pos
stringlengths 70
13.7k
| neg
stringlengths 52
8.75k
| __index_level_0__
int64 0
20k
|
|---|---|---|
Steve Carell comes into his own in his first starring role in the 40 Year Old Virgin, having only had supporting roles in such films as Bewitched, Bruce Almighty, Anchorman, and his work on the Daily Show, we had only gotten a small taste of the comedy that Carell truly makes his own. You can tell that Will Ferrell influenced his "comedic air" but Carell takes it to another level, everything he does is innocent, lovable, and hilarious. I would not hesitate to say that Steve Carell is one of the next great comedians of our time.<br /><br />The 40 Year Old Virgin is two hours of non-stop laughs (or 4 hours if you see it twice like I did), a perfect supporting cast and great leads charm the audience through the entire movie. The script was perfect with so many great lines that you will want to see the movie again just to try to remember them all. The music fit the tone of the movie great, and you can tell the director knew what he was doing.<br /><br />Filled with sex jokes, some nudity, and a lot of language, this movie isn't for everyone but if you liked the Wedding Crashers, Anchorman, or any movie along those lines, you will absolutely love The 40 Year Old Virgin. | When I saw this movie, circa 1979, it became the first movie that I ever walked out of in the middle. There is nothing worse than comedy that just misses being funny, and this misses every time (although I can't speak for the last 25 minutes of the movie). There was nothing original about any of the skits. While I enjoy racy humor where appropriate, these skits were needlessly vulgar. What was even more irritating was that this movie was advertised as "Robin William's first movie", capitalizing on his new found fame in the "Mork and Mindy" television series. Yet his role turned out to be so minor that you cannot even notice him on-screen. | 1,000 |
The young Dr. Fanshawe(Mark Letheren), an avid archaeologist, is dispatched by his Museum boss to the large country home of Squire Richards(Pip Torrens), where his task is to find provenance for and catalogue the collection of antiquities and curios belonging to the recently deceased father of the Squire. The Squire is surprised by the arrival Fanshawe, he hadn't been expecting him for another week, but none the less welcomes him and gets his only servant, Patten (David Burke..of Dr Watson fame), to show him to his room, as Fanshawe must stay over for some days in order to finish his rather large task. Patten it would seem is not the friendliest sort and seems to resent the extra work that Fanshawe's visit will entail, the large empty house providing an endless amount of cooking, cleaning and maintenance for him. Fanshawe is a fussy sort, very neat and precise with everything having its place, whether they be his clothes or his books and papers and he is rather disgusted by the dirt in his room. Needless to say he is rather eager to begin his work, but unpacking he finds his binoculars have been damaged in transit, so he asks the Squire for a replacement pair, The Squire who is a modern thinking man but also it would seem rather uncultured with such matters, is also eager to get rid of the clutter around the house, so he obliges and walks Fanshawe to the top of the hill so that he can survey the estate and the surrounding villages, there the Squire directs him to points of interest, including Gallows Hill, where locals were hung for their crimes and misdemeanours, his interest is also taken by a local abbey which the Squire describes as a ruin, but Fanshawe can see through the binoculars that it clearly isn't, he investigates further and pays a visit to the site of the abbey and is shocked to find that there are but a few stone remnants? Fanshawe doesn't have too much time to think about this conundrum as he darkness falls he feels he is being watched, he feels a presence, he begins to see moving shadows in the woods, startled he runs home. Over dinner he imparts details of his harrowing day to the Squire, Patten overhears the story and suggests an explanation for it..The Binoculars! they used to belong to a local man called Baxter, whom it would seem collected bones and skulls from Gallows Hill, boiling them up for some concoction or other, Baxter had disappeared mysteriously one night, the late Squire had acquired his belongings, including a mask made out of a skull and some old etchings of the area. These etchings fascinate Fanshawe as they portray the Abbey he seen through his binoculars, but he learns that the abbey had been destroyed during the reign of Henry VII and so it would be impossible for Baxter to have drawn the sketches, never the less they are signed and dated by Baxter to the recent past so he concludes that the binoculars have some special power. That night he has horrifically vivid dreams, when he wakes, he sets off with the binoculars to have a closer look at the abbey through them, what he finds surprises him but has he put himself in perilous danger by doing so? Fanshawe finally becomes trapped in his dangerous obsession, as darkness falls the Squire and a search party go in search of the now missing archaeologist, they are alerted by dozens of loudly cawing crows circling above Gallows HIll, they quicken their speed, but will they be in time to help or save Fanshawe from his destiny? The Ghost Story for Christmas series of films made by the BBC sadly ended its initial run of films in 1978 with The Ice House, they were for the most part based on the work of the great M.R. James. In 2005 and 2006 the series was revived briefly and thankfully A View from a Hill also marked a return to the work of James, whose ghostly writings have haunted many generations of readers. Director Luke Watson being new to the series might have worried fans of the older films, but he returns to the period setting abandoned by the later films which immediately sets the tone for a great Ghost story, his direction is assured as he stays true to the mood of the masters works and gradually builds up the fear factor to a terrifying climax, all the while keeping what the viewer sees to a minimum, thus upping the tension and mystery. The Autumn countryside provides oodles of atmosphere, the falling leaves and low lying sun providing an unsettling backdrop for the sinister events to come. The cast it must be said are all superb and are perfectly cast in their respective roles. The idea behind the binoculars is simple but very effective, the use of a man made object to see supernatural beings and events that the naked eye cannot see, may even have influenced Álex de la Iglesia in his film La habitación del niño (2006) of the following year, with which it bears striking similarity. I had heard mixed reviews of this particular film, but i must say i found it at all times intriguing and it even raised a few hairs on my head and gave me a few shivers, something that doesn't happen much these days, i think any negativity surrounding the film can only be attributed to its pacing, which to my eyes is perfection but to modern audiences it will be seen as deathly slow. Plenty of time is given, even within its brief 40 minutes running time, for character development and plot expansion and i must say its a new favourite of mine and certainly one of the better films of the decade. | Saw this 'film' recently and have to say it was the worst attempt at film making I have ever had the misfortune to see. What the Hell was going on with Coolio? Totally unprovoked shooting at people in distress. Totally uninvolving, slow, tedious and detached. Worse than Spawn. long live "Evil dead II". | 1,001 |
This film starts out with a family who were all going in different directions and their teenage daughter Martha MacIssac (Olivia Dunne) was very much in love with Joe MacLeod,(Zack). The mother is played by Mitzi Kapture,(Jill Dunne) who suddenly walks in on her daughter and Zack making out and then all kinds of problems seem to surface. Jill Dunne has a husband who is always traveling or staying away from the home quite often. There are also big problems that occur when the family decides to go on a camping trip which their daughter Olivia dislikes and just cannot adapt to sleeping outdoors and requires a tent to be kept out all the bugs. In many ways, Olivia does an outstanding performance as the teenage and Nick Mancuso,(Richard Grant) gives a great supporting role as a hotel owner. This film will keep you guessing how it will end and you will enjoy a film filled with plenty of horror and terror. Enjoy | The one sheets and newspaper campaign suggested (as often they did) a far more lurid and violent piece than showed up on the drive-in screens. Claude Brook is actually an Americanization of Claudio Brook, who worked in films for years. This one's quite hard to find anymore; I'd love to see it again to compare it to other international horrors of the day, but don't remember particularly impressed way back when. Chances are it was a chopped up version that made it to U.S. theatres and video. But oh, that one sheet...still a gem of my later horror collection. | 1,002 |
A very cute movie with a great background provided by the city of Boston and Fenway Park. As a baseball fan and light movie addict, it hit a homerun for me. Plenty of laughs and plenty of authentic baseball scenes with real ballplayers and real references to past Bosox failures. And how enjoyable was it to watch a movie with a baseball theme without having to endure an overage, over-the-hill, self-serving Kevin Costner attempting to make believers out of a critical audience? Jimmy and Drew did a fine job as a young love-struck couple suffering from Jimmy's Bosox "jones". It was a bit whacky and out of left field, but there really are Sox fans that are that fanatic and live their lives through the fortunes of their beloved team. The movie coasted along at a fast pace and the ending, although predictable, had the charm and sentimentality of so many other popular movies, without being overly pretentious. <br /><br />Also enjoyable was the return of Willie Garson to the screen. I miss the forever-popular "Stanford Blatch" from Sex & the City. He's always funny, even when he does or says very little. <br /><br />So buy yourself two box seats, some popcorn, and get ready for a fun time. "Fever Pitch" is a winner. | Intrigued by the synopsis (every gay video these days has a hunk on the cover; this is not necessarily to be construed as a good sign) I purchased BEN AND ARTHUR without knowing a thing about it. This is my second (and I assure you it will be my last) purchase of a CULTURE Q CONNECTION video. As far as I am concerned, this DVD is nothing but a blatant rip-off. I do not make this observation lightly I am a major collector of videos, gay and mainstream, and I can state with some authority and without hesitation that BEN AND ARTHUR is quite simply the worst film I have ever sat through in my life. Period. My collection boasts over 1,600 films (93% on them on DVD) and of those, well over 300 are gay and lesbian themed. I hardly own every gay movie ever made, but I am comfortable in stating that I pretty much purchase almost every gay video of interest that gets released, and very often I buy videos without knowing anything about the film. Sometimes, this makes for a pleasant surprise - Aimee & Jaguar, It's In The Water, Urbania and Normal are all examples of excellent gay titles that I stumbled upon accidentally. So when I read on the box that BEN AND ARTHUR concerned a conflict between gay lovers and the Christian Right, one of my favorite subjects, I decided to take the plunge sight unseen, despite my previously disappointing purchase of another CULTURE Q CONNECTION title, VISIONS OF SUGAR PLUMS. That film was pretty bad, but compared to BEN AND ARTHUR, it viewed like GONE WITH THE WIND. So what was so wrong with BEN AND ARTHUR? Plenty! To begin with, the "plot" such as it was, was totally ridiculous. This film almost made me sympathetic to the Christian Right we are asked to believe not only that a church would expel a member because his brother is gay, but that a priest would actually set up a mob style execution of a gay couple in order to save their souls (like this even makes sense). The writing is so poor that many scenes make no sense at all, and several plot points reflect no logic, follow-up or connection to the story. Murder and violence seem to be acceptable ends to the gay activist / right wing conflict on both sides, and the acting is so bad that it's difficult to imagine how anybody in this film got hired. The characters who are supposed to be straight are almost without exception clearly gay - and nelly stereotypes to boot; the gay characters are neither sexy nor interesting. This film is enough to put off anybody from buying gay themed videos forever, and the distributors should be ashamed of themselves. The only advantage this picture has over my other CULTURE Q Connection purchase, VISIONS OF SUGARPLAMS, is that this one has a soundtrack with clear dialogue. Hardly a distinction, since the script is so insipid that understanding the script only serves to make you more aware of how bad this film truly is. It is an embarrassment to Queer culture, and I intend to warn everyone I possibly can before they waste their money on it. At $9.95 this film would have been way overpriced; I understand that it's soon to be re-priced under $20, which is STILL highway robbery. I paid the original price of $29.95, and I never felt more cheated in my life. The only true laugh connected with this drivel is the reviews I have seen "user reviews" for this film on numerous websites, and there is always one or two that "praise" the director / writer / actor in such a way that it's obvious that the reviewer is a friend of this Ed Wood wannabe. How sad. How desperate. I just wish IMDb would allow you to assign zero stars - or even minus zero. If ever a film deserved it, this is it. | 1,003 |
**Possible Spoiler*** Adam Sandler is usually typecast in Comedy,but in "Reign",gives a deeply moving performance.While there are people who showed Courage facing post September 11,2001,Sandler plays Fineman,a widower who is lonely and "lost in his own world".Johnson(Cheadle),a practicing dentist,encounters his old College buddy(Sandler)and wants to catch up on "Old times".We see,as in Rain Man(Dustin Hoffman),Fineman also gets emotional and withdrawn in stressful situations.Oldies music,appears to be a comfort and "Psychological" crutch for him to lean on.<br /><br />Johnson looks for,in Fineman,that certain pleasure and ease missing in his Family.He also feels unhappy and unsatisfied in his Job.In the same instance,He also wants to make sure his friend does not fall through the social "cracks".I came away from this movie,with a different outlook and more sympathetic Compassion for grieving families. | There is a scene near the beginning after a shootout where horses are running. If something red catches your eye it is because a white van is parked behind a bush by the trail. I thought I had seen bad but this is it. A white van in a western. Did they not catch this? Oh well, and I paid top dollar at the rental. It will make you want to grab your buddies and have them all put in 10 grand and make a better movie. The talking was so so slow, the acting was mostly OK but couldn't be taken seriously due to the poor nature of the filming. There is a door at the sheriffs that looks like a door today with the particular trimming. I say watch this movie, and move Cabin boy into #2 on the worst of all time. | 1,004 |
I swear, that zombie was killed like twice, and kept coming back. I gave this movie an 8. Let's face it folks, this is exactly what the other reviewers are saying, i.e., a "handy-cam", shot film. Hey, hey, hey, welcome to total indy film making. The fact that Todd Sheets got over 700 zombies to appear in this movie is a tribute to his talents. Yes, the story has gaps, yes, we see the same zombies over and over again, but who really cares? Take it for what it is, a fun and gory horror film, one to share with your buds, or to gross out the people you really care about LOL. Mellow out people, I suppose you all liked hunks of garbage like "Titanic" or "Twister" instead. Peace, and support independent film making!!! | Ummm, please forgive me, but weren't more than half the characters missing? In the original novel, Valjean is a man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and then attempting several times to escape. He breaks parole and is pursued relentlessly by the police inspector Javert. Along the way there are MANY characters that weren't in this version. Some worth mentioning would be Fantine, Cosette, M & Mme. Thenardier, Eponine, Marius, Gavroche, and Enjolras. The only character with the same name is Javert. I was confused and frustrated throughout the whole movie, trying to see how it was in any way connected to Victor Hugo's epic novel. | 1,005 |
I recently watched the '54 version of this film with Judy, and while i appreciated the story and music, i found that the film failed to hold my attention. I expected the '76 remake to be the same story, except with a Barbra twist. I was pleasantly surprised - it was a much more realistic and modern look at fame, money, love and the price of it all. This version is so much more real than the '54 one, with arguably better music, better acting, a more gripping plot line, and, of course, a deeper love. I do not understand why the previous film is on the American Film Institute's top 100 list, while this gripping remake fails to make a mark on any critic's list. | I am a relative latecomer to the transcendent work of film auteur Yasujiro Ozu, whose masterfully understated views of Japanese life, especially in the post-WWII era, illuminate universal truths. Having now seen several of his landmark films such as 1949's "Late Spring" and 1953's "Tokyo Story", I am convinced that Ozu had a particularly idiosyncratic gift of conveying the range of feelings arising from intergenerational conflict through elliptical narratives and subtle imagery. It is Taiwanese director Hou Hsiao-hsien's keen aspiration to pay homage to Ozu on his centenary with this generally enervating 2003 film. Among with co-screenwriter T'ien-wen Chu, Hsiao-hsien appears to get the visuals right but does not capture the requisite emotional weight that would have made the glacial pacing tolerable.<br /><br />The story concerns Yôko, a young Japanese writer researching the life of mid-20th century Taiwanese composer Jiang Wen-Ye in Tokyo after coming back from Taiwan where she taught Japanese. After 25 drawn-out minutes of character set-up, she reveals to her father and stepmother that she is pregnant by one of her students in Taiwan. At the same time, Yôko's coffeehouse friend Hajime, who runs a used bookstore, has an obsession for trains and seems likely to be in love with her. Hsiao-hsien connects this slim plot line with a series of shots held for inordinately lengthy takes as the frame composition changes. There are also long stretches of silence as well as an abundance of scenes featuring trains. While these techniques are consistent with Ozu's style, Hsiao-hsien cannot seem to dive into the characters' psyches the way Ozu did with maximal fluidity and minimal theatrics, in particular, Yôko's plight seems rather non-committal in the scheme of the drama presented and her parents' reaction overly passive to hold much interest. In fact, the whole film has an atmosphere of exhaustion about it, which makes the film feel interminable.<br /><br />The performances are unobtrusive though hardly memorable. J-pop music star Yo Hitoto brings a natural ease to Yôko, while Tadanobu Asano is something of a cipher as Hajime. The rest of the characters barely register, even Nenji Kobayashi and Kimiko Yo as Yôko's parents. Cinematographer Lee Ping-Bing provides expert work though he violates a cardinal rule of Ozu films by not keeping the camera stable during shots. Hitoto speak-sings the fetching pop song used over he ending credits, "Hito-Shian". The DVD includes an hour long, French-made documentary, "Métro Lumière", which actually does help provide some of the context for Hsiao-hsien's approach to the film. It includes excerpts from Ozu's films, in particular, "Equinox Flower", to show the parallels with this film though surprisingly no mention of either "Tokyo Story" or "Early Summer", the obvious basis for some of the scenes and situation set-ups. There are also edited interview clips of Hitoto, Asano and Hsiao-hsien, as well as the film's trailer. | 1,006 |
In the funeral of the famous British journalist Joe Strombel (Ian McShane), his colleagues and friends recall how obstinate he was while seeking for a scoop. Meanwhile the deceased Joe discloses the identity of the tarot card serial killer of London. He cheats the Reaper and appears to the American student of journalism Sondra Pransky (Scarlett Johansson), who is on the stage in the middle of a magic show of the magician Sidney Waterman (Woody Allen) in London, and tells her that the murderer is the aristocrat Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman). Sondra drags Sid in her investigation, seeking for evidences that Peter is the killer. However, she falls in love with him and questions if Joe Strombel is right in his scoop.<br /><br />"Scoop" is another great Woody Allen's comedy outside Manhattan, actually again in London. His ironic and witty lines are simply fantastic, and I laughed a lot inclusive with his fate of hero in a country where people drive "in the wrong side". Sid Waterman is extremely funny and Woody Allen is in an excellent shape as comedian. However, his present muse Scarlett Johansson, of whom I am a big fan, has over-acting and is annoying in many moments, changing inclusive her accent to a histrionic pronunciation. Her character is absolutely silly and promiscuous, and I was quite disappointed with her performance (probably for the first time in her filmography). But this supernatural comedy is still a hilarious and worthwhile entertainment. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Scoop O Grande Furo" ("Scoop The Big Scoop") | "The Triumph of Love" doesn't triumph over anything. It is a plodding, ponderous, 4 hours of torture. Actually it's a little less than 2 hours long, it just seemed much longer. It pains me to even think about the amateurish performances of such fine actors as Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw. The supporting players are not quite as awful. Maybe they were trying to be so over the top, so as to be clownish, but, if so, I didn't see it that way. Mira Sorvino doesn't make an impression one way or the other. She(he)'s just there. My guess is, the play of the same name, written by Marivaux some 270 or so years ago, is much better. It couldn't be any worse. Clare Peploe, the writer and director of this movie, was inspired by a recent production of the play. I don't know what she was thinking when she created this bomb. <br /><br />Maybe it all got lost in the translation. | 1,007 |
I saw Brother's Shadow at the Tribeca Film Festival and loved it! Judd Hirsch and Scott Cohen are great as father and son. The film follows Scott Cohen from parole in Alaska back to his family in Brooklyn. He shows up there because his brother has died, and he embarks on a journey to slowly repair his estranged relationships with his brother's wife and child and his father who has never forgiven him for being the black sheep of the family. The story takes us deep into the hearts and minds of this family and allows you to more deeply understand the complexity of their lives. Also, the imagery of the woodworking business and the Brooklyn backdrop sets the tone for this rich and revealing family portrait. | The first part of Grease with John Travolta and Olivia Newton John is one of the best movie for teens, This one is a very bad copy. The change is only in the sex. In the first one the good one was Sandy, here it's Michael. I prefer to watch the first Grease. | 1,008 |
Well, maybe not immediately before the Rodney King riots, but even a few months before was timely enough. My parents said that they saw it and the next thing you know, the police got acquitted and LA got burned to the ground. It just goes to show the state of race relations in America. The plot has white Mack (Kevin Kline) and African-American Simon (Danny Glover) becoming friends after Simon saves Mack's life in the black ghetto. Meanwhile, movie producer Davis (Steve Martin in a serious role) thinks that gratuitous violence is really cool...until he gets shot. There's also some existentialism in the movie: Mack and his family come to realize that they aren't living as they really want.<br /><br />It seems that "Crash" has somewhat renewed people's interest in race relations, but this one came out much earlier. Maybe we'll never be able to have stable race relations in this country. But either way, "Grand Canyon" is a great movie. It affirms Kevin Kline as my favorite actor. Also starring Mary McDonnell, Mary-Louise Parker and Alfre Woodard. | Dr Tarr's Torture Dungeon is about a journalist who travels to an insane asylum to write about a new technique they use with their patients. However, the journalist soon finds out that things are not what they seem to be, and the asylum is being run by the patients, and the doctors are in cages. First of all, some parts of the film are just plain boring and just makes you want to fall asleep, and the interesting parts are interesting for all the wrong reasons(A guy who thinks he's a chicken, for instance). I have to admit that the story is actually pretty good, but the film itself bombs. The music of the film is really odd and like something you would hear in some insane comedy, and yes, there is a scene involving dancing chicken men, which pretty much made me want to shut off the screen. Watch this film at your own risk! <br /><br />Rated: R for Violence and Nudity. | 1,009 |
I watched this film without knowing anything about it whatsoever and found it similar thematically to Billy Elliott (2000). Both films are based around a troubled father/son relationship. In both films, the son does not want to follow his father down the mines and dreams of a better life away from their home town. Both sons face derision by their classmates and both have a strong female role model who teaches them.<br /><br />The major difference that I found between the films was that October Sky was an infinitely more interesting and touching film. Laura Dern puts in a moving performance and Chris Cooper plays the disapproving father very well as he went on to do in American Beauty (1999). Joe Johnston surprised me with his subtle directing, very different from his other directorial features such as Jumanji (1995) and Jurassic Park III (2001).<br /><br /> | The Class is a comedy series that portrays a bunch of 27-year-old former class mates.<br /><br />I like the idea of the show. That's why it saddens me that The Class is not funny, even though it has the obvious potential. It's not enough corky, just dorky. (Haha.) This is due to a slowish tempo and the lack of actually hilarious punch lines. Also some actors have difficulties with timing.<br /><br />Most inventively written characters are the twins Kat and Lina Warbler (Lizzy Caplan and Heather Goldenhersh) but even they seem just a little too square for the good of the show. On the other hand the characters I find most uninteresting are the main character Ethan and the used-to-be- couple Duncan and Nicole.<br /><br />What bothers me with the series is that the only Latino character Aaron is being picked on for his accent (even though by a non-respectable character, but anyway). | 1,010 |
First things first, I was never once scared of this underrated gem as a kid ("Little Mermaid" on the other hand...). As my title says this was one of my fav childhood movies that I still love as a teenager. It's a beautiful, bittersweet movie about a misfit German Shepherd called Charlie (fantasticaly voiced by Burt Reynolds) who is killed by his boss/partner in crime (is name ha,ha is Carface). Charlie is sent straight to heaven by default because "all dogs go to heaven because unlike people, dogs are naturally good and loyal and kind". Chalie gets sent back to Earth 'cause he winded up his life clock where he gets into even more mischief with his best friend, Itchy and a little orphan girl, Anne-Marie. I used to watch this all the time as a kid and I still sometimes watch it. Anyways, it's a beautiful bittersweet film as I said before that might just leave a tear in your eye... | Just once I'd like to see a version of Beowulf where it appears the screenwriters have at least a passing familiarity with the original poem. Yet again, after watching this Sci Fi presentation, I'm disappointed. <br /><br />I'm not suggesting the writers need to understand and analyze the poem in Old English, but I wish they could at least try to read a translation in modern English and attempt to construct a story based on what actually transpires. The story is exciting enough; why add plot elements that are non-existent and ruin the story? What's wrong with being faithful to the text? <br /><br />Grendel is immune to weapons of any kind; why introduce some super-crossbow that is unbelievable and could not have possibly existed in this time period (as correctly pointed out by the previous reviewer)? The fight with Grendel was Beowulf vs. Grendel. That's it. No one else took part in the battle. The only way Beowulf could have defeated him was by choosing specifically to engage the monster without any weapons, the mistake made by all previous challengers. Yet, in this version, Danes and Geats fight the beast and Beowulf hacks off Grendel's arm with a sword! Again, why couldn't they portray what really happened? Personally, I think a one-on-one grappling match between the two would be much more exciting. <br /><br />Overall, this is a pathetic and abysmal depiction that is faithless to the true tale. Why add in a pact with Hrothgar and Grendel's mother that includes sacrificial offering? Why create extra characters, like Finn, that add nothing to the story? There was no love story in the poem. They couldn't even set the scenes in the appropriate locations (a forest instead of the swamp and no lair under the lake). They fail to notice the metaphor that Grendel's lair signifies it's supposed to be underground to represent hell. Why not instead center on the symbolism inherent in the epic poem? Even my high school students last year were able to do immensely better when they created a short film based on Beowulf, since they focused on the themes and symbolism underlying the story. If Hollywood could create a film that centers on these elements and is faithful to the plot, then that would be a truly great movie. | 1,011 |
This isn't Masterpiece Theater. You shouldn't go into it expecting that. This is pure girl FUN with the most fantastic cast of female leads. Like someone else here said, this is the film Baby Mama was meant to be. And the only downside I see to this film is that Tina Fey was not in it- besides that it stars the smartest and brightest girls on the planet. The film is pure silliness on the surface, but if you really watch you will know it has a lot of messages and deep meaning to any of us who wish they could go back and do it all over again in life knowing then what we know now. PURE FUN and I recommend it to anyone looking for 84 minutes of great escape. | I will give it a 3 just because it showed history that we need to know about, to prevent it from happening again. I agree with the comments from the gentleman from UK. The movie was pretty terrible. All cliché, no real plot. Historical and technical inaccuracies abound. Look up the technical specs on DE 529, or any Everts class Destroyer Escort, and you will see what I mean. I now its black history month in the US, and Im going to be called a racist just for saying this, but the history of this ship is not that great. They did some escort work, chased a "submarine" that turned out to be a hulk that they rammed. Sorry, but black people did a lot more in WWII then this silly movie gives them credit for. This movie makes them look like whiners. Let the name calling commence, I can handle it. | 1,012 |
The question of whether or not one likes this film version of "The Ghost Train" invariably depends on one thing and one thing alone: your reaction to the performance of Arthur Askey.<br /><br />He tends to steal almost every scene he's in, and not always in a good way. Sometimes you wish he'd settle down or back off just a little, to allow the plot's many characters to feature and develop (which they do to some extent). But somehow everything keeps pointing back to Askey's Tommy Gander character.<br /><br />Personally I like the film, and even like Askey to an extent. I always seem to plonk it into the vcr at those odd hours of the early morning when I can't sleep and really can't find the energy to watch anything else. There is something about watching old b/w movies in the quiet dark of pre-dawn that I find appealing.... | I've gotta say, I usually like horror movies that i've never seen... however, this one was just to pathetic for my gory taste. I'm used to the gory, gut wrenching types... but this particular movie was lame. The acting was horrible (yet the corny (no pun intended) one-liners were cute). And the sequel to it, Scarecrow Slayer was even worse! Yes, probably, when it first came out, there was a huge rave about it and people liked it. But when movies like The Ring and The Exorcist of Emily Rose come out, movies like these make movies like Scarecrow seem childish. If you want a movie to just pass the time, pick this one! The special effects are cheesy as heck. But seeing that it was a low budget movie, I can kind of see where that would come in. This will kind of remind you of the movie "Children Of The Corn." Independent movies rock.... most of the time. So if you want to see a scarecrow killing people with corncobs, or in the sequel, 2 scarecrows going at it, then these movies would be for you. | 1,013 |
*I mark where there are spoilers! Overall comments: If you can take a serious movie, go see this. Have an open mind and you will enjoy it. Don't leave the theater because you get confused as to what is going on! The movie fits together nicely in the second half. I will be taking my mom to see it again when the movie officially opens. <br /><br />I was lucky to see this at a screening a couple of weeks ago, when Will was going around promoting the movie. He was great--spent a lot of time with the fans. Thank you for the picture Will! About Will's performance: A lot of times when you see a movie with an actor really famous for some other movie/show, you always think of them in their current performance much like you think of them for their past performance. This is not the case with Will Smith in this movie. I didn't picture the Fresh Prince (lol) when I was watching this movie. He was completely and utterly convincing in this very, very serious role. He has grown immensely as an actor. I think he will at least get an Oscar nod for this performance.<br /><br />About his character: Ben is very conflicted and tormented. He's sad...guilt-ridden...very determined, but very scared. Very true to himself. His character has a lot of depth...and somehow, Will managed to bring that to life.<br /><br />About Emily (Rosario): Rosario did a nice job portraying Emily, a woman very much behind on her taxes. Maybe she's not the shining star Will is in this movie, but she was very convincing. I think her character just did not have as much to work with as Will's did.<br /><br />About the plot (no spoilers): I admit that I did NOT like the movie until the second half of it. I knew absolutely nothing about the movie going into it, and nothing made sense until the second part of it or so. But when things eventually fit together, wow. Surprisingly well written and well thought out. It's an extremely intense movie that really sticks with you.<br /><br />It actually takes a lot out of you to watch. In the theater I was in, most people were crying towards the end--even grown men. When you realize what Ben is doing, and why, it's a very powerful moment...<br /><br />******* Minor SPOILERS***** Which is why it's really hard to talk about the plot without giving major things away. I feel like knowing too much about this movie really ruins it. There was a lot of symbolism in the movie that I enjoyed, though. I will mention some of it here (without trying to give a lot away).<br /><br />-The fish that Ben was keeping in his hotel room. At first, it makes no sense whatsoever. There was a LOT of chatter in the movie theater when people realized the reality of the fish.<br /><br />-I hated Ben at the beginning of the movie. By the end of it, I loved him and hated him. That's how convincing Will was. I thought Ben was being a huge jerk to Ezra, a blind man just trying to make his way in the world. Why he was treating Ezra like that also became abundantly clear later in the movie. Wait it out though. Everything in this movie: wait it out.<br /><br />-Ben is a fundamentally good person who made a big mistake that he won't forgive himself for. It's still unclear to me if he was doing what he was doing because he was trying to rid himself of his own guilt, or if he genuinely wanted to help people. I think it's a little bit of both...I think he wanted to help people but also rid himself of his past. I love his character. You love him and hate him because you realize that what he is doing is nothing short of amazing. You hate him because of what he is doing to himself (as a very good person), both physically and emotionally. Nice job Will. | The film released at the start of 2000 alongwith MELA both disasters So sad to start a millennium with such nonsense<br /><br />The film seems to suit 70's but looks like an unintentional comedy for 2000<br /><br />Anywayz some classic gems from the film: Paresh Rawal I don't understand to laugh at his role or cry Reason: He goes searching his mother in the village worst part is when he realises a secret of Anil he keeps the secret in his stomach which becomes big and makes him look pregnant I remember in my childhood my teacher told me the same joke Urrf!!!! as a child i laughed at it that time but here?<br /><br />The whole film is a joke can't explain We have Anil in a dual role(One older and younger) and Rekha playing the older's wife and Raveena the youngers We also have reject Harish while Shakti playing the son of Aruna Irani who both fight on who has the worst wig<br /><br />Direction is outdated Music is bad<br /><br />Anil tries hard looks too old in the younger role and too young in the older role yet good effort Rekha is adequate, Raveena too is okay Harish is bad Shakti Kapoor is terrible Aruna Irani is as usual Rajnikant is okay in a cameo | 1,014 |
Mahatma has been depicted as a man who neglected his own son in this movie. Don't get me wrong I am not condemning the movie; it is such a wonderful movie and walked out of the cinema with a lump in my throat. We need to understand Mahatma's spiritual standing, he is a true spiritual leader. Only a fully enlightened man could possibly detach himself from his loved ones. A man with such caliber leads his family and followers by example. According to the movie, he spoke to his son and try to make him understand where he is coming from, but poor Harilall with so little intellect could not understand his father. When things went wrong with Harilall, Mahatma could remain calm and accepted that his son is a big tragedy. <br /><br />Had it been any other parents, they would have compromised their values to assist the son to get on his feet. Mahatma didn't do that, he is true leader who leads by example. | I find it rather useless to comment on this "movie" for the simplest reason that it has nothing to comment upon.It's similar to a rotten egg which has nothing good to show to the world excerpt for the fact that it is rotten as other endless number of eggs have been before it. But since a comment is mandatory for such a grandiose insignificance ... <br /><br />Filth is definitely the proper word to describe this movie created in the same manner as any other Romanian "movie" directed by Lucian Pintilie who insists to depict the so called "Romanian reality" following the Communist era (1990 to present days).<br /><br />Under no circumstances recommended for people outside Romania as for the others (who lately find amateurish camera, lack of plot, lack of directorial / actors's quality etc, noise etc. as being trendy and even art-like) : watch & enjoy this "movie" (as I know you will) but do the other well intentioned IMDb members a favor, don't write an online review for it will misguide, irritate and in the end waste their time.<br /><br />On the other hand this movie (among others) has some value whatsoever, an educational one for it sets the example for : "How NOT to make a movie." | 1,015 |
The only reason I give this movie an 8 out of 10 is because there are few movies, in my opinion, that are perfect. This little B picture is a taut story, well told. I've always been intrigued by Alexander Knox, but have seen him very few movies. Here he plays Wilhelm Grimm, a sad little man who turns into a monster. He betrays everything and everybody without an ounce of remorse. The performance is one of the most chilling performances I've ever seen. Since World War 2, actors who played Nazis or other evil types in films have occasionally been nominated for Oscars. I imagine that since this was made during the war, the Academy felt like honoring a performance like this would have been like honoring evil. But Knox puts in that kind of performance--a man so bitter and consumed by guilt that he thinks nothing of making others suffer. I still can't get over it.<br /><br />Marsha Hunt, who usually plays the filbert gibbet or social butterfly, is cast against type in probably the best performance I've ever seen her give, too. Maybe not Oscar worthy, but the best of her career. Nothing against her; I have enjoyed her in those "slight" roles she often played. But here she proves she up to the task of heavier drama.<br /><br />If you like human drama stories, or stories about the fates of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, I highly recommend this fine little film. | Before I give Spike Lee's mess of a film SUMMER OF SAM a well-deserved thrashing, I would like to make one thing clear. I do not revile this film simply for its abundance of sleazy and unpleasant images. What makes this film so unwatchable is the fact that Lee seems to believe that SUMMER OF SAM should be taken seriously as a socially enlightening drama. The crime caper films of Quentin Tarantino, for example, are filled with violence, profanity, and other sleaze, but are nonetheless highly watchable because Tarantino does not attempt to pass these films off as socially redeeming works of art. He knows that such films are for entertainment value only. On the other hand, serious dramas such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and SCHINDLER'S LIST are often unpleasant to watch, but the unpleasantness serves to develop the film's plot and characters, with the end goal of getting the audience emotionally involved with the story and characters onscreen. SUMMER OF SAM, unfortunately, merely wallows in its own sensationalism and sleaze, while believing that it is serving as social commentary, much like other trash epics .<br /><br />SUMMER OF SAM does not serve as a serious drama because its characters are merely cardboard-cutout stereotypes. Its plot purports to show the emotional impact of the hysteria over the Son of Sam murders on the residents of the predominately Italian-American north Bronx neighborhood where the murders ocurred. However, instead of of presenting the locals as a diverse mix of personalities, Lee simply wheels out every negative Italian stereotype imaginable. The men are ignorant, lazy, oversexed goombahs. The women are split between weak, complacent "good girls" (Mira Sorvino's Dionna) and promiscuous "bad girls" (Jennifer Esposito's Ruby). Lee seems to vindictively wants to "payback" Hollywood for their years of negative African-American stereotyping by wheeling out stereotypes of his own, and few critics seem to care. If Martin Scorsese, for example, presented residents of an African-American neighborhood as a bunch of Amos 'n Andy and Aunt Jemima stereotypes, critics would rightfully condemn such blatant stereotyping. More importantly, one-dimensional, stereotypical characters undermine any film that attempts to be a serious social commentary.<br /><br />Without exception, the cast of SUMMER OF SAM is excellent. However, the acting, for the most part, is uninspired. The cast is either just going through the motions, or they have little to work with scriptwise. Additionally, there is notable miscasting. Comedian John Leguizamo is very talented, but his Vinny character seems to be a stale, comedic impersonation of John Travolta's Tony Manero from SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. And Michael Badalucco, a perennial "nice guy" actor, is badly miscast as serial killer David Berkowitz, coming across as funny rather than frightening. The only performance worth paying attention to is Adrien Brody as the troubled, but sincere, neighborhood misfit Ritchie. The Brody performance and the typically stylish Lee cinematography are this film's only virtues.<br /><br />*1/2 out of **** | 1,016 |
I found this movie to be very good in all areas. The acting was brilliant from all characters, especially Ms.Stone and Morissey. Tramell's Character just gets smarter and more psychologically twisted by the minute. The plot is interesting even though, this movie is more for the mind playing between the main characters and how Catherine continues her writing with new ways and twists for her novels. The setting was also fabulous and the whole atmosphere of the movie was that mysterious,thriller like masterpiece. Go see this film now , it deserves better than what it got from the audience ,which was misled by some faulty terrible reviews about the movie(Before it even started).....You won't regret it,if you go see it... | In the autobiographical coming-of-age tale "Romulus, My Father," Eric Bana, of "Munich" fame, plays an impoverished German émigré struggling to raise his son, Raymond (Kodi Smit-McPhee), in rural 1960's Australia. The major obstacle to the family's stability and happiness is his wife, Christina (Franka Potente), who flagrantly violates her wedding vows by shamelessly shacking up with other men. Despite her highly unconventional behavior, Romulus refuses to grant her a divorce, masochistically torturing himself in the vain hope that she will one day return to him. It is, unfortunately, the good-hearted and good-natured Raimond who must bear witness to all this marital turmoil - and it is his memoir that serves as the basis for the movie (Raimond Gaita would later grow up to be an author).<br /><br />Even though I admire "Romulus, My Father" for what it is trying to do, I can't honestly say I enjoyed it, for while the film has some fine performances and serious intentions going for it, these simply aren't enough to counteract the dour storyline and funereal pacing, which leave the audience as despairing and depressed as the people on screen. A serious slice-of-life drama is one thing, but this unremittingly downbeat wallow in adultery, insanity and multiple suicides (let alone attempted suicides) is something else again. | 1,017 |
Reese Witherspoon first outing on the big screen was a memorable one. She appears like a fresh scrubbed face "tween" slight and stringy, but undeniably Reese.<br /><br />I have always liked her as an actor, and had no idea she started this young with her career, go figure. I actually gained some respect for Reese to know who she was so early on. I say that because whenever I have watched her perform, the characters thus far, in each portrayal she also seemed to have her own persona that lived with that character, quite nicely in fact.<br /><br />Anyway, my first film experience with Reese was the Little Red Riding Hood parody Reese did with Kiefer Sutherland, somehow I assumed that was her first time up "at bat" Not so, well done Reese | 102 Dalmatians (2000, Dir. Kevin Lima) <br /><br />Believed to be cured, Cruella de Vil (Close) is released from prison and sets out to make a new start in life. Things are going well for Cruella who is busy helping homeless dogs off the street. When the clock strikes on Big Ben, things turn bad. The hypnotic cure is reversed and Cruella is back, and this time she is determined to make that spotted coat she always wanted.<br /><br />Glenn Close reprises her role as Cruella de Vil and once again is the highlight of the film. Every scene with her in is worth watching in this dull sequel, which feels more of a repeat of the previous film, rather than a new story.<br /><br />She's Changed. Ken Sheperd (Ioan Gruffudd) | 1,018 |
I really liked this film when it was released, and I still do, because the storyline makes you feel hopeful about life in general, and people too...one of the things I like about the films of Lawrence Kasdan. In addition to the positive vibes from the film, there are other reasons to like Grand Canyon. For one thing, it has an outstanding cast...Kevin Kline and Danny Glover, for example. In my opinion, Crash, the highly acclaimed film that won the Oscar for best picture, was very similar to this film. The difference is that Grand Canyon leaves you feeling positive. Crash had the opposite effect with me; it was very dark. I would choose Grand Canyon over Crash any day. | Waiting to go inside the theathre with tickets in my hand, I expected an interesting sci-fi fantasy movie which could finally feed my appetite of movies regarding robot-technology, instead I went disappointed by each aspect of it, once more proving that stunning special effects can't help a boring plot, which by my opinion was the worse in this year. Acting in this movie also dissatisfied me, Will Smith didn't show anything new in this movie, yet I never saw his acting to change since "Men In Black" which was his only success by my opinion. He had to retire since than, not spoiling his name with titles like "I,Robot" and "Men In Black 2". 4/10 | 1,019 |
There are so many reasons as to why I rate the sopranos so highly, one of its biggest triumphs being the cast and character building. Each character unfolds more and more each series. Also each series has an array of different 'small time characters' as well as the main. A good example of a character (who was only in three episodes) who you can feel for is David the compulsive gambler played brilliantly by Robert Patrick. Every little detail builds the perfect TV series. The show revolves round mob boss Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) who attempts to balance his life of crime with his role as father of two. The show is not afraid to be bold and powerful with its dialogue and imagery and this is what makes it so believable. Whilst Tony runs things with capos Paulie (Tony Sirico) and Silvio (Steve Van Zant) his nephew Christopher (Michael imperioli) looks for a promotion. Every episode also features Tony's other family in some way which includes his children and wife carmela soprano (Edie Falco). On top of these problems is his uncle Junior soprano (Dominic Chianese) is trying to get what he can out of Tony's businesses despite being under house arrest. All the acting is powerful and characters complex, but the two who stand out the most are; James Gandolfini who 'is' Tony Soprano. Also Michael Imperioli who plays Christopher, representing the younger (20-30) generation in crime. If David Chase had not created this masterpiece modern TV dramas of such caliber may not have existed, such as The Wire and Dexter. So the Sopranos is definitely the Godfather, Goodfellas and Pulp fiction of TV | Written by Stephen King, but this treatment is not as solid as most of his stories on film. A mother and son move into a small Indiana town with a secret. They are Sleepwalkers, feline type creatures that feed on young virgins. This little story has its share of gore and special effects; plus hints of incest.<br /><br />Alice Krige is outstanding as the mother. Others appearing are Madchen Amick, Brian Krause and Cindy Pickett. Look for very small roles for John Landis and Clive Barker. Stephen King cameos as the caretaker of the cemetery. | 1,020 |
<br /><br />Everything is relative seems to be the main theme from the outset by this set of eleven pieces by eleven directors. That is to say that what might be number one priority for people like Bush, Blair and Company, may not be so for a great many other people, ordinary people. From the opening scene in which an Iranian teacher is trying to impress on her little students the most important thing that has happened, with the result the children are not impressed, as the death of a neighbour and things like that evidently affect them much more closely than anything which may have happened in New York, USA, wherever that is, this series of almost documentary styled pieces establishes that not all things are as equal unto all men as some world leaders would try to prophess. <br /><br />Whereas, obviously, the attack on the WTC was a dastardly event by any yardstick, one does get the impression that both politicians and TV cameramen tend to blow up things out of all proportion - wonderfully manifested in one of these pieces. Would the same reaction at international level have occurred if the attack had been made on Lagos, say, or Djakarta, say, or even on Rio de Janeiro, say? I rather think not. News seems to suffer distortion depending on where things happen: much more TV time is given to an earthquake in Italy, say, than one ten times more destructive in Outer Mongolia, say. Greater distances seem to decrease the magnitude of the disaster. <br /><br />This series of eleven pieces helps to put things in better perspective - or, perhaps I should say, some of the pieces do, as each director with complete freedom has made up his own story, his own translated perspective, such that it is not possible to judge the whole merits, but individually for each eleven-minute segment. <br /><br />In no way should one deduce that this is an anti-American film: that would be a too simple reading of the diverse messages manifested through the segments. However, it is not pro-American either. The eleven segments adopt varied attitudes and the common link - if there is one - is that the disaster of the WTC attack has to be seen in perspective from different view-points. Only then will such people as George Bush even begin to comprehend the planet he is living on. <br /><br />Clearly stated in one segment is a belief of mine I have been harbouring for two years now: America has not learnt the lesson. And the lesson is that the USA has to share this planet with the rest of humanity - not dominate it by ruthless economical persuasion or just plain force. Instead of learning that the USA cannot continue just stamping all over everybody and everywhere, its political leaders, aided and abetted by Blair (and even Aznar) have become even more arrogant and even more intolerant, which is not doing any good to anyone in Afghanistan or Irak at present, let alone much elsewhere. The White House mentality is totally rejectable: the US and UK invaded Irak and caused all the chaos, and so should clear up the mess they caused - not insist on the UN and other nations to delve in with a helping hand and thus find an easy way out of the turmoil. <br /><br />Radical stances adopted by the US (or even Israel) is only going to be met by radical stances from Islamic people, who for years have been gearing up fanatical fundamentalism, if only to cover up their own macho uselessness, i.e., stoning women to death or simply shrouding them from the tops of their heads to the dusty ground. <br /><br />The world is in a terrible mess, fueled by the greed of a few rich countries who seem bent on not seeing or understanding anything from more multilateral perspectives. This film in eleven separate pieces accurately portrays this dismal and dumb posture. | LL Cool J. Morgan Freeman. Dylan McDermott. Kevin Spacey. John Heard. Cary Elwes. Roslyn Sanchez. Justin Timberlake -- wait a minute. Justin Timberlake? And he's the star? I should have known better than to rent EDISON FORCE. In fact, I did know better. But in a moment of absolute weakness, I rented this STV. When you have big names like Freeman and Spacey in an STV, you know it's one of two things: an indie or a dog. As in sat-on-a-shelf. Which this did. And with good reason. The plot as such involves a squad of corrupt killer cops a la MAGNUM FORCE, and "journalist" Timberlake is the only one brave enough to uncover them. He is targeted for his efforts -- or maybe I should say for his horrible acting. I turned it off after one of the bad guys was shot through the forehead and still had the forethought to turn to his shooter and smile before collapsing. Just awful. The real tipoff to how bad this flick is to see Freeman on the cover and throughout the movie sporting an unruly beard, looking like nothing so much as a hobo. You just know the director was not in control. Freeman is clearly slumming. | 1,021 |
I have read over 100 of the Nancy Drew books, and if you are not bright enough to catch on yet, Nancy Drew the movie was of a YOUNGER Nancy Drew, not the 18-year-old that doesn't go to school that all of the books are about. This was when she was sixteen. So naturally, she would of not as been as smart as the one in the book considering she is only in the 10th grade. Other than that, I thought the movie was very cute. It was clean and appropriate for everyone. It was funny at times. I thought Emma Roberts did a great job. She was articulate, in character, and cute. I liked the awkwardness that Nancy and Ned had around each other because they obviously were not old enough to be in a serious relationship like they have in the books. It was a cute, PG movie that I throughly enjoyed because I, unlike most people my age, enjoy movies without sex, drugs, or profanity. | Creature Unknown is the right word for this movie. Or maybe it should be called Unknown Movie. This movie is a piece of crap right from the beginning. It has a really stupid "plot," really pathetic "acting," and so-so "special effects." <br /><br />Some thirty-something year old "post-teens" are trapped in the woods with a mad, reptilian, rubber-suit creature lurking around endlessly. What you get with this movie is a bunch of talk and precious little action. You have girls walking through the woods talking, and then you have guys (with heavy mascara on) walking through the woods talking. The whole thing is so boring!<br /><br />The creature itself is rarely seen throughout most of the movie. When it is shown the picture is distorted to mask the fact that it is a man in a rubber suit, and the movement shows that it is a suit, hence the reason for the blurring and distortion of the image. <br /><br />This is NOT a good movie in ANY since of the word and the ones here who have praised it are most likely the people that were picked up off the street to "act" in this truly stupefying movie! Skip this one for certain! | 1,022 |
This is the most recent addition to a new wave of educational documentaries like "The Corporation" and "Fahrenheit 9/11." Its commentary is clear and unwavering as is the breathtaking cinematic style of this well crafted feature. The film manages to impose a powerful sense of how unsteady our world is as we rush toward an environmentally unsustainable future at lightning speed - while showing us the terrifying beauty in our pursuit of progress. <br /><br />Truly a remarkable accomplishment which must be seen by all who care about the world we leave to our children. Bravo!<br /><br />NB - this is also the only film (of 8) at Varsity theaters (Toronto) boasting a stick-on tag which reads... "To arrange group viewings please contact...." ... a further testament to the popularity and importance of this gem.<br /><br />My bet... an academy award nomination for best documentary.<br /><br />OB101 | Based on the personal experiences of director John Singleton's time at the University of Southern California,comes Higher Learning. A film centered on the racial politics that occur at modern day colleges.<br /><br />There are three main characters to which the film bases its foundation around for its story: Malik Williams, an carefree lowbrow athlete who is an African American male. Kristin Conner, a sheltered soft white girl, and Remy, a unsophisticated unconnected white male. All three are overcome by the sudden realities that college life is not as good as it is advertised as all three go through disappointment by being unprepared (Malik), by being naive (Kristin), and by being unwanted (Remy).<br /><br />One good thing about the film is that it does show that modern American colleges are just high schools writ large. The colleges are not places to build character , develop potential, or enhance personal advancement, but they are institutions used to gather all sorts of students in a one-size-fits-all atmosphere. It is an experience that usually is built for failure for most students. It would have been good if the film built it story about this travesty rather than racial politics.<br /><br />But it didn't and that's where the films falls apart. Singleton ,it seems, had a pretty bad experience at Southern California. Through this film he lets it all hang out. There is no need to beat around the bush here. Singleton lets the heroes and the villains of this piece be easily seen.<br /><br />The black characters in the film are pretty much seen as the heroes here while all the whites in the film are seen as the villains, save for Kristin, who was raped by a fellow white student.<br /><br />Who can understand the inconsistencies of this film? Black gang members who come to the aid of a white girl after she points out to them who supposedly raped her? The ease that the black gang members have at the university while a bunch of skin heads meet in a dark small dorm planning violence? <br /><br />The performances of Omar Epps (Malik) and Kristy Swanson (Kristin) are disappointing. They do seem like the third choices for the roles that they played in this movie (Tupac Shakur and Drew Barrymore were supposed to play Malik and Kristin but were unavailable). O'Shea Jackson aka Ice Cube ,Busta Rhymes, and Regina King were all irritating in their respective roles. And Laurence Fishburne was woefully miscast here as the history professor. Only Michael Rappaport did well in this film and he did considering that his character ,of the three main characters, changed the most in the film.<br /><br />John Singleton wanted to take on the matter of race and inequality in American college life with this film. And he did so quite badly. It was sort like killing a fly with a shotgun. Life is far more complex than it seems and people are alike all over and he should know this. Higher Learning is proof that he did not understand this at all. Seeing the film ,then and now, would only confuse, disappoint and enrage the same public he would wish to speak to. Not to mention it would not entertain them in the slightest. | 1,023 |
I must admit that I had my doubts about this movie before I was going to watch it. The main reason for that is because it was compared to a Hitchcock movie. I've seen several movies that were said to be inspired by Hitchcock or that could have been made by the 'Master of Suspense' himself, but so far I haven't seen any of these movie that would be able to stand the test of time. In my opinion Hitchcock has become a household name which is too easily used to promote some (cheap) thrillers, but on the other hand I must admit that I was intrigued by it because this is a European movie. Normally it's the big Hollywood studios who like to abuse Hitchcock's name if that can raise their income. But this movie was made in one of the most chauvinistic European countries ever and I'm sure that most French would rather drop dead than to admit that their movies have been inspired by an Englishman. That's why I decided to give this movie a try and I must say that I'm glad that I did.<br /><br />"Sur mes lèvres" or "Read my Lips" as it is called in English, tells the story of a young secretary named Carla. She is a hardworking and loyal employee, but has never been very appreciated by her colleagues. That has much to do with the fact that she suffers from a hearing deficiency, which has denied her to climb up on the hierarchical ladder of the company. But when she is allowed to hire a trainee that can work for her, all this is about to change. Paul Angeli is a 25 year old and completely unskilled ex-convict. The man is a thief, but Carla gives him a chance and covers for him when needed. She hopes to teach him what a regular life should look like, but at the same time he drags her with him in his old life...<br /><br />Since I still believe that the name Hitchcock is used too often to describe a very good thriller - which this movie definitely is - I will not make any comparisons between Hitchcock and Jacques Audiard's directing. Fact is that the man has done a really good job with this movie. I hadn't heard of him before, but it is true that he knows how to build up suspense and how to keep you interested from the beginning until the end. That also has a lot to do with the very fine and original story of course. I doubt if there is someone in Hollywood who has ever come up with the idea of using a handicapped woman in a powerful role, instead of making her the helpless subject of an abusive husband (you know, the typical TV-movie story).<br /><br />Also worth noticing is the acting in this movie. Vincent Cassel is quite famous, but Emmanuelle Devos was a complete mystery to me. There is absolutely nothing glamorous about their roles, but they both did an excellent job with their characters, making them feel very believable and realistic. Paul could have been the average tough guy right out of jail and Carla the typically helpless woman, but thanks to their performances, you really believe that these are two strong people who both have had some bad luck in life but who will make the best out of it together.<br /><br />All in all this is a powerful movie with a very fine script and some excellent acting. Despite the fact that I had my doubts about it, I've soon become one of its greatest admirers. I give this movie an 8/10. Don't hesitate to give it a try. | I am, as many are, a fan of Tony Scott films. When this movie came out I had high hopes that it would be like 'Man On Fire'. To find out that the movie it's the furthest thing from it! The story was treading water from the get go, and the choice of Mickey Rourke was not such such a good idea. And the whole 'arm'scene was too gratuitous! <br /><br />The movie is centered around Kiera Kinghtly, and this movie reveals that she'll never become a movie star! The movie brought some of the worst acting ever.<br /><br />I like Tony Scott's direction 'n all, but this takes the whole friggin cake! Sorry Ton, 1 out of 10! | 1,024 |
As with that film we follow the implausible if always engaging adventures of the 2 lead characters. But whilst C + J eschew sex for a girly trip back into childhood, this pair revel in their carnality even to the point of exploring homoeroticism. Most of the sex they acquire from grudging or unwilling partners and yet, despite their deeply un-PC behaviour, everyone emerges smiling. Like C + G, through it all they remain innocents at heart, rebels against the quotidien, the bourgeois, the restrictive. As someone else has commented, I wouldn't want to know these 2 and it's a minor miracle that their trip brings scenes of mostly comedy and very little tragedy (and what there is of that cannot be laid at their door) and thus for that reason, it left me beguiled but with a sweet taste in the mouth. Dare I say that only the French can get away with films like this. And that is part of their genius. | This su*k! Why do they have to make movies that they must know su*k from the beginning? I mean, look at Alien from 1977. If the movie you´r about to make is not better than anything made billions of years before, why make it? I had problems with the plot and who the main character was. That's not good either. | 1,025 |
i just saw this movie on TV..<br /><br />i've lost my dad when i was young and this movie surely did touch me..<br /><br />i can feel the lost that the little girl Desi felt..<br /><br />the feeling of wanting to see her father again..<br /><br />wanting to talk to him..<br /><br />or at least given the chance to say goodbye..<br /><br />and i'm so touched with the letter that was wrote back to her..<br /><br />saying that her father read her letter, and sent it back to someone to reply her and buy her a present because there isn't a shop in heaven..<br /><br />it just lets me feel that miracles do exist.. | I'm 47 years old and I've spent as much of my life as I can remember, a fan of horror and sci-fi films. Be they silent, black and white, no budget or big budget, there are very few of them that I can't find something to like about. That said, I'll give this movie credit for good gore and creature effects but that's all. This is a case of effects over story. Truth is we live in a time where there is very little left that hasn't been seen in a horror film. Therefor for a film of any kind to really entertain it must have a good, original story. A good story can overcome poor effects and bad acting but a bad story with good acting and good effects is still a bad movie. This movie doesn't even have good acting, only good effects. So unless you can only about the gore, pass this one up. | 1,026 |
Last Christmas, I was lucky enough to receive one of the 1200 Ultimate Bourne boxed sets from my Better Half but put off watching the final part of the trilogy until yesterday. Given how many recent trilogies have stumbled over the finishing line instead of striding triumphantly through it, I was somewhat wary of approaching "The Bourne Ultimatum" but I really shouldn't have been worried. The electric actions sequences and bruising fight scenes mix effortlessly alongside the intelligent story-lines to make this one of the very best action thrillers I can recall seeing and a sublime end to an excellent series.<br /><br />Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) returns after an apparent leak about Operation Blackbriar - a new program based on the old Treadstone project - to the journalist Simon Ross (Paddy Considine) at the Guardian. Determined to uncover more about his half-remembered past, Bourne picks up the trail once again but others at the CIA including Deputy Director Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) believe that Bourne himself is the leak and start to pursue the rogue agent with renewed vigour. Can Bourne finally find the answers he has been looking for or will his old employers silence him for good? <br /><br />Personally, I felt slightly disappointed with "The Bourne Supremacy" as it ditched the trademark realism of its action scenes and focused on being a proper spy film. Not to say it lost it altogether but compared to the fantastic "Bourne Identity", it seemed more like a slow-burning spy novel rather than an action-thriller. No such worries here - every car crash, punch, kick and gun shot is heard and felt with visceral delight but thankfully, it still retains a wonderfully intelligent and gripping spy story at its heart to base the action around. It also brilliantly ties together the two earlier films, providing a suitable bookend to the trilogy as things are explained and expanded until the full picture is exposed. Performances throughout are nearly faultless - even Julia Styles begins to offer something more than book-wormy eye-candy. The only real downer is that this, like the other Bourne films, has little to do with the original novel but unless you're a die-hard Ludlum fan, this isn't really any real reason to dislike a movie like this of the very highest calibre.<br /><br />Nothing pleases me more than a movie that takes me pleasantly by surprise and despite my fears, "The Bourne Ultimtum" is a cracking movie filled with enough bone-crunching action to satisfy the meat-heads as well as a plot that never threatens to let go of your attention for a single minute. Even at the final reel, you're never entirely sure whether a happy ending is assured but whether you are a fan of the series or not (and if not, what more do you want?), this is one film you really should track down as soon as you possibly can. No wonder this series forced the producers of the Bond movies to throw out forty-odd years of movie history in order to start again. Bourne is a modern spy hero and made recent Bond films look more like Austin Powers in comparison until "Casino Royale" gave the Bond series the reboot it desperately needed. Missing out of the Jason Bourne movies is a crime worthy of rendition - go and get yourself a copy of the DVD. Not the Ultimate Bourne collection though - limited edition, I'm afraid! | The Angry Red Planet (Quickie Review) <br /><br />Like "The Man From Planet X," this is a bizarre science fiction tale culled from an era where fantasy and science fiction were still damn near the same thing. Meaning, we have some highly laughable special effects and rampant pseudo-science masquerading as science fiction. And yes, it's another "classic" released in a high quality transfer with a crisp picture and sharp sound--by Midnite Movies.<br /><br />So, the main reason to watch this film? Oh, it's definitely the whole time our space crew is on Mars. (What, you thought "Angry Red Planet" referred to Neptune?) Prior to that is some rather poor quality space crew boarding a space ship, inside of which they smoke and toss around sexist chauvinistic banter aimed at the "puny female" member of the crew. It'd be somewhat offensive by today's standards if it weren't so damn funny. But Mars is the real reason we're watching this thing. The film is generally black and white, but Mars, well Mars is screaming bloody red. It's filmed in this bizarre red plasticy sheen giving the angry red planet quite an interesting look of overexposed redness. It's really quite a sightas are the (ha ha) aliens viewers are to witness. The best being the "ratbatspidercrab." You think that's a joke? That's what they call it in the movie! It's a gigantic chimera (small puppet) of a thing combining traits of rats, bats, spiders, and crabs. It bounds along all puppety and scares the sh*t out of our "heroic crew." There are other weird, and poorly imagined, aliens to be seen, but that one takes the cake. Eventually, after their harrowing experience on Mars, the sexist crew boards their "ship" and returns to whatever planet it was they came from.<br /><br />This ain't for everyone. Science Fiction film buffs & curiosity seekers, and some general film buffs. Fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 will have a field day with this one (if they never got to it on the show).<br /><br />2/10 Modern score, 6/10 Nostalgia score, 4/10 overall.<br /><br />(www.ResidentHazard.com) | 1,027 |
Cecil B. deMille really knew how to create a classic, and after 7 decades his western comes across as the Real McCoy, engrossing, entertaining, spectacular; in no way outdated.<br /><br />As a real fan of TV's DEADWOOD, I'll tell you the performances of Gary Cooper as Wild Bill Hickock and Jean Arthor as Calamity Jane are far more on-target.<br /><br />We don't have any giants in Hollywood anymore. PLAINSMAN is just one of dozens of classics from the 1936-1945 decade that have seen enduring commercial life decade after decade: released, re-issued, re-issued all over again. Filmmakers like today's Spielberg, Jackson, Bruckheimer are like kids playing in a sandbox. None of today's movies will be sought out in 7 months let alone 70 years. | Those of you who, like me, were disappointed with the original 1995 horror yarn, "The Fear" will find more to be disappointed with in this silly little sequel. It sort of follows a similar plot, but it is impossible to connect to the original, with the exception of the presence of Morty, the mannequin monster made of wood. Here is a brief overview.<br /><br />Twenty years after Mike Hawthorne (Gordon Currie, in a decent performance) witnesses his father brutally murder his mother and then take his own life, Mike is still suffering from the fear of that day. In hopes of ridding his fear, Mike takes his girlfriend and a bunch of friends up to his grandparents' home. His plan is for everyone to dress up in costumes that represent their fears, and then present the fears to the mannequin Morty. According to an Indian friend, this process is supposed to magically take away one's fear. What Mike doesn't know is that Morty is possessed with his father's spirit, and begins killing off the friends...or is it really Mike himself doing the killings? Who cares?<br /><br />A have a few troubles with this film. The first lies with Morty. I thought the original made Morty look rather convincing. This time, it is painfully obvious Morty is a man (actor Jon Fedele) in a fake looking suit. This can especially be seen in early scenes, where Morty is still supposed to be inanimate, but if you watch closely you can see him blinking. Another trouble is that most of the characters don't try hard enough. Some of them do, namely Betsy Palmer, of Friday the 13th fame, who was excellent in this film. But most of them don't make the effort or weren't given the chance. Finally, there are the killings. The opening scenes involving ax murders were very convincing. Actually, when I saw them I thought I was in for a good movie. When the second half of the movie arrives, and the killings really start, everything falls to pieces. Deaths are either uncreative, unseen, or foreseen (glimpses of the next scene as Currie has a blackout). One character dies in the end and no one, including the viewer, even notices. While more characterization was needed in the beginning half, it wasn't too bad. The second half was. I think new director Chris Angel got to this point and really didn't know how to shoot the violent scenes, so they turned out real sloppy and pedestrian. A silly ending doesn't help either. Thus, unless you really loved the original and enjoy plucking splinters out from under your skin, you should probably skip "The Fear 2: Halloween Night." Zanatos' score: 4 out of 10. | 1,028 |
first, someone mentioned here that because this was released in "limited" quantity it means that it SHOULD be bad...that is exactly what the "big five" Hollywood studios would like everyone to think so they can "pass" or "ignore" features that are not desirable, without loosing face or imagine by censoring them directly. to the point, this production has been released "limited" because is considered "unpatriotic" by certain individuals.<br /><br />now i absolutely loved this feature; i find it way better then "Charlie Wilson's War" even if it is a "fictional" account of something that "never" happens but is always so OBVIOUS.this goes to anyone and everyone interested or affected by present American foreign policies, "home" or "aboard". the "turakistan" country and "the emerald city" are definitely trying to resemble Iraq and Baghdad just as much as the corporation "Tamerlane" goes for "haliburton" (with the vice- president Dan Aykroyd playing Dick Cheney, LOL).there are quiet a moments actually where the movie is DEAD SERIOUS, not even sarcastic anymore (main example would be as how John Cusack character deals with his depression, but not only). <br /><br />i found that ALL the characters can be related to something/someone or specific stereotypes. now word of advise; if YOU are not politically active, especially towards the aspects of "globalization" , you will likely not enjoy this feature much since most of its content and inside "jokes" are targeting certain "personalities" that are not "visibile" to the general public on daily bases...(main exception would be Hilary Duff that plays the well known materialistic pop star, need i say name(S)?). at its CORE the feature is an anti-globalization gig, period. the message is unmistakeably delivered with comic vengeance. Joan has a line at one point that goes like this: "and here we have a book written by you know who, about how i conquered the world and resolved the issues with my dad".PRICELESS)))<br /><br />the sister and brother Cusacks play good together as always, same as in "Grosse PointeBlank" i would say a bit more "mature".Marisa Tomeihere does not show her butt and breasts to "impress" us (like she did recently in "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead"), but instead she has a very serious role, and manages to pull it off quiet well.<br /><br />many critics don't get it (can not do so, or do not want to). this IS NOT a "regular" movie but more of a comic documentary. this feature stands to deliver a message and NOT to get Oscars, or have "visuals" sort of getting the viewer into buying the latest "HDTV experience" TV sets...i have noticed even in my local papers that this movie gets bad re-views because is not "artistic", while PRO Iraq war movies get good thumbs up for being "balanced" apparently and "engaging".makes one wonders how much all the world mainstream media is concentrated in the hands of a bunch of guys...<br /><br />i bet this feature will prove a hit overseas as much more then it will in north America. as i mentioned before, it is all a satire about American foreign policy and how it has been hijacked by "special interests" groups... having the "regular" American soldier wearing the "Tamerlane" corporate logo on its combat dress is pretty insulting BUT EFFECTIVE in showing reality as it IS, or will be soon the way things go so far.<br /><br />some PRICELESS shots: upon "liberation", the country gets invaded commercial advertisements; a hilarious scene about how future journalists will likely gather "news"("anything is got to be better then this x-box bullocks"))); soldiers dealing with their "frustration"; <br /><br />overall, i do not recommend this to "conservatives" or "hard core" patriots of some kind or another.this feature is not made to reach to the "minds of souls" of the people(as mainstream propaganda and commercial interests always try to do so).instead it contains a message well defined for realists, and towards some ideological goals apparently "always" short of realizing. | I have to say I hated this movie. I don't like to say that because Gerard Butler is in it. About a half an hour of boring conversation, sorry to all who actually care about the plot, I started fast-forwarding to Gerry's scenes. I really don't know the ending, I was that bored with it. If Gerry wasn't in it, I probably either done one of two things: fell asleep or turned it off, but Gerry is the bright light of this movie, as he is with most of his earlier movies. If you're a fan of Gerry's don't worry, he's as adorable and precious as he always is, but if you actually want to watch the movie for the plot, good luck because you'll need it, either that or lots of coffee or soda to keep you awake! <br /><br />4/10...and that's just because the casting director had the sense to put Gerry in this movie, even though they had no idea of how to spell his name! | 1,029 |
Until the 1990s there had never been a film based upon Jane Austen's "Emma". Then two came along in the same year, 1996. Or, if you count 1995's "Clueless", which updates Austen's plot to a modern American high school, three in two years. <br /><br />The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from a well-to-do family in Regency England. She is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications. <br /><br />Today in 2008 Kate Beckinsale is a Hollywood star, but in 1996, despite being only a year younger, was not nearly as well-known internationally as Gwyneth Paltrow. She is, however, just as convincing as Austen's well-intentioned but often wrong-headed heroine. Beckinsale seems to have a gift for classical roles- she made a delightful Hero in Kenneth Branagh's version of "Much Ado about Nothing"- and I sometimes find myself wishing that Hollywood could have found more suitable roles for her rather than wasting her in turkeys like "Pearl Harbor" or "Underworld". <br /><br />I preferred Jeremy Northam to Mark Strong as Emma's love interest Mr Knightley, largely because he came closer to my own conception of the character as a gentlemanly, chivalrous older man, in some ways more of a father-figure to Emma than a lover. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Strong tends to downplay the question of the age difference (he is 37, she 21) and makes Knightley more of a passionate lover and less of a wise mentor than does Northam. Samantha Morton (another actress who would go on to bigger things) is perhaps closer to the Harriet of the novel than was Toni Collette.<br /><br />This was the more small-scale of the two versions, being made for television rather than the cinema, and the sets and costumes seem less lavish and there are fewer big names among the cast. Costume drama, however, is generally something that British television does well, and this version can certainly hold its own with the cinema version; both are entertaining and well-made versions of Austen's novel. 7/10 | The film is about Sir Christopher Strong (MP--member of Parliament--played by Colin Clive) and his affair with the Amelia Earhart-like character played by Katherine Hepburn. Up until they met, he had been a very devoted husband but when he met the odd but fascinating Hepburn, he "couldn't help himself" and they fell in love. You can tell, because they stare off into space a lot and talk ENDLESSLY about how painful their unrequited love is. Frankly, this is a terribly dated and practically impossible film to watch. Part of the problem is that in the Pre-Code days, films glamorizing adultery were very common. Plus, even if you accept this morally suspect subject, the utter sappiness of the dialog make it sound like a 19th century romance novel...and a really bad one at that. Sticky and with difficult to like characters (after all, Clive's wife is a nice lady and did no one any harm) make this one a big waste of time. About the only interesting aspect of this film is the costume Hepburn wears in an early scene where she is dressed in a moth costume! You've gotta see it to believe it--and she looks like one of the Bugaloos (an obscure, but fitting reference). | 1,030 |
I just saw the movie on tv. I really enjoyed it. I like a good mystery. and this one had me guessing up to the end. Sean Connery did a good job. I would recomend it to a friend. | Much as we all love Al Pacino, it was painful to see him in this movie. A publicity hack at the grubby ending of what seems to have once been a distinguished and idealistic career Pacino plays his part looking like an unmade bed and assaulting everyone with a totally bogus and inconsistent southern accent.<br /><br />The plot spools out this way and that with so many loose ends and improbabilities that the mind reels (and then retreats).<br /><br />Kim Basinger is there, not doing much. Her scenes with Pacino are flat and unconvincing. Hard to believe they meant a lot to each other. There's no energy there.<br /><br />Tea Leone, on the other hand, lit up the screen. She was electric and her scenes with Pacino were by far the most interesting in the movie, but not enough to save Al from embarrassment. | 1,031 |
Like "My Sassy Girl", this movie is based on a true story posted from the internet, but that's where the similarities end. The story is generally about this rebellious guy named Ji-Hoon (Kwon Sang Woo) who is still trying to finish high school, whose parents hire a tutor named Su-Wan (Kim Ha Neul), a woman who comes from a poor background, but happens to be the same age as him. Add to that some obstacles, martial arts (thugs are always after Ji-Hoon for revenge), a scorned, thuggish love-sick girl who is after him, his proclivity for ditching the lessons, and you generally can guess the whole story. Did I mention it's a romantic comedy? This movie has some good fight scenes, great visual humor and a lot of spunk, thanks to the good chemistry between Kim Ha Nuel and Kwon Sang Woo, that bring a lot of energy to the story. The romantic elements also work because of that reason. And, I must say, I'd want a girlfriend more like Kim Ha Nuel than that girl from "My Sassy Girl" (personality-wise, at least). She has some spunk, but it's more on the cute, sweet, good-hearted way. Characters are already mostly likable (so one might say it had less of a hill to climb than "My Sassy Girl"--an obstacle that worked for that movie to its credit), and the movie is quite clever and interesting most of the way. The story kind of sags, though, about 2/3 of the way (where it sort of treads on familiar, standard fare, where nothing really interesting happens), but near the end, it picks up a bit again. Overall, a fun, cute movie. 8/10 | This superior inferiority to the original dumb "Blind Dead" movie is another trash bin waste. So many people have hyped up these films that I can't believe what they say about it. Since I was a kid I have heard about how scary and great these films are and I saw them all and was throughly disappointed, was everyone on drugs, from the 1970's or do they just not know how boring this crude is? | 1,032 |
Rupert Friend gives a performance, as Prince Albert, that lifts "The Young Victoria" to unexpected levels. He is superb. As we know, Queen Victoria fell into a dark, deep depression after Prince Albert's death and looking into Ruper Friend's eyes I understood. The film doesn't take us to his death but to an incident that may very well could have cost his life. An act of love. I believed it, or I should say, him. I believed what he felt was real. Nothing or anybody gets anywhere near the delicacy and profundity of Friend's characterization. Emily Blunt is good but I didn't believe for a minute she was Victoria. No real sense of period. It may no have been her fault but her prince deserved the crown. | I was at this film's premiere at the Toronto Film Festival in 1997. After the screening, when the writer/director and some cast members offered to answer questions, no one could even be bothered to ask any. Rarely has a film been so poorly directed (why on earth were random frames snipped out of some scenes?), wretchedly acted (David Arquette, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, does not run the emotional gamut from A to B. He parks at A and brings a lunch) and utterly pointless. Characters behave completely out of character for no reason except to force the plot to move in certain directions. At long last, the film comes to a completely random and pointless end that's supposed to "really make you think." Unfortunately, what it makes you think is, "Well, there's 90 minutes of my life I'm never getting back." | 1,033 |
I found this episode to be one of funniest I've seen in a long time. The south park creators have done the best spoof of a Romero film I have ever seen.They have truly touched on Romero's underlying social commentary that he has made with each one of his films. I would love to know what George Romero's opinion was on this episode I'm sure it was purely positive! Keeping his true vision for his zombie epics fully intact! Most spoofs deal with the pure gore without making the viewer think as Romero tries to do with his films. I think that if a zombie outbreak did happen we may actually worry about our property values before our lives as shown in this episode! | Instead, go to the zoo, buy some peanuts and feed 'em to the monkeys. Monkeys are funny. People with amnesia who don't say much, just sit there with vacant eyes are not all that funny.<br /><br />Black comedy? There isn't a black person in it, and there isn't one funny thing in it either.<br /><br />Walmart buys these things up somehow and puts them on their dollar rack. It's labeled Unrated. I think they took out the topless scene. They may have taken out other stuff too, who knows? All we know is that whatever they took out, isn't there any more.<br /><br />The acting seemed OK to me. There's a lot of unfathomables tho. It's supposed to be a city? It's supposed to be a big lake? If it's so hot in the church people are fanning themselves, why are they all wearing coats? | 1,034 |
As this happens to be one of most favorite novels , I was very excited to see the move. I was not disappointed! Yes of course there are a few things that I could pick on , but I think that the movie stuck true to the book, and was a really good movie. It seems that Stephen King films mostly get a bad review , but this is one of the good ones. It is such a dark story , which I guess is why I like it .. and what is better than the dead coming to life.. and something about animals returning from the grave is quite creepy too. If you have seen the movie do yourself a huge favor and now read the book!! It is a well written screen play , the actors could have done a better job ( I only say this for Rachel , and Ellie .. she was so whinny ) I liked everyone else a lot.. and most important to me .. it stuck true with the novel. | We gave up at the point where George Clooney's character has his finger-nails extracted. We were not squeamish - having sat through an hour of this drivel we just knew what it felt like. To say this film was incomprehensible, boring, pretentious twaddle would be to over-praise it! How did people manage to sit through this confusing, slow, depressing pseud's corner of a film, let alone nominate it for an Oscar? Clooney looked as ill as we felt watching him. What was he thinking? Oh .. and what was with those subtitles? - did we just have a dud DVD or was the original film done like that - sentences left hanging in mid-air? The film was hard enough to follow without that as well. I pity the cast, who obviously did their best with the material available. | 1,035 |
I first saw this movie when it originally came out. I was about 9 yrs. old and found this movie both highly entertaining and very frightening and unlike any other movie I had seen up until that time.<br /><br />BASIC PLOT: An expedition is sent out from Earth to the fourth planet of Altair, a great mainsequence star in constellation Aquilae to find out what happened to a colony of settlers which landed twenty years before and had not been heard from since.<br /><br />THEME: An inferior civilization (namely ours) comes into contact with the remains of a greatly advanced alien civilization, the Krell-200,000 years removed. The "seed" of destruction from one civilization is being passed on to another, unknowingly at first. The theme of this movie is very much Good vs. Evil.<br /><br />I first saw this movie with my brother when it came out originally. I was just a boy and the tiger scenes really did scare me as did the battle scenes with the unseen Creature-force. I was also amazed at just how real things looked in the movie.<br /><br />What really captures my attention as an adult though is the truth of the movie "forbidden knowledge" and how relevant this will be when we do (if ever) come into contact with an advanced (alien) civilization far more developed than we ourselves are presently. Advanced technology and responsibility seem go hand in hand. We must do the work for ourselves to acquire the knowledge along with the wisdom of how to use advanced technology. This is, in my opinion, the great moral of the movie.<br /><br />I learned in graduate school that "knowledge is power" is at best, in fact, not correct! Knowledge is "potential" power depending upon how it is applied (... if it is applied at all.) [It's not what you know, but how you use what you know!]<br /><br />The overall impact of this movie may well be realized sometime in Mankind's own future. That is knowledge in and of itself is not enough, we must, MUST have the wisdom that knowledge depends on to truly control our own destiny OR we will end up like the Krell in the movie-just winked-out.<br /><br />Many thanks to those who responded to earlier versions of this article with comments and corrections, they are all very much appreciated!! I hope you are as entertained by this story as much as I have been over the past 40+ years ....<br /><br />Rating: 10 out 10 stars | This is the absolutely worst piece of crap I've ever had to watch - actually it was so bad that I just HAD to watch it :-)<br /><br />The CGI is sooo bad it's fun! It's not even close to the shitty CGI animations in Spawn, that's how bad it is, har har har...<br /><br />I'm amazed over the fact that some distribution company actually has put money down to release this on DVD, but I guess they'll get more money out of it that way, 'cos the cost of making it can not have been more than a few hundred dollars.<br /><br />It's so awful that a kindergarten class could have made it.<br /><br />See it and laugh! | 1,036 |
This very funny British comedy shows what might happen if a section of London, in this case Pimlico, were to declare itself independent from the rest of the UK and its laws, taxes & post-war restrictions. Merry mayhem is what would happen.<br /><br />The explosion of a wartime bomb leads to the discovery of ancient documents which show that Pimlico was ceded to the Duchy of Burgundy centuries ago, a small historical footnote long since forgotten. To the new Burgundians, however, this is an unexpected opportunity to live as they please, free from any interference from Whitehall.<br /><br />Stanley Holloway is excellent as the minor city politician who suddenly finds himself leading one of the world's tiniest nations. Dame Margaret Rutherford is a delight as the history professor who sides with Pimlico. Others in the stand-out cast include Hermione Baddeley, Paul Duplis, Naughton Wayne, Basil Radford & Sir Michael Hordern.<br /><br />Welcome to Burgundy! | I used to LOVE this movie as a kid but, seeing it again 20+ years later, it actually sucks. Up The Academy might have been ahead of it's time back in 1980, but it has almost nothing to offer today! Movies like Caddyshack and Stripes hold-up much better today than this steaming dogpile. No T&A. No great jokes except for the one-liners we've all heard a million times by now.<br /><br />I recently bought the DVD in hopes that it would be the gem I remembered it being. Well, I was WAY off! The soundtrack had only 2-3 widely-recognizable hits (not the smash compilation others had mentioned) and the frequent voice-overs were terrible. The only thing that was interesting, to me, was predicting what the character's lines were before they said them. Yep, I watched this movie that much back then! <br /><br />The only reason I am writing this review is to give my two cents on why this movie should be forgotten, sorry to say. :( | 1,037 |
I have to admit that Tsui Hark is one of a kind, you can't top a person with a strong style of movie presence. A Chinese fantasy picture may not be easy to present to an audience, the director attempted to bring back the classic fantasy tales of Zu Mountain and this is what he displayed.<br /><br />The new Legend of Zu has truly improved from the one in 1983. From this new millenium update, we could see Tsui Hark's vision of the Zu mountains. Spectacular visual designs, amazing action-fantasy epic made beautifully well. Kept me glued through the entire picture. Great cast with just fine acting. It's truly a fun movie to watch, but is it too weird?<br /><br />Now the down side is people will definitely get confused with it's broad story line shortened down into a 95 minute movie. Plot may not have much relation among characters, but by rewatching the movie, you'll have a better sense of understanding the characters itself. Some can complain there isn't too much physical combat, besides with characters that have supernatural powers to defeat foes, spirits fighting by hand-to-hand wouldn't really make sense at all. <br /><br />I appreciated this nice stylish picture. It may have a thin story, but hey look at Tsui Hark's "Time & Tide," we got confused by the plot as well, but it was truly something stylish and awesome. Tsui Hark always attracts something different into H.K. Cinema. American audiences, may have some difficulty to understand while watching this movie, cause this ain't no Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, this is a whole new genre. Although it may not be a masterpiece, but it's special effects is truly better than Storm Riders. This is really worth checking out. | If you like films that are totally bizarre, then this one is for you! Abdullah is one mean mother, with a passion for strangling people and eating ham. You should check this film out, just for a laugh. It is a low budget sci-fi, musical, comedy, cannibalistic, classic. If you get bored of the film half way through you should persevere, just for the sake of seeing the aliens, which are nothing more than little toy robots, but in my opinion are the films highlight. "I'm the Big Meat Eater, pass me | 1,038 |
The Sentinel i was hoping would be a good film and boy i was right.A great story first of all from a novel and i thought this was an original story but i guess it wasn't and it was a very smart story. Michael Douglas in this film is very good and Keither Sutherland is too,but however it is very hard to shrug him off his role as Jack Bauer in 24 but eventually you do and he is very different in The Sentinel than he is in 24.also another person trying to shrug off their TV role but failed.Eva Longeria.She wasn't that good in the film and had a back seat in the entire thing.After i saw the film i had constant dreams about The Sentinel and couldn't sleep.Overall Sentinel is a good film and i would recommend it. | It's interesting that a novel with no plot has become the basis for two films. While The Heiress was a good, if not entirely accurate, adaptation, Washington Square is a heavy-handed and poorly acted, except for the part of Dr Sloper, film that could have been so much better.<br /><br />The director's attempts at making 'beautiful' scenes were so obvious that I actually cringed. It has none of the understated and simple beauty that a movie with no plot can have, such as Onegin. I agree with other comments about Leigh's portrayal of Catherine as an idiot, instead of naive and shy; she made me despise her not feel for her.<br /><br />Catherine's transition from childlike trusting to adult cynicism, the whole point of the story, was internalised, just as it was in the novel. But we don't have the benefit of a narrative voice to tell us that in a film! I think someone skipped adaptation class at filmschool.<br /><br />I appreciate the director's attempts to make a moving and beautiful film out of a difficult text but it just didn't work. | 1,039 |
This movie is a true masterpiece, it really is. It's rare you come across such a heartwarming flick, full of fun, laughter, heartbreak, and with a little drama to keep you on your toes. <br /><br />A true family film, Homeward Bound tells the story of three brave pets, who set out to cross the Rocky Mountains in an attempt to find their owners, following the changes they go through and the obstacles they encounter along the way. One of the truly stunning things about this movie is its ability to give animals human personalities - the voice acting is that good. Shadow is a wonderful character, old, wise and brave, and watching him trying to save Sassy in the river was a very powerfully moving moment. Chance - who wouldn't love a dog like Chance? He's got to be the most mischievous and lovable pup ever shown on the big screen. And Sassy is very witty for a cat - she had me in stitches when she was mocking the keeper; 'Here kitty kitty kitty... not on your life, chubby.' <br /><br />There were also lots of well made emotional scenes, such as Sassy going over the waterfall (I was truly scared for her), Shadow falling in the ditch (almost in tears) and then the fantastic ending, when all three pets return home... including good old Shadow! <br /><br />A favourite for all time - anyone who doesn't like this film must just not like animals. Rent it or buy it now, and it'll leave you with happy memories that'll last a lifetime. | A group of friends come face-to-face with a family of hideous cannibals whilst camping in the beautiful German countryside.<br /><br />The 'mutant cannibal family' concept is almost as old as the hills that the inbred freaks often call home, so any director attempting to breath new life into the genre needs to come up with something pretty darn special in order to impress. With Barricade, Timo Rose tries to give the well-worn routine a Teutonic twist, by transplanting the action to The Black Forest and giving it the German low-budget splatter treatment. The result is a very bloody, but totally unoriginal effort that is made almost unwatchable thanks to some dreadful directorial decisionsin particular, the non-stop use of fancy filters and irritating editing techniques.<br /><br />Had Timo Rose not opted to utilise every naff trick his editing software offered him, then Barricade might have been a reasonably entertaining gore-fest: his inexperienced cast do reasonably well; the bloody effects are suitably stomach churning; and there are one or two scares and even some well conceived creepy moments. All of this, however, is completely ruined by the awful camera-work, choppy editing, and overwhelming barrage of visual gimmickry used to give the film the distressed look that is so inexplicably popular with today's film-makers.<br /><br />I give Barricade 3 out of 10 purely for the outlandish gore, which includes a nifty scene where a guy is forced to drink acid, loads of nasty wounds caused by a variety of sharp implements, and some pretty decent shotgun damage. | 1,040 |
This movie is humorous, charming, and easily becomes a favorite for those who enjoy light entertainment. Hollywood is hardly the place for serious history lessons so I simply accept it as is. Bing, in his usual inimitable style, performs quite well as the blacksmith, Hank Martin, who by accident is transported back to another age, the time of King Arthur. The beautiful Rhonda Fleming is breathtaking as Alisande, or Sandy, the object of Hank's affections although she is betrothed to the brave and formidable Sir Lancelot, played by Henry Wilcoxon.<br /><br />I just love that episode when King Arthur (Cedric Hardwicke), Sir Sagramore (Wm. Bendix), and Hank (Bing Crosby) dress up in tattered clothing and take to the high road with their knapsacks to experience the kingdom at firsthand. King Arthur's comment, "I say, we are not alone" while giving his scruffy garments a good scratch, is one of those hilarious moments in the film. William Bendix's portrayal is superbly ridiculous, not to mention his attempts at quaint "ye Olde English." <br /><br />The story is not deep but it's well done in my opinion and I enjoy it more each time I see it. It's great family entertainment too.<br /><br /> | I saw this film for the first time not too long on TCM's "Essentials" series. The eye of the beholder cliché was never more apropos. This beholder saw little of value in this one. I was puzzled by the infinite attraction that Lucy (Lauren Bacall) possessed. Granted, Ms. Bacall was a beautiful woman, but in this film her character comes off more mousy than attractive. I would think men like Mitch Wayne and Kyle Hadley would more likely ignore Lucy than fall into an instant infatuation with her. In Bacall's defense, this film was made at the time of Humphrey Bogart's last illness and the weight of his deteriorating health may have affected her performance. Of course part of this mousiness on the part of Lucy was to contrast her to slutty Marylee, played to the hilt and beyond by Dorothy Malone. The scene where she engages in a wildly sensual dance while her father wearily climbs the stairs to a fatal heart attack is far and away the best scene in the film. Malone's performance outshines the rest, although Jasper Hadley's weariness at the disappointing behavior of his two children is brilliantly portrayed by Robert Keith. Generally, though, I would have to say that I'm just not much of a fan of melodrama. The cartoonish behavior of the characters just makes for a story too implausible for my tastes. | 1,041 |
Robert Standish's novel is about a triangular romantic situation on a Ceylonese tea plantation... So the events of the Ceylon backgrounds and pictorial beauty are rewarding points to William Dieterle's film...<br /><br />The story is about a rich powerful planter (Peter Finch), who brings a charming and tender beauty (Elizabeth Taylor), into the jungle as his bride... The plantation, of course, is endangered by some kind of wild life... For this reason Taylor elegant as never in dazzling costumes finds herself in a strange atmosphere... The echo determination of a ghost, the bad temper of a husband obsessed by the memory of his autocratic father, a highly dangerous disease, and the fury of wild animals...<br /><br />In her confusion, boredom and annoyance Elizabeth Taylor looks to a friendly face, a pretentious foreman (Dana Andrews), who admires her beauty but tries to conquer her love...<br /><br />With echoes of "Jane Eyre," the mysterious Yorkshire mansion with a brooding master, and "Rebecca," the innocent young second wife hunted by the image of the glamorous first wife, "Elephant Walk" is a menace melodrama with a wide view of a huge tropical bungalow, exotic dances with rage excessively colorful, stampeding big bull elephants, amazing mansion set on fire, all in the company of an exquisite creature with an unquestioned beauty and talent...<br /><br />The movie gave Liz a change of scenery, and allowed her more creative energy and self-respect than most of her other willful debutante-rebels
The wife here has a sharp tongue and a strong will, and so Taylor plays her movie star heroine with more spirit than she was given credit for
| Although I had seen "Gymkata" in a theater way back in '85, I couldn't remember anything of the plot except for vague images of Kurt Thomas running and fighting against a backdrop of stone walls and disappointment regarding the ending.<br /><br />After reading some of the other reviews I picked up a copy of the newly released DVD to once again enter the world of Gymkata.<br /><br />It turns out this is one of those films produced during the '80s that would go directly to video today. The film stars champion gymnast Kurt Thomas as Jonathan Cabot, recruited out of the blue to infiltrate the nation of "Parmistan" to enter and hopefully win "The Game," a suicidal bloodsport sponsored by the Khan who encourages his people by yelling what sounds like "Yak Power." The goal of the mission involves the Star Wars defense system. Jonathan is trained in the martial arts by Princess Rubali, who never speaks or leaves the house. Once trained tries to blend in with the locals by wearing a bright red sweater with dashes of blue and white. Needless to say Cabot finds himself running and fighting for his life along the stone streets of Parmistan, on his way to a date with destiny, and the Game.<br /><br />Star, Kurt Thomas was ill served by director Robert Clouse, who it looks like was never on the set. The so called script is just this side of incompetent. See other reviews for the many howlers throughout. The town of crazies has a few good moments, but is ultimately ruined by bad editing. The ending...meh. Still there's the germ of a good action adventure here. A Hong Kong version with more visceral action and faster pace might even be pretty good. | 1,042 |
Despite some reviews being distinctly Luke-warm, I found the story totally engrossing and even if some critics have described the love story as 'Mills and Boon', so what? It is good to see a warm, touching story of real love in these cynical times. Many in the audience were sniffing and surreptitiously dabbing their eyes. You really believe that the young Victoria and Albert are passionately fond of each other, even though, for political reasons, it was an arranged marriage. I did feel though that Sir John Conroy, who was desperate to control the young Queen, is perhaps played too like a pantomime villain. As it is rumoured that he was in fact, the real father of Victoria (as a result of an affair with her mother The Duchess of Kent) it would have been interesting to explore this theory. Emily Blunt is totally convincing as the young Princess, trapped in the stifling palace with courtiers and politicians out to manipulate her. She brilliantly portrays the strength of character and determination that eventually made Victoria a great Queen of England, which prospered as never before, under her long reign. I believe word of mouth recommendations will ensure great success for this most enjoyable and wonderful looking movie. | The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.<br /><br />Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.<br /><br />The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.<br /><br />Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the "Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.<br /><br />Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.<br /><br />Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3. | 1,043 |
Ettore Scola is one of the most important Italian directors. My parents and I watched together "C'eravamo tanto amati" on a summer night: we liked it, but we didn't love it as we loved "A special day". I believe Ettore Scola is pretty underrated: we often forget to remember him, maybe because his latest films were disappointing. And so, yesterday night, my mum and I sat on our sofa to enjoy this masterpiece. Writing, direction, cinematography, score and production design were sober and accurate, but the thing I liked the most was the chemistry between Loren and Mastroianni. They're both excellent actors and play the main roles of Antonietta and Gabriele. Antonietta is an housewife: married with a fanatic Fascist, she has six children but her husband wants to have another child to get a prize for the huge families. Gabriele is simply an Anti-Fascist. They spend together a special day, that special day of 1938 when Hitler came to Rome visiting Mussolini. I don't want to spoil anymore about the plot: go looking for this film! | Just so that you fellow movie fans get the point about this film, I decided to write another review. I missed a few things out last time...<br /><br />First, the script. Second, the acting. Third, Jesus Christ what were they thinking making a piece of garbage like this and then expecting us to enjoy it when there are no redeeming features whatsoever from beginning to end except when Joseph Fiennes finally gets blown away in a very unexciting climax!!!<br /><br />I can't believe I wasted my money on this when I could have given it to a homeless person or a busker or SOMETHING!<br /><br />Are you getting the picture? | 1,044 |
Just saw this movie version of Frank Loesser's Guys and Dolls for the third time with my mother who had never seen this before. She was pleasantly surprised by the singing voices of Jean Simmons and Marlon Brando. And she thought the Havana sequences where Simmons and Brando dance up a storm were excellent. Those were pretty impressive to me too and were usually the highlights of the film. Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, this movie which originated as a story by Damon Runyon takes a while with the slow pacing of the non-musical scenes at first but pulls you in after a while. The other story with Frank Sinatra and Vivian Blaine wasn't as compelling to me but still had their charms especially during the "Sue Me" number. Also loved Stubby Kaye's "Sit Down, You're Rocking the Boat" number and the performances of Sheldon Leonard and B. S. Pully. With a theatrical look throughout, Guys and Dolls isn't a great film musical but certainly a very good one. | This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality! | 1,045 |
he is the quintessential narcissist and manipulator; in this case, portraying attorney (and murderer) Tom Capano.<br /><br />Kathryn Morris is sympathetic as victim, Anne Marie Fahey, but in the beginning is a bit too much the victim. We are sorry for the situation, but become simultaneously disgusted after seeing his victimization of several other women (including Rachel Ward) as well.<br /><br />The sad part is where she is actually getting help with her self-esteem issues, and Capano actually had her psychologist killed. Pretty hard to believe, but this was based on a true story.<br /><br />There is a cameo with Olympia Dukakis (excellent) as Capano's mother. All in all, an interesting story because it is based on a true murder, and you will want to read Ann Rule's book to get the accurate details. 8/10. | I rented this movie for a few laughs. I had never seen the SNL skit, but with hits like Tommy Boy, and Waynes World, it couldn't have been that bad, could it? The answer: it was. This movie hardly was a means of relaxing after a hard day at work. I just kept waiting for a plotline and a funny part, but there wasn't any. The highlight was tiffany amber thieson, and thats just about it. | 1,046 |
The story is quite original, but the movie is kinda slow building up to the point where they steal the cars. Its kinda nice though to watch them prepare the stealing too, but the actual stealing should've been more in picture... However the stunt work on this movie was excellent and it is definetly a movie you HAVE to see (7/10) | There was such a hype about a game show with Bill Shatner...and especially right in the wake of Deal or No Deal and 1 vs 100. So, of course everyone had to tune in to see what all the fuss was about on the new game show. What a disappointment! As Ben Stein so stoically and nasally says, "wooww".<br /><br />The only thing likable about this show was the fact that you knew it would eventually be over. Sitting through a full hour of it was like going to the dentist...you find yourself looking at the clock in what you think are 10 minute intervals, only to find out that only a minute has passed (but seemed like an eternity) since you last glanced at the clock. So, why didn't I just switch the channel? Well, probably for the same reason most other people didn't...out of sheer optimism. I mean, no one really *wants* to think that a show with Bill Shatner could actually be SO BAD.<br /><br />Personally, from the first 15 minutes, I never thought this was the kind of vehicle that would showcase the talents of William Shatner. My chief complaint was that the set was so dark. Watching it left me feeling depressed. You kept on wanting to get ahold of a little excitement, but there was just none to be had. There was not even enough light on the set to get a feel of energy from the audience (who you couldn't even see).<br /><br />Dear Network: People do not watch game shows to cure their insomnia...they watch game shows to be excited and have a good time. Please do us all a favor and lose this in the vault. | 1,047 |
That hilarious line is typical of what these naughty sisters say. (It's funny on its own terms and pretty funny unintentionally , too.) Only two of the sisters are really bad. Boy, are they bad, too! One is given to pinup poses and salacious comments where e'er she goes. The other is got up to look like Marilyn Monroe. She has those sensual, slightly parted lips. And, not to give anything away, she is even more bad than the other.<br /><br />All three sisters are played by starlets. The man who stumbles into their lives is played by John Bromfield. He had something of a career.<br /><br />This looks today like possibly the first mainstream soft-core porn ever marketed. Well, of course not the first but the raciest at that time.<br /><br />The girls wear as little as possible and let's not forget about the female audience members: Bromfield is shown shaving with an electric razor -- whose fetish was this? -- bare-chested. He also is shown sopping wet in a swimsuit.<br /><br />There's a real plot here, too: The girls' family, see, is cursed. They are prone to suicide -- or dramatic deaths that can be made to seem like suicide.<br /><br />The movie is not bad. I truly don't know where it was shown. Maybe it was made for drive-ins. Somehow, and I could be wrong, I felt that the typical male audience was not the primary target here. The women are scantily dressed. They often resemble lurid covers of mags like Police Detective or jackets of dime novels.<br /><br />But the guy seems to be the central focus. Not everyone in the movie likes him, but all the girls love him. And I think the audience is meant to also.<br /><br />It's lots of fun -- and on its own terms, too. | No mention if Ann Rivers Siddons adapted the material for "The House Next Door" from her 1970s novel of the same title, or someone else did it. This Lifetime-like movie was directed by Canadian director Jeff Woolnough. Having read the book a long time ago, we decided to take a chance when the film showed on a cable version of what was clearly a movie made for television. You know that when the critical moments precede the commercials, which of course, one can't find in this version we watched.<br /><br />The film's star is Lara Flynn Boyle who sports a new look that threw this viewer a curve because of the cosmetic transformation this actress has gone through. From the new eyebrows to other parts of her body, Ms. Boyle is hardly recognizable as Col Kennedy, the character at the center of the mystery. This was not one of the actress better moments in front of the camera. That goes for the rest of the mainly Canadian actors that deserved better.<br /><br />The film has a feeling of a cross between "Desperate Houswives" with "The Stepford Wives" and other better known features, combined with a mild dose of creepiness. The best thing about the movie was the house which serves as the setting. | 1,048 |
This film is one of the more risqué black and white films of this time in the early 1930's before the Hoyts Code was enforced. It's the story of a young beautiful woman moving to New York and making her way to the top of the business by using her body as a tool to get there.<br /><br />Barbara Stanwyck plays the young and beautiful Lily Powers who indeed does a fairly well job with her performance. Lily moves to New York and makes her way up the business place by sleeping with all the men. Stanwyck does an outstanding performance as being a strong woman who uses men as one time deals, hardly any emotion towards them playing them as if they were pawns. Lily Powers is a woman who doesn't have love on her mind just power and money.<br /><br />I thought this movie to be a little bit different then other films I have seen because there is hardly any background music heard. I believe it is only because this is when people were first introduced to live sound and dialogue between the people of the film. The few times the music is heard is during the beginning as we are shown how she makes her way up the chain. The filming and different scenes were something fantastic! The director of this film did all the right angles and all the right tricks, making this film full of realism.<br /><br />This film was all together an alright movie.The ending to this movie wasn't as good as it should have been, but it didn't entirely ruin it. Baby Face had its slow moving scenes throughout the movie, and perhaps a few predictable parts such as who she will sleep with next. But this is a lovable movie that can be watched more then once, and suggested to some people and friends. | Bloodsuckers has the potential to be a somewhat decent movie, the concept of military types tracking down and battling vampires in space is one with some potential in the cheesier realm of things. Even the idea of the universe being full of various different breeds of vampire, all with different attributes, many of which the characters have yet to find out about, is kind of cool as well. As to how most of the life in the galaxy outside of earth is vampire, I'm not sure how the makers meant for that to work, given the nature of vampires. Who the hell they are meant to be feeding on if almost everyone is a vampire I don't know. As it is the movie comes across a low budget mix of Firefly/Serenity and vampires movies with a dash of Aliens.<br /><br />The action parts of the movie are pretty average and derivative (Particularly of Serenity) but passable- they are reasonably well executed and there is enough gore for a vampire flick, including some of the comical blood-spurting variety. There is a lot of character stuff, most of which is tedious, coming from conflicts between characters who mostly seem like whiny, immature arseholes- primarily cowboy dude and Asian woman. There are a few character scenes that actually kind of work and the actors don't play it too badly but it mostly slows things down. A nice try at fleshing the characters out but people don't watch a movie called Bloodsuckers for character development and drama. The acting is actually okay. Michael Ironside hams it up and is as fun to watch as ever and at least of a couple of the women are hot. The space SFX aren't too bad for what is clearly a low budget work. The story is again pretty average and derivative but as I said the world created has a little bit of potential. The way things are set up Bloodsuckers really does seem like the pilot for a TV series- character dynamics introduced, the world introduced but not explored, etc. <br /><br />The film does have a some highlights and head scratching moments- the kind of stuff that actually makes these dodgy productions watchable. -The scene where our heroes interrogate a talking sock puppet chestburster type creature. Hilarious. - The "sex scene." WTF indeed. -The credit "And Michael Ironside as Muco." The most annoying aspect of it all though is the really awful and usually inappropriate pop music they have playing very loud over half the scenes of the movie. It is painful to listen to and only detracts from what is only average at best.<br /><br />Basically an okay watch is you're up for something cheesy, even if it is just for the "chestburster" scene. | 1,049 |
I have to start off by apologizing because I thought the first 75-80% of this film was hilarious. It's mostly because of Brad Pitt's performance. Spot on.<br /><br />The acting by all involved was quite good but Brad stole the movie. The atmosphere was perfect in all respects. I'm not a giant Pitt fan but this has got to be one of his best roles ever.<br /><br />Brutal,Honest,Gritty. All good words to describe this movie.<br /><br />I was reading a previous review and the person said that the reasoning behind Early's violence isn't explained. It is explained but they thankfully don't have to go into graphic detail to get their point across.<br /><br />Overall I gave this a 9 because every scene bar 1 or 2 was effective. I think the humor in the first half or so is perfect for this movie. Underrated. | You ever get that itch to just kill an hour or two doing chores and watching a movie so bad it defies reason? Well, out renting movies one weekend i see the box art for this one and see the T-Rex. Knowing full well that the dinosaur on the package was the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, I KNEW I had to rent this just cause I was in the mood for a bad movie.<br /><br />I was not disappointed in the least.<br /><br />Mad scientists, secret formulas, a company more concerned about its fortune and shareholders than lives, and of course, a big, poorly animated, sock-puppet T-Rex. Is it me our through out the movie was there scenes clearly spliced from other movies? Not to mention the Rex's hungry is never satisfied...ever. How he has hungry is beyond me because he actually doesn't have an throat (Really if you look down his mouth when he roars, it's solid...like a toy or something). Now, I like watching incredibly bad B-Movies from time to time because it reminds me how much better a blockbuster movie is. This one was hilarious. I'm not even sure if this was supposed to be a thriller or a comedy, because there are scenes where, make no mistake, you will laugh. <br /><br />Do I blame the movie's budget...yes, but the acting didn't help either. OK, Tony Todd was actually pretty good, as for some of the female roles...when you cry shouldn't "tears" come out? Meh, I am not going to be angry at this movie, i knew what i was getting into and if you're looking for a bad movie to watch with friends, here's what I recommend: Watch this movie, then immediately watch Jurassic Park and then Lost World back to back. You will be writing Mr. Spielberg thank you letters the next day. | 1,050 |
There are many people in our lives that we meet only once in our lifetime, but for some reason or another we remember those persons for the rest of our lives. These once in a lifetime friendships occur between people with long distances between and there are always some natural reasons for why we don't meet these people anymore. We don't always even know their names, as we are never presented to each other, and sometimes we even forget to ask what their names are. It's funny how common humanity makes occasional friends and we like to keep it as such, because reuniting might spoil fond memories, or we don't know do they. We are too afraid to check that out.<br /><br />The movie 'Before Sunrise' just caught me watching it. I never had intention to watch it through, but because the discussion between the couple seemed interesting, I gave a look for the rest of the film. I didn't know what to expect from it, but nor did the young couple. They had time to discuss with each other until the sunrise and anything could happen before they had to separate. I believe this film has had good reviews because the situation is something that everybody on this planet has at least once or twice lived through. It makes us all think about all those people we have met only once in our lives. | I have just lost three hours of my life to this travesty, and I can honestly say I feel violated. I had read the reviews and heard the warnings, and I thought I was prepared for anything - at best I thought, a faithful (if misguided) attempt at an original adaptation; at worst, a so-good-it's-bad "Plan 9" for the new millennium. So when I managed to pick up a copy in Walmart while in Florida and brought it back to the UK, I joked to my friends "Prepare for the worst movie ever made!" Oh, cruel Karma. There is absolutely NOTHING to recommend this film. The "special" effects look like the work of a first year design student using a Spectrum ZX81. The acting is terrible, the accents are WORSE than terrible (one artillery mans' accent seems to take us on a tour of the British Isles, from Scotland to Wales via Northern Ireland), the dialogue is stilted, the editing is non-existent, the production values prove that no expense has been gone to. Words really cannot describe how bad this movie is; from the Union Flag flying from the horribly CGI'd Thunderchild (the Royal Navy flies the White Ensign, NOT the Union flag) to the woodworm ridden acting, this is quite simply a crime against film making. When you consider some of the literally-zero-budget fan films that are available on the 'net (the Star Wars short "Troops" for example), the whole "we're enthusiastic amateurs" argument goes right out of the window. And if you believe an interview with Hines on the Pendragon website, this film had an 8 figure budget! I can only assume that dodgy facial hair does not come cheap in the US. Maybe the problem is that Hines & co tried to make a film of the book, rather than turn the book into a film (if that makes any sense). Characters and extras spout chunks of text verbatim without trying to convey the feelings behind the words. Ironically enough, the ONLY person who even came close to giving a decent performance was Darlene Sellers, the ex-soft porn actress. My advice? Pray like crazy that Jeff Wayne doesn't screw up, and go watch the Spielberg version. It may not be true to the text of the book, but I can say this; As a lifelong HG Wells fan (and Englishman as well) Speilbergs film IS true to the Spirit of the book. Maybe customs were wrong to let me carry this monster into the country, but I will say this: Timothy Hines stole three hours of my life, and I want them back. | 1,051 |
Eddie Izzard is nothing short of a comedic genius, and this is Eddie at his very best. His material is extremely witty and hilarious, and his delivery is some of the best ever witnessed on stage. Instead of insulting the audience's intelligence, he relies on it to draw humor from his wardrobe preferences, Hitler, the moon landing, and the British. With so many memorable laughs, one can't help but repeat some of his lines. Forever more, "Do you have a flag?" should be considered one of the funniest lines ever delivered in a standup routine. Every fan of top notch standup comedy needs to see "Dress to Kill". By far the best British standup comedian I've ever witnessed, Eddie Izzard has struggled for success off of the live stage. However, his lack of commercial success in film should not be indicative of how extremely talented he genuinely is. "Dress to Kill" is a treasure, one that luckily has found its way to home video, and can and should be enjoyed again and again. | If you want to see a movie about two utterly unsympathetic characters, this is the one. The acting is superb, both from John Cassavetes as the insane paranoid whom, as the saying goes, they REALLY ARE out to get, and from Peter Falk as his lifelong best friend to whom he turns for rescue. Big mistake, but since they're both amoral mobsters, and misogynistic bastards to boot, it's hard to decide whom to root for LESS. Only writer/director Elaine May could have gotten away with this one. I thought it interesting that in a lengthy interview with producer Michael Hausman included on the DVD, he disclosed that the two stars had "very different ideas" about the script, that the director was nearly impossible to work with, that the director of photography had impossible demands made of him, that the crew was constantly angry about being made to sit around waiting, and so on. This mood of one big VERY dysfunctional family comes across clearly on the screen. | 1,052 |
Although this was not without its faults, this drama was a fitting one to be shown around Easter time. It reminded us of our spiritual selves and showed that behind our facades, we often hide our deepest sufferings and experiences. There was so much to enjoy in the drama, not least the rapping teenagers who provided a better musical accompaniment to the drama than the rather poor sound score in the background. The acting was excellent and Timothy Spall was once again superb. The climax was very satisfying, if rather simplistic. Timothy Spall's "letting go" of his long-dead wife's suicide was credible and mirrored well the feelings of despair that were present in the teenage girl who self-harmed. The resolution between the graffiti boy and the Muslim was gratifying but less believable. A wonderful drama which left myself and my husband felling that the evening had been well spent. Congratulations! | 'Metamoprhis' is the story of a dashing young scientist, revered at the local college, is brought under investigation by financial providers for the college. This forces him to take shortcuts in typical bad-Hollywood melodramatic fashion.<br /><br />My first thought after this movies conclusion was this. "Not good, but not bad, for early-to-mid eighties." Of course, I then realized that it was made in 1990, which almost propelled it down to a '4', but decided to keep it at the mediocre '5' that it is.<br /><br />'Metamorphis' does on a few occasions, seem like a good movie desperately trying to get out. The acting, while not stellar, is mostly competent. You can even see the occasional glisten of a modest quality. Pacing is a large problem with the movie. After thinking I had been watching for ninety minutes, I realized I'd only been watching an hour. Special effects aren't stellar, but the director seems to be mostly competent enough to work around that weakness.<br /><br />The lead, a mildly charismatic male that seems to be attempting a blended channeling of Tom Cruise and Christopher Reeves, reminded me mostly of Matt Dillon's character in 'Wild Things'. The female heroine does an OK job, but does not distinguish herself in anyway. There's a 'naughty girl' role in here, and the actress does what she can with it, but it doesn't seem like much. There is a child actor that the director can't decide if he's morose, cheerful or just weird. <br /><br />Pacing, as I said, is the worst problem with this movie, until a final battle with the bad guy that would make a Power Ranger blush. It is bizarre and inexplicable, until the final scene which is supposed to be dramatic but simply hilarious, saturated with every bad camera trick and overacting that can be compressed in about thirty seconds.<br /><br />A decent one-time watch on the 'Mill Creek 50 Chilling Movie Pack'. Nothing that is going to bring you back, and nothing to buy on its own. | 1,053 |
I wasn't born until 4 years after this wonderful show first aired but luckily I managed to catch the reruns of the mid 90's and the rest is history......I was hooked. The premise was pretty simple; two hardened Nemesis agents, Richard Barrett and Craig Stirling ( William Gaunt and Stuart Damon) are partnered up with an expert (if not young) Doctor and Biologist (Sharron Macready) to head behind the bamboo curtain to retrieve a dangerous biological agent from being used by red china. Whilst making their escape, their plane is hit by machine gun fire and they crash in the heart of the Himalayas where their lives are saved by a mysterious and previously undiscovered civilisation who heal and enhance the senses of the trio, thus setting the scene for many exciting adventures to come...<br /><br />The series lasted for 30 hour long episodes and I guess it was its relatively short lived, one season run that has set it up for cult status.<br /><br />Monty Berman, the producer, was notorious for making things as cheaply as possible and sometimes the show suffered for this with incredibly tacky sets - particularly in Episodes such as "Happening" ( a studio deputising for the Australian outback) and the 'snow' sets of "Operation Deep Freeze" and "The Beginning" but if you can get past this, and focus on the characters and the story lines, the show was really a lot of fun. It had a great mix of adventure, and plenty of deadpan humour (mainly from some terrific one liners from William Gaunt).<br /><br />The chemistry from the three leads was fantastic - you get the sense that they were really having a lot of fun making the show and this is borne out in the 2005 reunion documentary where the three reunite after over 35 years to reminisce about the show (and laugh about Anthony Nicholls awful wig!!). They all shared equal screen time and all had their moments to shine. I have to say, I was always a Richard Barrett fan - I loved his sardonic humour along with that dangerous edge - he was certainly a man you didn't cross, and those eyes........the bluest eyes you would probably see on TV. I have also followed Bill Gaunts career with interest since. However, Craig Stirling certainly would have had his legion of female fans and I am sure Alexandra Bastedo had a whole queue of male fans swooning over her too.<br /><br />The show also had a plethora of guest stars to entice with, including Donald Sutherland, Jeremy Brett, Peter Wyngarde, Burt Kwouk, Anton Rodgers, Kate O'Mara, Jenny Linden, Paul Eddington and Colin Blakely.<br /><br />Notable episodes for me were : "Auto Kill", "The Interrogation", "The Fanatics", "The Mission" and "The Gilded Cage" but I am sure every one has their personal favourites.<br /><br />If you do get a chance to watch this show for the first time, or to re watch it after many years, remember to watch it in the context of the time it was made and just sit back and enjoy - the characters and the chemistry from the three leads is what made this wonderful show for me and I don't think I will ever tire of it.<br /><br />Enjoy! | Let's just say it in simple words so that even the makers of this film might have a chance to understand: This is a very dumb film with an even dumber script, lame animation, and a story that's about as original as thumbtacks. Don't bother -- unless you need to find some way to entertain a group of mentally retarded adults or extremely slow children. They might laugh, especially if they're off their meds. There's a special kind of insult in a film this ridiculous -- not only do the filmmakers apparently think that children are brainless idiots who can be entertained with claptrap that cost approximately zero effort, but they don't even bother to break a sweat inserting a gag here and there that an adult might find amusing. This film, frankly, ticked me off royally. Shame on you for stooping so low. | 1,054 |
Had this movie been made just a few years later, I would have knocked down the score a point or two because the sound quality was rather poor. At times, the movie appeared to be a silent film during the in-between-scenes (normal ambient sounds are missing). But, given it was 1931 and a French movie, this is quite forgivable. Especially since this also occurs in later French films--by which time the sound difficulties should have been worked out completely (such as in L'Atalante from 1934).<br /><br />Okay, apart from some minor sound problems, this is a cute little film about a missing winning lottery ticket and a long list of people trying to get it. And, during the search there are lots of jaunty little songs that you can't help but like. A nice charming film all-in-all. | One of the previous reviewers wrote that there appeared to be no middle ground for opinions of Love Story; one loved it or hated it. But there seems to be a remarkable distribution of opinions throughout the scale of 1 to 10. For me, this movie rated a 4. There are some beautiful scenes and locations, and Ray Milland turns in a fabulous job as Oliver's father. But the movie did not do a particularly compelling job of telling its story, and the story was not so unique as to warrant multiple viewings, at least, not for me. I may be a bit of a snob, but I tend to avoid movies with Ryan O'Neal -- I still haven't seen Barry Lyndon -- because most of them, but not all, are ruined for me by his presence. The lone exception is What's Up, Doc?, in which his straight performance is the perfect underlining for Barbra Streisand's goofball protagonist -- and, not coincidentally, he takes a shot at Love Story for good measure! McGraw and O'Neal tend to mug their lines, rather than act them.<br /><br />This movie is notable for the beginning of one fine career: it was Tommy Lee Jones's first movie. | 1,055 |
I saw this series when I was a kid and loved the detail it went into and never forgot it. I finally purchased the DVD collection and its just how I remembered. This is just how a doco should be, unbiased and factual. The film footage is unbelievable and the interviews are fantastic. The only other series that I have found equal to this is 'Die Deutschen Panzer'.<br /><br />I only wish Hollywood would sit down and watch this series, then they might make some great war movies.<br /><br />Note. Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Letters from Iwo Jima, Flags of Our Fathers and When Trumpets Fade are some I'd recommend | This is your typical Priyadarshan movie--a bunch of loony characters out on some silly mission. His signature climax has the entire cast of the film coming together and fighting each other in some crazy moshpit over hidden money. Whether it is a winning lottery ticket in Malamaal Weekly, black money in Hera Pheri, "kodokoo" in Phir Hera Pheri, etc., etc., the director is becoming ridiculously predictable. Don't get me wrong; as clichéd and preposterous his movies may be, I usually end up enjoying the comedy. However, in most his previous movies there has actually been some good humor, (Hungama and Hera Pheri being noteworthy ones). Now, the hilarity of his films is fading as he is using the same formula over and over again.<br /><br />Songs are good. Tanushree Datta looks awesome. Rajpal Yadav is irritating, and Tusshar is not a whole lot better. Kunal Khemu is OK, and Sharman Joshi is the best. | 1,056 |
The summer has been so full of Blockbusters and comebacks of films, and not to mention some of the disappointments of those comebacks, that I was woe to find a film I could just sit down and enjoy. <br /><br />In case you don't want to read further down the page (there aren't any spoilers), I'll sum it up here: It's more mature than Ella Enchanted (there are some questionably violent parts, plenty of death, and a handful of scenes with a little blood, not for small children), but doesn't try to be overly corny or overstep its bounds. Think of it as a bit more serious, bit more magical Princess Bride, and you'll be close. <br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I am, perhaps, not as prodigious a movie goer as others... Maybe once or twice a month, if I feel active. I'm also a huge Sci-Fi/Fantasy fan. I get bored of remade repetitive story lines and films with more flash than filling faster than you can count to 10, and this film is the diamond in the rough.<br /><br />By the end here (August), I was tired enough of fractured expectations from the big hits that I averted seeing Bourne Ultimatum in favor of Stardust. Having had my hopes thoroughly muddied by Transformers for my Fiction addiction, the previews of Stardust seemed appealing, but I was certainly wary.<br /><br />As many others here, I was utterly surprised. I had gone in thinking to see another generic fantasy movie clichéd from here to breakfast. Don't be fooled, it is most definitely a fairy-tale, and it does indeed have witches, magic, and utterly requires suspension of disbelief... But the most refreshing thing I found, is that it's NOT based on anything I've seen or read in the past 15 years, and it's actually a really good movie.<br /><br />((Unlike 90% of the other movies which seem to persistently re-appear like thorns in a side, perhaps a sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas? I could read a book this year, and in two years the movie would be out as another "Epic fantasy tale, the likes of LotR and the rest" so says the NYT and such and such no doubt.))<br /><br />Stardust didn't have me bolted to my seat because of jam-packed action at every turn, nor was I sweating bullets because of plot-hook after plot-hook threatening to tear the dramatic tension apart and echo throughout the theater in a loud boom. It didn't even use enormous blasts of sound to grab my attention to what's happening on screen (Transformers, I'm looking at you). It's not trying to show off the latest CGI techniques, nor did it offend my intelligence with dimwitted dialogs and story lines that are simple enough I could've figured them out in 3rd grade (boy I hate those). <br /><br />I just... watched. Watched, and enjoyed a refreshingly CREATIVE storyline unfold before my eyes. Sure, I may have known what was going to happen throughout most of the film, but it makes you forget that. It even made my heart twinge at some parts, but the most important aspect I noticed is that I left the theater feeling better than when I'd gone in.<br /><br />It truly is a gem. After so much slush this summer with so many remakes and films that fell short of my expectations, this was like a cold sweet cup of tea to cap off all the hard work I'd done sitting through the others trying to come out of them with my money's worth.<br /><br />It's probably not for everyone, but do yourself a favor; If you enjoy fantasy films that stand the test of time alone (Princess Bride, Black Cauldron, The Dark Crystal, etc.) then you should really see this movie. This little diamond is finding its way into my DVD collection the moment it hits stores, you can trust me on this.<br /><br />Simply wonderful. | This movie was horrible. I swear they didn't even write a script they just kinda winged it through out the whole movie. Ice-T was annoying as hell. *SPOILERS Phht more like reasons not to watch it* They sit down and eat breakfast for 20 minutes. he coulda been long gone. The ground was hard it would of been close to impossible to to track him with out dogs. And when ICE-T is on that Hill and uses that Spaz-15 Assault SHOTGUN like its a sniper rifle (and then cuts down a tree with eight shells?? It would take 1000's of shells to cut down a tree that size.) Shotguns and hand guns are considered to be inaccurate at 100yards. And they even saw the reflection. What reflected the light?? I didn't see a scope on that thing. Also when he got shot in the gut and kept going, that was retarded he would of bled to death right there. PlusThe ending where he stuffs a rock or a cigarette in the guys barrel. It wouldn't blow up and kill him. The bullet would still fire kill Ice T but mess up the barrel. | 1,057 |
This is the one in which the diminutive Ruth Gordon plays an Agatha-Christie type of murder mystery author who locks her nephew by marriage into a safe. Gordon believes that he murdered her niece and the young fellow dies of suffocation, while Gordon is traveling back and forth to New York. He manages, however, to leave behind some clues, scratches on a couple of black safe deposit boxes and an improvised and well-hidden note. Columbo enters the case, suspects her at once, and solves the mystery by simply using his supernatural mystical intuitive powers. Oh, and Mariette Hartley is on hand as Gordon's secretary and would-be blackmailer. Hartley is, I believe, the grand daughter of the psychologist B. F. Skinner. I'm not sure her ancestry had anything to do with her attractive belly button, which is on display during a belly dance sequence, but I've always admired Skinner anyway.<br /><br />The murder is well handled. It's a good plot, and none of the performers or crew fluff anything. But the outstanding figure here is Ruth Gordon, only a skosh over five feet tall. She was over 80 years old and looked it. There are moments when she almost teeters, but she consistently exudes charm. Her acting is idiosyncratic. You can never be sure when she's being serious or when she's putting Columbo and the audience on. She's given some good lines too. What humor there is comes from Gordon. Columbo doesn't have any of his frequent comic moments.<br /><br />All in all, a nice job by everyone concerned. | I wouldn't say this is a *bad* movie. Unfortunately for me, I get the feeling that the more you know about fencing, the worse it gets simply due to the fact that it becomes totally unrealistic. I've been fencing since i was 14 years old, and this movie portrays it very poorly. F. Murray Abraham is good (and appears to have some fencing background), but most of the other actors--especially the students--just seem to be lost. | 1,058 |
Kenny Doughty as Jed Willis is sexier in this role than any male porn star, even though he keeps his pants on.<br /><br />The movie tore at my heart reminding me of the intensity of the big explosive love of my life. I don't think I can think of another movie, except perhaps Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet that captures that giddy joy that well.<br /><br />The other draw of the movie is the very English eccentric characters enjoying the scandal vicariously. In that sense it is much the same appeal as Midsomer Murder or a Miss Marple mystery, without the mayhem.<br /><br />This is a great antidote to the mock horror currently popular in the USA an any relationships between people of different ages. | This is a well-worn story about a man who marries to escape the hangman's noose, then sets about "taming" his reluctant bride. It manages to be sexist and racist at exactly the same time. We never find out, for example, why a woman who won the respect of an Indian warrior is completely unable to fight back against her erstwhile husband. Or why the members of her team are so eager to get a "real man" in the saddle when she seems to have been taking care of things just fine on her own. This only made sense in fifties Hollywood.<br /><br />There's a really stupid scene where she horsewhips him and he actually catches the whip--the second time--then yanks her off her horse. Never mind that the first time probably would have lost him an eye, which would make it pretty hard to grab that whip! Then, he prevails in a fight against her Indian bodyguard where he spends the first two thirds of it getting beaten to a pulp. That's some second wind. Later, he successfully negotiates with some bloodthirsty Indians (as they all are in these flicks) after they reject her now she's his "squaw". Never mind that he has zero diplomatic skills and she's been negotiating with them for years. And the way he keeps rejecting her attempts to seduce him just to keep her keen and keep her from getting a hold on him--yeah, right. Like the women are just throwing themselves at him all the way down the trail.<br /><br />Finally, neither of the leads is convincing in their roles. Madison is just a jerk who gets unrealistically lucky. Fleming flips her hair and scowls a lot, but is totally unconvincing as a fiery tomboy. The only reason you'd root for her is because you want to see Madison get tied to a runaway horse and dragged over a cliff before the film's end. The way that Madison tames Fleming is so predictable and has so few obstacles that it will irritate the heck out of you if you see women as anything but blow-up dolls. Even if you do see them as dolls, the total lack of suspense will bore you.<br /><br />Total waste of time. Even the scenery's kinda dull. Give this one a big miss. | 1,059 |
There may be spoilers!<br /><br />Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler), who lost his family in a tragedy, (the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11), still grieves over their deaths. He runs into his former college roommate, Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), and the two rekindle their friendship. Alan vows to help his old friend come to terms with the terrible loss. This is a simplification of the basic story of Reign Over Me. <br /><br />This movie is, however, a story of how fate intercedes in our lives when we ourselves may be powerless do any thing about our own states of being. Alan is stuck in a life that he knows is no longer fulfilling. He feels friendless and out of touch with his own reality. He is unable to communicate with his wife and his associates at work. He can't express his feelings and as a result feels lost and distant from his own world. He chances upon Charlie on the streets of Manhattan while driving from his job. Eventually he meets and discovers that Charlie, (who originally does not remember Alan), is living in a false reality of his own. Charlie has gone back to a time in his life when he had no family. He lives as if he were still a student playing in a rock band, collecting vinyl records of the 60s and 70s bands, and playing video games. He has escaped to a better and safer time in his life where there are no bad guys and he has a lot less to lose. Everyone in this movie is affected in some way by the tragedy that has affected Charlie and his remission to a formerly different and better (?) place. His landlady is his protector and great enabler. His in-laws are subtracted from his life because they would take him back to the reality that his family is now gone from his life. And Alan is most affected by him because Alan wants to, (in at first a selfish desire to escape from his own reality) to be with Charlie as a means to subtract himself from his own stifled reality and then he wants to find a way to help Charlie begin to recover from his self-induced guilt and denial of loss. It is through this relationship that not only is Charlie able to begin to heal himself but that Alan, in fact, learns to communicate and sate his true desires with his associates at work and, eventually, is able to admit to his wife he has not been able to communicate his real feelings to her but that he strongly wants to because he does love her. It is in fact a poignant moment in the film when the stuff has hit the fan and Charlie is being confronted with the reality of being put away that he and Alan are talking about the situation together over "Chinese" that Charlie states that he is in fact worried about Alan and not himself. <br /><br />This movie will, if you let it, take you through a river of emotions and leave you thinking. It will have you laughing at how Charlie uses his words, like people really do in everyday life, to make a comical statement of fact about a real situation. It will leave you on the verge of tears, (in my case actual tears), when Charlie confronts his grief and begins to come to grips with his tremendous loss. And that in fact the tragic reality is his guilt and loss has really never left him and he dealt with it in the only way he knew: denial. It will make you curse at the cold, unthinking actions of a young prosecutor trying to win his "case", (as I actually did at Charlie's hearing!) And it will make you smile at the commonsense of a old and wise, stern judge, (Donald Sutherland who is great at his short distinct role and gives the best performance of a wise, stern person in the legal profession since Wilford Brimley played an Assistant Attorney General in Absence of Malice.)<br /><br />This movie was also amazing to me for a few other reasons: (1) I never looked at my watch once during the showing of the film. Which means it had me from the beginning to the end, (2) Although the cast was interracial, this fact was not important to the playing out of the roles of the characters in the film. Race was a non-factor to the performance of the roles in this movie. Amazing people can actually interact with out this fact being brought out! and (3) the only real reference to 9/11 is when Charlie's financial attorney refers to the tragedy of Charlie's loss as "
what Charlie had become on 9/12". Time will be the true test of how this movie will stand out in the future but if the purpose of a movie is not to just entertain but to make one think and have that movie stay with you long after you leave the theatre then Reign Over Me succeeded phenomenally as far as I am concerned. I have not yet forgotten this wonderful thought provoking film and I will wait impatiently for the day I can purchase it as a DVD. | I will never be a member of any club that would have me,<br /><br />especially this one.<br /><br />Starr Andreeff is a single mom/stripper who gets attacked by a<br /><br />female vampire and left for dead. She begins to get a hankering for<br /><br />blood, and meets up with John Savage, looking like he's<br /><br />wondering where he left Michael Cimino's phone number. Savage<br /><br />is also a vampire and wants to let Andreef join his little vampire<br /><br />family, which consists of a British vamp, the blonde vamp who<br /><br />attacked Starr, and a green haired midget (I am not making this<br /><br />up).<br /><br />The family does not want Starr, so they try to kill Savage and Starr<br /><br />and Starr's kid.<br /><br />Someone forgot to tell John Savage that this was a drama. He<br /><br />spends most of his screen time exhibiting more facial tics than<br /><br />Hugh Grant on a Jolt Cola bender, and he reads all of his lines like<br /><br />he is making a Farrelly Brothers film. Andreeff tries to make the<br /><br />most of a badly written role, but screenwriter/director Ruben goes<br /><br />for all the vampire cliches, like Starr eating her son's pet hamster<br /><br />and buying a lot of raw meat to fight the craving for blood. The kid<br /><br />also gets knocked around a lot, for those who think watching<br /><br />violence against children is really entertaining.<br /><br />The film is extra gory, but not in a wild, over the top way like "Killer<br /><br />Tongue." Here, the gore is gross and never justified, it just occurs.<br /><br />It is just in the budget. Most of the R rating goes to Andreeff's<br /><br />coworkers, who are put through embarassing strip routines in the<br /><br />background of conversation scenes. The budget does not include<br /><br />vampire fangs! All the vampires here must stab their prey to eat.<br /><br />Nifty idea, unless you have already seen George Romero's<br /><br />"Martin."<br /><br />Even at 77 minutes, and once you throw in Ruben's attempts at<br /><br />arty direction (skewed frames, blurred scenes), this is one<br /><br />tiresome, dull, and dirty ride. Leave this club and take a shower,<br /><br />you will need it.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, sexual<br /><br />violence, strong gore, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual<br /><br />references, drug abuse, and adult situations.<br /><br /> | 1,060 |
There are some films that every Horror fan owes himself (or herself) to see, and Emilio Miraglia's "La Dama Rossa Uccide Sette Volte" aka. "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" (1972) is definitely one of them. With Gialli and Gothic Tales being my two favorite sub-genres in Horror, I was looking forward to seeing this film for quite a while, and even though my expectations were high, this masterpiece surpassed my greatest hopes. Miraglia's earlier Giallo, "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" (1971) was already a creepy and highly atmospheric film which successfully mixed Giallo with Gothic Horror, but it couldn't possibly compare to this instant personal favorite. "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" is, hands down, one of the most unique and overwhelming Italian Horror films ever made, and no lover of the genre could possibly consider missing it. An incredibly mesmerizing Giallo with strong Gothic elements, "The Red Queen" delivers everything one could hope for in either sub-genre: An inventive and incredibly compelling plot, spine-chilling suspense, a sublimely uncanny setting and a genuinely creepy atmosphere, eerily lush colors, stylish murders, a brilliant score, and, not least, a ravishing female cast lead by the stunningly beautiful Barbara Bouchet - this film simply is one of the most outstanding combinations of elegant beauty and pure terror.<br /><br />The film starts out incredibly in a beautiful Gothic castle in Germany. As little girls, Kitty Wildenbrück and her sister Evelyn have been fighting when their grandfather tells them the story behind an incredibly uncanny painting: Legend has it that a fiendish Red Lady is to return to the castle every hundred years and kill seven people. Fourteen years later, Kitty (Barbara Bouchet) has become a successful fashion photographer. Suddenly, people begin to get murdered... Director Miraglia had already proved his incredible talent for style, atmosphere and colorful creepiness with "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" and he makes use of these elements even far more effectively in this gem. "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" is a feast for the eyes indeed, and one of the most overwhelming Italian Horror films both visually and plot-wise. The haunting painting in the Grandfather's castle alone is capable of giving the viewer the goosebumps. The Red Lady (or Red Queen, as she is called in the English title) is arguably the most fiendish figure ever in a Giallo, the spine-chilling laughter that the murders are accompanied by would even be frightening on its own. <br /><br />A sexy female cast is always appreciated, especially in a Giallo, and this one is a prime example for that. The ravishing Barbara Bouchet (one of my favorite actresses) must be one of the most stunningly beautiful ladies ever to appear on screen, and she is a great actress too. Bouchet's presence has graded up many Italian flicks, among other appearances she starred in three of the greatest Cult-masterpieces of Italian 70s cinema within one year (1972): Fernando Di Leo's "Milano Calibro 9", Lucio Fulci's Giallo-highlight "Don't Torture a Duckling" and this unforgettable gem. Apart from the wonderful Miss Bouchet, the film's gorgeous female cast includes sexy young Sybil Danning, Marina Malfatti ("The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave"), and other beauties who are not afraid to bare it for the camera. <br /><br />As the whole film, the murders are stylish and extremely elegant, yet frightening and macabre, and some of them are quite gory. Bruno Nicolai's mesmerizing score is as memorable as it gets, and makes the film's intensely eerie atmosphere even more haunting. The plot is ingeniously convoluted and full of red herrings, the tension-level increses with each passing minute. "The Red Queen..." begins creepy and it stays stunning to the last second. Overall, this is one of the films that I cannot find enough words of praise for. "The Red Queen Kills Seven Times" is an absolute masterpiece that easily ranks among the finest Gialli ever made, and a top-priority for every fan of Horror and/or Italian cinema to see. 10/10 | First thing first . In this genre movie the first thing you need is a good music , and thats where Mr. shankar and his party fails.<br /><br />music is completely pale and uneffective. On other hand there is AJAY DEVGAN , WHO HAS REMOVED A LETTER 'A' from his spelling , done good job but was of no use to a bad casted movies like this.<br /><br />ASIN is like a doll which is used to amuse public, even though she is good to look at but her role in movie is to dance, actually she is dancing member of a rock band and i don't think any rock band have there dancer as a member of band.<br /><br />in nut shell this movie is a piece of crap a piece of ***t. watch it if you wanna get fooled. | 1,061 |
its great i loved it ha cause i love dinosaurs they r the greatest animals but i loved the show cause it wasn't copied from another show and it was a originals ha it has a good storyline and great for little kids (if they like dinosaurs that is) i have a few downs too its not all that great cause of the dinosaurs look a little mutated so i should have had but a 7 but right now is a little late for that yay 4 more lines to go it is great for a fantasy show though warning this might spoil a part for u so if u don't want it to be spoiled don't read on plz near the end is kinda weird cause all they need to do is get dang i forgot what it was so nvm guess its not a spoiler so never mind i loved it and its my opinion and sorry for any missed spelled words if any | Using tons of stock footage, not only from Trader Horn but also the first two films in the series (for example the alligator fight was used last time out) this is one of the weakest films in the MGM series. Its a huge let down after the classic Tarzan and His Mate which is possibly the best film in the series.<br /><br />The plot has Jane's cousins coming into the jungle to tell her that she has inherited a fortune if she'll come back to claim it. They are kind of in the bind since the relative that left her the money cut them out of the will.Hiring a great white hunter, who secretly wishes to capture Tarzan and sell him, the pair heads into the jungle where they run into the usual jungle troubles (more so because of the stock footage). After lots of talk Jane decides to go back to civilization and we get long sequences of Tarzan and Jame making kissy face. Finally into the last half hour the plot to capture Tarzan is put in motion and things at last become interesting as plans go awry and things look very grim for all concerned..<br /><br />Painfully dull film is clear evidence of a troubled production. the film seems to have been assembled from several different films with the first half hour playing as an almost exact repeats of the previous film. The middle third shows signs of having to stretch things out and having plot lines that ultimately went nowhere. The last third where Tarzan is captured and the party is put into peril is the point that the film finally comes to life (it also shows signs of the graphic violence that caused much of the need to re-shoot the film). To me its a great wonder how the series managed to continue on from here since this film isn't very good (except at the end).I would be hard pressed to explain it except I would have to say that it was the relationship between Weissmuller and O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane which kept people coming back. Its a beautifully acted pairing and really is one of the screens great couples.<br /><br />(I should probably also mention that this is the point that the film became less real and more fantastical with the appearance of the Tarzan tree house.) I really dislike the first hour or so of this film a great deal and find it a great waste of time and energy. If you can come in towards the end I would recommend giving the film a try. Otherwise I would just skip the whole film and move on to the next film in the series. | 1,062 |
Call me stupid, but I absolutely loved the 2001 horror movie, Valentine. It was so well-made, well-written, well-acted, well-directed, etc! Everything about it was wonderful! There were parts that were relatively routine (Lily's death), very funny (www.Bleed-Me-Dry.com), completely horrifying and creepy (Paige's death), and just plain heartbreaking (the first scene). I think the entire cast did a great job, especially the three leads: David Boreanaz, Denise Richards (both of whom I met, and got autographs from, during the filming of this movie - VERY nice people!), and Marley Shelton.<br /><br />I am very sick of people calling this movie "another Scream clone". This movie is, in no way, a Scream clone. In fact, this film runs rings around Scream. It actually makes SENSE! Scream was also NOT the only movie to feature a masked killer in it. Excuse me, but it looks like Scream was also a clone too (ahem..., Friday the 13th, Halloween, and many other scary movies also featured masked killers). I also think that the novelty of the cupid-masked killer is brilliant. It's so strange to see a sweet, cupid face doing all of these horrible things. Another novelty (the nose bleeding) makes way for a fantastic ending! The ending gives me chills every time I see it!!!!! So, even if you didn't like it the first time, watch Valentine again and give it another chance!<br /><br />PS- Keep an eye out for my new website (WWW.LOVE-HURTS.ORG)! Coming soon... | "Creepshow 2" is little more than a pale imitation of the original, designed with little purpose other than to cash in on the name of the previous film. It even amplifies the flaws of its predecessor, which was often predictable and heavy-handed. Still, the first time around, there were enough thrills to make up for it's periodic lulls, resulting in an uneven but overall fairly entertaining effort. The sequel has few worthwhile moments, so the transparency of the stories are even more apparent. Once in a while, it delivers, but most of the time, it just lingers there.<br /><br />As in the original, all the stories revolve around the common theme of revenge and just desserts. A wooden Indian comes to life, wreaking vengeance upon the killers of its owner. Teenagers are devoured by an aquatic monster. A hitchhiker returns from the dead to pursue a careless motorist. None of these premises are inherently bad in themselves, but they are utterly lacking in inspiration. There are few surprises and no scares. This a textbook example of unmotivated, by-the-numbers filmmaking. It doesn't help that this cheap-looking movie suffers from a flat directorial style, although to be honest, there wasn't much to work with. In the end, the second story comes off best, but not by much. <br /><br />For the most part, the performances are okay at best. George Kennedy, as the ill-fated general store owner, does an adequate, if not particularly inspired job. Dorothy Lamour, on the other hand, is quite good as the guilt-ridden motorist, evoking sympathy for her plight despite the predictable, redundant material. However, most of the characters are pretty thin overall. <br /><br />One would think that "Creepshow 2" would have turned out better. George Romero, who directed the original, returned to pen the screenplay, based on more of Stephen King's stories. Makeup effects artist Tom Savini turns in some good, gory work. So why is the film a letdown? I guess Romero didn't really want to make a second film, but was forced to do so for financial reasons. It was a decade of horror sequels, clones, rip-offs, and whatnot, so this one was certainly inevitable. I can imagine the guy writing the script in a hurry, picking up his paycheck, and running off. I guess he had to do what was necessary to get his own projects financed; we can't blame him.<br /><br />Rating: *1/2 (out of ****)<br /><br />Released by New World Pictures | 1,063 |
This movie is difficult to watch in our fast-paced culture of the 21st century, but it is worth it for the messages that it conveys, chiefly the consequences and ramifications of technology upon society, specifically when that technology is used for warfare.<br /><br />This movie presents a full circle cycle of dehumanization and rehumanization as influenced by the advent of technology and the subsequent deconstruction of civilization and therefore serves as a cautionary tale against the misuse of technology, but as the circle completes itself, familiar themes and sentiments pop up again to present self-serving rather than self-destructive ways that humanity may utilize technology.<br /><br />Brilliant for it's time, the picture and sound quality may pose a challenge for some, but as a landmark in the history, development, and evolution of the sci-fi genre, it is a must. In the end, free will and free choice are once again posed to humanity as a means for controlling our own destiny rather than having it served to us by someone else or indeed, the state of<br /><br />society itself, as shaped by world events.<br /><br />Those who are downtrodden by what life throws their way sometimes tend to remain so, but yet there is always a glimmer of hope and continuity that remains, as this film posits.<br /><br />As far as qualifying as sci-fi, one of the biggest common demoninators of that genre is it's speculative nature. It asks us the questions, what if these events happened this way, and what effect would it have on society or the individuals within it? How would we react?<br /><br />As far as influence, this film projects those speculative sciences that make sci-fi as unique as it is and keeps us asking those important questions. | Near the beginning of "The Godfather: Part III," Michael Corleone's son wants to drop out of law school and become a musician. Michael Corleone does not want this. But his estranged ex-wife, Kay, manages to convince him to let Anthony Corleone pursue music as he wishes. So he does.<br /><br />That seems like an odd way to start a review, as it is a minor plot point and has nothing really to do with the major action. Just bear with me here; you'll see where I'm going with this eventually. Now let me tell you about the major plot. It is about Michael Corleone wanting to quit crime for good (he has largely abandoned all criminal elements in his family business). But then along comes Vincent Mancini, an illegitimate nephew, who is involved in a feud. So of course Michael must endure yet another brush with criminality and gun violence and all that good gangster stuff. Meanwhile, Vincent has a semi-incestuous affair with Michael's daughter Mary. Oh, and Michael and Kay are trying to patch up all the horrid things that happened at the end of Part II.<br /><br />It is like a soap opera. One horrid, awful, 169-minute soap opera. Gone is any sort of the sophistication, romance, and emotional relevance that made the first two movies hit home so hard. After a 16-year break in the franchise, Francis Ford Coppola delivered a mess of sop and pretentiousness entirely incongruous with the first two films, once again proving his last great work was "Apocalypse Now" back in the 1970's.<br /><br />What's worse, "The Godfather: Part III" isn't even a logical follow-up of "The Godfather: Part II." Michael is a completely different person. He hasn't just gone to seed (which might be legitimate, even if it'd be no fun to watch). He's become a goody-goody that's trying to fix all the tragedy that made Part II such a devastating masterpiece. His confession to the priest was bad enough, but that little diabetes attack in the middle pushed it over to nauseating. He also gets back together with Kay! For heaven's sakes, there is absolutely no way that should happen, as the 2nd movie made abundantly clear! She aborted his baby, and his Sicilian upbringing made him despise her for it. Didn't Francis Ford Coppola even think of these things?<br /><br />And don't even get me started on Mary and Vincent's affair! For a romance so forbidden, it was shockingly unengaging. Sofia Coppola's acting did nothing to help. She made the smartest move of her life when she switched from in front of the camera to behind it, because she was possibly THE worst actress I have ever seen in a Best Picture nominee. Every line she delivered was painfully memorized, and every time the drama rested on her acting abilities, all she elicited was inappropriate giggles. In the climactic scene--I won't go into detail, but you'll know which scene I'm talking about when/if you watch it--she looks at Michael and says, "......Daddy?" I think I was meant to cry, but the line was delivered so poorly I burst out into long, loud laughter!<br /><br />Now we get to the climax, and now you will also realize why I took time to start the review with a description of Anthony Corleone's musical ambitions. After 140 minutes of petty drama and irrelevant happenstances, Anthony Corleone returns... with an opera! So Michael, Kay, Mary, and Vincent go to see it, and for about 10-15 minutes a couple killers walk around trying to assassinate Michael. About this climactic sequence, I must say one thing: It was really good! But not because of the killers--they were pretty boring. I just really liked the opera. It had some great music and real great set pieces. And, from what little it showed us, it seemed that the story had echoes of the Corleone family's origin. I'll bet it was one swell opera, and I'll bet Michael Corleone was glad he let his son switch from law school to music.<br /><br />My biggest wish is this: that Francis Ford Coppola had merely filmed Anthony Corleone's opera for 169 minutes and ditched the rest of the soggy melodrama. Better yet, I wish he hadn't made "The Godfather: Part III" at all. Part II gave us the perfect ending. This spin off was self-indulgent and unnecessary.<br /><br />P.S. This is not a gut reaction to the film. I watched all 3 Godfather films over a month ago (though I was rewatching the first one). Not only does this mean that my expectations for Part III weren't screwed (in fact, I had set the bar rather low for it after what I heard), but it also means I've had a good time to think about all three films. While I was a bit disappointed with Part II at first, the more I thought about it, the better it seemed. But with Part III, it was bad to begin with, then got worse the more I thought about it. The sad thing is that many people will stop with Part I, but if they watch Part II as well, they will most likely go on to Part III. If you have the will, watch Parts I & II and pretend like Part III never existed. | 1,064 |
A very close and sharp discription of the bubbling and dynamic emotional world of specialy one 18year old guy, that makes his first experiences in his gay love to an other boy, during an vacation with a part of his family.<br /><br />I liked this film because of his extremly clear and surrogated storytelling , with all this "Sound-close-ups" and quiet moments wich had been full of intensive moods.<br /><br /> | Last night I decided to watch the prequel or shall I say the so called prequel to Carlito's Way - "Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005)" which went straight to DVD...no wonder .....it completely ...and I mean completely S%&KS !!! waist of time watching it and I think it would be a pure waist of time writing about it.... I don't understand how De Palma agreed on producing this sh#t-fest of a movie....except for only one fact that I tip my hat to... Jay Hernandez who plays the young Brigante.... reminded me how De Niro got into the shoes of Brando to portray the young Don Corleone in Godfather II ...but the difference De Niro was amazing and even got an Oscar for it !!! Jay Hernandez well he has guts for trying to be a young Pacino.... too bad for him I don't think he will be playing in film anymore and by the way after I watched this sh#$%ty movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get the bad taste out of my mouth. | 1,065 |
<br /><br />I'm sure things didn't exactly go the same way in the real life of Homer Hickam as they did in the film adaptation of his book, Rocket Boys, but the movie "October Sky" (an anagram of the book's title) is good enough to stand alone. I have not read Hickam's memoirs, but I am still able to enjoy and understand their film adaptation. The film, directed by Joe Johnston and written by Lewis Colick, records the story of teenager Homer Hickam (Jake Gyllenhaal), beginning in October of 1957. It opens with the sound of a radio broadcast, bringing news of the Russian satellite Sputnik, the first artificial satellite in orbit. We see a images of a blue-gray town and its people: mostly miners working for the Olga Coal Company. One of the miners listens to the news on a hand-held radio as he enters the elevator shaft, but the signal is lost as he disappears into the darkness, losing sight of the starry sky above him. A melancholy violin tune fades with this image. We then get a jolt of Elvis on a car radio as words on the screen inform us of the setting: October 5, 1957, Coalwood, West Virginia. Homer and his buddies, Roy Lee Cook (William Lee Scott) and Sherman O'Dell (Chad Lindberg), are talking about football tryouts. Football scholarships are the only way out of the town, and working in the mines, for these boys. "Why are the jocks the only ones who get to go to college," questions Homer. Roy Lee replies, "They're also the only ones who get the girls." Homer doesn't make it in football like his older brother, so he is destined for the mines, and to follow in his father's footsteps as mine foreman. Until he sees the dot of light streaking across the October sky. Then he wants to build a rocket. "I want to go into space," says Homer. After a disastrous attempt involving a primitive rocket and his mother's (Natalie Canerday) fence, Homer enlists the help of the nerdy Quentin Wilson (Chris Owen). Quentin asks Homer, "What do you want to know about rockets?" Homer quickly anwers, "Everything." His science teacher at Big Creek High School, Miss Frieda Riley (Laura Dern) greatly supports Homer, and the four boys work on building rockets in Homer's basement. His father, however, whose life is the mine, does not support him. John Hickam (Chris Cooper) believes that Homer shouldn't waste his time on the rockets, that the coal mines are all that matter. The coal from the mines is used to make steel, and without steel, the country would be nothing. The difficult relationship between Homer and his dad is one of the most poignant relationships I have ever seen in a film. Miss Riley introduces Homer to the idea of entering the local science fair, with a chance to go the nationals and win a college scholarship. "You can't just dream your way out of Coalwood," she tells Homer. Homer and his friends act upon their dreams by working constantly on the rockets, improving the models with each attempt. Despite the many attempts, the boys do not lose their determination. "What are the chances of us winning that science fair," O'Dell asks Homer in one of their more despairing moments. "A million to one," answers Homer. "That good?" O'Dell replies, "Well, why didn't you say so?" The music, composed by Mark Isham, conveys sadness and hope at the same time, especially sad at a point when Homer descends into the mine shaft and loses sight of the sky and his dreams of getting out of Coalwood. Rollicking 1950s' rock and roll, including songs by The Coasters and Buddy Holly, occasionally pushes the instrumental pieces aside to create a light-hearted mood that contrasts the teenagers' lives with the lives of the miners. The film, photographed by Fred Murphy, also uses colors to set moods and symbolize. The town of Coalwood, actually filmed in Tennessee, is washed with blues, grays, and browns. It's as if the grime from the coal sticks to everything- faces, clothes, houses, and roads. When a couple in a gleaming red convertible stops to ask for directions from the boys, it is obvious that they are from the world outside of Coalwood and the Olga Coal Company. The book on guided missile design that Miss Riley gives Homer is red. The red stands out enough against the blue-gray world of Coalwood to symbolize "getting out", but it is still subtle. The reds are fleeting hints of a world that Homer only dreams of. Jake Gyllenhaal expresses such zeal, hope, and pertinacity as Homer Hickam that it is hard to believe he isn't the real Homer we see in actual footage at the end of the film. Chris Cooper is also extraordinarily believable as Homer's stubborn father, who doesn't recognize, or just doesn't want to admit, that the mine is not producing enough to keep the town alive. Homer, and everyone who encourages him in his rocket-building, is aware that the town is dying. With the community disintegrating, the only way they stay together is by gathering for the rocket boys' demonstrations. Again, I'm sure things didn't happen exactly as the movie portrayed them, but what would a movie be without a bit of idealism? "October Sky" has just enough of that to make it a great motion picture and enough rawness to keep it real. | This is easily the worst movie i have EVER seen. I'm not exaggerating, I told the guy at Blockbuster that they should take it off the shelves. The only thing interesting about this movie is the box. On the box it says "from the director of the boogeyman" so I figured...eh whatever, if this was made recently I'm sure the directing at least won't be TOO bad :-\, but after I saw the movie and looked at what "boogeyman" they were talking about, it's some nonsense from the early 1980's that he made. Great way to rope in unsuspecting viewers.<br /><br />ANYWAY, I think that they just liked the name "Zodiac Killer", and didn't bother to research any of the actual Zodiac's crimes or his MO, or even the years that he was active. All of the crimes they talk about have nothing to do with the Zodiac and the "stories" about the original Zodiac take place several years after the actual Zodiac's crimes did. They also compare the Zodiac to "Vampire of Dusseldorf" Fritz Haarman throughout the movie and talk to Fritz's "son" quite often. The Zodiac and Haarman were nothing alike, and it makes more sense to compare him to BTK who also shot people, not a man who killed people by chewing through their necks. None of the Haarman facts are correct either, just a bunch of jumbled nonsense. His son even says "Don't forget, his name was Fritz Haarman with 2 t's"...His actual name just has one! I think that the writer/director simply typed in a google search for serial killers and the quickest ones that came up were the Zodiac Killer and Fritz Haarman. "Ooh those sound like cool names, let's make a movie about them without doing any outside research! great idea!"<br /><br />Perhaps my favorite inconsistency in this movie is the way that the experts as well as the young killer describe suffering from DSM-IV and getting cured of it. "I was also diagnosed with DSM-IV and have since recovered", etc. For those of you who don't know, DSM-IV is the psychological manual for mental disorders. If anybody suffers from the book itself then they must have some SERIOUS problems! Haha.<br /><br />Anyway, my point is that this goes on the bottom of my top 5 worst movies of all time list, and it's rare that a movie ever reaches that point. But, if you are interested in watching a totally non-fact based story about serial killers that happens to be nothing more than boring, full of inexperienced actors, and not completely rational, I'd say check out this movie.<br /><br />...Oh, and I liked how the killer "tear gassed" a few of his victims with dry ice. Nice touch... | 1,066 |
I liked the film. Some of the action scenes were very interesting, tense and well done. I especially liked the opening scene which had a semi truck in it. A very tense action scene that seemed well done.<br /><br />Some of the transitional scenes were filmed in interesting ways such as time lapse photography, unusual colors, or interesting angles. Also the film is funny is several parts. I also liked how the evil guy was portrayed too. I'd give the film an 8 out of 10. | This film is not funny. It is not entertaining. It does not contain one single second of originality or intelligence, nor does it lead you to take the slightest interest in the characters or situation. Added to that it's about as juvenile a movie as anything in recent memory. It's as if a group of 14 or 15 year old high school kids who had never actually met or had any type of relationship with a real girl had sat down and wrote a movie based on their incorrect fantasies about what being an adult man would be like. This movie is boring, obnoxiously mind-numbing, and at times offensive and disgusting. At most, it contains one or two moments that make you laugh. Also, it seems twice as long as its 85 minute running time. | 1,067 |
I dug out from my garage some old musicals and this is another one of my favorites. It was written by Jay Alan Lerner and directed by Vincent Minelli. It won two Academy Awards for Best Picture of 1951 and Best Screenplay. The story of an American painter in Paris who tries to make it big. Nina Foch is a sophisticated lady of means and is very interested in helping him, but soon finds she loves the guy. Meanwhile Gene Kelly falls for lovely damsel, Leslie Caron. His main dancing partner, and I must say they are fantastic together on the floor and otherwise. Famous French singer Georges Guietary sings, too. So if you like good smooth dancing and fun filled scenes filled with Oscar Levant's nimble piano fingers, the songs of George Gershwyn will live on forever in this colorful gem. 8/10 | This film is too skeletal. It's a fairly low-budget film (I hope!) which excuses it somewhat, but the lack of a decent cast and a fleshed out plot hurts it too much. Phillips is quite believable in his role as a torn-apart son of a well-off family who's searching for himself (though his family is...er...well, a little too white...), but the rest of the cast is grasping at straws. Every moment that has potential is ruined by excessive melodrama, and there are *way* too many sub-plots (which is an obvious sign of plot-deficiency. They needed filler...) I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone who isn't either a hard-core Phillips fan, or who has absolutely *nothing* to do. 4/10. | 1,068 |
The story-line was rather interesting, but the characters were rather flat and at times too extreme in their thoughts/behavior. More extreme than necessary. Also, I think something went wrong in the casting. John Turtorro doesn't really satisfy me playing a semi-autistic chess player, not to speak of the Italian player. Motives weren't very much outlined either.<br /><br /> | 1st the good news. The 3-D is spectacularly well done, and they don't go for the gotcha gimmicks. The film is based on the true story of the high point in human history, and even features one of the actual participants in that story: Buzz Aldrin.<br /><br />And now the meat of the matter: It's about FLIES, for krissakes! Flies with big, googy human eyes, true, but flies nonetheless. Remember when I likened the "Underworld" movies to rats vs. cockroaches? That wasn't intended as praise, and I never dreamed anyone would take it literally. This one's got even less empathy going for it. Baby maggots? Ugh. In one of those odd confluences of Hollywood groupthink, this flik was evidently on the drawing boards at the same time as "Space Chimps", also about critters in space.<br /><br />Go rent "Apollo 13" and see a 9-rated movie about the REAL space program (RIP). | 1,069 |
I have to tell you, this is a great movie. It surprises me sometimes how good a movie with no pretenses can be. This one is just fabulous. It could be that it isn't TRYING too hard to send any kind of message; it just tells a whimsical, fun story. I gave it a 10 out of 10. | I missed the beginning of this film, which might account for why I disliked it so much. On the other hand I've studied the fall of the Roman republic for years so I know the story. Then again, that might also be the reason why I disliked this film.<br /><br />The film has more historical inaccuracies than extras. Though it's so inaccurate that I don't think they made an attempt for it to be correct, in which case it can be forgiven. The odd thing is that they sometimes go to great lengths to be historically accurate that it ends up getting confusing. Like throwing in Antonius' marriage to Octavia, and then pushing it aside two scenes later. Why even bring it up if it serves no purpose for the plot and Octavia is never even seen? And like calling Antonius by his actual name (Marcus Antonius) in some scenes, and by his strange English name Mark Antony in other scenes.<br /><br />Though historical inaccuracies aside, the film could still have been an entertaining watch if it wasn't for the leading lady. There isn't an ounce of dignity in her. She's hysterical, dramatical, and completely lacking control of herself. Instead of being a clever and composed queen Cleopatra turns into a hysterical teenager with a bad case of PMS. 95% of that comes from the poor acting, but 5% is also from poor script writing. Far too many stupid dramatic scenes are written into the script. Sometimes you weren't watching Antonius and Cleopatra, you were watching immature versions of Dawson and Joey from "Dawson's Creek".<br /><br />If you want to watch something about this period, watch... anything but this. | 1,070 |
An utterly beautiful film, one of a handful of I saw when young that entranced me then and still do, in Thief's case the impression actually seems to get better with the passing of time. By the '90's my daughter and I had seen it many times on TV but still went to the pictures when it came to the local art-house cinema when it had finished we came out starry eyed with heads full of poetry and Miklos Rozsa's stirring music wishing it could have lasted a couple of hours longer and thinking what a beautiful world it suddenly was again.<br /><br />Idealistic Prince Ahmad wants to slum it amongst his people for a while to check things out, but evil Vizier Jaffar takes his chance to imprison him and seize the throne. After escaping with a little thief played by Sabu, Ahmad spots a Princess and they fall blindingly in love along the way they have many adventures (although apparently not enough for Sabu!) and Love not only conquers but annihilates everything. The special effects must have been mesmerising in 1940, but Time has taken its toll and lessened their impact especially since digital cartoonery has taken over even live action but they still hold up well compared against films like Superman from 40 years later. Anyway, if I'm requested to suspend disbelief in gargantuan guffawing genies, flying horses and carpets I also suspend disbelief in perfect special effects! Favourite bits: the dreamy scene in the sunlit garden when Ahmad reveals himself and Adelaide Hall's suitably romantic song; the stunning colours in the tent in the Land Of Legend in fact, the stunning colours throughout; Sabu and Rozsa's triumphant but still wistful finale. Conrad Veidt played the baddie in two of the most incredible movie romances ever, this and Casablanca, and then died. John Justin and June Duprez were great in the leading roles of lovers, both of them slightly and refreshingly stilted, but the parts didn't call for a huge range of emotions: only pure love mattered.<br /><br />There's a couple of mildly violent images in it, but rest assured this is a glorious feelgood experience with a 100% positive message, it's only a pity that nowadays little kids don't watch this instead of the porn they prefer. One of my Top 10 film favourites, I can't recommend this too much may it be shown to the end of Time. | I was fascinated as to how truly bad this movie was. Was the viewer supposed to learn something, or reflect on anything here? What was up with the pumpkins? Was I supposed to be impressed with the motel shots? Does it matter that there are some garbage bags on a rooftop across the street of a hotel? Why does the narrator unsuccessfully mock the people he interviews (it is so obvious that he edited out the really informative parts of his interviews to achieve mockery). The best part of the movie was the interview with the film professor who tells us how bad this movie will be even before it is finished.<br /><br />I am truly amazed. I believe that the creator is struggling to become an intellectual or is trying to impress the intellectual community. | 1,071 |
You play as B.J. Blazkowicz, a US secret agent soldier tough guy who is sent to uncover Nazi secret and turn the tide of World War II. That means everything from breaking out of a Nazi dungeon to thwarting Hitler's war machine and even the Fuhrer himself.<br /><br />This is quite possibly the most influential game of its time. That's because it literally inspired obsession. Many games existed at the time and even more do today, but every so often you get a real grabber. This is one of them. Just like Tetris before it and more recently GTA III in 2002. Yes, Doom is better in almost every respect, but the shots heard around the world which led to one of gaming's biggest tidal waves were fired by B.J. Blazkowicz. The Space Marine, Duke Nukem, Max Payne, Serious Sam, John Mullins, JC Denton, Agent 47, Gordon Freeman and legions of others owe their existence to the guys at ID. Whether directly or, in most cases, indirectly, but they still do.<br /><br />Even with its old look, very aged graphics, super simple gameplay (this is really a game, games now border on the "experience level") and highly rectangular levels, the scope of all six episodes provides lots of fun. Especially discovering those secrets with treasure and a chaingun in them.<br /><br />Also: "Halt!" *bang! bang! bang!* "AARRRGH!!!" never grows old. --- 8/10<br /><br />Voluntarily rated PC-13 for "profound carnage." However, it's exceptionally tame when compared to what games have today. | This is another of the many B minus movies tagged as film noir in the hope of generating some interest in something that is devoid of it. All aspects of the film - script, acting, direction - are mediocre. The acting by the three leads is wooden. I guess John Dall was expected to go places in the movie business but then someone realised he had little talent and therefore ended up doing TV work. Lee J Cobb who is usually terrific cannot rise above the poor script and poor direction. Jane Wyatt is supposed to be a femme fatale but comes nowhere near convincing the viewers. The movie does have two of the strangest looking cars that I have ever seen, the one in which John Dall goes after Lee J Cobb is particularly strange. The DVD transfer is typical Alpha. | 1,072 |
And a rather Unexpected plot line too-for the era: there is Plague in the City of New Orleans-and only Richard Widmark can stop it! Elia Kazan's trademark subjects: waterfronts, working men, crowds, fugitives, blue collar folk, violence on a backstreet-are all showcased here.<br /><br />Jack Palance is quite effective as the ice-cold mobster out for a big score, Zero Mostel as Dom Delouise somewhat miscast but certainly watchable as his go-fer. I enjoyed Barbara Bel Geddes as the stalwart, cool wife-I thought she and Widmark were a believable couple.<br /><br />He himself always reminds me somewhat of Sinatra-in the face and in the intense quiet manner-and that is meant as a compliment if anything. I'd never even heard of this movie, and yes, you have to admire Widmark's performance. I also enjoyed Paul Douglas-he seemed to play this role many times, they make an unlikely but effective team.<br /><br />The plague itself is a McGuffin-and you gotta know it's not exactly done the way it would have been in Real Life-rather small-scale at the least no?-but I found it carried the plot along nicely.<br /><br />Check this out. It's good. *** outta **** | Or "Marlowe At Sea". Yet another ridiculously overrated old film with Bogey. Quite talky, too. Bogey basically plays the same character as in the Marlow films; always in control of a situation, never nervous - no matter how dangerous a situation, calls women "slim" and "dames" and other such nonsense, is the only "real male" i.e. alpha male in the movie (the only other alpha male male being the head of Gestapo - but he is only a fat alpha male male), and - naturally - every attractive young woman who comes his way cannot resist his charms and wants his penis within hours of their initial introduction. The character clichés are all here. Bogey is supposed to be the same type of cynic-about-to-reform as in "Casablanca", and naturally he often refuses money or other valuables when being offered them - but how does that fit in with the tough cynic in him? It doesn't, so he can't be a cynic; Hawks wanted it both ways: a character who is both the "cool lone cynic" and yet a well-meaning humanitarian. I don't think so... Bacall does her non-chalant "cool babe" routine for the first time, and there are plenty of overrated, not all-too interesting so-called "sexual innuendo" exchanges between her and Bogey; these dialogues sound silly by today's standards. "Just purse your lips and whistle...". A load of crap... She was 19 when this was made but looks a lot older, and is far less attractive than the female stars of the day. Her bony face, with its sharp features, is nowhere even close to radiating the kind of feminine beauty of a de Havilland, the cuteness of a Myrna Loy, let alone the likability of an Irene Dunne. Bacall was more suited for playing vampires, not femme-fatales. (In real life she is very much like her face: a Hollywood bitch.) There is a scene in which Bacall breaks into tears; very unsuitable for her character. There are two or three bad musical numbers - but my fast-forward button was ready.<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Bogart, Bacall, Huston, and other Hollywood personalities, contact me by e-mail. | 1,073 |
This movie is outrageous, funny, ribald, sophisticated & hits the bullseye where 99 % of Hollywood movies don't even make the target. Paul Bartel should be recognized as one of the great directors of this or any era. He's the American Renoir & Bunuel _ combined!!! Glad I have the videodisc. | I remember this movie when i was 13 (seems a lot of reviews are saying the same thing AGE 13!) with a group of school buddies. We all wanted to see Billy Crystal in his first movie, and fell for the typical commercial ads telling us this was a great comedy. We suffered through about 45 minutes of it, and all agreed to leave the theater. It was grotesque & tasteless, and a far cry from the ability Billy Crystal had to make us laugh, we were not laughing. I stumbled upon this review by accident, and decided to register just to tell the rest of the world what a rot-gut waste of film this was, now if you rent this, you deserve what you get, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!! | 1,074 |
"If I wanted to dribble, I'd call a nurse." <br /><br />"Haven't you had enough?" ..."More than enough."<br /><br />"You got me a choo-choo."<br /><br />"If I begin to die, please remove (the cowboy hat) from my head. That is not the way I wish to be remembered." <br /><br />Some of the wonderfully humorous, and often insightful, quotations from this charming and often insightful film. Dudley Moore is charming, lovable and rich. Sir John Gielgud is aristocratic, charming and loving...and poor. The two have a non-father/father and son relationship which defines the man whom Arthur is to become. Will he follow his heart and soul, or just his wealth? Over twenty-five years, I've returned to this movie, with glee and amusement and joy. It is a movie to return to, time and time again, and remember what is important in life, as short as it is. <br /><br />Judge Miller | Disney's done it again. The company that made "Mr. Magoo" and "George of the Jungle" has made another movie that barely resembles the cartoon on which it is based, and keeps none of the spirit of the original.<br /><br />"Inspector Gadget" was one of my favorite cartoons when I was a young one, and for a movie of it to exist may have been a dream come true back then. Now that that movie does exist, I was severely disappointed, even outraged.<br /><br />First we have the characters.<br /><br />Gadget himself has the gadgets that made him such a fun character in the original cartoon (with well-done special effects accompanying them), and he even has some of the naivete of the original Gadget, but he is now more competent and is expected to solve the crime himself while Penny and Brain just watch.<br /><br />Penny has little to do; while she played a major role in the cartoon, discovering the crime and halting it, and occasionally getting captured by the MAD agents, now she is simply introduced and then forgotten, although she does at least sneak into Claw's base.<br /><br />Claw is the movie's version of Dr. Claw, who was a rather sinister, raspy-voiced man who wore metallic gloves and sat in his chair, his face hidden from view, as he stroked his cat and oversaw various crimes. Now he is simply a man with a claw for a hand, with no mystery behind the character.<br /><br />Brain and Mad Cat exist in the movie, but are rather insignificant to it.<br /><br />Even small parts of the cartoon aren't spared in this butchering. The famous expression "Wowsers!" was mysteriously changed to "Wowser", and Gadget's Gadgetmobile now looks different and talks.<br /><br />There is even product endorsements everywhere. Why is "Yahoo!" advertised on a sign? Why does the Gadgetmobile have buttons for M&M's or Skittles?<br /><br />Fans of the cartoon will hate it, others might will likely find the movie below par, and when all is said and done, this movie is another attempt to make some quick bucks off another old show. | 1,075 |
Hugh (Ed Harris) is a hotshot, bachelor senator determined to run for president. One day, however, he happens upon an old high school classmate named Aggie. Aggie (Diane Keaton) is an accomplished and award-winning author with a lovely face and an independent spirit. Hugh is smitten. He convinces Aggie to become his fiancé. But, will Aggie have to sacrifice her principles of honesty in the world of politics, where things are not always what they seem to be? And, will she be able to withstand the rigors of a harsh media blitz? This is, mostly, a nice romance for those who adore tales of affection. Hugh and Aggie are absolutely in love and their banter and conversation are a good view. However, although the movie tries to show the political life in its reality, it doesn't completely succeed. Nevermind. The production values are high and the script is very elegantly written. With these advantages and the handsome personages of Keaton and Harris, those who sit down to the film will find it to be good entertainment. | Way back in 1967, a certain director had no idea about a galaxy, far away or near. He was trying to complete a movie with the title THX etc. this short is a remanufactured history of a certain George. i am sorry it has only cuteness to defend it. This is merely an advertising promo for the director, actors, et. al. It has little intrinsic artistic value. It is a brochure. The lead playing George, is very fine, as is the Leia character, and the ersatz Darth character. All else is plain commercial dross. What a waste. Still, it got the job done I guess. The rest of the movie is merely treading water to kill time I guess. a brochure only. | 1,076 |
This a Casper the Friendly Ghost short from my childhood, and I re-watch it on YouTube (Thank GOD! for You Tube); after that I love this short, and it is one of my favorite Casper shorts.<br /><br />I love how the short starts off spooky with Frank Gallop's haunting narration; until we get to see Casper sitting by his tombstone in the cemetery, reading. While every ghost rose from the graves to "boo" people, Casper decides to leave in search for a friend. But in trying to make a friend, anyone who sees Casper runs away. Poor Casper sat on a log and weep; until a little fox cub comes up an nuzzles him. Casper and the little fox quickly bond and he quickly names the cub Ferdie and considers him to be his very best friend. <br /><br />Casper and Ferdie's relationship is put in tremendous jeopardy however when Casper is not keeping a close eye on Ferdie while they are playing a game of Hide and Seek. While Ferdie is hiding a hunter and two of his hunting dogs come and try to kill little Ferdie and Ferdie is running as fast as possible until he is out of breath and starts panting. While the hunter is firing gunshots towards Ferdie Casper notices they are trying to kill him and flies in the hunter's direction and pleads that the hunter leaves Ferdie alone. And the hunter and dogs are terrified of Casper. Casper yells to Ferdie that the hunter and the dogs are gone and that everything is fine. But Casper sees Ferdie's body is not moving and asks if he is OK. When Casper sees Ferdie has died he starts mourning in pain because he lost "the only friend he ever had in his whole life." Casper returns back to the cemetery where he has buried Ferdie and has made a gravestone for him next to Casper's gravestone. Casper continues mourning in pain until he sees that Ferdie has resurrected as a ghost himself. Ferdie starts licking Casper on his cheek. Casper screams for joy because he has been reunited with Ferdie.<br /><br />Overall, it is a really good short; though surprisingly disturbing, showing death in a family-oriented cartoon. | Moron and girlfriend conduct some ritual to resurrect the dead, in attempt to prove that the dead can not be brought back to life. Not surprisingly, they do resurrect a dead soul who commences chopping them up with an axe, and the next day some college aged people are telling the story around a campfire. The guy with the axe turns up and starts hacking up the idiots telling the story. The group calls the cops, the cop sees blood splattered all over and thinks it's a mountain lion(!?) and soon after is axed by some deformed killer who may or may not be a ghost.<br /><br />Moronic little splatter movie which was filmed in broad daylight but where several characters are carrying flashlights and talking as though it were the middle of the night, and wanting to send up a signal flare to attract attention. One guy has a gun in one hand and bullets in the other but doesn't bother to load it, then after he finally loads it, he has several opportunities to shoot the killer but doesn't bother to, because that would end the movie too early. Then he throws the gun away! Also detrimental is characters who show no emotion and don't look the least bit concerned after their friends are chopped up into pieces and lousy effects (the human heart looks like a piece of chicken meat, the car blown up at the end clearly was a model car) and awful dialogue and some really ugly female nudity doesn't help. And in the end it tries to get away with it's incoherence by saying that it was all the invention of the same college aged people telling campfire stories at the start of this movie. <br /><br />Then the killer turns up for real in the last scene hacks them into pieces. Again.<br /><br />Mediocre of it's kind, good only for some unintended laughs.<br /><br />*1/2 out of **** | 1,077 |
There's a great deal of material from the Modesty Blaise comics and novels that would be great in a movie. Unfortunately, several attempts have been made and they've fallen short of the great potential in the character. So, no, this isn't the Modesty you know from the comic strip (currently reprinted in nice editions from Titan Books). This is Modesty some 5 or 6 years prior to the first strip, and from what you can piece together from her back-story, it's accurate.<br /><br />Miramax had the movie rights to the character, with Quentin Tarantino acting as advocate and technical adviser. Early drafts of the Miramax project attempted to adapt one of the best novels, but always managed to leave out some crucial element. Tarantino wasn't happy with any of them, and offered to remove his name from the project so they could proceed. To the studio's credit, they wanted to keep him in the process, since they knew he "got" the character and her world. With the movie rights close to expiration, they decided to try a very different approach. The result was "My Name is Modesty," a small direct-to-video movie that introduces the character.<br /><br />The movie does not introduce Willie Garvin or Sir Gerald. These characters are important to Blaise's adventures throughout most of the published stories. What this movie accomplishes is showing the strength of the character by herself. She never loses her composure, and you never doubt that she's in charge even unarmed in a room full of gangsters with guns. Most of the movie takes place within a casino, which undoubtedly saved money on the production. It doesn't matter. The film does not come across as cheap. Instead, it gives a fairly comprehensive (and believable) back-story for the character and demonstrates just how far she thinks ahead. Should Miramax adapt any of the comic stories or novels now, they've laid out the character's background nicely and won't have to spend much time on her "origin." I realize the words "Direct-to-Video" don't inspire confidence, but this film is well worth a look. | With a title like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!", anyone going into this thing would be expecting either a) a bad science fiction movie or b) a comedy making fun of bad science fiction movies. It's supposed to be a mix of both, with a dose of parody splashed in. Unfortunately, it falls flat very soon.<br /><br />You're never supposed to take this movie seriously, I realize that, but you're supposed to think it's funny, right? I found only a few of the jokes or situations were funny (i.e, the side-by-side phone conversations, the Russian Olympic spy eating steroid cereal, Superman walking by Lois, etc.). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" strives to be a cult classic, but it doesn't make it. A cult classic is a movie that is so different that only a select group of people understand it (or a similar description). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" could be enjoyed by any 8-year-old with a bad sense of humor, so therefore, it does not qualify as a cult film.<br /><br />There is one good actress in the entire thing: Sharon Taylor as Lois Fairchild. She is a thin, gawky reporter, but has an endearing personality, loves to overact, and is a natural comedienne. Unfortunately, she is put to bad use here.<br /><br />"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is not as funny as, say, "Amazon Women on the Moon" or "Kentucky Fried Movie", but it does have a few hilarious moments, so I would still recommend seeing it once. Avoid the director's cut, it has interruptions by the producer of the movie and some supposedly "lost" footage dubbed in a pretend African dialect (it can be found in English on the out of print tape). | 1,078 |
After seeing this film at the SF Independent Film Festival, I couldn't wait to hear about how to get a copy. Jim McKay gave a talk (Q&A) about the film afterward which presented his ironic situation: how to get distribution for a film which portrays minorities (women, non-whites) working on resolving controversial issues (teen pregnancy, teen motherhood, racial identity, single-mother households), and how to write a faithful script on all of these topics being a mid-thirties white male. The multi-racial, multi-gendered audience of mostly-adults raved about the film's fantastic storyline, detailed characters, and fantastic portrayal of "real teen life." Most of the teens, however, had left the building--leading me to think this is a film best seen by adults with kids, as a starting point for discussion rather than, as many adults there felt, "a film teens should see because it's about them." Hence, distribution questions--how do we get our hands on it? The Internet (retail) would be a great path--this is a film that will be buried, like "Pups" or other radical modern teen films--and McKay seemed responsive. As for his credits as a writer/director, McKay was _extremeley_ sensitive and detailed in his work--allying himself to the Crown Heights neighborhood in which the film is set, working with actors to portray characters in their own vision of what they think should be--with the results being disarmingly realistic. | Wow, the spookiest thing about this episode was the price of houses 40 years ago. I'll preface by saying I'm not a fan of narrated episodes. If the story/actors/etc. are worth their salt, they should be able to convey the bulk of the narrative without having to read it out, reminded me of personages who can't think off the cuff but rely on teleprompters. The psychobabble was tedious and boring, but some enjoy that kind of thing, it's just not my cup O tea. They could have kept the narrative but at least made it much more believable and interesting if it was coming from a psychiatrist or maybe a newspaper reporter or something. Niggling little things like Peugeot being at the house, which has a singular half circle driveway, yet he seems to have parked his car in the tree he was standing under, because it's nowhere to be seen on the road or on the property. Sloppy editing, as she pulls into the driveway (for what seems the 100th time) exactly who are those 2 guys you see at 24m30s walking towards the car as she pulls into the driveway of the deserted house? The dolly close-ups were also overdone, like some Jr. High drama student discovering the zoom function on his camera for the first time. I could keep picking apart, but that might get almost as boring as this episode was. It kept dragging on and the true purpose seemed to be to use absolutely all the stock footage they had shot of Elaine driving the Newport convertible. I fully expected to see the Chrysler logo and a nice jingle play while a voice over told us all about the 8 track player, automatic top etc. The only good thing I have to say about his one is that it just ends, abruptly. No loose ends tied up, nothing explained or terminated. Not that many would notice, I suspect most had already changed the channel or dozed off by the end. | 1,079 |
updated January 1st, 2006<br /><br />Parsifal is one of my two favorite Wagner operas or music dramas, to be more accurate, (Meistersinger is the other.) though it's hard to imagine it as the "top of anyone's pops". The libretto, by the composer as usual, is a muddle of religion, paganism, eroticism, and possibly even homo-eroticism, and its length may make it seem to the audience like hearing paint dry.<br /><br />Wagner, being a famous anti-Semite, (Klingsor may be one of his surrogate Jewish villains.) naturally entrusted the premiere to an unconverted (not for want of RW's trying!) Hermann Levi, who was his favorite conductor! (Go figure!) Kundry, a most mixed-up-gal and another likely Jewish surrogate, is both villainous or benevolent, depending on the scene.<br /><br />Considering that many video versions of Parsifal seem on the stodgy side, this film of the opera is, in comparison, a breath of fresh air. Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, the director, has brought considerable imagination to it but it's hard to know why he made some of his choices. For example: the notorious dual Parsifals (of each gender!), the puppets, the death-mask-of-Wagner set and various dolls and symbols such as the Nazi swastika in one of the traveling scenes. (If I remember, the "real" Engelbert Humperdinck wrote the actual music to pad out the scene changes.) Though Wagner himself died much too early to be an actual Nazi, many of his descendants (As well as his second wife Cosima.) were at least fellow-travelers, including their grandson Wolfgang Wagner who still runs the Bayreuth Festival at an advanced age. In fact, Wolfgang's son Gottfried Wagner, in complete opposition to his father, has tried to come to terms honestly with his great-grandfather.<br /><br />Syberberg, too, seems politically ambiguous from what I've read. In 1977, he made a well-known film on Hitler, "Hitler: ein Film aus Deutschland" (Sometimes called "Our Hitler" in English.). Since it lasts all of 8 hours and hasn't been widely distributed, most people have not seen it (including myself.).<br /><br />Armin Jordan, the conductor of the audio CD on which this film is based, plays Amfortas (sung by Wolfgang Schöne) Edith Clever (Yvonne Minton) plays Kundry, Michael Kutter and Karin Krick play the dual Parsifals (Both sung by Reiner Goldberg.!) and Robert Lloyd and Aage Haugland both play and sing Gurnemanz and Klingsor.<br /><br />Though the opera takes place over a long period of time and all (except Kundry?) have been described as having aged considerably between Acts 2 and 3, no one looks a day older by the end of the opera. (The magic of the Grail? In this opera the Grail is the cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper and not Mary Magdalene as in more recent times, an idea I find preposterous!).<br /><br />The conducting and singing are all quite serviceable and the DVD seems to have improved the sound, if not the picture, to a great extent. (Yes, I agree that "Kna's" approach is superior, even on the second, stereo, version but he is probably superior to all recorded versions on the whole.)<br /><br />Not a Parsifal for all Wagnerites but I think it works quite well as a filmed opera. | Well, AWFUL is just the first name. This movie is a cliché-ridden piece of junk. A high school comedy setup in a military training camp. I'm sorry I had to give this 1 star which it did not deserve.<br /><br />THIS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS:<br /><br />Just about everything is totally forced, unconvincing and unrealistic. The HEPO (military police) will not come to get you if you don't make your appearance, especially not on your wedding day. The actors were pretty embarrassed during this scene, because the scene didn't work as it was so highly unlikely. You can sense it in their voices. Even if they were not such bad actors, they wouldn't have been able to save the scene. <br /><br />Next the guy has to exercise in his wedding suit. No, there was no time to get him an uniform first. Man, this is great cinematography! I will remember this scene for the rest of my life.<br /><br />There are also GIRLS in the camp--exciting--one of'em even a model, though not looking that great--and the baddest actress I've ever seen. I doubt in Hollywood they would let her say a single line in a B movie. <br /><br />Okay girls in the military! Now this is getting fun. The girls are even placed on the same floor, so we can sneak to their room at night! In reality they would be placed in a different building a quarter mile away, separated by two fences with barbed wire. <br /><br />There are tanks available we can use for a fun ride in our spare time, of which we have plenty. No, the tanks are not locked, and the ignition keys are inserted. No one will notice the engine sounds, especially not at night.<br /><br />There is a bunch of sex scenes and references and all are below the waste line. We need those so the sexually obsessed Germans will like the movie as well. Switzerland is too small a market for any feature film. Well done!<br /><br />One sex scene takes place in the kitchen. Surely, none of those facilities are ever locked. The military routines are as sloppy as they can get.<br /><br />In the end of the brainless flick, the mafia hit men are about the take revenge on the poor guy trying to shoot him! Because he deserted his fiancée! Sure I buy that, the Italians are that way--a jealous bunch (not). <br /><br />The bad guys attempt to do this in open daylight with two dozen eyewitnesses. Not at night in a dark alley. Again, military training grounds (where there is shooting with live ammo) are open to the public, anyone can freely drive or walk in there. There are no such things as guards or fences. <br /><br />The deed however is prevented by the good captain timely launching a rocket into the Italians' car. The explosion knocks the hit men and the enraged fiancée off their feet. No one in 40 feet distance is hurt when the car is blown to smithereens. It's a COMEDY, remember.<br /><br />Okay. It's a comedy, I got that, and I can live with that. No realism needed. Filmmakers can easily get way with this if it is hilariously, side splitting funny, or entertaining, interesting, challenging. Unfortunately it is none of those. It's just embarrassing. A rip-off from brainless American comedies. The latter are at least done professionally, with no amateur actors.<br /><br />It is pretty boring and predictable, a waste of time and energy, especially to those sitting through the entire movie as I unfortunately did. Yawn. | 1,080 |
This picture for me scores very highly as it is a hugely enjoyable and amusing spoof of Alien Invaders taking over a town and many of its' men folk.<br /><br />The town and the players are all decked out in sort of 1950's style and the whole movie has a deliberate tacky and kitschy feel to it. Some of the scenes are hilarious like with the birth of an alien creature.<br /><br />All the actors give full blooded and serious performances which makes the film even funnier and the special effects and Aliens are at least it seems to me intentionally 3rd rate to add to the amusement.<br /><br />These type of films often deserve a cult following:<br /><br />8/10. | I have begun to melt so I will make this review as short and sweet as possible.<br /><br />There's this astronaut, and he goes up in a spacecraft with two other guys, ya know? Except something happens that exposes him to radiation, and then when they come back...well, never mind what happened to the other guys, but our astronaut has begun to melt! No, not just burn up, but MELT! Like an ice cream cone in July! Well OK maybe not that fast, but ya know what I mean.<br /><br />Anyway, he gets all red & gooey, and the fact that he's melting makes him really mad. I guess he also checked out the "melting man" handbook because suddenly he knows that in order to keep from totally melting away, he has to eat human flesh, so he starts ripping people apart.<br /><br />There are other characters, but in a movie where a man melts and melts and melts (and melts), do you really need any others? What's important is WHO will he munch next, and WHAT will be left of them? HOW long will it take for him to just melt away to nothing? WHY was this movie made in the first place? WHERE did they get the money? WHEN will you fall asleep while watching it?<br /><br />I've very nearly melted, but I still have enough time left to tell you that this movie is dreadfully boring, even though the idea is really cool and kind of gross. The makeup is neat but everything else is...SPLAT | 1,081 |
A comedy of epically funny proportions from the guys that brought you South Park, and most of the guys from Orgazmo. This vulgur, obscence movie has utterly disgusting, eggotistical, and satirical content. It portrays incredibly cruel treatment of humans and animals. I LOVE IT!!!!! This is some funny stuff. Really funny. Two loser friends create a game in thier driveway, which explodes into a national sensation. Corruption and greed and blackmail turn the sport sour, and its up ta Coop ta fix it. And along the way, you will laugh. Alot. That's all there is. Enjoy!!!! | I have seen Dolemite and also (Avenging) Disco Godfather, two other fine works of the blaxploitation canon from our friend Rudy Ray Moore. But this film, The Human Tornado (aka Dolemite 2) will always hold a special place in my heart. For sheer goofiness, lack of skill in film production, and absolute enthusiasm (frankly a little too much), The Human Tornado cannot be topped.<br /><br />The opening scene sets the tone. Our old pal Dolemite is shacking up with a white woman, when some racist local cops raid the house for no good reason, and wouldn't you know it! The woman in bed with ol' Dole is none other than the sheriff's wife. Her cry when she sees him: "He made me do it!" Dolemite's cry: "&$*@$ are you for real???" Subtlety was never his strong point.<br /><br />Highlights? The cameo by a very young Ernie Hudson (of Ghostbusters fame), the continuity errors (characters looking one way in one shot, and another in the next, Dolemite's suit changing colors in every single shot of his nightclub act), and Queen Bee's demonic eyes in her first scene.<br /><br />But the real joy here is Rudy Ray Moore himself. Did the man really think he looked cool in this movie? I certainly don't know why, but you have to admire the sheer enthusiasm he has. Whether it be jumping totally naked off a cliff, or barking orders to his gang in rhyme (e.g: Quick! Into the cave! I have a plan to let that mother $*@(%& dig his own grave!) the man commits totally. Certainly he goes overboard, nevermore so than any time he's doing kung fu. The climactic battle is filmed at high speed, but occassionaly slows down to let Rudy pose and grits his teeth. I'm not sure if they wanted it too look like they sped up the film as an effect or if they really wanted us to believe he was that fast. In any event, "The Matrix" it is not.<br /><br />Human Tornado, much like the original Dolemite, is an incompetent film of enormous proportions. But at least it's fun, and certainly you have to give credit to these people for the effort. Just not that much. Enjoy with my hearty recommendations. | 1,082 |
Actually I liked this movie very, very much. Not because of it`s plot, acting, jokes, no. I liked it, because it`s one of the worse movies ever created. It`s so lame, so bad, that it becomes terribly funny. Some jokes are actually cool, but the rest makes me pray for unemployment for the scriptwriter. "Men in white" are so dumb and stupid, that you can do only two things. Turn the TV off or roll on the floor laughing (beer helps a lot:). I chose the second option. | I have watched 3 episodes of Caveman, and I have no idea why I continue except maybe waiting for it to get better. <br /><br />To me this show is just pumping itself off the commercials, with no real humor. As we sat around watching these shows, we all speculated on what was going to happen.<br /><br />The episode of the woman cave-woman with a attitude was actually a big, yea right, for us. she's crude in a theater and acts tough to strangers, and truth be told, she needed a slap<br /><br />I consider myself a pretty good reviewer, taking in everything, but I must say, Cavemen is comparable to the old show, My mother, the car. I give it a 2, only because they deserve 1 better than a 1 because they actually spent money on it. | 1,083 |
I don't understand. Not being a critic, i am not evaluating the quality of the acting, which I find believable, a good thing. My confusion lies with the content. Is no one else sensitive to the fact that these two unfaithful women were justifying their infidelity to men who were fighting and bleeding to guarantee the continued freedom of their families and their country. Should there not have been a prologue informing us if the men made it home and if so, what effect their cheating "wives'" infidelity had on them? While these women were bedding their paramours out of a sense loneliness, did they think that their husbands were enjoying being shot at while facing death or dismemberment daily? They didn't think of their husbands at all! Only of themselves. Pardon me, except when they wished their husbands dead. | Complete waste of time.... This movie is not comedy, it's not drama, it's not romance...not even teenage comedy at least!!! Story... it should be some turn-over one end... but it's so disappointing! When movie has a turn-over on end I expect that turn-over to make movie even better (exp. "Fight Club") but this turn-over makes movie even worse.... When I watch teenage comedy, and I don't do that very often, I expect lousy jokes and bunch of nudeness... Jokes are too lousy and there is no nudity... You got only one....very good looking I must admit... girl, and that's that! And she's fully dressed whole movie! Acting is bad... like soap series... Don't waste your time! There are porns with better story and acting!<br /><br />(sorry on my bad English) | 1,084 |
this is one of the funniest shows i have ever seen. it is really refreshing to watch and i was in stitches many times. i guess there is a social awareness factor to this too which makes it quite interesting. if these were white girls would they get the same reaction? maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't? the characters know no limits (check my lyrics) and do not exclude anyone from their twisted sense of fun!There are so many funny sketches. my favorites is the bob the builder one. it's so silly it's genius. if you like twisted black comedy then this is for you. if you like keeping up appearances it probably isn't.3 non blonde's is yet another hilarious British BBC comedy shown on TV! It is such a funny show and the characters unleashed on the unsuspecting public are laugh at loud funny! It would be impossible to keep a straight face watching the crazy characters and the reactions of the public! This series easily adds to the excellent comedies being produced! | I discovered this movie on IFC, and I thought it would be interesting. For "tiny" love stories, some of the stories really dragged on in this movie. The fact that none of these women had names almost makes you suspect that the actresses were talking about their own real sex lives, including Kathy Baker and Alicia Witt. I have to admit, I want to start seeing some more romantic views of first sexual encounters again, like in "Strike!(1998)," when Odette Sinclair's acquaintances started asking about her presumed first time, and Tweety asked "Was it beautiful?"<br /><br />Some might think re-enactments and flashbacks would improve this movie. I think it would make things even worse. It doesn't necessarily have to be hardcore porn to get my attention, but somehow I just expected more. | 1,085 |
A bit slow (somehow like a Sofia Coppola movie) but still a very captivating film about the discovery of sexuality by three teenage girls. The magic of the movie lies in its capacity to bring back many memories to how it felt like to be their age. The confusion and the insecurities are portrayed in a very simple way but so true to life. The music is perfect and the acting is amazing. The camera works beautifully also. I highly recommend it for those who are not afraid to look back at this particular period of life when we discover our sexual impulses and our desires. I would also say that it is a fine film for young people going through that period. So many movies have been made about adolescence but this really captures the true essence of discovering the adult world of romance and its complexities. | I saw this movie once a long time ago, and I have no desire to ever see it again.<br /><br />This movie is about Preston Waters, a hard-lucked preteen, who always seems to be overlooked by his family and who always seems to be short on cash. All this changes when a bank robber runs over Preston's bike and passes him a blank check as compensation. Preston uses the check to withdraw $1 million from the bank (ironically, the money belongs to the bank robber who gave him the check). Preston then buys a mansion and says that he's working as the assistant of a mysterious and wealthy backer named Mr. Macintosh (named after his computer). After that, he just goes crazy with the money.<br /><br />On paper, this sounds like a great idea. However, on screen, it is one of the emptiest movies I've ever seen. For one thing, it's too unbelievable. I know some parts of the movie were meant to be incredible, but I draw the line at a twelve-year-old boy going out with a thirty-year-old woman, and being put in charge of a imaginary person's small fortune. Also, this was a shallow movie with weak acting, a predictable plot line and characters who are less than memorable. The characters were either cheesy, over the top, annoying, or underdeveloped. But "Juice" was a funny character.<br /><br />If you're looking for a good movie to watch with your family, skip this one. | 1,086 |
I always enjoy seeing movies that make you think, and don't just drip-feed the answers to their audience. "Revolver" is one of these films, and although many reviewers have stated that it is difficult to follow, with a bit of concentration and an open mind I got it. First time. True, it doesn't compare to other mind-mucks like "The Usual Suspects" or "Memento", but in its own right its an intelligent and thought-provoking film. <br /><br />Another thing I really liked about this film is how damn beautiful it is. Every scene, every camera angle seems to have been thought about for ages. If you see it you'll know what I mean.<br /><br />So, to conclude... watch it with an open mind and you may enjoy it. If not, well, no-one ever said "Revolver" is for everyone. And that's my 2 cents. | Personally I think this show looks pretty cheaply made. Some of the actors are terrible. They over do it & seem fake. I can always tell how it's going to end within the first 10 minutes or less of watching because they make it so transparently clear. It's not very well written either. I love to watch it to laugh at it. You know the saying "It's so bad that it's good?" Well, that saying applies to this show. I also like to watch just to see if I'm right when I guess how it's all going to end. So far I've been right every time. It's like a little game that I play. It's nice when you are bored & you feel like laughing at something. | 1,087 |
Even though it has one of the standard "Revenge Price Plots," this film is my favorite of Vincent Price's work. Gallico has that quality that is missing in so many horror film characters- likeability. When you watch it, you feel for him, you feel his frustration, the injustices against him, and you cheer him on when he goes for vengeance, even though he frightens you a little with his original fury. As the film goes on, his character becomes tragic. He's committed his murder, but now he must kill to cover that up. And again to cover that one up. And again... your stomach sinks with his soul as it goes down its spiral- like watching a beloved brother turn into a hood. Even if the revenge story is of old, the plot devices themselves are original- Gallico uses his tricks to kill in more and more inventive ways. A shame this one isn't available for home veiwing. | Despite unfortunately thinking itself to be (a) intelligent, (b) important and (c) interesting, fortunately this movie is over mercifully quickly. The script makes little sense, the whole idea of the sado-masochistic relationship between the two main characters is strangely trite, and John Lydon shows us all, in the space of one movie, why he should never have let himself out of music. His performance is one-note and irritating.<br /><br />The only positive thing to be said is that Harvey Keitel manages to deliver a good turn. His later Bad Lieutenant would show just how badly good actors can act, but mercifully his performance here is restrained. | 1,088 |
My daughter gets really put out at me when I refer to Drew Barrymore as looking as if she'd been hit in the face with a frying pan, not to mention her Dudley Dooright chin that Jay Leno would die for. How wonderful, then, when I discovered in "Fever Pitch" that I really like Miss Barrymore; and Jimmy Fallon; and the Red Sox; and Boston! This film is probably best characterized as a sweet, light comedy. To be absolutely stereotypical, the girls will like the movie for its romantic charm and Jimmy Fallon's vulnerability, and the boys will like it for all the male bonding and the depiction of sports mania.<br /><br />My sports-hating wife, my teenage daughter, and I all found something to like in the film. That says something in itself. It's a pleasant way to spend an hour and a half or so, and is probably a really good date flic, too. | Honestly I can't understand why this movie rates so well here, nor why Bakshi himself thought it was his finest film. I'm a huge fan of Bakshi's earlier work - particularly 'Heavy Traffic' and 'Wizards', but frankly 'Wizards' (1977) was the last good film he made. After that he turned to the mainstream, beginning with the diabolical 'Lord of the Rings' and then knuckling down with sword and sorcery heavyweight Frank Frazetta, for 'Fire and Ice'.<br /><br />What can I say? The story is puerile, the animation is TV quality - I insist that it's considerably worse than his 70's stuff - and whereas 'Wizards' had real imagination, quirkiness, some gorgeous background art, and an underground, adult sensibility, 'Fire and Ice' is just designed for 14 year old boys, and has the intellectual clout of Robinson Crusoe on Mars.<br /><br />Yes, if you liked the Gor books, you might like this. In my view though, this was just another blip in the slide in quality after 'Wizards' from which Bakshi never recovered (though he's done some decent TV stuff fairly recently)<br /><br />4.5 out of 10 | 1,089 |
For everyone who expects a traditional superhero-movie it might be an unpleasant surprise. It is definitely more of a drama rather than an action movie. It focuses mainly on emotions and it's a bit like a Greek tragedy - whatever the main character does it always goes wrong somehow.<br /><br />That's because Sasha, like each superhero, takes the law into his own hands and the society doesn't appreciate it. Sasha becomes an outlaw. While on the run, he meets a beautiful girl and falls in love so things get even more complicated for him.<br /><br />As you can see, the plot itself is really dramatic but the movie lacks in dynamics. It reminds me slightly of the narration in the recent movies by Ram Gopal Varma. Everything happens very slowly. However, when there's an action scene it gets so immensely dynamic that before you realize what's going on, it's all over. But the director does not want to impress us with flashy and showy action. What is more important here is the outcome of Sasha's actions, which are mostly very drastic. The score is very scarce, which also makes it more difficult to concentrate on the film. So basically you need to be very patient in order to watch it.<br /><br />Is the film worth it? That is a question really difficult to answer. I don't think that this experience enriched me so very much, but somehow I keep on thinking about this movie and feel like watching it again. Mostly due to the atmosphere, which is really dense, but not suffocating because all the time Sasha and Katya have hope. After all they're young people, who have all their lives to live. So no matter how hard it gets there's always a slight joyous tune when they are together. | Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.<br /><br />Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).<br /><br />The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.<br /><br />"Murder By Numbers" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving... | 1,090 |
I already loved "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" when it was released and I'm still loving it now, 5 years later. Still lots of people seem to disagree with my opinion and this movie never really had received much love at the time it came out.<br /><br />Sure, the movie is over-the-top and campy but that at the very same is also the reason why this movie is so charming and fun to watch. All of the sets, costumes and characters are done perfectly over-the-top in a fun way, without ever becoming truly ridicules. It's a visually spectacular movie to watch. It's a campy movie making at its very best! Director Ron Howard really surprises with this fun little Christmas movie.<br /><br />Main reason why the movie works and why it's so much fun to watch is Jim Carrey as the Grinch. He truly carries the movie with his good and fun role. He is of course helped by the convincing make-up, which also received an Academy Award. Of course if you're a Jim Carrey hater you shouldn't even think about watching this movie. This movie is really his movie and he makes it all work and so much fun to watch. Other fun and memorable roles are being played by Jeffrey Tambor, Clint Howard and Josh Ryan Evans as the young Grinch.<br /><br />The movie has a good morale but it is all a bit sappy to me. Perhaps it's because I'm Dutch and we don't really celebrate Christmas that enthusiastic and big here, as in the United States or England. For me the movie was simply fun and entertaining and the morale just left me quite cold to be honest.<br /><br />The musical score by James Horner is good and fun, even though it's your average every day Horner stuff, it still all works perfectly for the movie and helps to make some of the scene's work.<br /><br />Perfect Christmas entertainment.<br /><br />8/10 | Demi Moore's character in the movie was selected for the SEALs because of her looks. That was a bad start and the movie went down from there. The plot was totally unbelievable. The will to make it in a tough military unit is not enough. This movie did not convince me of a woman's physical ability to perform the types of tasks required.<br /><br />Trying to pretend that women and men are basically the same is an insult to everyone's intelligence. The differences between the sexes are what makes life interesting. | 1,091 |
Pecker is another mainstream film by John Waters done on a smaller than Serial Mom. The title character of Pecker has a hobby of taking pictures of anything he sees. It doesn't matter if it's dirty or shocking when he takes pictures. He soon uses the pictures he taken and puts them on display at his work. Pecker live in a semi-normal middle-class family. His dad works at a drinking bar with a claw machine, but doesn't make enough money with a lesbian stripper bar across the street. His mom runs a thrift shop and loves to dress-up poor people. His older sister, Tina, works at a gay bar where her specialty is trade. His younger, Little Chrissy, has a habit of eating sugar, sugar, and nothing but sugary food. His grandmother, Memama, has a small statue of the Virgin Mary and plays ventriloquist with it. He also has 2 friends. On of his friends, Matt is a chronic shoplifter and his girlfriend, Shelley, runs a laundry mat as if she was a dictator. Soon, a tourist from New York buys his pictures and displays them at an art gallery. With the picture comes fame, but the pictures expose the unusual life style of his friends and family's simple life. For an R-rated film, Pecker is sure tamer than most of Waters previous R-rated films and even Pink Flamingos. Another 10 out of 10! | I consider this film one of the worst in the Nightmare series. It was so boring that I couldn't remember a thing 20 minutes after the film was over, it even tires me to write a review on it.<br /><br />Okay, #4 was a joke and Freddy was the joker. #5 tried to return to the roots of the series. It was darker and more atmospheric than Nightmare 4, which is a good thing, basically. They tried to shoot a horror film instead of a comedy. Unfortunately they forgot to add suspense and scares. Because of that Nightmare 5: The Dream Child is neither funny nor is it scary. What we actually get is a boring film with the usual bad actors (maybe with the exception of Lisa Wilcox).<br /><br />The plot (Freddy killing Lisa's friends by using the dreams of Lisa's unborn child) has a good base but it just isn't enough for 90 minutes of film. Sometimes the story gets very confusing (maybe because there isn't any) and you can't stop wondering what the filmmakers were aiming at. The screenplay must have had more holes than Swiss Cheese and the film therefore was very cheesy itself (let me say that I don't like cheese though, even if I am from Switzerland). Not even the special effects were as good as for example in part 4.<br /><br />Don't bother to rent/buy this film if not for completeness, it's quite a mess.<br /><br />My rating: 4/10 (get used to it, #6 is also a messy one...) | 1,092 |
I'm not quite sure if the term "serious comedy" applies to this movie, Im not even sure if this can be applied. On the last few years movie theaters have become filled with comedy movies which are way too stupid to even make us grin. Therefore, I considered the movies which do not fill these requirements as "serious comedies".<br /><br />Does The 40 Year Old Virgin fit into this guild? That is finally up to you, but in my opinion, this is a very funny movie. You get to laugh a lot, plus it delivers a social commentary through some really great characters and situations.<br /><br />I'm pretty there is more than one 40 year old virgin out there, and even the people whom do not exactly fit this specifications, may feel identified by one of the characters in the movie, especially men.<br /><br />The story, as the title says it, is about Andy, a shy, silent guy, whom collects action figures, watches Survivor with his octogenarian neighbors and whose favorite band is Asia.<br /><br />Kal is Andy's co-worker at SmartTech. He believes Andy to be a psychopath until Andy's secret is revealed. Kal is clearly a sexual pervert but yet he seems to get what he wants with the opposite genre.<br /><br />David is the passionate guy who is still in love with his ex-girlfriend, whom ran away with another guy. And Jay, a man in a relationship which seems to be affected by his continuous cheating and getting caught acts.<br /><br />I'm pretty sure most youngsters from 13 to 21 have already watched this film, but it really does not have an age limit to be able to enjoy it. So in case you haven't seen it and will enjoy a little laugh, with social commentary, than go to your video store and rest from those deep and depressing independent films.<br /><br />It also includes DVD bonuses which you'll really see from top to bottom. | - A newlywed couple move into the home of the husband's dead former wife. It's not long before the new wife begins to have the feeling that someone doesn't want her in the house. She sees skulls all around the house. But when the husband investigates, he can't find anything. Is someone trying to drive her back to the asylum that she was recently discharged from? Or, is the ghost of the dead wife trying to get the new wife out of her house? <br /><br />- This is the first time that I've watched The Screaming Skull without the assistance of the MST3K crew. And, it will in all likelihood be the last time I watch it this way. Can you say dull? I'm not talking ordinary dull - I'm talking watching grass grow dull. There are great stretches of the movie where nothing happens. The screen could have gone blank and I would have gotten as much entertainment out of it. The characters drone on and on with the most monotonous conversations imaginable. The Screaming Skull could probably be marketed as a sleep aide.<br /><br />- The actors don't help matters much. Most of them deliver lines with the conviction normally reserved for a grade school play. I haven't looked it up, but I would be shocked to find that anyone associated with this movie ever appeared in anything of cinematic value. I won't even go into the script the actors are given to work with. Let's just say that the characters are given some of the most idiotic lines ever uttered on film.<br /><br />- You've been warned! Either avoid this one at all costs or, at least, seek out the MST3K version. | 1,093 |
At first I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch this movie when it came up on my guide so I looked it up on IMDb and thought the cover looked pretty cool so I thought I would give it a try expecting a movie like Elephant.<br /><br />Once I got past the fact that I am supposed to dislike the Alicia character played excellently by Busy Phillips, I realized what a good job this movie was doing toward setting up the relationship between Alicia and Deanna. Alicia is so mean to Deanna played by Erika Christensen almost throughout the entire movie but we eventually find out that they despite being polar opposites they have one thing in common besides being present at the shooting. They share loneliness and to what extent is revealed as the film progresses.<br /><br />I've just got to say how much I loved this movie and was glad to see all of the positive comments about it. I couldn't even get through Elephant because it just seemed to be exploiting the Columbine tragedy. This movie on the other hand was compelling and realistic. Busy Phillips acting is OFF the CHAIN!!! That is a good thing and I would love to see her progress into some more mature roles. | Not sure why this movie seems to have gotten such rave reviews.<br /><br />While watching "Bang" one night on TV, I found myself bored by the nonsensical, random plot which was occurring on screen. The entire movie seems to be nothing more than an exercise in meaningless, artsy-fartsy self-indulgence on the part of the filmmaker. The fact that the director/writer goes by a one name moniker only reinforces this sense of pretentiousness. <br /><br />Those interested in indie flicks would be better off looking for something better written and dare I say, more entertaining than this complete waste of time. | 1,094 |
May 1938. Hitler in Italy. Preparations for historical appointment with Mussolini.Emotions , tensions and forms of self-affirmation. a empty town, a housewife and a journalist. The meeting of two different worlds. Refuge for a mother with a sad life. Short filling for a classical victim. A story about solitude and silence. About the form of of life's nooks and desire like fight's form. The great character- a book gifted in a spring's afternoon. This movie is a poem, remarkable for the art to describe the shades of common loneliness. A pleading for a ineffable relation with reality. And with your interior world. The pictures of Il Duce, the clumsiness of Antonietta, the patience and the frailty tension of Gabriele, the art of director to give the sense of script grace two great actors makes this film sublime, foretaste of subtle delicacy, a wonderful film about hypocrisy and arbitrary verdict, about essence of life and repulsiveness of any tyranny. Loren and Mastroianni are the masters of a magnificent intelligent acting. A clear masterpiece. | Sistas in da hood. Looking for revenge and bling bling. Except da hood is a wild west town in the late 1800s. I do not remember any westerns like this when I was growing up. What would Randolph Scott say? If he saw Lil' Kim, he might say, "Alright! I have to admit that I tuned into this just to see her. Bare midriffs and low cut blouses are not the staple of the usual cowboy flick, but these are the cowgirls, and they are fine.<br /><br />Now, don't go looking for any major story here, and the usual stuff of ghetto crime drama are here in a different setting. And, when's the last time you heard John Wayne call someone, "Dawg"? And, I don't remember the Earp brothers hugging and kissing before they marched to the OK Corral.<br /><br />I watch this on BET, so I missed the action that got it an R rating, but I doubt if I will buy the DVD to see it unless I can be assured it was Lil' Kim in that action. | 1,095 |
Great acting on the part of Gretchen Mol. This film is one of the best biopics to hit the screen in some time. While it does cover the majority of Bettie's young life, it also manages to stay on a mostly focused path which is something most biographical films seem to lack. There is some lovely and alarmingly funny subtext in the dialogue and acting. This film is an excellent break from the Dir. of "American Psycho," and I think this will show through as her best work to date. Oh, and as a cinematography buff, I give this film 100% in the cine dept. It was amazing how well they pulled off a 50s look with modern film stocks. Accolades to the D.O.P. All around very enjoyable. I recommend any interested to see it: 8/10. | This has got to be the most stupid film I have ever seen (spoilers ahead)! First of all, the plot is stupid. The little kid is weird and they move to a hotel because his father is the caretaker of it. We find that the kid has a gift, the "Shining". This gift never ever has anything to do with anything except to make the kid seem cool. Then the movie gets more boring and boring until the man finally goes crazy. He goes on a rampage to kill the kid and his wife because... well, he feels like it. Why else would he do it? All of a sudden we see a naked woman in the tub. The man kisses her and realizes he is kissing a dead corpse, which is utterly disgusting. Somehow a black man enters the hotel and is whacked with an axe. Then the kid and the woman take the black man's vehicle and leave the father, who dies within minutes of hypothermia. Most movies aren't a complete waste of time, but this falls right into that category. The music is trashy, the characters are corny (except Jack Nicholson, who is a good actor), the plot is twisted and fits the description of vomit, the ending is very predictable, the storyline is slow, tedious, and boring. This movie is extremely overrated. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS. I'm surprised it's gotten such a high rating on IMDb. | 1,096 |
Love this film also. Saw it when it was first shown i8n Germany in a small independent cinema in Frankfurt. It was really crowded and it was a very ambitious atmosphere to. The erotic of the movie hit the spectators and the discussion with Moritz Boerner the producer and director was always underlined by that. In his genre it was a very ambitious movie even especially when you think that it was an independent movie.<br /><br />It doesn't exist much copies of that film, Mortitz Boerner came from the theatre and made two or three short movies more worked for TV as well before he became a sort of therapist.<br /><br />For the people who wish to see that movie again, you could find it on his homepage which isn't that easy to search for but its possible. | Unless I'm sadly mistaken, I rented A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 several years ago and there was a music video, I'm pretty sure which was called Dream Warriors, at the end of it, and I rented this one on DVD hoping that the video would be there because it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It's amazing how stuff from the 80s is so funny now, but nothing is funnier than 80s rap videos. There was this rap group singing that song Dream Warriors on the VHS version of this movie after the credits, and they're all wearing like denim jackets with no shirt underneath and form fitting jean shorts that are all frayed at the bottoms like Daisy Dukes. What could make a rap group look more foolish I can't imagine.<br /><br />(spoilers) At any rate, I was disappointed in looking for that video on the DVD version, so all I had was this mediocre installment in the Freddy Krueger series. The movie sort of starts off with the same idea as part 2, with the main character witnessing all kinds of gruesome murders and then sort of coming out of a trance and finding himself with the bloody hands. Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has a nightmare about the infamous house that Nancy Thompson used to live in, then runs to the bathroom, the sink's handles turn into Freddy's hands and attack her, and then she wakes up standing in her bathroom having slit her own wrists. From there, the movie turns into the usual mental hospital installment. <br /><br />`Larry' Fishburne, tired of always playing the bad guy in his roles, was happy to take on the role in this film as a nice-guy orderly, stern but accommodating when the patients want to bend the rules a little. Not surprisingly, he turns in what is by leaps and bounds the best performance in the movie. Arquette later goes on to become an accomplished actor, but had not perfected her acting skills when she starred in this film. The characters in the movie are mostly all patients at the mental hospital that Kristen is placed into after cutting her wrists. All of them are cynical and uncooperative, almost none believing that they really belong there at all. Eventually, they realize and are able to convince the staff that they are all having dreams about the same man and it's not just some kind of group hysteria.<br /><br />Heather Langenkamp has returned in her famous role as Nancy Thompson, this time grown up into a dream researcher as a result of her childhood experiences involving Freddy Krueger. Not surprisingly, she is able to quickly relate to the hysterical Kristen and the rest of the patients, since she had experienced exactly what they're going through. There are some interesting murders in this installment, and the technology used for the special effects have taken a huge jump. There is a gigantic, worm-like Freddy that tries to swallow Kristen whole, there is a scene where a television turns into Freddy and with mechanical arms he picks up one of the patients there for some late night entertainment and punishes her for sitting too close to the TV, but there is also an unconvincing go-motion scene where a couple guys have a fight with Freddy Krueger's skeleton, which has been rotting in the trunk of some car in a car junkyard. And one of the more groan-inducing scenes was one where Freddy attacks one of the patients in his dream (the one famous for sleepwalking), tearing the muscles and tendons out of his arms and legs and leading him around like a puppet. Ouch.<br /><br />We get a peek into Freddy's past in this installment. Not only do we meet his mother, but we also find out the circumstances that led to Freddy being fathered by more than 100 maniacs. In fighting Freddy, the patients all band together and, in their dreams, use their special powers (most of which reflect their shortcomings in real life) to fight him. One student, bound to a wheelchair, is able to walk in his dreams, another has the hilarious powers of what he calls the `Wizard Master,' another is `beautiful and bad' (she has lots of makeup, her hair stands up in a foot-high Mohawk, and she has knives). Clever, but the movie falters when it has only one of the patients, the one who can't speak, not have any powers in his dreams until the climax of the movie, when he suddenly realizes that he can talk in his dreams (at just the right moment to save the day). His dream power was a little too obvious to have been left out for that long, but collectively, now you see why the movie was subtitled Dream Warriors.<br /><br />Altogether, this is not an entirely weak entry into the series. The acting is pretty shoddy, but it's actually pretty good for a horror movie. Larry Fishburne vastly overshadows the rest of the cast, displaying wonderful acting skills early on in his career, and the movie is not simply a rehash of either of the first two a problem that plagues the Friday the 13th movies much more than the Elm Street films. The characters are never developed enough to allow for the later creation of much tension, which is why most of the deaths come across more as creative ways to kill off someone in a horror film than the tragic loss of the life of one of the characters that we've come to know and root for their triumph over evil. But then again, not a lot of horror movies take the time to really develop their characters to the point where you throw up your hands in defeat when they are killed, or are on the edge of your seat as they run for their lives. But it's important to note that the few horror films that actually do that are almost invariably the best ones
| 1,097 |
This series it's "something different". Sometimes European series are less accurate than the USA ones, but this time authors have hit the right target creating a mix that works in a smoothly way. Edel & Starck is great, it has all: great plot, smart, witty, always well delivered lines, an amazing theatrical timing showed by all the stars and beautiful shots of Berlin, one of the most interesting city in the world. It's entertaining to see how things works in the justice field in other countries than the USA and for once "feel" the old Europe way of dealing with life. Kudos to all the cast and crew for a well done comedy that is going to be a must to see in the years to come.Watching the series in German is super. | There are some good things about the movie. The music and cinematography is great. Alex Wilson is hot and gives a great performance. Ryan Bauer is also hot. The production was very lucky to have casted them because they really give production value to the movie. Jonny Vincent (Sean) and a lot of the boys in the movie that don't speak are cute too. Why isn't the actress who plays Amy listed in the credits? Brandon Alexander gives a great comedic performance as Clitarissa Pink.<br /><br />The worse thing about the movie is probably the star, James Townsend. He can't act. He's also very scrawny, not nice to look at at all. His arms are like spaghetti. It's disgusting. They have no muscle tone at all. It's no wonder he has to make his own movie and cast himself in it. No one else would cast him in anything.<br /><br />James Townsend is not believable as someone who would even have a girlfriend because he acts so gay. They should have casted someone else as the lead if they wanted what's best for the movie. Then again, maybe he just wants to use this movie as a vehicle to launch a career in soft-core porn, definitely not real acting because he would have taken some acting lessons. Plus, anyone who does porn is blacklisted in Hollywood.<br /><br />The most ridiculous thing about the movie is probably the casting of a tan-skinned Latina as Devon's mother. Sonja Fisher does not seem like an actress at all. All in all, this movie is soft-core porn and is no better than something you would see on Skinemax. I think even Alex Wilson, probably the best thing about this movie, is embarrassed by it and doesn't want to be associated with it. There is no photo on his IMDb page and nothing else listed, so Alex Wilson is probably a disposable stage name. Plus, I ran into him in West Hollywood one time recently and when I mentioned this movie, he just turned around and walked away. I understand. If I had worked on this movie, I would be embarrassed and wouldn't want to be associated with it either. | 1,098 |
A solid, if unremarkable film. Matthau, as Einstein, was wonderful. My favorite part, and the only thing that would make me go out of my way to see this again, was the wonderful scene with the physicists playing badmitton, I loved the sweaters and the conversation while they waited for Robbins to retrieve the birdie. | Well well well. As good as John Carpenter's season 1 outing in "Masters of Horror" was, this is the complete opposite. He certainly proved he was still a master of horror with "Cigarette Burns" but "Pro-Life" is perhaps the worst I have seen from him.<br /><br />It's stupid, totally devoid of creepy atmosphere and tension and it overstays it's welcome, despite the less-than-an-hour running time. The script is nonsense, the characters are irritable and un-appealing and the conclusion is beyond absurd.<br /><br />And for those suckers who actually bought the DVD (one of them being me); did you see how Carpenter describes the film? He's actually proud of it and he talks about it as his best work for a long time, and he praises the script. And in the commentary track, where he notices an obvious screw up that made it to the final cut, he just says he didn't feel it essential to rectify the mistake and he just let it be there. I fear the old master has completely lost his touch. I sincerely hope I'm proved wrong.<br /><br />I want to leave on a positive note and mention that the creature effects are awesome, though. Technically speaking, this film is top notch, with effective lighting schemes and make up effects. | 1,099 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.