighing several tons). The scene then turns into an Austin Powers movie as Willis misses the pumpkin and takes out a tree, then has Black run through the mud with his pants falling down, finally blowing off Black's entire arm. The pumpkin falls to the ground, unharmed. <br /><br />If I can recommend this movie for ONE non-ironic reason, it's for the Diane Venora character as a tough Russian major who becomes romantically linked to Gere despite having a facial disfigurement--a bold move for a Hollywood feature. By mid- movie I was really liking this character, so it was a shame when she had to be killed. I would have liked to see a movie about her. Other than that, this pile of crap is only useful as an objective intelligence test. 3/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
When I saw the trailers for this movie, it looked like a good romantic comedy. I expected some light fluffy fun. Instead, I was bored and a little depressed.<br /><br />Honestly, there was no chemistry between the leads at all, and the movie had little, if anything, that was funny about it. The little girl was adorable - when she cried, I cried - but I thought they might have used someone a little bit younger in the role.<br /><br />Either way, the movie was filled with long, dull silences or swelling opera music. I'm not anti-opera, but I would have preferred them to spend that time letting us get to know the characters, who were all stiff and underdeveloped.<br /><br />I was really disappointed in this movie. The whole time I watched it I kept thinking of how much better it could have been.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Merchant of Venice is a fantastic movie. It's very true to the original Shakespeare play. If you saw Jeremy Irons in Casanova and liked his performance, this is a movie for you! If you saw Joseph Fiennes in Shakespeare in Love and you enjoyed his performance, this is a movie for you! If you saw Al Pacino in Donnie Brasco and liked his performance, this is a movie for you! It is a very enjoyable movie and if you're studying Shakespeare like me, this is a great movie to see!! The only problem with this movie is that you can't let the little ones see it because is has a wee bit of nudity in it. But other than that, it's a really good movie!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Oh boy. Films like this really bother me. If this movie is supposed to close to truth, then I assume that Rommel knew Hitler for a time before WWII started. In the movie, Rommel mentions how Hitler had changed from before. Well I can't imagine that Rommel wouldn't have known something about Hitler's government policies so Rommel must share some guilt for the German atrocities. With that in mind, I have a problem with a movie that makes Rommel's life at the end a tragic one. He made his choices and we have to feel bad for him? I can't do it. I also can't buy the theory that if the more competent generals were allowed to fight the war, the allies would have had more trouble winning it. If more competent people were in charge, WWII may never have started in the first place. From a movie watching aspect, the film jumps from place to place and most of the time seems like a history special with big name actors playing the historical roles. Leo G. Carroll has a couple of good scenes with James Mason and I liked the fact that everyone spoke English without the ridiculous accents. But other than that not very essential.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film stands as one of the most amazing examples of compelling and artful film-making I've every seen. Herzog seems to capture the almost transcendent tragedy and beauty of Dieter's story, as well as his endearing personal character. By the end of the film, I was left wishing that I'd had the opportunity to meet Dieter before his passing.<br /><br />On a technical note, the cinematography is intimate and astoundingly beautiful. The narrative is intricately woven, with great awareness of the subject and his capacity for reliving and reenacting traumatic events. Few documentary directors have so strong an ability to so thoroughly invest the audience in the character. This film is a must see!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Miles O'keefe stars as Ator, a loin-clothed hero who resembles a Chippendale's dancer. The Conan-wannabe must do battle with an evil guy in a Cher wig, and protect the Earth from the Geometric Nucleus, a sort of primitive atomic bomb. Watch closely for visible sunglasses and tire-tracks. Mystery Science Theater 3000 made fun of it under the title CAVE DWELLERS.
| 0 |
negative
|
It's tempting to view this film as a daring avant-garde experiment. I like to think that the director was trying to see if it was possible to take all the conventions of comedy film and produce something that was completely, utterly, entirely unfunny.<br /><br />The answer, to judge by "From Venus", is a resounding 'Yes'. This may not be the worst film I've ever seen, but my brain seems to have repressed all memory of the others. This horrible flick hovers just on the borderline: bad enough that the thought still causes pain, but not quite so bad that my internal censors have obliterated it from my consciousness.<br /><br />It's difficult for me to imagine what the director and the cast thought they were doing when they made this, or why they went ahead and released it once they'd made it. I doubt anyone involved with it earned very much, but surely between them they could have got together enough money to buy up all the prints and have them burned.<br /><br />This is a movie that has nothing whatsoever to recommend it. It's not even enjoyably bad. It's just a non-movie in which nothing interesting happens. I gave serious thought to taking it back and demanding my money back, which is not something I've ever done before.<br /><br />Don't even think about renting (much less buying!) this horrible non-movie!
| 0 |
negative
|
I am a huge horror fan, particularly Spanish horror. This film had so many possibilities to be good. It's a marvelous idea, a vigilante ghost nun, as most of what has come out of Jaume Balangueró's mind. Both visual and sound effects were also pretty good. But everything was shamefully spoiled by bad direction, awful casting and a painfully bad (exposition, exposition!) script. Too bad. Maybe Balangueró should write and direct himself a remake...<br /><br />Moreover, I don't really understand why this had to be spoken in English by actors who can't really speak English (and when they do, they do it so bad it just makes their performances even more fake). If you look at contemporary Spanish horror films like El Orfanato or Rec, the performances are totally in tune with this type of stylish ghost story - and that is being realistic, being believable as someone like ourselves, like real people, because that is the only way horror achieves it's goal. Unfortunately, everything failed in La Monja.
| 0 |
negative
|
OK, I'm Italian but there aren't so many Italian film like this. I think that the plot is very good for 3/4 of the film but the final is too simple, too predictable. But it's the only little mistake. The Consequences of Love in my opinion have great sequences in particular at the beginning and great soundtrack. I'd like very much the lighting work on it. The best thing on it is a great, great actor. You know, if your name were Al Pacino now everybody would have still been talking about this performance. But it's only a great theater Italian actor called Toni Servillo. Yes, someone tell me this film and this kind of performance it's too slow, it's so boring, so many silences, but i think that this components its fantastic, its the right way for describing the love story between a very talented young girl, the grand-daughter of the Italian actress Anna Magnani, Olivia and the old mysterious man Toni. One of my favorite Italian films.
| 1 |
positive
|
Wow, what a strange film. It's a David Lynch movie so it's no surprise that it is weird. <br /><br />I defy anyone to totally explain everything in this film. I can't be done. After some research following my second viewing of this film, I pretty much know most of the story but on a first look, and with no aid from other reviewers or outside help, it is hard to figure things out. So, if you're in that boat and was confused, don't feel bad; that's normal. Let me just say the key to the film is Naomi Watts' character.<br /><br />At any rate, I find the film fascinating. I love the wonderful visuals and rich colors and find each character in this movie really different and fun to watch. The camera-work is excellent and the music is creepy, a la Lynch's "Blue Velvet." There also are some good sound effects to help some of the dramatic scenes. In all, it's very well scored.<br /><br />Like Lynch's "Twin Peaks" television series, this was a film in which the end was pieced together afterward since Lynch thought this film was going to be a long, drawn-out TV series. When that didn't happen, he pieced at the last minute this ending. That may account for some of the confusion at the end and the lack of explanations concerning characters we see earlier in the film but who mysteriously disappear.<br /><br />The theme of the story, supposedly, is a negative comment about Hollywood and what it does to people, especially those whose dreams of being an actor are crushed.<br /><br />Both Watts and the other leading lady, Laura Eleana Harring, are very interesting to watch, especially in their celebrated lesbian sex scene. Looks- wise, both women were chameleons, looking average at times, stunning at other times.<br /><br />I enjoyed this movie more on the second viewing than the first. It's not just a curiosity piece; it's a very intriguing movie.....just don't feel stupid if you can't make sense of a few things.
| 1 |
positive
|
I knew that I was not about to see a quality film when this title was included in a 'B-grade video night' at a friends place. Despite the warnings, I was still surprised at just how bad this film was. It was fortunate that there were a lot of us there to share the pain with each other... The film attempts to tell the story of a dark future, one in which Hawk (a Mad Max type of character) heads off to rescue a damsel in distress. In reality, the plot is a thinly disguised excuse for the producers to promote their own philosophies on life (watch the end credits and the 'these people are not real' disclaimer at the end for a real laugh). The movie is frequently lacking direction, and fails to develop its characters to any degree whatsoever. What's even worse though is the editing of this film. The film repeats scenes (often 10 to 20 seconds long) up to 4 or 5 times in a row. I think that this was an attempt to emulate things like Jean Claude Van-Damme fight sequences, but if it is it fails utterly. The film would probably be about 1/3 of its length if we weren't forced to watch the main character move his head in front of the setting sun half a dozen times (yes, that's all that happens in that repeated scene). I give this movie my 'worst film I've ever seen' award. I doubt that it will be topped any time soon.
| 0 |
negative
|
Due to this show getting cut early I never realized why until I recently read the story behind the series. I felt this show never got its dues as one of the greatest shows, this show is iconic in nature and deserves the movie it was always intended to have if not with the original A team cast at least with the cast incorporated into the story line or a lengthy cameo, perhaps at the end commemorate it to the late Col. Hanibal Smith(Preppard). This cast gave so much to bring happiness to us growing up they deserve one last heave ho the fact that the series ended openly because they slashed the series is reason enough. This crew and cast made us realize as children the essence of being one of the good guys especially seeing how screwed up the world is today, I think a milder version like the original should be put into motion I have already read the previews and I know these are not the plans but if anything a straight to DVD movie, I sure would buy it. I really do not get how crappy shows get series finales but this great show which still runs regularly today and probably gets watched more than some of the current garbage shows of today don't we will always remember the Incredible Hulk series, Knight Rider, Airwolf, and the A team because those kind of shows carry through time, I am almost positive these knew ones you see about detectives will not even be remembered in 10 years so why not bring back something and show the people what staying power is all about and how these old shows really are all about.
| 1 |
positive
|
I've seen the 1973 movie Lost Horizons and read many of the reviews for this movie. I agree the move had many opportunities for improvement but unlike all those who are looking for the perfect movie with the perfect songs and the best acting, I was looking for something a bit different and this movie gave it to me. I watched this movie not as a critic but as a person looking for a little hope, a little cheer, a bit of a release from my everyday life, and this is what I got. You can be critical of the acting the singing, and dialog but that't not what I look for when I go to a movie. I look for a little release from my daily life, a little time where I can sit back and imagine a better life, where people love another and help another. It's a shame we can't we enjoy a movie for what it tells us and quit picking it apart like an English teacher reading a fifth grade essay. This may be very simplistic, but really, wouldn't it be nice.
| 1 |
positive
|
I read the reviews of this movie, and they were generally pretty good so I thought I should see it. I'm a big Francophile and art film lover, but I believe this is yet another case in which the critics make something "arty" or "intellectual" into something it is not. I will be blunt: it contains scenes of sexual perverseness that I never, ever wanted to actually see. Obviously, the piano teacher has some major psychological issues, but I really did not want to see them displayed so graphically. The film is, in essence, disgusting. I mean, when I saw Requiem for a Dream, I was repulsed by the last sort of scene with Jennifer Connelly, but that was not anywhere near the sort of disgust and repulsion I felt during this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Boogie Nights" is a masterpiece it tells a great story with flair an great direction from a very talented director. This film features a cast which turn in outstanding performances. Though the subject matter is very controversial but it is handled with great care by very talented people. This movie has an unexpected emotional impact also, you will remember it long after it is over.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.