pos
stringlengths 70
13.7k
| neg
stringlengths 52
8.75k
| __index_level_0__
int64 0
20k
|
|---|---|---|
If John Thaw had never played "Morse", "Kavanagh", or starred in "The Sweeney" and other productions, he'd be remembered for this wonderfully unforgettable performance in "Goodnight Mr Tom".<br /><br />Superbly supported by an equally tremendous performance by his co-star (young Nick Robinson in his first role), and an unobtrusive cast, this adaptation of Michelle Magorian's charming novel is a fitting memorial to his art.<br /><br />When I read this story of an old widowed Norfolk countryman having to accommodate a young boy from London before and during the Blitz, I found a rather obvious time-line error in it, and credit must go to the makers of this film for rectifying this error. They also must be applauded for not over-sentimentalising the tale, and preventing what could have been turned, quite easily, into a mushy mess.<br /><br />If you keep a CD or video library then this feel-good made for TV movie is an absolute must inclusion.
|
This is one of those cheaply made TV Movies were the characters seem to lose all sense. The premise of the story, the kidnapping of a son by the boy's father,is very good. But the story just seems to beggar belief. Whenever the mother is advised not to do anything you know fine well she is going to do it. It is a bit far fetched and not worthy of a viewing.
| 1,700 |
A bunch of American students and their tutor decide to visit the ugliest part of Ireland in order to study ancient religious practices. Despite being repeatedly warned about the dangers of straying off the beaten path (by the local creepy Irish guy, natch), they do just that, and wind up with their insides on the outside courtesy of a family of inbred cannibals (the descendants of the infamous Sawney Bean clan, who according to the film's silly plot, upped sticks from Scotland and settled on the Emerald Isle).<br /><br />If you think that porn stars plus low budget horror automatically equals tons of nudity and terrible acting, then think again: Evil Breed is bristling with adult stars, but in fact, there's not nearly as much nudity as one might expect given the 'talent' involved, and the acting, although far from Oscar worthy, ain't all that bad (with the exception of Ginger Lynn Allen, who we know can do marvellous 'French', but whose Irish is lousy).<br /><br />Evil Breed opens in superb style with the brutal slaughter of a couple of amorous campers: after some brief under-canvas sex, the silicone enhanced hottie is dragged from the tent and torn in half; the guy has his arms and legs cut off and is roasted on a spit. It's a very gory start, and bodes well for the rest of the film.<br /><br />Unfortunately, after this promising beginning, things start to go seriously downhill: we are introduced to the main characters, an annoying bunch of twenty-somethings just begging to become cannibal chow, and are subjected to a fair amount of time wasting in the form of some terrible false scares, a lot of blarney about murderous druids from local Irish weirdo Gary (Simon Peacock), and worst of all, some sub-Scream, post-modernistic conversation about the conventions of horror films (how clever!).<br /><br />Then, just as it looks as though the film is never going to get any better, director Christian Viel decides to get serious: a guy gets a knife rammed through his head and there's a gratuitous sex-in-the-shower scene featuring lovely blonde Gillian Leigh (NOT a porn star, but I'm sure there's a career there waiting if she wants it). After that, things improve rapidly as the cannibals kick into top flesh-eating gear, and the film is transformed into a veritable bloodbath: Gary has a machete rammed up his ass (about time!), and is strangled with his intestines; Ginger Lynn kick-boxes a mutant; Jenna Jameson is torn open, eviscerated and has her silicone breast implant gnawed on by confused cannibal; a guy gets decapitated by cheese wire; and Taylor Hayes is seen bloody, bruised and naked with a dead foetus between her legs (apparantly, she's been captured and used as breeding stock).<br /><br />All of this is so outrageously gory that it makes sitting through the less interesting stuff worthwhile, and earns Evil Breed a final rating of 7/10.<br /><br />NB. A very troubled production and studio meddling resulted in Christian Viel eventually abandoning the project. Re-shoots were done and the gore was heavily trimmed for a US release. The good news is that although the film doesn't flow as well as it might have, and is cursed with a terrible ending, the UK DVD (the version I watched) seems to have been left relatively intact as far as the splatter is concerned (only 13s were cut from the film in total).
|
This film has so little class in comparison to Strangers on a Train or even, Accidental Meeting for that matter, that despite plot similarities I wouldn't feel right in actually comparing this to either of them. The Yancy Butler character came across as such a dopey dimwit I was too embarrassed for the writer and director to continue watching.<br /><br />I don't enjoy many Lifetime movies but feel compelled to watch one every now and then in the interest of promoting harmony at home. I often groan silently but this film caused me to protest out loud, stand up leave the room and walk around the house mumbling to myself, before I returned to my normally favorite chair to subject myself to more torture.<br /><br />Dean Morgan, Rochester, NY
| 1,701 |
I sometimes grow weary of reading reviews of some of Hitchcock's lesser known films, because almost every single one starts out with someone saying this film is grossly overlooked or this is a hidden Hitchcock gem or a true Hitchcock great or some other generic if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc. So, that being said, I would just like to say that if - only - people - would - watch - this - they - would - see - that - this - is - a - great - Hitchcock - film - just - as - much - as - Vertigo - North - by - Northwest - Psycho - Rear - Window - etc.<br /><br />Now, that may be overshooting a little bit, The Ring is not by any stretch of the imagination even in the same league as any of those films mentioned twice above, but compared to the other films that Hitchcock made in the late 1920s and early 1930s, I really think that The Ring is one of the best photographed and performed films of mostly all of them. As an almost brand new director, there are some astonishing dream sequences and brilliant segments of editing which show why Hitchcock was generating so much attention early in his career.<br /><br />Granted, the film does start with, among other things, the highly disturbing spectacle of an idiot black circus performer (and I use idiot in the definitive manner, the way Stephen King so often does) having eggs and fruit thrown at him by a crowd of not the classiest looking white people. I suppose this only illustrates how incredibly different such circuses and people were back then, but I think it is one of the most off-putting sequences in any Hitchcock film I've seen.<br /><br />The main attraction at the circus is a fighter who claims to be able to knock any man down in one round, but when he meets his match, it is against a man that challenges his authority not only in the boxing ring but also in the ring around his wife's finger. So begins an entertaining if not very tense challenge for the love of one woman, who seems to sway from one man to the other effortlessly and thoughtlessly.<br /><br />(spoilers) There is, for example, a scene where her husband watches her from above as she is dropped off at home late at night and, just before going into the building, she is coaxed back to the car for a kiss. This kiss is never explained, and there is also the fact that, even at the end when she proves faithful to her husband, or at least ultimately chooses him, they look into each other's eyes but do not actually kiss.<br /><br />The film is certainly beautifully photographed, even more so than several films that Hitch released in subsequent years. There is also a performance by Gordon Harker as One Round Jack's trainer who, in his stone faced expressionism, reminds me quite often of the brilliant Buster Keaton. Hitch leaves it a bit ambiguous, but this is a great sample of his early work.
|
"People I Know" is a clunker with no one to root for and no one to care about -- despite the game efforts of a talented cast.<br /><br />Pacino delivers his usual tour de force as Eli Wurman, a past-his-prime publicity agent hollowed out by a lifetime of moral corruption. But unlike Michael Corleone, it's impossible to have an emotional investment in this character, his dilemma, or his fate.<br /><br />The film traces Eli's preparations for a benefit for a liberal political cause, while distracted by a client's (Ryan O'Neal, good in an underwritten part) latest "dirty laundry" -- in this case, a TV actress companion who's gotten involved with the wrong people. Tea Leoni brings her customary star power to this supporting role, although again, the script doesn't give her much to work with. As Eli's sister-in-law, Kim Basinger manages to evoke sympathy despite implausible plot mechanics.<br /><br />This movie is strictly for those who like watching Pacino strut his stuff, and enjoy the other principals. Unfortunately, between the script and direction, "People I Know" is strictly amateurish. Hence its limited theatrical release, and speedy journey to DVD. Consider yourself warned.
| 1,702 |
I really like this film... when I started to watch it I thought I would get bored pretty soon, but it surprised me... I thought it was a great film and have seen it a few times now. The characters are believable and I have to say that I fell in love with Brian Austin Green all over again (the first time being Beverly Hills 90210). I would recommend this film if you are a fan of his, but I do agree with another comment made earlier, that the ending is sort of disappointing. I would have loved it to turn out a little different! Never mind though, good gripping story.
|
It must be assumed that those who praised this film ("the greatest filmed opera ever," didn't I read somewhere?) either don't care for opera, don't care for Wagner, or don't care about anything except their desire to appear Cultured. Either as a representation of Wagner's swan-song, or as a movie, this strikes me as an unmitigated disaster, with a leaden reading of the score matched to a tricksy, lugubrious realisation of the text.<br /><br />It's questionable that people with ideas as to what an opera (or, for that matter, a play, especially one by Shakespeare) is "about" should be allowed anywhere near a theatre or film studio; Syberberg, very fashionably, but without the smallest justification from Wagner's text, decided that Parsifal is "about" bisexual integration, so that the title character, in the latter stages, transmutes into a kind of beatnik babe, though one who continues to sing high tenor -- few if any of the actors in the film are the singers, and we get a double dose of Armin Jordan, the conductor, who is seen as the face (but not heard as the voice) of Amfortas, and also appears monstrously in double exposure as a kind of Batonzilla or Conductor Who Ate Monsalvat during the playing of the Good Friday music -- in which, by the way, the transcendant loveliness of nature is represented by a scattering of shopworn and flaccid crocuses stuck in ill-laid turf, an expedient which baffles me. In the theatre we sometimes have to piece out such imperfections with our thoughts, but I can't think why Syberberg couldn't splice in, for Parsifal and Gurnemanz, mountain pasture as lush as was provided for Julie Andrews in Sound of Music...<br /><br />The sound is hard to endure, the high voices and the trumpets in particular possessing an aural glare that adds another sort of fatigue to our impatience with the uninspired conducting and paralytic unfolding of the ritual. Someone in another review mentioned the 1951 Bayreuth recording, and Knappertsbusch, though his tempi are often very slow, had what Jordan altogether lacks, a sense of pulse, a feeling for the ebb and flow of the music -- and, after half a century, the orchestral sound in that set, in modern pressings, is still superior to this film.
| 1,703 |
Leave it to Braik to put on a good show. Finally he and Zorak are living their own lives outside of Spac Ghost Coast To Coast. I have to say that I love both of these shows a whole lot. They are completely what started Adult Swim. Brak made it big with an album that came out in the year 2000. It may not have been platinum, but his show was really popular to tons of people out there that love Adult Swims shows. I have to say that out of all the Adult Swim shows with no plot, this has to be the one with the most none plot ever made. That is why I like it so much, it is just such a classic in the Adult Swim history. I believe this is just such a great show, if you don't like it. Hey there were tons who hated it and tons who loved it.
|
After reading the previous comments, I'm just glad that I wasn't the only person left confused, especially by the last 20 minutes. John Carradine is shown twice walking down into a grave and pulling the lid shut after him. I anxiously awaited some kind of explanation for this odd behavior...naturally I assumed he had something to do with the evil goings-on at the house, but since he got killed off by the first rising corpse (hereafter referred to as Zombie #1), these scenes made absolutely no sense. Please, if someone out there knows why Carradine kept climbing down into graves -- let the rest of us in on it!! <br /><br />All the action is confined to the last 20 minutes so I'll attempt a synopsis. John Carradine comes out to the cemetery to investigate, and is throttled by Zombie #1. So far, so good. But then we get the confusing scene where John Ireland and Jerry Strickler, out for a little moonlight filming in the graveyard, discover Carradine's dead body. Strickler repeatedly tries to push Ireland into the open grave from whence Zombie #1 had emerged, but Ireland succeeds in flipping him into the open grave instead, and PRESTO! Strickler comes out as Zombie #2! Yeah, I guess we can infer that Strickler was dead all-along (a witch?), but why he changed from normal appearance into rotting-flesh version by flying into Zombie #1's grave is never explained. (Considering how excruciatingly slow-moving these zombies are, I'd of thought he would have preferred to stay in his "normal" form until his business was concluded). This scene also brings a question to mind -- just who the heck IS Zombie #1 ??? We can only assume Zombie #1 is one of the original murder victims shown during the movie's opening credits, but who knows which one, nor why he has a particular grudge against the film crew.<br /><br />Anyway, after Ireland sees this transformation and runs away, we see the EXACT SAME SHOT of Zombie #2 shambling through the trees as we saw for Zombie #1. (This leads to momentary confusion over just how MANY zombies there really are). Then in best 1950's horror-movie fashion Ireland manages to trip while fleeing. He conveniently knocks his head on the small headstone of Faith Domergue's dead cat (wasn't that nice of John Carradine to chisel a tombstone for a cat that he barely knew?)<br /><br />Meanwhile, Zombie #1 has been wrecking havoc up at the house. He easily dispatches three film-crew members, then starts up the stairs. Faith Domergue hears him, and thinking it's lover John Ireland back from his night-shoot, goes out. Upon seeing it's only Zombie #1, she lets out a scream and retreats into a bedroom where she retrieves Ireland's revolver. While starlet Carole Wells is showering at this point and can't hear the scream, her co-star Charles Macauley (who's boozing and hamming it up at a mirror in his bedroom) does. Taking his sweet time (and only after some more swigs from his hip-flask) he finally decides to investigate. (One thing that strikes the viewer during the last quarter of this movie is how SLOW TO REACT the stars are to screams and gunshots). Domergue comes back out into the hallway armed and ready, but mistakes Macauley for Zombie #1 and shoots him six times! He does a nice acrobatic flip over the railing, then a horrified Domergue backs up, right into the waiting arms of Zombie #1.<br /><br />Carole Wells is by now out of her shower and drying off when she hears gunshots and Domergue's screams; she too feels no great urgency in running out to investigate. So during this time Zombie #1 has time to string Domergue up from the neck with a rope. Wells sees Domergue's hanging corpse and faints dead-away. The next time we see her is in a stream outside the house (???) -- but more on that later. Meantime, Ireland has recovered his senses and stumbles into the house where he discovers Zombie #1's bloody carnage. Though Ireland has just stumbled upon 3 murdered people he's more concerned that his film has been exposed and ruined! Mercifully for him (and the audience), Zombie #1 throws some movie equipment down on his head from the 2nd floor. That's the last we see of Zombie #1. At this point the audience is treated to a montage of all the deaths, showing that the new ones "mirror" the old ones. How profound.<br /><br />Zombie #2, meanwhile, has gotten near the house (remember, these zombies move as slow as molasses in January) where he happens to see Carole Wells floating by in a stream, and fishes her out. How did she get there? Did Zombie #1 carry her down, throw her in, then zoom back upstairs just in time to crush John Ireland? Apparently one of the original victims was drowned in the tub, so Wells has to drown too (but why outside in a stream, instead of in the tub, is never explained). Zombie #2 never makes it into the house himself (everyone's dead by now, anyways, thanks to Zombie #1) but instead he carries Carol Wells back to the graveyard. As the end credits flash on screen, we see Zombie #2 with his dead love still in his arms, descending into the open grave.<br /><br />The viewer is left wondering: Yes, but wasn't this Zombie #1's grave? Why is Zombie #2 taking up residence? And what if Zombie #1 comes along and wants to climb back in -- is Zombie #2 gonna let him, or will there be a zombie fight? Will the zombies share both the grave and the newly deceased Carole Wells? And what about now-dead John Carradine -- where's he gonna stay? After all, from the earlier scenes we know he's clearly at home in the grave... If this plot synopsis of the finale has left you confused, don't worry cause you're not alone.
| 1,704 |
I really like 101 Dalmations when it came out in 1996, now 5 years later i went to see 102 dalmations in 2001, i thought it was fantastic but i think 101 is better because i think it's more funnier, more humor, and also that movie was based on the same story as the cartoon version (one hundred and one dalmations (1961) i wonder if there are plans for 103 Dalmations. I hope there is, maybe yes, maybe no, all of us dalmation fans will have to find out if there is going to be 103 dalmations in the future.
|
Doppelganger has its moments, but they are few and far between.<br /><br />Essentially, this is a grade B blend of pop-psych thriller, ghost story and horror. Drew Barrymore plays a young woman who is haunted by the demons of her past (most of her family has been murdered and she was, in at least one case, the prime suspect), or does she just have a really bad case of multiple personality disorder? George Newbern is her new room mate, and most of the action centers on him.<br /><br />Newbern's character is pretty sympathetic, and both he and Barrymore do decent work (though not exactly good). The mediocre to (at times) totally horrendous script and the unimpressive directing seem to have combined to sink the rest of the performances into oblivion. Leslie Hope's character is memorable, but so irritating that you will want to forget her.<br /><br />The plot eventually disintegrates into a bifurcated (one story arc is psychological realism, the other is supernatural horror) outlandish climax which is so badly conceived, acted and photographed that it effectively counteracts most of what value the film had achieved previously.<br /><br />Overall, the film has the feel of what might expect to be the result of M. Knight Shamalyan's first undergraduate film class. The acting and script for the two leads are just good enough to make you care a little about them - at least until the film derails utterly and completely.<br /><br />My recommendation - send your doppelganger, but avoid a first-person encounter.
| 1,705 |
If you like Jamie Foxx,(Alvin Sanders),"Date From Hell",'01, you will love his acting as a guy who never gets an even break in life and winds up messing around with Shrimp, (Jumbo Size) and at the same time lots of gold bars. Alvin Sanders has plenty of FBI eyes watching him and winds up getting hit by a brick in the jaw, and David Morse,(Edgar Clenteen), "Hack" '02 TV Series, decides to zero in on poor Alvin and use him as a so called Fish Hook to attract the criminals. There is lots of laughs, drama, cold blood killings and excellent film locations and plenty of expensive cars being sent to the Junk Yard. Jamie Foxx and David Morse were outstanding actors in this film and it was great entertainment through out the entire picture.
|
Here's why the Jane Show won't work. Once again Canadian bonehead producers and writers can't create a sitcom without putting some kind of different spin on it. I guess these people don't watch a lot of T.V. from the U.S. which has the sitcom model down pat. No, here we have to do something different, we have to make the A story absolutely absurd and then have a meaningful B story to try to make up for it. The characters are two dimensional and the story lines are way over the top: Forklift races??? give me freaking break. Here's a little advice for the writers of the show, Don't write funny situations, find the funny in situations. And remember, you have to be born with a sense of humor to write truly funny stuff, not just be an improv monkey.
| 1,706 |
This is my fourth Joe McDoakes short that I've seen and so far the funniest one. In this one, Joe takes voice lessons from a record impersonating Charles Boyer and Ronald Colman. When he goes to Warner Bros. Studio (the company behind this series, incidentally), he asks Jack Carson for directions which gets both confused. Then he encounters actor George O'Hanlon (who's also McDoakes) who speaks in his more normal voice that's not too far from his later Geroge Jetson and gets to the set where he automatically upsets the director. I'll stop there and just say how funny I found the whole thing and was fascinated by the movie star cameos provided near the end. The final scene was especially a hoot so on that note, go to YouTube if you want to watch So You Want to Be in Picutres!
|
Silent Night, Deadly Night 5 is the very last of the series, and like part 4, it's unrelated to the first three except by title and the fact that it's a Christmas-themed horror flick.<br /><br />Except to the oblivious, there's some obvious things going on here...Mickey Rooney plays a toymaker named Joe Petto and his creepy son's name is Pino. Ring a bell, anyone? Now, a little boy named Derek heard a knock at the door one evening, and opened it to find a present on the doorstep for him. Even though it said "don't open till Christmas", he begins to open it anyway but is stopped by his dad, who scolds him and sends him to bed, and opens the gift himself. Inside is a little red ball that sprouts Santa arms and a head, and proceeds to kill dad. Oops, maybe he should have left well-enough alone. Of course Derek is then traumatized by the incident since he watched it from the stairs, but he doesn't grow up to be some killer Santa, he just stops talking.<br /><br />There's a mysterious stranger lurking around, who seems very interested in the toys that Joe Petto makes. We even see him buying a bunch when Derek's mom takes him to the store to find a gift for him to bring him out of his trauma. And what exactly is this guy doing? Well, we're not sure but he does seem to be taking these toys apart to see what makes them tick. He does keep his landlord from evicting him by promising him to pay him in cash the next day and presents him with a "Larry the Larvae" toy for his kid, but of course "Larry" is not a good toy and gets out of the box in the car and of course, well, things aren't pretty.<br /><br />Anyway, eventually what's going on with Joe Petto and Pino is of course revealed, and as with the old story, Pino is not a "real boy". Pino is probably even more agitated and naughty because he suffers from "Kenitalia" (a smooth plastic crotch) so that could account for his evil ways. And the identity of the lurking stranger is revealed too, and there's even kind of a happy ending of sorts. Whee.<br /><br />A step up from part 4, but not much of one. Again, Brian Yuzna is involved, and Screaming Mad George, so some decent special effects, but not enough to make this great. A few leftovers from part 4 are hanging around too, like Clint Howard and Neith Hunter, but that doesn't really make any difference. Anyway, I now have seeing the whole series out of my system. Now if I could get some of it out of my brain. 4 out of 5.
| 1,707 |
Dominion tank police is an exercise in contradictive film making. The storyline across the 4 parts blends mindless action, slap-stick humor, touching humanity and thought provoking philosophical questions. It's hard to believe that there was only one director, as the style changes from episode to episode. A must-see movie for anyone who likes anime.
|
This movie was heavily marred by the presence of Steven Seagal. Or as I should say Steven So-dull! Like before Seagal is either too good or too stupid to re-dub his own lines, leaving someone to impersonate his voice for the shots where the sound needed to be looped. A few films before this was he has done this too, but I don't think to this extent! To be honest the film looks pretty good, the script could use some work but parts of this film looked like a real movie! Of course, all told, this film is pretty bad.<br /><br />It would have been much better without Seagal who has become a cartoon of himself. Don't bother. Anything over a buck for this one is too much! I honestly think this is the last time for me and a Seagal film. What's taken me so long to realize this?!
| 1,708 |
Adam Jones has a brilliant sense of humor. There is nothing i didn't like about this film. Cross Eyed was beautifully shot. Adam does a great job of, not only developing the main characters, but also the minor characters. <br /><br />Cross Eyed gives hope to every low budget film out there. That you don't have to spend a lot to create something worth watching. There is something to like for everyone. If you've had a terrible roommate. if you've ever picked on a dork in high school. if you've ever parked anywhere in the city. if you have any type of sense of humor at all you will love this film. This is the type of film that will be around for a long time and ends up resurfacing again once Adam makes a bigger name for himself. I look forward to Adam's future projects.
|
This is an attempt, by both author Edgar Rice Burroughs and filmmakers, at an Arabian "Tarzan of the Apes". But, this desert-set film shows none of the majesty present in Burroughs' more successful jungle adventure. The focus is on the love between handsome English noble Jon Hall (as "El 'Lion" Chatham) and exotic Arab beauty Kathleen Burke (as "Princess" Eulilah), with revenge happening to coincide with their urge to merge. The opening states that, although guilty of conduct unbecoming, the lad's mother is living - but, she never re-enters the picture. Unfortunately, "The Lion Man" has deteriorated, and is looks like it's missing footage.<br /><br />*** The Lion Man (1936) John P. McCarthy ~ Jon Hall, Kathleen Burke, Ted Adams
| 1,709 |
A milestone in Eastern European film making and an outstanding example of Serbian mentality. A group of completely different people are doomed to die because of their discord. With "Maratonci trce pocasni krug" makes two mythological movies everyone here knows word by word.
|
A reporter, Craig Milford, who works for The James Keller Public Telecommunication Center, has an interview with a German professor of a Floridian university, who made an unknown creature based upon some substance of meteor(s). But then a man named Anderson, who is trying to control the whole planet with the creature, and his man kill the professor and his assistants and plunder the creature. So Craig and his new female psychic partner, Joanna Fitzgerald, who can communicate not only with human being but also with alien friend(s) of the creature, begin to find the creature and try to send it to an alien spaceship... This film has some great casts and staffs. For instance, it has the actor, David Warbeck of THE BEYOND, the actress, Laura Trotter of NIGHTMARE CITY, the special visual effects creator, Sergio Stivaletti of Dario Argento's masterpieces, and the director (and also the story- writer), Alberto De Martino of THE MAN WITH ICY EYES and THE KILLER IS ON THE PHONE. And these talented people make an incredibly bad film, named, nothing but this MIAMI GOLEM which is essentially a confusedly combined film of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND with E.T.THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL. And this not-only-confused-but-also-crammed film has something worth; genetic engineering with psychical research. Consequently the film has at least one scientific and/or technical flaw; genetic engineering and psychical research are never compatible. (Strangely enough, regarding this strangely childish combination of genetic engineering and psychical research, the leading character, Craig, himself says THERE MUST BE A BETTER EXPLANATION to the short-haired psychic, Joanna. But, after all, the whole story of the film doesn't and can't present any kind of BETTER EXPLANATION.) In addition, this film has something more laughable; its problematic music. What the composer, who is credited as Robert Marry, provides is nothing but the strangely insistent BEVERLY-HILLS-COP-tasted music. I don't want to say this Italianised theme of BEVERLY HILLS COP per se is particularly bad music, but I have to say it seems to be manifestly clear the music does not have the fitness for this film per se at all. Indeed just who can think BEVERLY HILLS COP has the compatibility with genetic engineering and/or psychical research?
| 1,710 |
It was fabulous! The photography, editing, cinematography, music combined to transport us to the dangerous side of a tourist destination. It was the enjoyment of "slumming," without going through the danger. We were there! The dream sequences and flashback-sequence-ending were fresh. It spoke to me. Keep up the good work! Another of that genre is City of God. Also - don't laugh! - the comedy, Desperately Seeking Susan. Nice ensemble types, with great performances by all. Sorry, I think Training Day fits that genre as well, with fantastic performances by an ensemble cast. I had to switch the channel on some of the gritty sequences, but all-in-all, a great film!
|
This is not as funny and gory as the DVD box claims. I really love twisted and wierd movies, but this one is really just dull! It's one hour of ripped off penises, flying Baby Born dolls and a lot of rape! I think the intention with this amateur sleaze, was to make a It's-so-bad-it's-good movies, but it fails. It's just bad! A few scenes are ok, but in whole it's a mess. If you like amateur splatter like this one (Only way better) I would recommend Andreas Schnass' Violent Shit 2 and 3.
| 1,711 |
Very different topic treated in this film. A straightforward and simple description of local Chinese customs, by looking at the daily operation of a public bath, run by the old owner and his retarded son, when older son returns home, wrongly believing his father has died. How every man in town makes his daily visit to chat, play games, discuss personal matters and get honest advice, besides the usual spa-like therapies. When old man dies, strong and loyal family ties make older son take charge, so public bath operation is not disrupted. And finally, the arrival of modernization to end this way of spending relaxed hours and getting along. The public bath has to be demolished, making place for a commercial complex to be constructed.
|
Well, sorry for the mistake on the one line summary.......Run people, run!! This movie is an horror!! Imagine! Gary Busey in another low budget movie, with an incredibly bad scenario...isn't that a nightmare? No (well yes), it is Plato's run...........I give it * out of *****.
| 1,712 |
Knowing when to end a movie is just as important as casting, directing and acting. And it's nice to see when a director/script get it right. Clocking in at just 82 minutes, 10 ITEMS OR LESS doesn't stretch the story, trying to grasp at inane topics. It stays focused, being funny, sad, and well thought out.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman (LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN) stars as "Him", an aging actor grasping at any roles presented to him. We're introduced to "Him" as he travels to a supermarket in an out-of-the-way section of town by The Kid (Jonah Hill, CLICK). Realizing he has a star in his car, The Kid pressures Him to talk about his absence in cinema over the past few years. Him isn't very forthcoming because, not only has he been out of it for while, he's also en route to a shooting location of an indie film he might act in ("I haven't decided if I'm going to accept the part."). The Kid is a relative of the director involved in this indie venture and soon drops him in the middle of nowheresville. Stuck, Him decides to check out the local market. He immediately runs into the beautiful Scarlet (Paz Vega) who operates the 10 items or less register. Not just strikingly pretty but intelligent, Him begins using her as his prime research subject for his upcoming independent film role. He learns how she figures out numbers so quickly and why she knows the quirks of every member of this isolated community.<br /><br />But Him doesn't just use Scarlet, he helps her so he can see deeper into her life. They travel together to get her car back from a cheating husband, and he teaches her how to act to get a new job she's pining for, and how to dress for success even when confronted with Target as the epitome of local clothing. This is probably one of the funniest moments as we get a glimpse of Him, too, showing his complete lack of understanding of the chain-store retail world ("These shirts are only $12 bucks! How is this possible?!") The ending, as stated at the beginning of this review, is abrupt but apropos. There's no way these two could ever remain friends even though they form a unique bond. They know when to say goodbye and what each garnered from the other. It's a quiet but riveting moment as Scarlet's clunker car sits idling outside Him's L.A. mansion.<br /><br />This is a great independent production and one that wastes little time getting going. And it won't waste your time either.
|
Seriously the only good thing about this year ceremony were the winners.<br /><br />Although the ceremony itself was pretty short it still was somewhat boring. I think it's seriously time to look for a new director and producers for the show, who can come up with something REALLY new. It's pretty obvious that they tried to make the show more 'hip' and appealing for a younger audience this year by letting Beyonce perform and letting P. Diddy and Prince present a category. Also letting Chris Rock be the presenter was an attempt to re-new the ceremony and make it more appealing. None of it really worked out.<br /><br />Sure, Chris Rock is a funny guy but he wasn't really a good presenter. I really merely saw him as a guy who just talked every now and then in between of the different categories. His presence wasn't really as 'big' as for instance Billy Crystal's.<br /><br />Also the handing out of the awards was pretty dumb at times. Not letting everybody come to the stage but also handing out some of the awards in the middle of the theater was plain weird.<br /><br />Still, I can't remember being any more satisfied with the award winners. None of the movies really swept away the awards as the last couple of years always had been the case. So does that mean it had been a good year for movies with lots of competitive contestants? I don't think so. I think most of the movies will be largely forgotten in 20 years from now, with the exception of "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Passion of the Christ" maybe. Sure I don't agree with every single award that was handed out this year, for instance Caleb Deschanel should had won for best cinematography, not that I don't like Robert Richardson's work, he really did some amazing work for most of Oliver Stone's work but I really feel that Deschanel deserved the award way more. Also I would had liked seeing Jim Miller and Paul Rubell win for best editing and John Debney for best music. But oh well, there is no way the Academy Awards can please everybody of course, I understand that. There will always be people complaining about the winners.<br /><br />It also was funny to see that most of the award presenters were way more nervous than the nominees and winners. Did Prince said any of the nominees names right at once? And were is Sean Penn's sense of humor? Al Pacino and Jeremy "I hope they missed" Irons were the best presenters of the night.<br /><br />Overall a very forgettable show but with nice winners.<br /><br />4/10
| 1,713 |
French production in which leading film directors from 11 countries were invited to create 11-minute short films conveying their reflections on the events of September 11.<br /><br />The film segments vary widely in content and quality. Two allude to U.S. complicity in terrorist acts (in Chile against Allende, who died on September 11, 1973, depicted in the segment by British director Ken Loach; and in Palestine by U.S.-backed Israelis, shown in the segment from Egyptian director Youssef Chahine). Two more recall other destructive acts (a Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, shot by Israeli director Amos Gitan; the Japanese "holy war" against the west in WW II, by Shohei Imamura).<br /><br />Ironies abound in several stories. Shadows that darken the New York City apartment of a grieving old man suddenly disappear as the World Trade towers telescope to the ground in Sean Penn's piece, bringing the man momentary joy. But in this bright light he can finally see that his wife is really gone. In Mira Nair's film, based on a real incident, a missing young man, also in New York City, the son of a Pakistani family, is first presumed to be a fugitive terrorist, but later he proves to a hero who sacrificed himself trying to save others in the towers.<br /><br />There are poignant moments dotted throughout. Loach has his exiled Chilean man quote St. Augustine, to the effect that hope is built of anger and courage: anger at the way things are, courage to change them. Imamura tells us that there is no such thing as a holy war. Samira Makhmalbaf shows a teacher with her very young Afghan schoolchildren, exiled in Iran, trying to tell them about the events that have just transpired in New York. But they are understandably more impressed with a major event in their refugee camp, where two men have fallen into a deep well, one killed, the other sustaining a broken leg. This is comprehensible tragedy on a grand scale for the 6 year olds. <br /><br />Idrissa Ouedraogo, from Burkina Faso, creates a drama in which the son of an ailing woman spots Osama bin Laden in their village and gathers his buddies to help capture the fugitive terrorist, in order to get the $25 million U. S. reward. He tells his friends not to let any of the adults know their plans, for the older folks would merely waste the money on cars and cigarettes, while he plans to help his mother and others who are sick and destitute.<br /><br />It is Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (maker of "Amores Perros") who provides by far the most powerful and chilling segment, one that, for the most part, shows only a darkened screen with audio tape loops of chanting and voices and occasional thudding sounds. Brief visual flashes gradually permit us to see bodies falling from the high floors of the towers, and it dawns on us that the thuds are these bodies hitting the ground. The sequence ends with elegiac orchestral music and a still shot, bearing a phrase first shown only in Arabic, then with a translation added: "Does God's light guide us or blind us?" (In various languages with English subtitles) Grade: 8/10 (B+). (Seen on 10/31/04). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.
|
What was the purpose of this film? I suggest it was to make a handful of actors and their producers and director a big payday for doing nothing. Even my favorite actor, Bruce Dern, couldn't keep my interest in this boring movie. A braindead ex-pugilist falls in with a weird woman and her relatives. He starts out as a fix-it man for the woman, and winds up beating a man and getting caught up in a kidnapping scheme. It was so confusing I can't even write a decent critique. If you see this one, my sweet, make sure it is after dark so you can go right to sleep.
| 1,714 |
I was prepared for a turgid talky soap opera cum travelogue, but was pleased to find a fast-paced script, an underlying moral, excellent portrayals from all the actors, especially Peter Finch, amazing special effects, suspense, and beautiful cinematography--there's even a shot of the majestic stone Buddhas recently destroyed by the Taliban. Not to mention Elizabeth Taylor at her most gloriously beautiful and sympathetic, before she gave in to the gaspy hysterics that marred her later work. All the supporting players round it out, and I do wonder who trained all those elephants.<br /><br />Speaking of the stone-Buddha sequence, you really can discern that it's Vivien Leigh in the long shots. Her shape and the way she moves is distinct from Taylor's. The only thing marring that sequence are the poorly done process shots, where the background moves by much too fast for horses at a walk.<br /><br />If you want a thought-provoking film that is beautiful to watch and never boring, spend a few hours with Elephant Walk.
|
This is easily one of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. It's not scary or any of the other things suggested in the plot outline. This movie is agonizingly slow and I was bored for almost all 98 minutes. While the acting is mediocre at best, the biggest problem is the script, which is poorly written, slow and plodding with no real direction. Occasionally an eerie mood is set only to be broken by some useless line or event. I'm not surprised that the entire cast was sick and throwing up between shots, they did after all have to try and digest a terrible script. As a huge fan of good horror movies, I'm always irritated that something this bad gets made. Save yourself 98 minutes you'll never get back.
| 1,715 |
First of all i'd just like to say this movie rawked more than any of the recent crap that hollywood has cooked up out of its bowels. McBain is a true action film with more violence than most viewers can handle. It has all of the classic elements of a late 80's/early 90's action film....the random gratuitous acts of violence (ie. when Walken and crew go in to confront the drug dealers to get money they just show up and kill them rather than letting them live and just taking their money), the snapping of necks, the guys on fire, the guys that get blown off buildings, and of course the guys who are on fire that get blown off of buildings. Walken is at his finest in this picture delivering memorable lines such as, "let's go sit..........out on the deck." and others that make this film a top buy off of the clearence rack at the local video store. if you have a bloodlust for unnecessary random acts of violence rent this movie today and satisfy your thirst.
|
I cannot get past the message of this movie. It's laid out much too clearly to ignore, and it is obscene because it has lost its sense of what it's about. I haven't read the novel, but Pollack's film opens with a scene at a CIA-front organization in New York, which is broken into by two professional assassins, headed by Max von Sydow, who proceed to brutally slaughter the half dozen quirky staff members we've come to know and understand. The staff include an elderly female receptionist, a fussy elderly professorial guy who's toupee falls off when he is machine-gunned (is that a joke?), and, last, the beautiful Tina Chen who looks up from the copier, realizes she is about to be murdered, and says, pitifully brave, "I won't scream." Von Sydow replies sympathetically, "I know." These murders are completely unexpected, savage, unmotivated by anything that we are aware of, and graphic. It is a brutal scene. <br /><br />There is absolutely no way in which von Sydow and his henchman can be redeemed. And yet that is exactly what Pollack tries to do towards the end.<br /><br />After having killed these innocent good guys, von Sydow switches sides (because the other side is willing to pay him) and assassinates the evil mastermind behind a complicated intramural CIA plot. The script then turns him into a perfectly reasonable, sensitive human being. "It is better to live in Europe. Things are not so rushed." Or whatever. I swear I'm not making this up. Pollack wants us to believe that it is better to be an honest mass murderer than a crooked bureaucrat. That's the message. You should write it down in case you forget. Just exactly what kind of psychiatric shambles do you have to be in order to turn ordinary values, not to mention common sense, upside-down like that? I understand that there are thoughtful adults who dislike the government of the United States, even hate it, and who see conspiracies just about everywhere, providing a knee-jerk explanation for otherwise unexplainable events. I know that people who think this way exist because I number some of them among my closer friends. Nevertheless, at some point this dislike, this hatred, if it increases in intensity, must pass beyond politics or ethics and into the realm of the psychiatric. I don't for a moment believe that a man who murders people for money is better than a sinister government official. I don't care how suave and cultured the murderer is or whether he knows how to reach the Louvre on the Metro. Whoever is purveying that message needs either medication or meditation.<br /><br />I'd like to be able to argue that the production is as thoroughly rotten as its message, but I can't. It's quite well done. (In some ways that's worse, because it makes the film less dismissable.) Even New York City looks photogenic on the screen. And it's been a long time since I've thought of New York as photogenic. Robert Redford does an admirable job of projecting his character's initial shock and confusion, but then turns into a telecommunicational semi-genius. And, man, he looks just fine! His wardrobe is just right. Even his rimless glasses are becoming. And his peacoat. It's not everyone who can make a navy pea jacket look glamorous. He seems extremely handsome too, the swine. I want to look like that. I want to wear a denim shirt and a tie with such panache. Faye Dunaway is alright in her role but it's not too believable a role. Would anybody eagerly sleep with a guy who has just kidnapped her and is holding her at gunpoint? Even if he did look like Redford? Would anyone be emotionally wounded if, when this ambivalent relationship is about to end, Redford asked her not to tell anybody about what happened? Cliff Robertson is surprisingly good. He does one or two extremely good double-takes. The mailman is superb. The fight between him and Redford in a crowded apartment is exquisitely choreographed and, for once, we really don't know for sure how it will turn out, because Redford (a book reader after all) seems mismatched against the brute cunning of this hired assassin. This is one of John Housemann's final roles. A shame. He's a magnet on screen. And what an end to his life: a friend finds him lost, wandering the streets of New York, in a neighborhood he'd been familiar with for most of his life. <br /><br />Yes, the movie is very well executed, but I can't ignore that vicious, paranoid message. I have the same problem with Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will." Or her Olympic documentary in which the announcer is watching a foot race in which Jesse Owens is pulling into the lead and says ominously, "This Negro is dangerous."
| 1,716 |
This is one irresistible great cheerful- and technically greatly made movie!<br /><br />The movie features some of the greatest looking sets you'll ever see in a '30's movie, even though it's all too obvious that they are sets, rather than real place locations. Often if a character would fall or shake a doorpost too aggressive, the entire set would obviously move.<br /><br />The best moments of the movie were the silent, more old fashioned, slapstick kind of moments. It shows that René Clair's true heart was at silent movie-making. The overall humor is really great in this movie. Also of course the musical moments were more than great. This is a really enjoyable light and simple pleasant early French musical. Though the best moments are the silent moments, that does not mean that the movie is not filled with some great humorous dialog, that gets very well delivered by the main actors, who all seemed like stage actors to me, which in this case worked extremely well for the movie its overall style and pleasant no-worries atmosphere. No wonder this worked out so well, since this movie is actually based on stage play by Georges Berr.<br /><br />It's a technical really great movie, with also some great innovation camera-work in it and some really great editing, that create some fast going and pleasant to watch enjoyable sequences. There is never a dull moment in this movie!<br /><br />René Clair was such a clever director, who knew how to build up and plan comical moments within in movies. It's a very creative made movie, that despite its simplicity still at all times feel as a totally original and cleverly constructed movie, that never seizes to entertain.<br /><br />The last half hour is especially unforgettably fun, without spoiling too much, and is really among the greatest, as well as most creative moments in early comedy film-making.<br /><br />The movie is filled with some really enjoyable characters, who are of course all very stereotypical and silly and were obviously cast because of their looks. It all adds to the pleasant light comical atmosphere and cuteness of the movie.<br /><br />One of the most pleasant movies you'll ever see!<br /><br />8/10
|
OK, forget all the technical inconsisties or the physical impossibilities of the Space Shuttle accidentally being launched by a quirky robot with a heart of gold. Forget the hideous special effects and poorly-constructed one-dimensional characters. Just looking at the premise of the story. The very reason for the film to exist in the first place, and you will see just how badly this film was pieced together.<br /><br />I know 9 year olds that look at this insult to the intelligence and just laugh at it. The story is horrible. The acting is comical and the message its trying to show is incomprehensible. And whats worse, is that the cable Movie channels KEEP SHOWING IT! Its on twice a day every two or three days! Why does anyone in their right mind think that people would want to see this painful piece of celluloid multiple times, much less to see it at all?<br /><br />My recomendation is dont even bother spending the energy to watch this thing. Its just not worth it.
| 1,717 |
This is a great movie to see with your girlfriend. My friend and I both love dance and ran into this movie at the video store. We had to get it. With no violence and such a warming story its a great movie to relax to and just enjoy your night. I would recommend this movie to any family or just a bunch of girls looking for a cute movie.
|
I saw this movie in 1979, I was 17 or 18, when it was released. The theater was perhaps 1/4 full when the movie started. Ten minutes into the movie me and the friend who went with me to see the film were the only two people in the theater. The movie was really weird and had no plot or reason to its script and people demanded their money back. We decided to stay for the ENTIRE movie.... why endure such torture??... here's why. We wanted to be true movie critics... to have a standard to base all other movies on it is hard to justify saying you have seen the best movie (a 10)they always come up with something better. But, it is easy to be able to base all other movies off of the worst movie ever made (and this is it... a 1 at best). There may be other movies out there that truly qualify as a 1, but I have yet to see them. I now base all movies I see on a scale based on this worst....I AM A TRUE MOVIE CRITIC...he he.
| 1,718 |
I thought this was one of those really great films to see with a bunch of close friends. I laughed and cried and laughed and cried at the same time. It was just really touching. Although not a new concept this was a very well made film.
|
This movie was packed pull of endless surprises! Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, they added more joints and more pink fuzzy-lined vans with raunchy sex scenes. As you can guess, I was a victim of the original version. We were tricked into watching it thinking it was Supervan, the host box which promised lasars, jail breaks, and much more. Who would have thought a Dollar Store Christmas present could have been so much fun!
| 1,719 |
"Hitler, the rise of Evil" is clearly produced by people emotionally unburdened by the horrors of World War 2. Which makes watching a refreshing experience.<br /><br />I think its greatest value lies in its crystal clear revealing of the Nazi-mechanism. Of the utterly corrupt ways Hitler used to make it to the top. Having arrived there, this film ends.<br /><br />When on top, the 'Fuhrer' (= German for 'leader') led his Germany to the biggest & most devastating war in history of mankind. Ending six years later in Germany's utter defeat. As a result, Germany lost its eastern provinces (= about 35% of its prewar soil), and was forced to accept a 44 year-split of its remaining territory. Both West and East Germany had to be rebuilt from scrap, their reputations severely damaged by the many Nazi-atrocities inspired by racism.<br /><br />As I said, "Hitler, the rise of Evil" makes an good watch. Set in an acceptable thirties-environment, with (more than) competent acting. In particular Peter O'Toole's role as the aged president von Hindenburg stands out, even adds an extra dimension.<br /><br />My copy of "Hitler, the rise of Evil" also provides a second DVD with two good documentary films. One is about Hitler's personality, the second deals with the forgery of the Hitler-diaries. In 1983 this forgery caused a hilarious scandal in England and Germany, damaging the reputations of several historians and journalists.
|
Based upon the recommendation of a friend, my wife and I invited another couple to this film. I really apologized to them--all 4 of us hated it and spent the whole time looking at our watches waiting for the film to finally end. Half the vignettes are bizarre, with very little entertainment value. There were few scenes of Paris--for example, I was looking forward to seeing some pictures of the Latin Quarter, but I couldn't really recognize anything. Most of the scene was inside a bar. No one in the theater laughed at anything, or reacted in any way. If you like bizarre, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual films, don't miss this. If you are down to earth like me, you will be sorry you saw it.
| 1,720 |
The 60´s is a well balanced mini series between historical facts and a good plot. In four deliveries, we follow a north American family, with 3 members. But we don't only see them. We also follow the story of several characters as a black reverend, an extremist student leader, and a soldier in Vietnam. The filmography is just extraordinary. In the first chapters, we see some shots of the Vietnam war, in between the scenes. The next chapter, doesn't start where the last one finished, it starts some time after, giving us a little mystery on what happened. In general, The 60´s mini series, is a must see, not only for hippies fanatics, but for everyone with little curiosity about the topic.
|
I wanted to like this movie. But it falls apart in the middle. the whole premise is a good one and ties up nicely, but the middle runs off tangent. The people I watched with were getting annoyed while it ran off course, and hoping it would end sooner than it did. Another person actually fell asleep during the middle segment! I found myself day dreaming elsewhere during the Schtick parts that had nothing to do with the plot. I bought it for the eye candy and it delivered that well, but it lacks Pixar's writing and soul. I think kids 8 and under will enjoy the ride at face vaule, while missing the plot. People old enough to follow a plot will find it wonders too far to return quickly and easily. Edit out most of the middle section, make it 50 minutes and it would be a solid flick. I wish I had better things to say. But I don't
| 1,721 |
I really enjoyed this movie about the relationships that sometimes developed between American servicemen and Japanese women in post-war Japan--as well as the obstacles that prejudices created for them. Brando goes from having contempt for the Japanese (which is natural considering WW2) to falling in love with a Japanese woman and wanting to marry her. His performance is okay (I am not a major fan of his acting style) and the movie is marvelous throughout. Red Buttons received an Oscar for his touching performance of another GI who falls in love in Japan (though the Japanese women who plays opposite him also did a remarkable job).<br /><br />I don't want to spoil it but the movie is a good one to watch with a box of tissues.<br /><br />This movie manages to say SOMETHING and be entertaining at the same time. A mostly underrated gem.
|
Sorry guys, I've already written my opinion of this movie but today was the first day I looked at some of the other reviews. There are a quite a lot of people who agree with me but what's scary is that there are some people who seem to really like this movie. I don't like to write nasty reviews or criticise other people's opinions but I think it's only fair to warn anybody out there who may be debating whether or not to see this movie. This is not a good movie. I really like movies and I'll watch just about anything but this movie made it onto the incredibly short list of movies I watched and was happy to leave halfway through. If you really are incredibly tempted, watch the trailer...that's the mistake I made because the entire movie is essentially in the trailer...after that there are no surprises, just some shockingly bad dialogue to waste time. I love Michael Vartan in Alias and would hate to criticise him but I think it's my duty to stop other people wasting hours of their life on a movie like this!!
| 1,722 |
What a fun movie experience! I was expecting a sappy kids movie and found that I enjoyed it more than my teens. Take a tissue, it's not sad, just 'moving' in parts. Finally, its a 'feel good' flick for the whole family. Note: It's 2+ hours, so consider leaving the littlest 'squirmers' home for this one. AP
|
really awful... lead actor did OK... the film, plot etc was completely crap and inaccurate it may as well have been a sequel to well... anything it had little or no relevance to Carlitos Way... and should be avoided like the plague by any Carlito's ways fans... no mention of Gail in fact he ends up with some other bird, no mention of Klienfelt, no mention of how he got caught, no mention of how he ended up in jail... they attempted to make it like the original with flash backs at the beginning... but to be honest when rating it I was looking for a zero mark... unfortunately I had to rate it higher...<br /><br />Its a terrible attempt to cash in on what was one of the best films of the 90's... overall it was approximately £6 and 2 hours of my life wasted... for all the "action" in it, it was truly boring slow and predictable... again to any Carltio's Way fans avoid this fiasco...
| 1,723 |
I just got done watching "Kalifornia" on Showtime for the fourth time since I first saw it back in July of 2001. You would think that with the recent wave of serial killer films, that "Kalifornia" would be amongst some of the earlier films worthy of mention but hasn't. Perhaps if this film had been released sometime between like 1996-1999, maybe it might have been more successful. In my opinion, "Kalifornia" is much different from most serial killer films released during the late 1990s. It has an almost completely different atmosphere from most of today's serial killer films like "Seven" or "The Bone Collector". Many serial killer films have shown a killer but that person is always behind a mask or we never see enough of them to actually learn anything about them. "Kalifornia" is a film that actually tries to break through that barrier and actually understand the criminal mind. It tries to answer questions like "why do they do the things they do? Is it because of something that happened in their past? Does it make them feel superior or powerful? Or do they do it because they like the thrill of the kill?" These are some of the things that "Kalifornia" tries to answer but also leaves room for us to try and figure things out for ourselves. Brad Pitt makes an everlasting impression as Early Grayce. When we first meet Early in the beginning of the film, we see that he is obviously one disturbed individual. When we first see him, it's late at night. Early is possibly drunk. We then see him pick up a rock, throw it off a bridge, and it later lands on the windshield of a passing car. Pitt is fierce in this film. It is always good to see him when he plays psychos or really bad people. It's funny that this would later lead him play a true loon like in "12 Monkeys" and that he would be on the other end of the spectrum in David Fincher's "Seven".
|
Okay...so i've seen a lot of really odd/unusual movies in my day. Fear and loathing in Las Vegas comes to mind when I think of that. Well not anymore...from here on out, whenever someone asks me, "hey, what's the most unusual movie you've ever seen?" Slipstream is what i'll say! And I do not mean "unusual" in a good way.<br /><br />From the very beginning of the movie, it was obvious that this was going to be one of those "trippy camera effect" movies. By that I mean, little things like flashing images on the screen, rewinding and fast-forwarding people's words and scenes, messing with the color on the screen, flash forwards and flash backs constantly...then you have the actual acting itself. People randomly get violent, shoot things/people, say the weirdest things that just don't make much, if any sense.<br /><br />The movie is about a writer who starts to intermingle real life with the book he's writing and for a lack of a better way to explain it, you basically see this "trip" he goes on throughout the movie. The thing is, Johnny Depp went on a similar trip in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but the only difference is that his trip was entertaining to watch, not painful! Honestly, I had a real hard time even finishing Slipstream. It kind of hurt my brain a bit.<br /><br />I can see some film buff making a claim as to this movie having certain cinematic nuances that make it not only unique but add to the feeling of dementia...blah, blah, blah. Point is, this movie hurts your brain when you watch it....it makes very little sense, it takes all of your concentration to even remotely try and understand what is going on and even at the end, the only thing you can be happy about is that it's over...and you can say you actually sat through it! So in closing, if you want to see a movie that will have you saying "what the heck" over and over again both out loud and in your head, go ahead and waste an hour and 30 minutes and check this out.<br /><br />Mr Hopkins, while I applaud you as an actor and commend your choice to take a stab at directing....please, do not ever make a movie like this again. Next time, try something that relies a little more on great storytelling than camera techniques that tend to leave the viewer with a headache.
| 1,724 |
A true hero of modern times , Chuck Norris has left TV "Walker , Rexas Ranger ", and is looking new steps for his artistic career. The President´s man is the second movie of a future TV series , with Norris in the title role, and with young actors like Jennifer Tung or Judson Mills ( one of the young rangers of "Walker " ) . The old master teachs to young aspirant . It´s one of the most powerful themes of "The president´s man ". In this tima, "A line in the sand " has reached world surprise for his tratment of terrorism in USA , months before the tragic September 11. Eric Norris, son of Chuck is the director . The movie is amusing, a good action work , plenty of fights and heroism . Chuck Norris have many plans for the future . Bells of innocence , his next picture, will be the following.<br /><br />
|
Of the many problems with this film, the worst is continuity; and re-editing it on VHS for a college cable channel many years ago, I tried to figure out what exactly went wrong. What seems to have happened is that they actually constructed a much longer film and then chopped it down for standard theatrical viewing. How much longer? to fill in all the holes in the plot as we have it would require about three more hours of narrative and character development - especially given the fact that the film we do have is just so slow and takes itself just so seriously.<br /><br />That's staggering; what could the Halperins have possibly been trying to accomplish here? Their previous film, "White Zombie", was a successful low budget attempt to duplicate the early Universal Studios monster films (The Mummy, Dracula, etc.), and as such stuck pretty close to the zombie mythology that those in North America would know from popular magazines.<br /><br />Revolt of the Zombies, to the contrary, appears to have been intended as some allegory for the politics of modern war. This would not only explain the opening, and the change of Dean Jagger's character into a megalomaniac, but it also explains why the zombies don't actually do much in the film, besides stand around, look frightening, and wait for orders - they're just allegorical soldiers, not the undead cannibals we've all come to love and loathe in zombie films.<br /><br />I am the equal to any in my dislike for modern war and its politics - but I think a film ought to be entertaining first, and only later, maybe, educational. And definitely - a film about zombies ought to be about zombies.<br /><br />Truly one of the most bizarre films in Hollywood history, but not one I can recommend, even for historic value.
| 1,725 |
This movie is one of my very favorites. It's hard to explain why. Maybe it's the innocence of Corin Nemec and his awkwardness paired with the boldness of Cheryl Pollak, but it definitely has something to do with the soundtrack. Also, some of the characters have little lines or movements or moments that are amusing in and of themselves. Finally, the story is one that always tugs at my heartstrings, and the last scene is so bittersweet. All in all, I love this movie; it's perfect for a gooey, sentimental girls' night.
|
i saw this film by accident and this movie was an accident...well it must of been. blonde women being stalked,the villain appearing then disappearing getting from one place to another in minute's then disappearing and reappearing,hiding.he was'nt even a super hero so i don't know how he did it.he could'nt frighten a cat and that's not hard to do.<br /><br />the old "mirror in the bathroom"is just not scary anymore in fact it stopped being scary years ago. you had the cop on the trail of the villain,another cliché(played by idris elba with a very convincing American accent,he's from London) the director did'nt have a clue and has made a film full of cliché's and make's "scary move"which was a COMEDY look scary. pathetic!
| 1,726 |
I must confess that I was completely shocked by this film. For one, I went to see it on a whim expecting something mediocre, but given this, the most shocking thing was that this was in a populist American cinema at all. This is British comedy at its finest - dark, quirky and funny in ways that American films just never are. I must stop short, however, of recommending this wholeheartedly to anyone; I went to see it with several people, some English, some European and some American and while some of us loved it (mainly from the first two groups), some hated it and found it worthless. If you think you're into this kind of thing then go. If not, don't. 10/10.
|
Shown in Australia as 'Hydrosphere', this incredibly bad movie is SO bad that you become hypnotised and have to watch it to the end, just to see if it could get any worse... and it does! The storyline is so predictable it seems written by a high school dramatics class, the sets are pathetic but marginally better than the miniatures, and the acting is wooden.<br /><br />The infant 'muppet' seems to have been stolen from the props cupboard of 'Total Recall'. There didn't seem to be a single, original idea in the whole movie.<br /><br />I found this movie to be so bad that I laughed most of the way through.<br /><br />Malcolm McDowell should hang his head in shame. He obviously needed the money!
| 1,727 |
The traditional Western is synonymous with wide open spaces, clearcut morality, inevitable storylines, the optimistic faith in a hero's ability to shape his own destiny, to escape his past. These qualities reflect directly the American sense of self, the self-shaping Dream, the pushing of boundaries and frontiers, which is why the genre is still alluded to by opportunistic politicians. With some noble exceptions (eg Wellman, Hawks), the Western was healthily free of neuroses or real anxiety. Anthony Mann changed all that forever, and this first foray into the genre is one of the most violent, vivid, complex, not to say exciting Westerns ever made.<br /><br />The traditional Western depends on a hero who exemplifies rugged wholesomeness, whatever misfortunes he may have had in the past, a supporter of order and right, who dominates the film, removes its obstacles, restores harmony in effect; and an obvious villain, who often, ironically, drives the plot, forces the hero into certain actions. The difference between the two is often delineated as mythically simple as the wearing of white or black hats.<br /><br />Mann's background was in film noir, a genre antithetical to wide open spaces and optimism. Noir was neurotically charged, focusing on the dissolution of an unstable protagonist, where morality is blurred, the hero is as often the villain, trapped in an interior-labyrinth of his own making, a passive victim to destiny. Noir is about regress not progress, the interrogating and denying of modes and signs of representation, not the creation and confirmation of them.<br /><br />WINCHESTER 73 is fraught with noir anxiety. Noir is often considered a psychological genre, visualising the traumas of its protagonist's head. 73 does this too, and is all the more disturbing in that that protagonist is lovely, homespun Jimmy Stewart, initiating here his great run of difficult films with Mann and Hitchcock. In many ways, good-natured and sweet, representing right and trying to restore disruptions to the natural order, he is also a near-lunatic who will stop at nothing to achieve murderous revenge, whose relentless quest mirrors Ethan Edwards in THE SEARCHERS in its inhuman persistance, whose human instincts are frayed by this quest, and whose bursts of violence are genuinely terrifying to witness.<br /><br />As in noir, his anxiety has a psychological base - unlike most 'healthy' heroes who have outgrown (symbolically killed) their fathers, McAdam's father was killed before he could complete the process; his chasing his brother is less moral revenge than an anguished protest against stunted growth. The climactic shoot-out is not cathartic: McAdam staggers back into 'normal' society, like he's just witnessed some of the world's most ghastly horrors.<br /><br />What is most unsettling about the film is that it's not really about a hero or a villain at all, but an inanimate piece of weoponry that drives the action. 73 opens with the gun of the title privileged, on display behind a glass window, while its admirers are trapped, squashed, undifferentiated, framed, admiring it outside. Throughout the film, human power is reduced to the most arbitrary of signifiers - names change; Lin and Dutch mime shooting each other because they've no guns; quests lose their moral vitality and their practitioners veer close to madness; armies have to ask for help from Confederate strangers to fight battles; a man becomes worthy of respect only when he mentions his name; another man is revealed as a coward when he abandons his fiancee to the Indians; the gun retains its prestige, power, wholeness.<br /><br />It's not the revenge plot which drives the film, but the story of the gun; this wrenches the film out of conventional expectations, and creates an eerie, alienating, modern feel. We become so caught up in the revenge plot that when we follow, with the gun, another plot entirely, we feel slightly bewildered.<br /><br />This emphasis on the gun, symbol of potent masculinity, actually allows for a critique of that masculinity, revealing pointless elaborate rituals at the expense of society and order; brute capitalist greed; murderous Indian-traders who defraud both seller and enemy; cowards; psychotic killers; before returning to its 'true' owner, a broken hero thoroughly compromised, who has become as murderous as the murderer he seeks. The gun is never imprinted with the name of its owner, not only because there is no fixed owner, but because there is no fixed masculinity, an insight anathema to the traditional Western.<br /><br />73 brilliantly invokes Western myths - Wyatt Earp, Dodge City, the Cavalry, the Civil War, the wide open West - only to undermine them. Earp has an inflated reputation that is all name but never proven - Dodge City is no safer against outlaws than anywhere else; the Cavalry is inept (Custer has just lost Little Big Horn) and the bitter feud of the War is shown to be irrelevant. The myth of the open West is a site for a very closed, inescapable, circular plot which traps its characters, refuses to allow them shape their destiny, but allowing it to shape them.<br /><br />The old John Ford silhouette of riders on a vast mountain is reprised, but signals here not progress but repetition and circularity. But for all its deconstruction, the film is also tangibly vivid in a way few Westerns ever achieve. Mann's incisive technique intrudes his camera in crucial positions, alternating revealing distance with intense examination, making the saloon doors and stagecoaches seem thrillingly alive and lived in.
|
I had high hopes for this film, because I thought CLEAN, SHAVEN (Kerrigan's first feature) was absolutely terrific, the most assuredly cinematic low budget film I'd ever seen.<br /><br />But much of CLAIRE DOLAN is utterly pointless and flat. Scene after scene seems randomly tossed into the mix, without much thought for narrative or character.<br /><br />Is Claire trying to escape being a prostitute or not? Hard to tell. Why does she pick up the trick at the airport if she wants to escape that life? Why does she then not pick up tricks when she needs money in Seattle? Why do we have to see her dye her hair to what is virtually the exact same color? Why does Claire accept some johns and not others? The filmmaker doesn't seem to know.<br /><br />It feels as if everything is improvised (though I understand this wasn't the case) and the filmmakers just held a camera on it as if they were making a verite documentary.<br /><br />After the screening I saw, Kerrigan defended his lack of narrative choices by condemning film narrative as politically conservative. It sounded like learned rhetoric. I think it was a cop-out.<br /><br />I am saddened that the maker of a film as exciting as CLEAN, SHAVEN would go on to make such a lame film as this one and then defend it with tired old "political" cliches.
| 1,728 |
My friends and I were just discussing how frustrated we are with the way movies and especially romantic comedy's are being made. We feel offended by the schlock that Hollywood is serving up these days as they act like all is well.<br /><br />Well all is not well...with the exception of a few bright spots, like this movie. It doesn't have the big name actors, the big budget, I don't think it had a big release (I rented from Hollywood Video) it didn't really have anything that most big budget romantic comedy's have.<br /><br />But it did have what most of those lack. It had great chemistry between the love interests, "Parker" (Jonathan Schaech) and "Sam" (Alison Eastwood). Their love story wasn't forced on us like so many. The director took his time to allow these characters to truly get to know each other. Their story reminded me of one of my favorites, "Tootsie".<br /><br />The supporting cast added not only really funny comic moments, but depth to the story as well. James LeGros' character was absolutely priceless. Sam's gay friend was hysterical. Parker's interaction with his fellow employees in a Psychic Hotline was a lot of fun.<br /><br />I laughed, I cried, I remembered how great it feels to fall in love.
|
I am sorry to say that it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Although visually fascinating (e.g. the use of colour was absolutely stunning), it was pretty boring and disturbing (see the father/son incest).<br /><br />What's more, music is totally absent, and if you think of those wonderful soundtracks by Michael Nyman (who wrote the soundtracks for most of Greenaway's films) then you can imagine what a difference it makes.<br /><br />
| 1,729 |
Revenge is the theme of this Denzel Washington thriller that offers its share of action, mayhem, murder and grisly bloodletting. The essentials are a bodyguard's search and destroy mission as his charge, young Dakota Fanning, is kidnapped from school, which is exactly what Washington was hired to prevent. The Mexico City locations are as chaotic as the storyline moves towards its predictable, violent conclusion, with plot twists along the way. Washington, a former CIA operative with a drinking problem, gets a good reference from a former fellow agent which sets in motion the plot's outline. Washington and Fanning have a great chemistry between them and after a troublesome beginning, the bodyguard and his charge become the best of friends. Christopher Walken, Rachel Ticotin, Radha Mitchell, Giancarlo Giannini and Mickey Rourke comprise the good cast in support of the two stars.
|
"Phantasm" of 1979 was a highly atmospheric, creepy, scary and very original Horror flick, and, in one word, cult. The first sequel of 1988 was gory, witty, action-packed and highly entertaining. After the first sequel however, "Phantasm" creator Don Coscarelly apparently lacked new ideas. "Phantasm III - Lord Of The Dead" of 1994 is certainly not a complete failure, it even is quite entertaining, but there is no more originality, and the desperate attempts to bring in something new, are at times tiresome, which makes it quite disappointing in comparison to its predecessors. <br /><br />- SPOILERS - <br /><br />Quite in the beginning, we are introduced the secret behind the mysterious sentinel spheres (the brain-sucking flying silver balls) is unraveled. Thenceforward, a number of unnecessary and annoying new characters (such as Tim, a "Home Alone"-style little kid who happens to be great at shooting, an Rocky, a tough and super-cool nunchaku-swinging black chick with a crew cut) are introduced. The film also has its qualities - Reggie Bannister is again very cool as the pony-tailed, guitar playing Reggie. Angus Scrimm is still quite creepy as the Tall Man, but the fact that the Tall Man talks a lot more in this film, makes him loose some of his creepiness. The character of Mike is played by A. Michael Baldwin again (he had been replaced by James LeGros in Part 2), which, in my opinion, doesn't make much of a difference. The gore also keeps the film interesting enough to watch, but it is still a disappointment, especially because the attempts to make up for the lack of ideas get annoying quite quickly.<br /><br />All things considered, "Phantasm III" is an acceptable time-waster, but it is definitely disappointing compared to its predecessors. Fans of the first two "Phantasm" films can give it a try, but I recommend not to set your expectations too high.
| 1,730 |
Escaping the life of being pimped by her father(..and the speakeasy waitressing)who dies in an explosion, Lily Powers(Barbara Stanwyck, who is simply ravishing)sluts her way through the branches inside a bank business in big city Gotham. When a possessive lover murders who was supposed to be his next father-in-law(and Lily's new lover), the sky's the limit for Lily as she has written down her various relationships in a diary and subtlety makes it known the papers will receive it if certain pay doesn't come into her hands. Newly appointed president to the bank, Courtland Trenholm(George Brent), sends Lily to Paris instead of forking over lots of dough, but soon finds himself madly in love after various encounters with her in the City of Love. This makes Lily's mouth water as now she'll have reached the pedestal of success seducing a man of wealth and prestige bring riches her way. Though, circumstances ensue which will bring her to make a decision that threatens her successful way of achieving those riches..Trenholm, now her husband, is being indicted with jail certain and has lost the bank. He needs money Lily now has in her possession or he'll have absolutely nothing.<br /><br />Stanwyck is the whole movie despite that usual Warner Brothers polish. Being set in the pre-code era gives the filmmakers the chance to elaborate on taboo subjects such as a woman using sex to achieve success and how that can lead to tragedy. Good direction from Alfred E Green shows through subtlety hints in different mannerisms and speech through good acting from the seductive performance of Stanwyck how to stage something without actually showing the explicit act. Obviously the film shows that money isn't everything and all that jazz as love comes into the heart of Lily's dead heart. That ending having Lily achieve the miraculous metamorphosis into someone in love didn't ring true to me. She's spent all this time to get to that platform only to fall for a man who was essentially no different than others she had used before him.
|
OK, this has got 2 be one of the worst excuses 4 a movie that i have ever had the misfortune of watching. Like all other Olsen twins movies with the possible exception of new york minute , this film had no story, gaping plot holes,disgustingly putrid acting and bad filming even!!!!!!!!! in case you haven't guessed yet I HATE MARY KATE AND ASHLEY!!!!!! The only reason i watched this was because i was really bored and nothing else was on. I wonder if the twins will EVER stop making the same stereotypical movies where they have an unbelievably stupid adventure in an exotic location and save the day meanwhile getting the help of two cute guys who drool over them immediately. The least they could would be to have a guy 4 1 of them or have them both falling 4 the same guy. The plot in this story was so imbecilic and just plain dumb. even a toddler could see the flaws in it.Maybe they should split up and start making films individually or maybe films with a different kind of story. Anyone who liked this movie was no offense-either really stupid, really artificial or has not seen any really good movie. or maybe they are really smart and just have bad cinematic choices. either way i would not recommend this movie to my worst nemesis for a good movie experience.. the only thing it is good 4 is some rib splitting laughter at the pathetic attempts to be cool. if you watch for laughs it's hilarious. basically i give it 0 or less.
| 1,731 |
I've watched the first 17 episodes and this series is simply amazing! I haven't been this interested in an anime series since Neon Genesis Evangelion. This series is actually based off an h-game, which I'm not sure if it's been done before or not, I haven't played the game, but from what I've heard it follows it very well.<br /><br />I give this series a 10/10. It has a great story, interesting characters, and some of the best animation I've seen. It also has some great Japanese music in it too!<br /><br />If you haven't seen this series yet, check it out. You can find subbed episodes on some anime websites out there, it's straight out of Japan.
|
How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.<br /><br />Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create.
| 1,732 |
After playing a nymphomaniac in WRITTEN ON THE WIND, Dorothy Malone finally said good-bye to her sweet sister/wife roles and demonstrated an ability to play mantraps with the best of them. She and Gloria Grahame played the same sort of tramps--and for her efforts here in a very manipulative role, Malone won a Best Supporting Actress Oscar.<br /><br />The film she's in is not quite up to Oscar standards, but it is a strong enough melodrama under Douglas Sirk's capable hands. There's an almost noirish look to the explosive opening scene and it sets the tone for the rest of the sudsy fireworks in a story that has ROCK HUDSON, LAUREN BACALL, ROBERT STACK and DOROTHY MALONE as its headliners.<br /><br />Domestic squabbles among the inhabitants of a wealthy family with an oil background are the primary focus of the drama, with the accent on the strong supporting players, Stack and Malone. Both of them seize the opportunity with both hands and Stack, too, should have been awarded for his sterling job as the weak, alcoholic brother driven to desperation by his own wild motives.<br /><br />The nominal stars have less impressive work to do, but do it with their usual skill and conviction--Hudson and Bacall. They play their more sympathetic roles with quiet authority and understanding.<br /><br />The use of color is particularly striking (as it usually is in a Sirk film) and yet it doesn't preclude me from thinking of the film as a Technicolor film noir in the vein of LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN.<br /><br />Well worth watching with some interesting performances from the entire cast.
|
An updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other "inherent and pure" evil ones do. <br /><br />Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending.
| 1,733 |
2054. Paris is an Escher drawing with people and vehicles scurrying along at multiple levels in an obvious homage to Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Paris is both ultramodern and crumbling into decay. And in the blink between surveillance sweeps, a pretty young medical researcher is kidnapped just after leaving her sister in a seedy nightclub. A tough police captain investigates. Shown in stark black and white, with the gloomy corridors, shadowy alleys and single source lighting characteristic of the most hard-boiled of film noir, comparisons to Sin City are inevitable. But the story owes more to Masamune Shirow and William Gibson than to Frank Miller, as high tech surveillance, near-invisible stealth suits and ruthless super-corporations are as much a part of the landscape as guns and cars. The film never quite generates the doom-laden atmosphere of Gibson's cyberpunk vision, with its tech-heavy marginal characters clashing with industrial types from corporations that all seem to have their own Ministry of Fear, but the viewer definitely gets the sense that future Paris is no Utopia and future science is less than benevolent. And as the police procedural plot line unfolds we are taken into the darker recesses of individual ambition beneath the shiny veneer of Avalon corporation's cultivated PR image. The motion capture process used here produces a look somewhere between B&W comic books and next generation rotoscoping, and is either captivating or intrusive depending on your tastes. Nevertheless, a great visual sense is on display here, and future Paris is filled in down to the tiny details giving the picture a unique look which is in turns both spartan and baroque. Worth a look.
|
I truly despised this film when i saw it at the age of about 6 or 7 as I was a huge fan of Robin Williams and nothing he could do was bad. Until this. This complete trash ruined Robin for me for a long time. I'm only recovering recently with his funny but serious part in Fathers day but then he went on to create another mistake, Bicenntinial Man i think it was called but the point is. Robin should be getting much better jobs by now and now he has returned to performing the slime that originated with this 'classic'.
| 1,734 |
My name is John Mourby and this is my story about Paperhouse: In May 2003 I saw Alfred Hitchcock's psycho, I was very scared and deeply disturbed. I began a frantic search for a film that was frightening in the same way. But none where satisfactory. Amongst those tried and failed were The Birds, Night of the Living Dead, The Silence of the Lambs, The Blair Witch Project, Ring, The Evil Dead, The Sixth Sense, 28 Days Later, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Near Dark, Alien, Peeping Tom, The Cell, Rosemary's Baby, Don't Look Now, Witchfinder General, Friday the 13th and The Omen. That should confirm I was desperate! Long after I had stopped searching I found out about Paperhouse
.<br /><br />Paperhouse is based on a favourite book that I own, called Marianne Dreams. Paperhouse had also come up in some of the books I had found on horror films, but they didn't tell me about the link between book and film. I discovered the truth while on the Internet, I bought the film later that day.<br /><br />I thought Paperhouse would not be faithful to the book and dull. Unfaithal it certainly was but dull certainly not. It was the answer to my prayers Marianne is renamed Anna in the film but most of the original story is the same. One day in school Anna draws a house in her scrap book (nothing remarkable about that) then she becomes ill and every time she faints or falls asleep she finds herself outside a creepy old house (and I mean genuinely unnerving). More she also finds that every time she puts something new in the drawing it appears in the dreamworld, EG an apple tree. Anna draws into the dreamworld a rather sad boy named mark who apparently is a person in the real world. Mark is a cripple but wants to leave the house, obligingly Anna draws in a lighthouse (a place to go to) but still the problem remains mark can't walk. So Anna decides to draw her father in. she gets her pencil out and gets too work, but the outcome is deformed and unsettling Anna particularly dislikes his eyes. Quote "he looks like madman". So Anna tries to rub him out and start again, but the pencil proves indelible (that means nothing can be rubbed out). Then Anna loses her temper and crosses out her father's eyes! I leave you too find out for you self the terrible consequences of the rash action.<br /><br />Paperhouse truly is the British answer to A Nightmare on elm Street! The viewing of this film left me shocked and upset. But I have found what I was looking for after 2 years. The question is how dose the compare with Psycho? Answer, 1 the old dark house, 2 psychological parental fears, 3 a genuine shock, 4 and very scary music.
|
I was eager to see "Mr. Fix It" because I'm a huge David Boreanaz fan. What I got, though, was a 1-1/2 hour nap. The premise seemed enjoyable: Boreanaz is Lance Valenteen, proprietor of a business called "Mr. Fix It", where dumped men enlist his help to get their girlfriends to take them back.<br /><br />Among the problems with this movie are the editing, script, and acting. Although I've found Boreanaz delightful in his other film roles (with the exception of that "Crow" movie he did), this was disappointing. At times, his character was interesting and others, flat. The supporting cast reminded me of soap opera day players. I realize it wasn't a big-budget film, but some of the scene cuts and music just didn't seem right.<br /><br />My advice: watch at your own risk.
| 1,735 |
As someone who has lived with cerebral palsey for over forty years, I find this movie to be inspirational. If someone with such a severe case of CP as Christie Brown has can do so much, then there's no reason that I couldn't achieve my own dreams. Daniel Day-Lewis and Brenda Fricker both give awesome performances.<br /><br />
|
Faces are slashed, throats are cut, blood squirts, and in end the three main characters are either depressed or they die. They even blow up Kevin Costner's dog with a shotgun. Why would anyone want to see a movie like this? Violence is valid only when the good guys kill the bad guys, not the other way around. Take for instance Underworld and Underworld Evolution where you can enjoy seeing justice done when the demons are slain. In this movie, the good guys are cut up. See the difference? Why would anyone want to MAKE a movie that depresses the audience? Beautiful photography and skilled editing in a motion picture like this is a waste of talent. Let's put this one into the category of the exquisite corpse.
| 1,736 |
I MAY have seen an episode or 2 when the show originally aired but when I watched 1 episode on netflix I was also hooked. I watched the whole series in like 2 days. :) I really liked Gary Cole's character. First he's thoroughly reprehensible then you start liking the character ("These things have a thousand uses")! His folksy Andy Griffith meets Charles Manson meets Satan is great. Charming, charismatic, smarmy, and uh kind of dangerous and by "kind of" I mean "really". I wanna be like HIM when I grow up. Lucas Black is great too. The accents are great too. Anyway, I thought this was one of the best TV shows ever and you owe it to yourself to see it.
|
I have seen a lot of movies...this is the first one I ever walked out of the theater on. Don't even bother renting it. This is about as boring a soap opera as one can see...at least you don't have to pay to watch a soap opera, though.
| 1,737 |
A very well made film set in early '60s communist Yugoslavia. The five young actors who are the teenagers at the center of the story give strong, sincere and emotionally deep performances. A clear depiction of how the natural trust and naivete inherent in teens can be easily manipulated and how that impacted the rest of their lives. Highly recommended.
|
Please, spare me of these movies that teach us that crime is fun and justified. Couple that with a vacuous script with an intense desire to be a Farrelly or a Coen brother, plus the lives of yet ANOTHER group of supposedly high school age people acting out their Dawson Creek-brand teen angst complete with a GenXYZ soundtrack that woefully tries to make the movie "feel" cool and, we have intensely and painfully inept satire.<br /><br />This isn't even watered-down 'Ferris Bueller'...I'd rather watch a traffic light change.<br /><br />Only one scene stands out as anywhere near worth the price of admission: when the Betty Masked girls meet a Richard Nixon Masked friend. It's a surreal moment. Priceless even.<br /><br />But for the rest of it, I'd rather have a toothache. At least I can apply some Benzocaine(tm) to stop the pain.
| 1,738 |
A documentary without a loss for words... ever...<br /><br />Let us assume that the narration is more than a spoof, let us assume it is a commentary on Japanese society. And as this film is as fast paced an absurdist documentary as they come, the constant wordplay, as fast is it goes, and as poorly translated as it is-- in its current festival screener version as seen tonight at the Copenhagen Cinematek-- It is still quite enjoyable. <br /><br />But for the patient, and ONLY the truly patient and open-minded, I'm talking to you Jim Jarmusch fans with ADD relapses, I believe this is a film for you. It's an intelligent film if you allow it to win you over.<br /><br />Quite beautiful, and quite kitsch, and quite Japanese sub-culture. And quite experimental. Static 2D in a 3D world. All in all, Fun for those that want to see a Japanese film that spoofs Japanese food culture. A thumbs up if you're in the mood for something completely different.
|
The plot line of No One Sleeps is not a bad idea, and the subject matter is of quite a bit of interest. But, throughout watching this film, we were saying aloud, "These filmmakers go to the trouble of finding good locations, the lighting is good, makeup and hair are good...why is the sound so bad?" Throughout the film the sound was echoy, garbled and much of the dialog was unintelligible.<br /><br />There is some good acting in this film, and I think Jim Thalman is really a good actor. This story, with some of the same actors, would have been worth doing as a high-budget film.<br /><br />I just can't reiterate enough - if you have a limited budget, dedicate more to good sound. Sound is as much a part of a film as the image, and it's worth doing right. Could've earned a 6.
| 1,739 |
1939 is universally accepted as the greatest year in Hollywood history, with more classic films released than in any other, and John Ford directed three of the best, "Stagecoach", "Drums Along the Mohawk", and this beautiful homage to frontier days and a young backwoods lawyer destined to eventually save the Union, "Young Mr. Lincoln".<br /><br />With the world plunging into a war that America dreaded, but knew it would be drawn into, Abraham Lincoln was much on people's minds, in 1939, as someone who had faced the same dilemma in his own life, and had triumphed. On Broadway, Robert E. Sherwood's award-winning "Abe Lincoln in Illinois", with Raymond Massey's physically dead-on portrayal, was playing to packed houses (it would be filmed in 1940). Carl Sandburg's continuation of his epic biography, "Abraham Lincoln: The War Years", was published, and quickly became a best seller. President Roosevelt frequently referred to Lincoln in speeches, and the Lincoln Memorial, in Washington, D.C., became the most popular landmark in town (a fact that Frank Capra made good use of, in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington").<br /><br />All this was not lost on Darryl F. Zanuck, at 20th Century Fox; as soon as he read Lamar Trotti's screenplay of Lincoln's early days as a lawyer, he designated it a 'prestige' production, and assigned John Ford to direct, and Henry Fonda, to star.<br /><br />Fonda did NOT want to play Lincoln; he felt he couldn't do justice to the 'Great Emancipator', and feared a bad performance would damage his career. Even a filmed make-up test, in which he was stunned by how much he would resemble Lincoln, wouldn't change his mind. According to Fonda, John Ford, whom he'd never worked with, cussed him out royally, at their first meeting, and explained he wasn't portraying the Lincoln of Legend, but a young "jackanape" country lawyer facing his first murder trial. Humbled, Fonda took the role. (John Ford offered a different scenario of the events, but the outcome was the same!) Obviously, they found a chemistry together that worked, as nearly all of their pairings would produce 'classics'.<br /><br />Unlike the introverted, melancholia-racked Lincoln of "Abe Lincoln in Illinois", Ford's vision was that of a shy but likable young attorney, who made friends easily, and misses the mother he lost, too young (resulting in a bond with a pioneer mother that becomes a vital part of the story). Injustice riles him, and he speaks 'common sense' to quell violence, interlaced with doses of humor. Both productions play on Lincoln's (undocumented) relationship with Ann Rutledge; in Ford's version, the pair are truly in love, and committed to each other. After her death, Lincoln would frequently visit her grave, to share his life with her 'spirit' (a theme Ford would continue in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon").<br /><br />A murder trial is the centerpiece of the film, and shows the prodigious talents of the star and director. Fonda deftly portrays Lincoln's inexperience, yet earnest belief in justice tempered with mercy, and Ford emphasizes the gulf between the big-city 'intellectuals' (represented by pompous D.A. Donald Meek, and his slick 'advisor', Stephen Douglas, played by a young Milburn Stone), and the informal, rule-bending country sense of Lincoln. With Ford 'regular' Ward Bond as a key witness, the trial is both unconventional, and riveting.<br /><br />With the film closing as Lincoln strides away into the stormy distance, and his destiny (dissolving into a view of the statue at the Lincoln Memorial), audiences could take comfort in the film's message that if a cause is just, good would ultimately triumph.<br /><br />"Young Mr. Lincoln" is a truly remarkable film, from an amazing year!
|
Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.<br /><br />The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.<br /><br />Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.<br /><br />There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.<br /><br />This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.
| 1,740 |
What do you do with a 14-inch cocked porn star who was involved in drugs and murder, and then died of AIDS? You make a movie, of course. The probable reason why it wasn't made earlier is the fact that Eddie Nash would have been in the way of its production. So it's no coincidence that the film was made just a little while after Nash was sent to prison.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is its quick pace. There is no time wasted on unnecessary crap. And why would it be? There is too much good material here to require dull filler scenes.The cast is good. Kilmer has been mediocre in a string of movies, so here was finally a role quite suitable for him. Bosworth is cute so it's irrelevant how she acts (she's solid), and McDermott, who is otherwise quite annoying, is rather good, to a large extent because he is wearing so much facial hair that I didn't recognize him at first. (I wish they did that to Cruise in every movie so I wouldn't have to watch his dumb face.) I utterly failed to recognize Christina Applegate, and wouldn't have known she was in it, had I not seen her name in the end-credits. Kudrow is charming as ever, a bit unusual to see her in a dramatic role. (Btw, "Friends" is the worst TV sitcom of all time.) The only casting choices that were questionable were an early near-cameo by Carrie Fischer and the totally absurd inclusion of the 90s moron Janeane Garofalo. You thought I'd include Paris Hilton, too, didn't you? No, I think Hilton is the ideal choice in her 10-second appearance as a dumb whore. Because the film is about decadence, among other things and about a porn actor she fits in perfectly.
|
What? Is Jamie Foxx supposed to be funny?Does he really believe he is funny?Well, it's funny watching his confidence in being funny.The man has no identity whatsoever...I mean you can immediately see who his idols are, Denzel Washington and Martin Lawrence, because he tries really hard to imitate them in most of his movies.The only problem is that he does it bad, uneven, and what comes out are some parts where he somewhat looks like Denzel, with that macho-s**t attitude and then abruptly goes to being Martin Lawrence, the funny and clumsy-silly comic. There's no personal touch to all that, I mean he contributes nothing to the personality he tries to sell, and I'm sure he has nothing to say personally. He really is Mr. Dull-boy in person.<br /><br />I was really hoping Hollywood, and the black community in America would find somebody better to launch into super stardom, like Don Cheadle for example, but perhaps the pathetic Jamie better represents the generation that remixes the old.
| 1,741 |
It is unusual to see a film where the performance of a single actor is so good that one can feel that the film would be of little interest, if any, without his presence.<br /><br />Despite a not outstanding direction - in fact, there are many scenes that seem to have been shooted too quickly and carelessly -, a seemingly low budget, a strange plot about a man who wants to take the place of a defrocked priest and another week points, the presence of Pierre Fresnay is so impressive that one gets shocked from the very begining to the terrible end.<br /><br />I have never seen nor can iomagine for future a better performance, even Paul Scofield acting in "A man for all seasons".<br /><br />Actually the end could be considered even ridiculous if Fresnay were not playing the transtorned priest who returns to Church by performing a crime.<br /><br />"Je suis Maurice Morand, prètre catholique" ("I am Maurice Morand, a catholic priest")is said with such a brilliancy that one may forget the madness that conducted to that end.<br /><br />The other impressive thing this film has is a single scene in wich Morand - who despite being a defrocked one is stil a priest - consacrates in a cabaret a huge amount of vine turning it into Christ´s blood.<br /><br />Gérard - the man that wants to return Morand to the Church or replace him by himself - has to drink it if he doesn´t want to leave it in the cabaret. He does so in mid of cheers and applauses from people who think that he is simply drinking three of four litters of vine.<br /><br />In next scene, the dialoque between Morand and a garbage collector is also remarkable. "Do you carry away men too?" asks Morand, who hates himself for what he has just done. "That would be too much work" is the smart answer.<br /><br />The rest of the film is not worth commenting but it is certainly worth seeing due to the very strong and strangely emotive atmosphere created all the time.<br /><br />I think that "Le défroqué" is a very strange film, but has to be seen by all viewers - if the are good catholiques it is mandatory - because it is a very rare jewell in film history.<br /><br />
|
Cabin Fever is the first feature film directed by Eli Roth.Roth and Randy Pearlstein co wrote the script from a story by Roth.this a zombie film,which owes a lot to George Romero and his earlier "living dead movies",and to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacrenot to mention Sam Ramie's "Evil Dead".there is nothing original here,and the story is not compelling.the acting is about par with this genre,it's just that the story fails.we have pretty much seen this movie before and better made.having said that,after having achieved commercial, if not artistic success from this movie,Roth decided he was a director and came out with the abysmally atrocious,mean spirited,pointless(though much more ambitious)crap fest Hostel.Roth should have quit while he was behind.Cabin Fever is not a good film,however compared to Hostel it is a work of art.I hope somebody (preferably a psychiatrist)convinces this guy that film-making is the wrong career choice.as for Cabin fever,a weak 3/10 for not being as abysmal as Hostel.
| 1,742 |
Rachel Griffiths writes and directs this award winning short film. A heartwarming story about coping with grief and cherishing the memory of those we've loved and lost. Although, only 15 minutes long, Griffiths manages to capture so much emotion and truth onto film in the short space of time. Bud Tingwell gives a touching performance as Will, a widower struggling to cope with his wife's death. Will is confronted by the harsh reality of loneliness and helplessness as he proceeds to take care of Ruth's pet cow, Tulip. The film displays the grief and responsibility one feels for those they have loved and lost. Good cinematography, great direction, and superbly acted. It will bring tears to all those who have lost a loved one, and survived.
|
This whole film should have lasted 45 minutes - maximum. Although an interesting concept/theme, it really did not develop as a story. Once the initial idea of a brave (stupid?) bomb disposal expert (cowboy?) are introduced, and this happens very early in the film, the rest is repetitious. Characters were not explored, and aspects of the location and politics were ignored. There was some nice insight into the appalling difficulties faced by troops in such a foreign environment, and the difficulties in differentiating between friend and foe. But the way in which the unit operated stretched belief! Individual performances were good, and special effects were adequate, but not enough to overcome the basic lack of content.
| 1,743 |
This is superb - the acting wonderful, sets, clothes, music - but most of all the story itself.<br /><br />I am amazed there aren't more reviews of this movie - certainly one of the best of the 1980s.<br /><br />It's also a wonderful movie to see in tandem with the great "Random Harvest" which has much the same opening crisis <br /><br />-- a middle aged, unknown English W.W.I officer is in a hospital toward the close of the war, suffering from shell shock and complete amnesia without any idea of his name, origin, or anywhere he belongs - he proves to be a very wealthy established man - when he "recovers", he will not remember the years before the war -- <br /><br />But there the movies' resemblances end.<br /><br />My warmest thanks to all who participated in the movie - particularly the actors Ian Holm, Alan Bates, Ann Margret (what a great and surprising casting choice), Glenda Jackson, Julie Christie.<br /><br />This one stays with you forever.
|
I was very displeased with this move. Everything was terrible from the start. The comedy was unhumorous, the action overdone, the songs unmelodious. Even the storyline was weightless. From a writer who has written successful scripts like Guru and Dhoom, I had high expectations. The actors worked way too hard and did not help the film at all. Of course, Kareena rocked the screen in a bikini but for two seconds. I think Hindi stunt directors should research how action movies are done. They tend to exaggerate way too much. In Chinese films, this style works because that is their signature piece. But, Hindi cinema's signature are the songs. A good action movie should last no more than two hours and cannot look unrealistic. But, in the future, I'm sure these action movies will get much sharper. Also to be noted: Comedy and action films do not mix unless done properly. Good Luck next time.
| 1,744 |
Cat Soup at first seems to be a very random animated film. The best way I've been able to explain it is that it's quite acidic. Though it's not totally random. The story is about Nyatta, a young cat boy and his sister Nyaako. Nyaako is very ill and dies, however, Nyatta sees her soul being taken away by death and is able to retrieve half of it. The story is about their quest to bring Nyaako fully back to life.<br /><br />Though a lot of the content in this movie seems completely random, it is not. Most of it is symbolism for life, death and rebirth. You can also see references from other tales, such as Hansel and Gretal. This strangely cute short film has an interesting story, packed with a deeper meaning than what you see on the surface of the screen.
|
LOL! Not a bad way to start it. I thought this was original, but then I discovered it was a clone of the 1976 remake of KING KONG. I never saw KING KONG until I was 15. I saw this film when I was 9. The film's funky disco music will get stuck in your head! Not to mention the film's theme song by the Yetians. This is the worst creature effects I've ever seen. At the same time this film remains a holy grail of B-movies. Memorable quotes: "Take a tranquilizer and go to bed." "Put the Yeti in your tank and you have Yeti power." I remember seeing this film on MOVIE MACRABE hosted by Elvira. There is one scene where it was like KING KONG in reverse! In KING KONG he grabs the girl and climbs up the building, but in this film he climbs down the building and grabs the girl (who was falling)! Also around that year was another KONG clone MIGHTY PEKING MAN (1977) which came from Hong Kong. There is a lot of traveling matte scenes and motorized body parts. This film will leave you laughing. It is like I said, just another KING KONG clone. Rated PG for violence, language, thematic elements, and some scary scenes.
| 1,745 |
Before this little black-and-whiter, the touchy topic of criminal rape never made it onto the American screen.There were lots of these topics that Hollywood and the Production Code kept hidden until the rebellious 1960's. So it's not surprising that it would take a little independent company like Ida Lupino's Filmmakers to raise the subject. The result is well-meaning but somewhat compromised, which is not surprising since director Lupino had to work with Code demands to get the movie released.<br /><br />Interestingly, Ann Walton's (Mala Powers) main problem following the assault is not how others might see her, but how she sees herself. And it's a heavy load she's carrying. Will she ever be able to relate to men again? Will they look at her as "spoiled goods" (after all, this is 1950)? Small wonder she runs away rather than face these anxieties at home and at work, even though family and friends are generally supportive. Overall, this first part is earnest and well-done. The chase is hyped to inject some action into the plot, but then this is a movie-- notice how the incurious neighbor fails to respond to the honking horn near chase's end. Had those been screams of alarm from Powers instead, the neighbor's lack of response would have raised an interesting albeit complicating issue.<br /><br />The second half is pretty much given over to the Production Code in the sentimentalized person of Rev. Ferguson (Tod Andrews). It's he (to quote a phrase) who "gives her courage to face life again". There's some effort at humanizing him-- is it Ann or her dilemma that he's most interested in. Still, his gentle and understanding presence comes across as a little too miraculous and a little too Hollywood. Fortunately, the ending avoids the usual Hollywood cop-out by emphasizing only the hope of a happy resolution for Ann rather than its certainty. <br /><br />Give Lupino a ton of credit for dealing with the topic in the first place. Given the overall results, I expect she dealt as honestly with the topic as she was allowed to. I also expect today's audiences find the treatment mildly interesting mainly because of Powers' excellent performance that brings out the purely human drama. However, the film works best now as a document of its time, and what the cultural watchdogs of that day thought was appropriate for adult viewing.
|
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.
| 1,746 |
This is a very beautiful and almost meditative film-there is hardly any dialogue in it, apart from the narration; and the scenery and music compliment each other perfectly. I didn't at first connect the red hair of the girl and the fox until it was pointed out to me by a friend (who also has red hair!) It is almost an old fashioned type of children's films, saying that children nowadays prefer animations like Shrek or Toy Story etc-but I feel that young people should be introduced more to the beauty and wonder of nature which this film certainly does. Maybe not the best ever film of its type but certainly an excellent and relaxing view for all ages -not just children.
|
This Worldwide was the cheap man's version of what the NWA under Jim Crockett Junior and Jim Crockett Promotions made back in the 1980s on the localized "Big 3" Stations during the Saturday Morning/Afternoon Wrestling Craze. When Ted Turner got his hands on Crockett's failed version of NWA he turned it into World Championship Wrestling and proceeded to drop all NWA references all together. NWA World Wide and NWA Pro Wrestling were relabeled with the WCW logo and moved off the road to Disney/MGM Studios in Orlando, Florida and eventually became nothing more than recap shows for WCW's Nitro, Thunder, and Saturday Night. Worldwide was officially the last WCW program under Turner to air the weekend of the WCW buyout from Vince McMahon and WWF. Today the entire NWA World Wide/WCW Worldwide Video Tape Archive along with the entire NWA/WCW Video Tape Library in general lay in the vaults of WWE Headquarters in Stamford,Connecticut.
| 1,747 |
Nick Cage is Randall Raines, a retired car thief who is forced out of retirement when he's forced to save his the life of his brother Kip (Giovanni Ribisi) when he screws up on a job, by completing his brothers job of stealing 50 cars in one night. He has to get together his old crew that he can trust to help him pull it off and get his bro out of dutch. But the cops are onto him, so can he pull it off? This was one of the great candidates of a film to re-make as the Original was far from a classic. And if you don't go into it expecting much, and turn the thinking portion of your brain off so you can ignore the plot hole ans just take the movie for what it is. You'll end up enjoying the ride. Watch it on a double-bill with "The Fast and the Furious" for a night of high-speed hijinks, just don't take the car out for a spin right afterwards.<br /><br />My Grade: B- <br /><br />DVD Extras: 7 minute Jerry Bruckheimer Interview; Bruckheimer Bio/Filmography; Action Overload: Highlight Reel; The Big Chase; "0 To 60" featurette; "Wild Rides" featurette; Stars On The Move; The Cult "Painted On The Heart" music video; Theatrical Trailer, and Trailers for "Shanghai Noon", "Mission to Mars" and "Coyote Ugly"
|
this is not just a bad film, it's one of the worst films ever. it's so bad that i found it to be quite enjoyable. the acting, oh my god, the script, you gotta be kiddin'. how can you imagine the writer coming up with things like: - a kid who makes fireworks in school, fireworks SO powerfull, that when someone gets hit by it, they fly a hundred yards backwards and explode. -a girl is trapped in the celler, the killer is trying to break open the door. she gets a drill, but the wire isn't long enough. she first makes an extension cord, oh the horror, and then, when she's done, she drills through the door and drills through the head of the killer. WOW - and there are plenty more examples like that. oh yeah, and what happened to George Kennedy, he used to be great (Thunderbolt and Lightfoot/Cool hand Luke)
| 1,748 |
As a lifelong fan of Dickens, I have invariably been disappointed by adaptations of his novels.<br /><br />Although his works presented an extremely accurate re-telling of human life at every level in Victorian Britain, throughout them all was a pervasive thread of humour that could be both playful or sarcastic as the narrative dictated. In a way, he was a literary caricaturist and cartoonist. He could be serious and hilarious in the same sentence. He pricked pride, lampooned arrogance, celebrated modesty, and empathised with loneliness and poverty. It may be a cliché, but he was a people's writer.<br /><br />And it is the comedy that is so often missing from his interpretations. At the time of writing, Oliver Twist is being dramatised in serial form on BBC television. All of the misery and cruelty is their, but non of the humour, irony, and savage lampoonery. The result is just a dark, dismal experience: the story penned by a journalist rather than a novelist. It's not really Dickens at all.<br /><br />'Oliver!', on the other hand, is much closer to the mark. The mockery of officialdom is perfectly interpreted, from the blustering beadle to the drunken magistrate. The classic stand-off between the beadle and Mr Brownlow, in which the law is described as 'a ass, a idiot' couldn't have been better done. Harry Secombe is an ideal choice.<br /><br />But the blinding cruelty is also there, the callous indifference of the state, the cold, hunger, poverty and loneliness are all presented just as surely as The Master would have wished.<br /><br />And then there is crime. Ron Moody is a treasure as the sleazy Jewish fence, whilst Oliver Reid has Bill Sykes to perfection.<br /><br />Perhaps not surprisingly, Lionel Bart - himself a Jew from London's east-end - takes a liberty with Fagin by re-interpreting him as a much more benign fellow than was Dicken's original. In the novel, he was utterly ruthless, sending some of his own boys to the gallows in order to protect himself (though he was also caught and hanged). Whereas in the movie, he is presented as something of a wayward father-figure, a sort of charitable thief rather than a corrupter of children, the latter being a long-standing anti-semitic sentiment. Otherwise, very few liberties are taken with Dickens's original. All of the most memorable elements are included. Just enough menace and violence is retained to ensure narrative fidelity whilst at the same time allowing for children' sensibilities. Nancy is still beaten to death, Bullseye narrowly escapes drowning, and Bill Sykes gets a faithfully graphic come-uppance.<br /><br />Every song is excellent, though they do incline towards schmaltz. Mark Lester mimes his wonderfully. Both his and my favourite scene is the one in which the world comes alive to 'who will buy'. It's schmaltzy, but it's Dickens through and through.<br /><br />I could go on. I could commend the wonderful set-pieces, the contrast of the rich and poor. There is top-quality acting from more British regulars than you could shake a stick at.<br /><br />I ought to give it 10 points, but I'm feeling more like Scrooge today. Soak it up with your Christmas dinner. No original has been better realised.
|
believe it or not,this movie is worse than number three.it's slower,the acting is worse,and the story is very weak.there isn't a lot of good to say about this movie.even the fight scenes are more dull than number three,and i would have thought that impossible.this is a very slow 90 minutes.painful,in fact.i stuck it through,hoping it would get better.if you really want to see this movie,you should try to find a cheap rental of it.it is hard to find(for purchase,that is)and probably for good reason.like number three,this movie has nothing to do with the first two.it is the same in name only.anyway,the most i can give Best of the Best:Without Warning is 2/10
| 1,749 |
At one end of the Eighties Warren Beatty created and starred in the literate epic Reds about the founding of the Soviet Union as seen through the eyes of iconoclast radical John Reed. It was a profound film both entertaining and with a message presented by an all star cast. At the end of the decade Warren Beatty created another kind of epic in Dick Tracy that makes no pretense to being anything other than entertainment with a whole bunch of the best actors around just having a great old time hamming it up under tons of makeup.<br /><br />That both Reds and Dick Tracy could come from the same individual speaks volumes about the range this man has as a player. In this film Beatty managed to get all the famous cartoon characters from the strip and put them in one original screenplay.<br /><br />The city's top mobster Big Boy Caprice is making a move to really eliminate competition. The film opens with him rubbing out Lips Manlis's henchmen in a Valentine Massacre style shooting and then Lips himself being fitted for a cement overcoat. But Caprice's moves are making him a target for Tracy.<br /><br />In the meantime a third mysterious and faceless individual is looking to topple Caprice himself. Will our hero sort out this thicket of crime?<br /><br />The spirit of fun this film has is truly infectious. When people like Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, Paul Sorvino, William Forsythe, R.G. Armstrong get themselves outrageously made-up to look like the cartoon creations of strip author Chester Gould and then indulge in an exercise of carving the biggest slice of ham, you've got to love this film.<br /><br />Al Pacino got a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, but any of these guys could have, it's only that Pacino as Big Boy Caprice gets the most screen time. Only Beatty plays it completely straight, the others all seem to play off of him. Dick Tracy won Oscars for Best Art&Set Design, Best Song written by Stephen Sondheim and introduced by Madonna, Sooner Or Later. The fact he was even able to get somebody like Sondheim to write a score for this film only shows Sondheim wanted to get in on the fun. As for Madonna, the Material Girl does more than hold her own with all these acting heavyweights as club torch singer Breathless Mahoney.<br /><br />Before this film, Dick Tracy movies were consigned to the B pictures and worse as Saturday afternoon serials. The only thing that rivals this all star extravaganza is a radio broadcast done for Armed Forces Radio during World War II that got to vinyl. Can you believe a cast like Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra, Dinah Shore, Jimmy Durante, Judy Garland, Frank Morgan, and the Andrews Sisters? Try and find a recording of that gem.<br /><br />Until then Warren Beatty's classic comic strip for the big screen will do nicely.
|
This is a very old and cheaply made film--a typical low-budget B-Western in so many ways. Gary Cooper was not yet a star and this film is highly reminiscent of the early films of John Wayne that were done for "poverty row" studios. With both actors, their familiar style and persona were still not completely formed. This incarnation of Gary Cooper doesn't seem exactly like the Cooper of just a few years later (he talks faster in this early film, among other things).<br /><br />However, unlike the average B-movie of the era, there are at least a few interesting elements that make the film unique (if not good). If you ever want to see the woman that was married to Errol Flynn for seven years, this is your chance. Lili Damita stars as the female love interest and this is a very, very odd casting choice, as she has a heavy accent (she was French) and wasn't even close to being "movie star pretty". Incidentally, she was also married to director Michael Curtiz. <br /><br />But for me, the most memorable and weird aspect of the film is the seemingly gay subplot--sort of like a BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN from the 1930s (and we thought this was a NEW idea). Gary Cooper's character was raised by two men who hate women and do everything they can through much of the film to keep Cooper clear of females. This misogyny alone doesn't necessarily mean much, but there are so many clues throughout the film that indicate the makers of the film really were trying to portray them as a gay couple. In particular, towards the end, when one of them is killed, the other is shot by an arrow and holds off dying long enough to crawl over to the body of his fallen friend and then falls--with his arms cradled around him! This was pretty edgy stuff for the time and I think this makes this dull film really fascinating today! As far as Cooper and the plot go, the film is a bit of a disappointment and very skip-able. Unless you are curious about Damita or the homosexual undertones, do yourself a favor and find a better Western.
| 1,750 |
For those of you unfamiliar with Jimmy Stewart, this is one of his "lesser" films from later in his career. And, while it isn't a great film compared to many of his other pictures, it isn't bad and is a decent time-passer--but not much more.<br /><br />Kim Novak is a witch in New York City and for some inexplicable reason, she decides to cast a spell on poor Jimmy to make him fall in love with her. Over time, the cold and detached Ms. Novak also begins to fall in love with Stewart--and apparently in the witch's rule book, this is a definite NO, NO!! <br /><br />The film is odd in its sensibilities about the witches. They are neither the baby-sacrificing nor the all-powerful variety. Most of their magic is pretty limited and pointless (such as Jack Lemmon using his powers to turn off street lamps). And, very oddly, the witches all seem to be bohemians who hang out in hip bars where you might find people wearing berets and listening to crappy jazz. Considering what I think of jazz, it must really stink to be a witch in this movie's world!<br /><br />Anyway, the film is pretty romantic and mildly comedic, but not something I would rush out to watch. The acting is pretty good, but the script doesn't offer enough payoff to make this an exceptional film--in fact, I almost scored the film a 6--it was really close.
|
Disappointing musical version of Margaret Landon's "Anna and the King of Siam", itself filmed in 1946 with Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison, has Deborah Kerr cast as a widowed schoolteacher and mother who travels from England to Siam in 1862 to accept job as tutor to the King's many children--and perhaps teach the Royal One a thing or two in the process! Stagy picture begins well, but quickly loses energy and focus. Yul Brynner, reprising his stage triumph as the King, is a commanding presence, but is used--per the concocted story--as a buffoon. Kerr keeps her cool dignity and fares better, despite having to lip-synch to Marni Nixon's vocals. Perhaps having already played this part to death, Brynner looks like he had nothing leftover for the screen translation except bombast. Second-half, with Anna and the moppets staging a musical version of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is quite ridiculous, and the Rodgers and Hammerstein songs are mostly lumbering. Brynner won a Best Actor Oscar, but it is feisty Kerr who keeps this bauble above water. Overlong, heavy, and 'old-fashioned' in the worst sense of the term. ** from ****
| 1,751 |
The sopranos was probably the last best show to air in the 90's. its sad that its over, its was the best show on HBO if not on TV, not everything was spelled out for you throughout you had to think, it was brilliant. the cast was excellent. Tony (James Gandolphini) is a great actor and played his character excellent, as well as the others. Each character had flaws thats what made them so real and allowed the viewers to connect with them and thats one reason it lasted so long. The last episode was good, I'm not sure how to take it many different things can be construed by the ending id like to think that tony didn't die but meadow walked in and sat down with them and that the blackout was just for suspense. Tony will have to go to trial and deal with that hopefully is not dead thats how i feel... Long live the Sopranos and Tony Soprano.......
|
I watched this film for 45 minutes and counted 9 mullets. That's a mullet every 5 minutes. Seriously though, this film is living proof that formula works. If it ain't broke, it don't need fixin. A streetwise-yet-vulnerable heroine, a hardened ex-cop martial arts master with a heart of gold and a serial killer with 'issues'. Pure magic.
| 1,752 |
Rarely do I see a film that I am totally engrossed with; this was one of them. It had good acting, dialogue, plot, and the scenery was beautiful. I laughed out loud many times, especially the scene dealing with the kitchen raid. The slapstick comedy performed by the lunkhead hired hand had me one the floor, but I admit that I am a sucker for slapstick. The story dealt with a group of people in their 30's coming back to a summer camp that they had attended 20 years previously. It was a farewell week of camping, as the place would be closed down permanently at the end of the season. As adults the camp looked different, and they felt differently about it and each other. I recommend this funny, moving movie to all.<br /><br />
|
Beautifully photographed and ably acted, generally, but the writing is very slipshod. There are scenes of such unbelievability that there is no joy in the watching. The fact that the young lover has a twin brother, for instance, is so contrived that I groaned out loud. And the "emotion-light bulb connection" seems gimmicky, too.<br /><br />I don't know, though. If you have a few glasses of wine and feel like relaxing with something pretty to look at with a few flaccid comedic scenes, this is a pretty good movie. No major effort on the part of the viewer required. But Italian film, especially Italian comedy, is usually much, much better than this.
| 1,753 |
This is one of the best animated family films of all time. Moreover, virtually all of the serious rivals for this title came from the same creative mind of Hiyao Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli. Specifically, other great films include "My Neighbor Totoro" and "Kikki's Delivery Service." Spirited Away is quite good, but a bit too creepy for typical family fare - better for teenagers and adult. The one thing that sets "Laputa: Castle in the Sky" apart from other films by Miyazaki is that it is far more of a tension-filled adventure ride.<br /><br />Why is this film so good? Because it's a complete package: the animation is very well done, and the story is truly engaging and compelling.<br /><br />Most Japanese anime is imaginative, but decidedly dark or cynical or violent; and the animation itself is often jerky, stylized, and juvenile. None of these problems plague Castle in the Sky. It has imagination to burn, and the characters are well drawn, if slightly exaggerated versions of realistic people. (None of those trench-coat wearing posers) There is plenty of adventure, but not blood and gore. The animation is smooth, detailed, and cinematic ally composed - not a lot of flat shots. The backgrounds are wonderful.<br /><br />The voice acting in the dubbed English version is first rate, particularly the two leads, Pazo (James Van der Beek) and Sheeta (Anna Paquin). The sound engineering is great, too. Use your studio sound, if you've got it.<br /><br />One aspect that I particularly enjoyed is that much of the back story is left unexplained. Laputa was once inhabited, and is now abandoned. Why? We never know. We know as much as we need to know, and then we just have to accept the rest, which is easy to do because the invented world is so fully realized. Indeed, it is fair to say that the world is more fully realized than most of the minor characters, who are for the most part one-dimensional stock characters (e.g., gruff general, silly sidekick, kooky old miner, etc.) Highly recommended for people aged 6 to 60!
|
This film was choppy, incoherent and contrived. It was also an extremely mean-spirited portrayal of women. I rented it because it was listed as a comedy (that's a stretch), and because the cover said Andie McDowell was acting up a storm in it. She wasn't. I'm a gal, I watched this film with two guys, and we spent an hour afterwards exclaiming over how bad it was.<br /><br />WARNING: PLOT SUMMARY BELOW! RAMPANT SPOILERS!<br /><br />The movie starts out with a fairly hackneyed plot about an older woman who takes up with a younger man, to the severe disapproval of her two jealous single girlfriends. They want her to marry a boring guy their own age who is kind of in love with her. But she's so happy with her oversexed puppy that you're rooting for them to stick it out, and sure enough, she decides to marry the guy. But her harpy girlfriend, aided by the wishy-washy one, sets up a plot to trick our heroine into thinking the guy is cheating on her. It works. She has a fight with him, he runs out of the house and is crushed by a truck (Remember the movie's title?) So now he's dead, two-thirds of the way through the film. And although our heroine is a school headmistress who spends her time watching over girls, she apparently forgot to use birth control and is pregnant.<br /><br />She's already broken off relations with her girlfriends, because they were so unsupportive. Alone and pitiful, she decides to marry the boring guy. Did I mention that the boring guy who kind of loves her is a minister? She had asked him to marry her to the young guy (nice, huh?), but now she tells him she'll marry him, and apparently he has no objections to being dicked around in this fashion. But her girlfriends rescue her at the altar and take her home, where they not-quite-confess that they were mostly responsible for the love of her life getting smushed. She has the kid. In the final scene, they leave it in a crib inside her house while they go out on the porch to drink, smoke and be smug. I kid you not, it's that bad. I left out the part about the cancer red-herring and the harpy's ridiculous lesbian moment.
| 1,754 |
I saw this in the theater during it's initial release and it was disturbing then as I'm sure it would still be. It was the first part of '68 and this was still making the rounds in towns across America and there had recently been a mass-murder in my hometown where I saw this where a man went on a shooting rampage. The freshness of that close-to-home event combined with this dramatized true story made for a very disturbing theatrical experience. It really brought to life the excellent acting of Robert Blake and Scott Wilson. I was familiar with the novel based on the true event by Truman Capote and the screenplay and direction by Richard Brooks wove the event and Truman's interpretation into compelling gritty cinematic adaptation. Music from Quincy Jones effectively scores it's story. I've only seen this a couple times since. It was too real. Almost like being a witness to the crime itself and riding along with the killers. I would give this a 9.0 of a possible 10. Society is so desensitized to violence and crime today that this probably seems slow and tame and could be viewed with less effect but to anyone over 50 this will be a hallmark into the examination of the criminal psyche.
|
This is one of those films that I remember being in the can for years before anything happening w/it. I don't think it's terrible, but it's not really good either. Alec Baldwin was pretty good, but the plot is it kind of flimsy at best. The cast is pretty good in what they're given, but again you are only as good as the script. Baldwin directing this although I could have sworn he didn't direct all of it, I thought I read somewhere or lots of re-shoots wasn't bad but he definitely has some potential in there. Although his work on "30 Rock" is nothing short of genius & should keep him busy for a little while longer. I just hope the show bows out gracefully a la Seinfeld, but maybe not even that long. 9 years it went. So if you want to see a film that you won't get much from, but won't really hate either well this is for you. I can't remember the last time a film had been wrapped so long before finally being released & only on DVD at that. It was nice to see Alec Baldwin & Anthony Hopkins again together since their excellent yet not much people have seen "The Edge." Now pick up that excellent film for some real entertainment.
| 1,755 |
I enjoyed watching Cliffhanger, at the beginning when that woman (Sarah) was full of terror when she was slipping, i thought that was a terrifying scene as i would think that when you see that see, your nerves in your body get to you because it makes you get full of fright and your heart beats faster. I did like watching Cliffhanger, i think Silvestar Stallone is a great actor and i think he'll be known as playing Rambo and Rocky.
|
Ugh. This is a terrible film, full of disastrous comic relief, no scares, and scary leaps in story and plotline. The only creepy thing here is the leading lady's hats. Lugosi was on his downhill slide and it shows. I give this a 1, and this ain't no fun.
| 1,756 |
Definitely a very good idea,screenplay was just OK.Could have been better,The positives are that it doesn't bore you if you're an adventure lover,A new idea about the lost world of Atlantis.Negatives are that I personally feel that this idea had so much more potential than this.They should've ended up with a better adventure than this.It wasn't bad at all but it would have been much better with some more runtime.Enjoyed it a lot though,Cant say that it was boring or wasn't good..A good one for the people who like adventure animations like Sindbad,like The road to el Dorado.This movie is also recommended for people looking for a nice little adventure with a very nice happy ending.
|
Alan (Anthony Steffen), an English multi-millionaire with a few screws loose (thanks to his first wife's infidelity and untimely death during childbirth), entices sexy, red-headed women to his castle, offering them bundles of cash to stay the weekend. Once back at his ancestral pile, he gets them nekkid, proceeds to flog them with a bull-whip, and then kills them.<br /><br />But when he meets blonde hottie Gladys (Marina Malfatti) and falls for her ample charms, he decides to give up his murderous ways and get married. Their wedded bliss is short-lived, however, thanks to Alan's iffy mental state, which becomes increasingly fragile when his dead wife Evelyn starts to appear outside his window and a spate of gruesome murders occur within the castle grounds.<br /><br />So let's recap: a groovy 70s Euro-horror with loads of tasty women in various states of undress; spooky Gothic retreats and misty graveyards; a sadistic rich psycho with a penchant for drop-dead gorgeous babes with cracking bods; several vicious murders (including a great bit where one victim has her head bashed in with a rock and her entrails eaten by foxes). Normally, a checklist like that would guarantee me a good timeso why did I find 'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' so dull? Well, for starters, the plot is way too convoluted: there are red herrings, crazy plot developments, and suspects galore, and it all becomes a bit too much. By the ridiculous endingin which we discover that, all along, several people have been plotting to get their greedy paws on Alan's wealth, and that our red-head killing nut-job is actually supposed to be the hero of the moviemy head was hurting too much to care! Secondly, Emilio Maraglia's direction is pretty torpid. Stylish, yes; but as slow as molasses at times.<br /><br />And then there's the bits that are just too damn silly, possibly even for a giallo: the death by poisonous snake bite (surely one of the most bizarre choices of weapon ever); Alan's Aunt Agatha, an old crippled relative who is played by a pretty young woman; the hiring of a group of identical curly headed blondes as maids; the poor attempt at convincing the audience that the film is set in England (mentioning 'pounds' and hiring a crap police uniform for one of the extras is not enough); and then, of course, there is the unlikelihood of finding a bag of sulphuric acid laying next to a swimming pool...<br /><br />'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' isn't a total waste of time (how could it be, with so much female flesh on show?), but there are much better giallo's out there. Watch this one if you're a fan of the genre and you've already seen the bestbut don't expect too much.
| 1,757 |
Yeah, it is. In fact, it's somewhere in my top 20 all time favorite movies. Number 15, I think. Anyways, I'm usually not one for plots, but I think plots work better in anime and RPG video games, (Final Fantasy 7, for example) and not movies. But this one has it all. Vivid drawings of planets, stars, an extremely well written screenplay. While this is not really for children, they can still watch it, it contains no graphic blood, guts and silicone. But I don't think they're going to understand it.
|
Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.
| 1,758 |
Hal Hartley's Henry Fool was an independent film masterpiece and certainly his best work. It has immense character depth, subtle, complicated dialogue, and an excellent, emotional ending which captivates. I remember pausing it several times during my first viewing to absorb what I was seeing and feeling. Henry Fool was a complete movie from start to finish, and needed no sequel.<br /><br />Thus I was surprised when I heard about Fay Grim. Fay was not one of the main characters of the first film and seemed to exist more as the troubling imposition of real-world vanity and ignorance for her brother Simon to be forced to deal with as he matures. In her own movie, Fay matures herself, though her maturity takes a very different road. Simon went from near autistic isolation to a merely somewhat-introverted genius. Fay starts her adult journey as an immature, utterly normal, spoiled child and responds to the onslaught of ridiculous circumstances by becoming a mature, utterly normal, experienced adult who holds no advantages. She deals with problems the way any human does, with determination, a little thought, and weary disdain. While Simon learned to control his mind, Fay learns to control her emotion.<br /><br />The movie contains several fondly remembered elements of its prequel, but differs vastly in tone for most of the film. Henry fool showed you a harsh, boring, ignorant world which contrasted with Simon's inner passion and creativity. In Fay Grim, the world is a lively, crazy, emotional place which shows the silliness of her young life, and through contrast unearths the inner wise woman which had not been previously developed or nurtured by her similarly weak mother.<br /><br />The movie is in two parts, the first dealing with the beginning of Fay's struggle and subsequent hardening due to authoritarian hostility, and the second dealing with her battle to soften only just enough to regain Henry. At first, fans of Henry Fool may find themselves wondering how the movie can even be considered a sequel, and thinking it is profane to follow such an intense film with spy game antics and physical comedy. But this is where the subtlety of Fay Grim lies. The sequel is about Fay's journey, and as I said before, hers is one of finding the life-giving sanity in chaos, not the creative chaos in staid order. Parker Posey is an excellent actress who captures Hal Hartley's tongue in cheek humor perfectly. Elina Löwensohn perhaps eclipses her in emotional commitment to the role, allowing Parker to play both straight man and comic against the lively, stage-like comedy happening around her.<br /><br />With the entrance of Henry into the picture, the movie begins to take a sobering turn. Hal Hartley's movies are all plays, and every play must come full circle. By the end, you are shown Fay's newly developed character and integrity are the offspring of her time with the fatally intense Henry, whose piercing honesty and unique passion lights a spark in anyone he meets.<br /><br />Fay Grim is an excellent movie which does not surpass Henry Fool, but shows through Hal's range that the nuances of his art are the proof of his genius.<br /><br />Honestly, I think anyone who bashes this movie not only missed the point by a mile (and especially the subtlety in Parker Posey's acting), but could not have been much interested the movie Henry Fool.
|
Human pot roast Joe Don Baker (MITCHELL) stars in this dull, unremarkable `action' movie as Deputy Geronimo, a fat, gassy slob who sits around in a stupid looking cowboy suit, listening to country music and eating too many donuts. Meanwhile, a vaguely criminal guy named Palermo (played by the guy who owned the drill in Fulci's GATES OF HELL) stumbles into Joe Don's territory and shoots the sheriff in a poorly edited scene. Joe Don- slowly- gives chase and offs Palermo's brother after uttering his now legendary catch phrase `It's your move. Think you can take me? Well, go ahead on'. For some reason Joe Don, a Texas lawman, must transport Palermo to Italy (`Mr. Palermo's been a major source of embarrassment to the Italian government,' says Mr. Wilson, another vague character played by Bill McKinney, who was in MASTER NINJA 1, SHE FREAK, and a lot of good Clint Eastwood movies). <br /><br />Anyhoo, Joe Don's plane must land on the island of Malta, where Palermo escapes with the help of a briefcase and a guy who looks like Jon Lovitz. And that's where the movie grinds to a halt. For the rest of the movie, Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don keeps looking for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. This is one aggravating movie.<br /><br />At one point Joe Don is thought to be dead at sea. All the other characters wonder if he's dead or not, finally concluding that he is. But then he shows up (he was rescued by a poor family) and no one mentions the fact that he was missing at sea for several days. Even his cute, Julia Louise-Dreyfuss-esque sidekick doesn't welcome him back. She does, however, offer to help him find Palermo, so Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more.<br /><br />Highpoints include, a bizarre carnival with strange colorful floats, some sexy strippers, a shoot out involving a kid dressed like Napoleon AND a cart of tomatoes, a chase scene involving a guy dressed like a monk, and any scene without Joe Don. Lowpoints include Joe Don threatening a stripper with a coat hanger.<br /><br />It should be noted that this is from Greydon Clark, director of ANGEL'S REVENGE, who appears as the sheriff. Ick!<br /><br />
| 1,759 |
This is the kind of movie the US doesn't make. It's why people rent foreign films. It's a great story about how one person, even if he is retarded can make a person find reason in an empty life. Everybody can learn from Georges. It also shows how people that are mentally challenged suffer in their life and shows them in a very realistic way (I think). As its classic in foreign films this movie has a bittersweet ending, but that only makes it a better movie.
|
I dug this out and watched it tonight. I honestly think it must be 20 years since the last time I saw it. I remember it being a seriously flawed film. I don't remember it being THIS bad!!!!!<br /><br />I am absolutely aghast that a project with this much potential should have been mistreated so reprehensibly. Who am I to blame for this? The 2 guys who wrote (and I use that word loosely) the script? The casting directors who so terribly miscast at least 3 major characters in the story? (Only 2 of them are among "the amazing 5".) The director, who clearly refused to take it seriously, and kept shoving awful music on top of bad writing & bad acting everywhere? (I LIKED the theme song-- but it should never have been used all the way throughout the entire film!) Don Black, who should be ASHAMED at some of the lyrics he wrote for that music?<br /><br />It figures that I should pull this out, less than a week after re-reading the comic-book adaptation. The first 15-20 minutes of the film more-or-less (really, LESS) parallel the first issue of the comic. As I watched it tonight, I kept wondering-- why was ALMOST every single detail changed? Doc showing up, then using his wrist-watch remote-control to open the safe, and the sniper's bullet missing him by 5 inches because the refractive glass, were just about the only things left the same. I mean, if you're gonna do an "adaptation", WHY in God's name change EVERYTHING???<br /><br />Once they leave Doc's HQ, virtually NOTHING is as it was in the comic (which, given Roy Thomas, I figure probably follows the book). I read somewhere they actually combined elements of 2 different novels into one movie. Again-- WHY? I've heard it was changed because they weren't able to secure the kind of budget they wanted. I look at the film, and think... LACK OF MONEY in NO WAY explains what I saw on the screen!!<br /><br />You know, when people complain about Joel Schumacher, they should really take a look at this thing. The best thing I can say is, I think it would make a great double-feature with the 1966 BATMAN feature-- and probably a great triple-bill with that and the 1980 FLASH GORDON. All 3 films are "silly". Maybe we can "blame" the 1966 film (and TV series) for this. Some fans have complained over the years that Adam West's BATMAN ruined the image of comic-books in the minds of generations of non-comics fans. I think the same could be said for Hollywood. I'm reminded of how many really, really BAD films based on "classic" characters have been made over the years, especially (it seems to me) in the late 70's & early 80's. Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu, Tarzan, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, The Lone Ranger-- all "murdered" by Hollywood types who think, "OH, comic-books! So you know it's supposed to be STUPID!" More like they're the "stupid" ones. What a waste of potential.<br /><br />Let me say some good things... Despite the script and the directing, Ron Ely is GREAT. When I read a DOC SAVAGE story, I don't think of the James Bama paintings, I think of Ely. Bill Lucking (who later was a regular on THE A-TEAM) is terrific. Eldon Quick (who I've seen somewhere else, but can't recall where) is terrific. Paul Gleason-- who I absolutely HATED with a passion and a vengeance in THE BREAKFAST CLUB ("teachers" like the one he played should be banned from ever teaching anywhere), may be the best of the "amazing 5" in the film. Pamela Hensley-- though her part was almost unrecognizable from the original story-- is terrific. Before she let her hair down, I also realized she looked a HELL of a lot like "Ardala Valmar" from those awful John Calkins BUCK ROGERS strips I just read the other day. She's got a big nose like Ardala-- only not quite as pronounced. The comics Ardala actually looked more like the 1936 movie Princess Aura-- or Cher. Or maybe Streisand. Take yer pick. (Ardala actually got plastic surgery in the George Tuska strips-- after, she was stunning!)<br /><br />Paul Wexler, funny enough, I saw just last week in a GET SMART episode. I wonder if he was anything like the character he was supposed to be playing? I don't know, because that character sure wasn't in the movie the film takes its title from.
| 1,760 |
Although there were a few rough spots and some plot lines that weren't exactly true to character, this was Classic H:LOTS. The characters, outside of Mike Giardello (Giancarlo Esposito), were true to form, and the reunion scenes of Pembleton (Andre Braugher) and Bayliss (Kyle Secor) were as deep and well acted as anything ever to grace the small screen.<br /><br />"Homicide: The Movie" aka "Life Everlasting" is a fan flick, but stands on its own as well as any 2-hour episode of the series. Fontana, Overmeyer and Yoshimura did a wonderful job in pulling loose ends from 7 seasons and every major cast member of "the best damn show on television" together for the series finale that NBC never bothered to give it. True to "Homicide" form, there were no happy endings, such is life. That's what has always set this show apart from the mindless cookie-cutter cop shows left on television. Kudos to the writers and the cast for creating something over the span of the series and in the movie that challenged television viewers and producers alike.<br /><br />** I call myself a "Homicidal Maniac" if for no other reason than to keep my co-workers in a cooperative mood. **
|
This movie must be in line for the most boring movie in years. Not even woody Harrison can save this movie from sinking to the bottom.<br /><br />The murder in this movie are supposed to be the point of interest in this movie but is not, nothing is of any interest. The cast are not to bad but the script are just plain awful , I just sat in utter amazement during this movie, thinking how on earth can anyone find this movie entertaining <br /><br />The producers of this movie were very clever. They made a boring movie but hid it well with the names of good actors and actresses on their cast. People will go to the blockbuster and probably see this movie and think, Woody Harrison ,Kristin Scott Thomas and Willem Dafoe this must be good and rent this movie.(boy are they in for a horrible time)<br /><br />If you like getting ripped off go and rent this movie, some people actually did enjoyed this movie but I like to watch a movie with meaning
| 1,761 |
I love this freekin movie! Walsh is a true master of the cinematic form, his film have been sometimes in my opinion, overlooked. But this film is a favourite of mine because it really gives you the feel of the time the film was set in.\<br /><br />All the wonderful characters that existed, the lifestyle, the mode of dress, the way they spoke, OK they might be exaggerated, but it is good to know that there were occasion when two men tried to outdo each other with insane stunts.<br /><br />I just felt it was apiece of history thats should be wathced by many people and appreciated because of that fact.<br /><br />Can I get it somewhere on DVD? I have only seen it on TV. But for anyone wanting a slice of life movie about that period of time this is the perfect one.
|
This film is easily one of the worst ones I have ever seen. And I don't mean that in a good way. We wanted to see a crappy horror/thriller, so we picked the one that seemed to be the lousiest in the store. For once, the film was everything we'd expected. And more! (or should I say less?)<br /><br />The actors look like they are reading their lines from posters behind the camera. The so-called special effects are created by putting red see-through plastic in front of the camera to give the impression that we are seeing through the eyes of the killer rats. And the script? Don't even get me started on the script... And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it turns out that the first part of the film was Oscar-material compared to the ending.<br /><br />Take it from me, this film is hilarious if you're into crappy horror-films, but if you want a GOOD film, keep on looking. This is not for you.
| 1,762 |
Like other people who commented on "Fräulein Doktor" I stumbled by chance upon this little gem on late-night TV without having heard of it before. The strange mixture of a pulp fiction story about a sexy but unscrupulous anti-heroine on the one hand and a realistic and well-researched portrayal of war in the trenches on the other hand had me hooked from the beginning.<br /><br />To me this is one of the five best movies about WWI (the others are "All Quiet On The Western Front", "Paths Of Glory", "Gallipoli" and the post-war "La vie et rien d'autre"). And the scene with the poison gas attack is really chilling; the horses and men appear like riders of the apocalypse with their gas masks.<br /><br />I only wish I had taped the film.
|
I was utterly disappointed by this movie. I had read some of the other reviews here and had much higher expectations. I expected a drama with more intense character development. But that never happens in the movie. Daniel-Day Lewis is a good actor, but not as good as some reviewers here would have us believe. I tought he repeated the same set of 4 or 5 movements in the movie. I would rate his performance 6 out of 10.<br /><br />Acting: 6 out of 10 Direction is 5 out of 10. Script is the worst: 2 out of 10. <br /><br />I deleted the movie from my DVR at 70 mins. into the movie. Much better movies out there than this...
| 1,763 |
I enjoyed this film very much.Tobey Maguire gives a terrific performance as Jake. He has got to be one of the best actors I have seen. And I was surprised there were so many humorous lines throughout the film. He was extremely good at this too although I have never seen him deliver a comic line before. The film gets you involved with the characters and really makes you wonder what is to become of them all. I did not know what to expect from Jewel's performance but I think she did rather well. Lots of exciting scenes. A thoroughly good ride. I am absolutely a fan of Maguire's. Check out Cider House Rules. One of the all time Best Ever.
|
And a self-admitted one to boot. At one point the doctor's assistant refers to himself as Igor.<br /><br />Working with the increasingly plausible idea that computers could be used to replace or reconstruct brain functions, this movie doesn't spend enough time exploring the premise. Most of the screen time is split between girlfriend-in-a-coma domestic strife and chasing down the brain donor's killer. It attempts to be a sci-fi/drama/thriller but fails to deliver on any of the three.<br /><br />As a Frankenstein remake this one is missing everything that made the original good. Nobody calls the doctor insane or even threatens to kick him out of the hospital. The transformation scene consists of a coma victim opening one eye and the amazing computer that makes it happen isn't even shown. When the experiment works there is no praise, and when it starts going wrong there is little reaction.<br /><br />Any suspense over who the killer might be is shattered by progressively showing him in the same room with all of the possible suspects. Finding the killer is as easy as opening one file and interviewing one person.<br /><br />San Francisco as a setting is both overplayed and underused. The opening sequence hammers home the point that this is happening in SF, a cable car plays a significant role, the leads live in a hilltop Victorian, Pier 39 makes an appearance, and the final showdown happens at Golden Gate Park. More specifically along ten feet of cliff side at the park - just enough to keep the bridge in the picture at all times. Once the obvious scenery bases are rounded no other attempt is made to explore the city.<br /><br />The acting is the only saving grace here. Keir Dullea shows a good range and pulls off a couple of genuinely emotional scenes. Suzanna Love portrays recovery from a coma well. Tony Curtis only gets a handful of lines and twice as many evil guy stares with most of the Frankenscience explained away by his assistant. The little blond kid hits his cues fairly well also.<br /><br />I also gave it one extra star for the scene where the husband drives south from the bridge, it cuts to a U-turn in an unrelated parking lot, and then he's instantly back on the bridge driving north. It takes a whole lot of something - bravery, ignorance, deadlines - to try and slip that one by the viewer during the one single car chase.
| 1,764 |
I am currently on vacation in Israel for summer, and so was able to see this incredible film. A bit of a warning before I begin writing: I speak fluent Hebrew, and so the Hebrew parts were no problem; however, about a quarter (a bit less) of the film is in Arabic, and I was unable to understand a bit of this subtitled bit. This did not detract from my understanding of the film, but did cause me to miss a few jokes which evoked some strong laughs in the theater.<br /><br />After a year of American Cinema which many hailed as one of the greatest years for homosexual cinema and relationships, it takes something truly special to stand head and shoulders above the rest; yet, "The Bubble" surpasses all others with its blend of excellent acting, witty dialogue, and relevant political climate.<br /><br />The film opens on a checkpoint on the Israeli-Palestinian border; For the first few moments, we are unsure about the type of movie we have walked in on. Yet, this is an important element of this film's strength. The political situation, and the extreme tension in the air is constantly in the background. Most importantly, Tel Aviv serves as a character of its own in this film. It is constantly referenced. Street names and restaurant names are constantly exchanged. The skyline and city development is critiqued quite harshly, and ultimately the city evolves along with the film The film focuses on the love between Noam (Ohad Knoller) and a Palestinian immigrant, Ashraf(Yousef 'Joe' Sweid), with the societies of Tel Aviv and Palestine serving as a constant foil. We always know that their relationship is forbidden, and this creates a sense of urgency rarely present in cinema. The love is incredibly strong, and stands as the centerpiece of the film. The secondary relationships and friendships are equally strong: flamboyant restaurant owner Yelli's ( Yousef 'Joe' Sweid) relationship with the ultra-butch and grating golani solider, Golan (Zohar Liba), is particularly a source of amusement. The love scenes which abound in this film are all exquisite, fine crafted works of art, and the cinematography is astounding: In the first love scene of the film, the camera pans down as a male character gives oral sex to Lulu (Daniela Virtzer), and dissolves into a shot of Noam and Ashraf. This shot any many others lead the viewer to realize that all of these relationships are expressions of the very same form of love.<br /><br />To give away more of the storyline would be a tragedy, but know that there is a lot of political tension and tragedy which touches onto the current world political climate, so I will instead focus on the witty dialogue. Even when watching this movie in my second language, I could not stop laughing throughout. Lines of particular amusement include the question of whether gay suicide bombers receive virgin women or men in heaven, and an analogy of Sampson from the bible as the worlds first suicide bomber. This dialogue shows a particular sense of purity and reality which is rarely seen in Cinema. The music used in the film is also particularly powerful. Music is only used in times when characters legitimately could or should be listening to it, and in one scene the music weakens when a character removes one earphone and stops when he removes the other. Little elements like this truly elevate the film.<br /><br />I could not give greater recommendation to a film; this is a superb work of cinema which is catharthic as well as extremely well crafted.
|
Manoj Agrawal after the failure of PARDESI BABU(1998) returned with this film<br /><br />The film has Govinda in 8-9 roles, as his father, mother, grandfather, sister and later-on he also has disguises <br /><br />He in short is a useless detective send on a case by his friend to get proofs against his wife, whose photos he looses at the airport while flirting with Rani<br /><br />He disguises as a Sardarji in the plane and again as a girl The funny part is how easily and in short time he does that?<br /><br />Then he disguises as a french singer and enters a TV to get proofs lol and then as a maharashtrian(yes inside the TV itself) <br /><br />The rest of the film has the same mistaken identities and ends on a predictable note There are some funny scenes like Govinda being bashed by an African and also many other portions <br /><br />Direction by Manoj Agrawal is okay Music is okay<br /><br />Amongst actors Govinda again proves he is one of the most watchable actors He as usual is fantastic though he has done such roles before he fits in all the get ups and roles too well here again though the much hyped 6-7 roles don't actually fit in the film Rani looks fat, teams up well with Govinda thatz it She is nothing great and kept doing such type of roles Amongst rest Nirmal Pandey is as usual Johny Lever is too loud at times and funny in places in 1 role and irritates as the older Tinnu Anand is okay Satish Kaushik is hilarious, Paresh is okay Tanaaz is okay
| 1,765 |
This has to be, hands down, hats off, one of the most uproarious comedies ever made. Starting with the animated blowing, popping bubbles, the entrance to the Daytime Awards, the usual phony drivel spewed by the stars on the red carpet, the rehearsed and badly acted acceptance speech, the venomous comments uttered by the actor's jealous co-stars and producer, under phony smiles. Now THAT is only in the first few minutes. Then, all hell breaks loose from there and it only gets more frantic and ridiculous. Ridiculous in a good way, no, make that a great way. This was the first time I'd seen the always charming Teri Hatcher. While I may not be a follower of Desperate Housewives, she herself is always watchable - same goes for Lois & Clark. Not a huge follower, but if I run across an episode I'd watch it. Robert Downey, jr., does a great turn as slimy, smarmy, snaky, sycophantic David Seaton Barnes, the producer who'd give his right eye to see Sally Field's Celeste Talbert leave the show, if only to finally get to get it on with Cathy Moriarty's Montana Moorehead.<br /><br />Moriarty absolutely shines in this movie, just as she had everywhere else she's appeared. Here, all she has to do is scream "I HATE YOU I HATE YOU YOU CREEP!" or give one of her anti-Celeste-co-conspirators an evil grin, and she has me rolling in the aisles. Yes, Cathy Moriarty is a very gifted actress, and one hell of a comedienne. Sally Field gratefully departs from the usual 70-MM-sized Lifetime Tragedy of the Week movies, and we're all reminded why she is who she is today, having started off in comedy afraid of nothing. Her ensuing years of drama had hidden her sense of humor, but like a caterpillar in a cocoon, the brilliant comedienne she is had blossomed and it was joyous to see her as hilarious as she was. The thing with dramatic actors and actresses is that you see in such heavy, serious roles, that you associate them with their character and you can't believe it when you see them finally having some fun on screen.<br /><br />How lucky were the producers to land Carrie Fisher, if only for a glorified cameo. She doesn't realize what a presence she bears on screen. She takes a role which, in the hands of a lesser actress, could easily have been forgotten, but she owns the character and it seems as if she wrote it herself.<br /><br />How lucky was Elisabeth Shue to get thrown in the middle of all this! At the time, she wasn't really known for much. Adventures in Babysitting was kind of cute (yes, I was dragged to an evening show for which I had to pay full price), but she didn't hold my attention - - much. But here, she makes the most of her character - star's niece who falls in love with the star's ex-co-star-and-lover who, of course, turns out to be the niece's father, and the star turns out to be the poor girl's mother.<br /><br />I'll stop there - I feel I practically wrote a book about this brilliant screwball comedy, or at least a novela. If you've seen it, then reminisce. If you haven't, you've missed a real classic, but not really. The DVD's are made of a material that'll last for at least 25 years, and this movie is timeless, so what the hell.
|
This movie sucked ! They took something from my childhood ,and raped it in an outhouse! This movie was so bad I wanted to go home and hold my "Dukes" dvds and cry in a corner. The cast was terrible ! It wasn't "The Dukes", it was Stiffler and Jackass driving a car. When was Boss Hogg evil? When was Rosco a tough guy? They never were ! Boss Hogg was greedy and Rosco was an idiot. When did Jesse smoke pot? He never did ! Now don't get me wrong,I'm very liberal and there's nothing wrong with a little chiba, but it had no place in this movie! The only thing good about this movie was the trailers before the movie and the end credits. It was a waste of money time and air. Avoid at all costs!!!!!!!!
| 1,766 |
Superb. I had initially thought that given Amrita Pritam's communist leanings and Dr Dwivedi's nationalist leanings film will be more frank than novel but when I read the novel I was surprised to find that it was reverse.<br /><br />Kudos to marita Pritam for not being pseudo-sec and to Dr Dwivedi to be objective. This movie touches a sensitive topic in a sensitive way. Casualty of any war are women as some poet said and this movie personifies it. It is also a sad commentary on Hindu psyche as they can't stand up against kidnappers of their girls or the Hindu Brother who can only burn the fields of his tormentor. On the other hand it also shows economic angles behind partition or in fact why girls were kidnapped in the first place. I think kidnappers thought that by kidnapping girls they Will become legal owners of the houses and thus new govt. will not be able to ask them to return the houses. This apart one has to salute the courage of characters of Puro and her Bhabhi they are two simple village girls unmindful of outside world and risk everytihng by trying to come back after being dishonored . Because there are many documented cases when such women were not accepted by their families in India.<br /><br />No wonder that it required a woman to understand the pains of other women.
|
We see a body of dead girl in a morgue with the coroner trying to close the eyes of the girl, but whatever he tries they won't stay open. After this we move into the future and we follow a group of former school friends who hide a terrible secret, but suddenly they start getting picked off one by one in many grisly ways. Through flashbacks we learn of this awful suicide of a shy girl who was trying to be one of the group, but she was shut out by them because they dug up her past and found out some weird occurrences. So, is she back from the grave seeking revenge? <br /><br />Oh what a great and always spooky story! Well, that's what I hoping I could say. And 'hoping' was as good as it got. This is an forgettable, so-so supernatural horror flick that I actually watched before, but I went in thinking it was my first viewing. So to my surprise it hit me when I started picking up on certain things, but like I said it's quite a forgettable mix that it felt like a first viewing again. "Nightmare' is just another type of it's field that adds a 'few' changes to the gruel. Oh, please give me something that's a bit more fresh. It doesn't have to be entirely original, but this is one formulaic and at times quite tired J-horror flick. Even though it strings along the usual ghost story involving you guessed right
an evil looking, vengeful chick spirit.<br /><br />But in spite of my negativity of it being the same old, same old story and jolts. This one kind of entertains when its being grisly and popping in some creepy visuals. The deaths are vividly displayed with bite and some originality. While, the gloomy atmosphere alienates the audience with it's murky lighting. The first scene involving the spirit terrorising one of the girls is one blood-curdling experience, but really when it's not trying to shock you. I found it rather coma inducing and I thought about getting some shut-eye. That might be harsh, but it just didn't go anywhere of any interest between those shock moments. You could say that because the supposed mystery is really not much of one, the unsure story is just simply flat and the characters are a self-centred bunch that you don't really care what happens to them. The disjointed story should have focused more on the spirit than that of these bland characters who have one unconvincing group relationship. It just overplayed its cards by becoming overly muddled and taking too long to get going that when it comes to the climax it's just plain ludicrous. The film's haunting ending is a high point, though.<br /><br />The film looks fine, although it could have done without the snazzy, quick fire editing and the music score was a bit overbearing in playing up the mood. The performances tread a fine line, but Gyu-ri Kim is strong in the lead role.<br /><br />It's nothing new and it shamelessly steals ideas, but if you can look past that it delivers some nasty thrills. Although, I found the handling of it rather lethargic, despite the odd effective chills. A standard effort all round I guess, but still it's equally missable.
| 1,767 |
I found this very touching as Spike and Heaton stay together all the way through this film not to say there isn't a few betrayals along the way. I thought the chase was put aside the relationship between the two was foreground I think. I had already guessed that there were so gay intentions on the part of Heaton. My favourite scene had to be the bit where Heaton and Spike were stuck in the marsh and Spike runs off I generally thought Spike wasn't coming back. I have to say that if it wasn't for our film studies teacher making us watch this I would have probably never seen it. Overall I thought this film was pretty good and I would recommend it to any person who is a fan of British made films.
|
To quote the film, "It's better not to know. Better still to forget. Best of all to be abandoned." Oh, the irony.<br /><br />A ghost story with all the technical refinements of a Hollywood horror film, but horrifyingly bad dialogue after the first quarter of the film, and you feel like you're being preached to from the start.<br /><br />It's as if the writers' cumulative character dialogue can be summed up by bad cop TV and a Jerry Springer show. Fitting, maybe, for a film like The Hitcher, not a Russia-set horror film. The result is that a potentially great setting and some potentially great gore scenes go to waste and become just silly, not scary or meaningful.
| 1,768 |
I came home late one night and turned on the TV, to see Siskel and Ebert summarizing their picks of the week. I didn't hear anything about "Red Rock West", except two thumbs up and see it before it went away. It wouldn't stay in theaters very long because of the distributor's money problems and lack of promotion, but they said it deserved better.<br /><br />The next afternoon, I followed their advice. They were right, it was some of the most fun I have ever had at the movies. As some readers point out, there are a few plot holes and the last 10 minutes don't ever seem to end. But it's well worth it, for the fine craftwork that went into the first hour. It's the best role that I have ever seen for Nicholas Cage, but almost everybody seems perfectly cast. Dennis Hopper goes almost over the top, which gets silly but reinforces how well everything else works. The sets and the music contribute a great deal to almost every scene.<br /><br />When I rented it later for my family, it didn't work as well. The long scenes that built the tension in the theater were difficult to appreciate, with the distractions at home. It deserves your full attention; turn off the phone, make sure you won't be disturbed, watch and listen to every scene, especially in the beginning.
|
Leonard Maltin compared this film to a Mel Brooks comedy. He was far too kind to Ms. Rivers, and far too cruel to Mr. Brooks. Not even the raunchiest Mel Brooks films are this tasteless, and at least they're genuinely funny. This picture deserves a place on the hundred-worst list.
| 1,769 |
I've seen this film in avant-premiere at Imagina Festival in Monaco.<br /><br />I saw the first trailer four years ago, and from this moment, I was waiting to see the final result. I haven't been disappointed.<br /><br />It is a full 3d movie with a high contrasted black and white render. Clearly inspired by some comic books, such as the ones from F. Miller. In this optic, it goes one step further than the excellent "Sin City" adaptation from R. Rodriguez. This time, (almost) no Grey or any middle color, but a graphic style never seen before in a realistic animated film.(can't wait for scanner darkly)<br /><br />The massive use of Motion Capture gives a lot of life and credibility to the characters and we forget really soon the technical aspect to concentrate on more classic elements, such as direction or plot. The direction stays sober and controlled despite the infinite possibilities of the medium, and that is a really good surprise.<br /><br />The futuristic story (Paris 2053) makes it a classic sci-fiction movie and maintain the viewer interested till the end. Despite a classic base plot (an investigation that goes far beyond initial expectations)the atmosphere and some interesting recurring themes (genetics, absolute power of certain firms...)gives this movie a great interest.<br /><br />Despite it is an animated film, this one is obviously not made for children. You won't find here any funny pet or any stupid family moral, only the cold reality. It is far closer to a good film noir.<br /><br />I found that the setting is one of the best aspect of the film: we still feel the well known Paris, but it is morphed by a fine touch of futurism.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I regret a few mistakes. The montage is sometimes a bit flat, one or two very cliché slow motion effects and some poor dialogs. Even though the technical is excellent, it shows its limits in some romantic sequences (a bit like "final fantasy" did). Those little things makes it a 7/10.<br /><br />Altogether, it is a successful artistic challenge that you have to watch if you can. The director, Christian Volckman, knows how not to fall into potential traps (luckyly, they didn't ask John Woo to do the job!).<br /><br />To conclude, it is a film with blasting visuals, an intelligent story and a wonderful art direction. Watch it if you can!<br /><br />Please excuse me for the spelling mistakes.
|
In a word, this film was boring. It lacked life and spark. A big problem is with the two leads. Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow had no chemistry whatsoever. He was boring, and she was annoying. <br /><br />The visuals were interesting, but they didn't enhance the scenes. If anything, the visuals tended to detach the audience from what was happening on screen. None of the action sequences felt real, and hence, the film failed to create any real drama or a sense of danger.<br /><br />The film had potential, but it needed a better script, better acting, and a better director. I kept thinking during the film, you know, this movie would've worked if Harrison Ford was Sky Captain, Karen Allen was Polly, and Steven Spielberg was the director. <br /><br />Ignore the critical acclaims for this film. The critics I think are praising the film because they *want* to like it and want it to succeed even though it fails on so many different levels.
| 1,770 |
Episode two of season one is a delightful holiday tale of love, betrayal,...and a homicidal, escaped lunatic dressed as Father Christmas.<br /><br />A woman (Mary Ellen-Trainor)has just murdered her hubby on Christmas Eve for his life insurance. What begins as a perfect crime begins a struggle to survive as a deranged, Santa Clause suit wearing psychopath (Larry Drake, perfectly over the top) threatens her life...as well as her precious young daughters.<br /><br />This episode is warmly remembered by even those casually acquainted with the program. By the way,this particular reviewer watches it every Christmas on routine. Most notable for it's escalating suspense and narrative twists, And All Through The Houst is among Tales From The Crypt's best.
|
Hearing such praise about this play, I decided to watch it when I stumbled across it on cable. I don't see how this "elivates" women and their "struggles" by focusing on the topic at hand. I guess if you have an interest in stories about women's private parts and how it affects their lives, then this is for you. Otherwise, it's rather dull and boring. If anything, I found it a bit degrading.<br /><br />I inquired with a female friend who also watched this and she thought it was horrible as well. So, it's not just a guy "not getting it".
| 1,771 |
one of the funnest mario's i've ever played. the levels are creative, there are fluid controls, and good graphics for its time. there's also a multitude of crazy bosses and enemies to fight. Sometimes the levels get frustrating, and if you leave out some of the hard levels and still, need to get more accomplished to fight a boss, it can be annoying. another complaint is the camera angle; though it works fairly well most of the time, it can be a pain in certain situations. if your a big time mario fan; this ones for you. even if your not a huge fan of him, i'd still recommend this one. its a big game, and getting what you need can take a while, but it's very satisfying. good for playing in short bursts of time. it will almost certainly hold your interest; it sure does hold mine!
|
This movie displayed more racial hatred of Jews by David Mamet than I have<br /><br />have ever encountered in an American film. The sterotypes are so over the top that my ability to continue watching died. I was so disappointed at Joe<br /><br />Mantegna calling a bunch of men ,sitting in a New York Jewish center cleaning weapons ,heros that common sense prevailed and I stopped. I am deeply<br /><br />disturbed at the concept that Jews are not Americans and "different". I suggest that Mr. Mamet is one of the causes of hatred not a healer of same.
| 1,772 |
Peter Sollett has created an endearing portrait about real people living in poverty in the Lower East Side of New York, or Loisaida, as it's known by the locals.<br /><br />Mr. Sollett's heart is in the right place as he examines this dysfunctional family, that is typical of the different 'inner cities' of the country. Mr. Sollett accentuates the positive in the story he presents. These are basically good kids, the children of parents that have left them and whose grandmother has taken under her wing. <br /><br />Instead of presenting his characters as losers, Mr. Sollett shows a positive side they all have. These kids are not into drugs, or are stealing because they are poor. Had this story been done by Hollywood we would have seen a parade of stereotypes, instead of children that are struggling, but deep down inside, they are not defeated.<br /><br />Victor Rasuk, as Victor Vargas, was a revelation. He is a natural. So is July Marte. Her character shows us a no nonsense girl who will not be fooled or driven to do anything she doesn't want to do. Altagracia Guzman, as the grandmother is excellent. She conveys her frustration at not being able to steer her grandchildren into the things she believes in and that are so important to her. <br /><br />All in all, this was an excellent picture thanks to Peter Sollett.
|
I might have given this movie a higher rating before Peter Jackson's trilogy came out, but seeing the two of them side by side there is simply no comparison. The pace of this movie is rushed, many important scenes from the book are left out, and there is little character development. The animation is a strange mixture of traditional cartoon drawings and live action scenes that were painted over, which I found distracting. And the most disappointing thing about this movie is that it breaks off in the middle of the story and was never finished. There are some good points- the battle scenes are exciting to watch, and the dialogue follows the book pretty much to the letter. Watch this one if you're in a hurry and can't spend 10 hours watching the new trilogy. But if you haven't read the book you'll probably be confused, because there is a lot missing from this version. 4 out of 10.
| 1,773 |
An unmarried, twenty-something hick (played by John Travolta) leaves the farm and goes to Houston, where he learns about life and love in a Texas honky-tonk. At face value, it's a modern love story ... Texas style. There's gobs of cowboy hats, pickup trucks, neon beer signs, and references to big belt-buckles and rodeos. The music, if not Texas native, is Texas adapted, courtesy of the talents of Mickey Gilley, Johnny Lee, and the Charlie Daniels Band. And that Texas twang ... "y'all".<br /><br />The story and the characters are about as subtle as the taste of Texas five-alarm chili made with Jalapeno peppers. It's enough to make civilized viewers abort the film in favor of a genteel classic, one starring Laurence Olivier or Ingrid Bergman, maybe. "Hamlet" it's not. But "Urban Cowboy" is spicy and explicit, and I kinda like it.<br /><br />Technically, the film is generally good. The dialogue, the production design, and the costumes are all realistic; the editing is skillful. And both the casting and the acting are commendable, if not Oscar worthy. I would not have cast Travolta in the role he plays, but he does a fine job ... ditto Debra Winger. Barry Corbin and Brooke Alderson, among others, are good too, in support roles. But, the cinematography seemed weak. The film copy I watched was grainy, and at times suffered from a reddish/orange tint, a visual trait I have noticed in other films from the same time period.<br /><br />At first glance, the film does not seem to offer any social or political "message". But I would argue that when "Urban Cowboy" was released twenty-five years ago, it had rather prophetic implications. In 1980 the U.S. had all kinds of problems, not the least being American hostages held by Iran. In the minds of a lot of folks back then, the U.S. was being pushed around, bullied.<br /><br />This film, along with others of its time, offered something that Americans wanted to see in their political leaders ... toughness. "Urban Cowboy" is a very physical film. The characters in it may not be the brightest people on Earth. But, they're tough!<br /><br />Everything about "Urban Cowboy" is anti-intellectual. As a vehicle for cultural expression then, this 1980 film was one of several that augured a new get-tough era for the U.S. It started in 1980 with the election of Reagan. And that era continues to this day, with a President who probably will not be remembered for his intellect, but will be remembered for his toughness and aggression, traits that Americans seem to gravitate to as surely as Texans to five-alarm chili.
|
Occasionally one is served a new entrée from foreign films. That is their great attraction. They take from life and serve it up raw. American films, rarely dare to touch the forbidden subjects of society. Too many hang-ups and a morbid fear of financial failure. The Almighty dollar, determines their selections. Something which invites European directors. In addition, audiences world wide remain hungry for "different" films, especially those which offer a savory bite out of the wretched, suffering body of humanity. Despite the fear of directors or producers, many audiences yearn for beauty, poetry, and the pristine flavor of life. That is what the film "To the Left of the Father" offers to curious audiences. A family locked in the belief that unity of family stems from the unity of it's obedience to tradition. Yet when the patriarch of a family forgets it's members are flesh and blood humans, filled with raging, unbridled dreams and dark passions, then the two are set in motions against itself. Selton Mello plays André a son who seeks to control his inner passions with the stagnant philosophy of his father. Raul Cortez plays his Father. Simone Spoladore is Ana a young woman who seeks to quench a forbidden thirst from the family waters. Leonardo Medeiros is Pedro, the elder brother. The film offers much, but does takes an extremely inordinate amount of time to say it. ***
| 1,774 |
"Convicts" is very much a third act sort of film. All the dialogue and character interaction that occurs within it comes out of the long wind-down of a late southern day. And, by extension, the life of its main character, Soll (Robert Duvall).<br /><br />This is the first collaboration of director Peter Masterson and writer Horton Foote. Six years earlier, the worked together on "The Trip to Bountiful", a film that seems almost action-packed in comparison to this one. Masterson is not necessarily a good director. In fact, he's just barely this side of adequate. The slow pace leaves a lot of room for cinematographer Toyomichi Kurita, who infuses the film with just the right sense of fragile light & warmth.<br /><br />Because this is essentially a filmed play, with little in the way of editing or directing prowess, it all comes to the acting. As far as I'm concerned there's no flaws here. Robert Duvall and James Earl Jones, two of the best American actors (both born in January 1931), create characters that are wholly real, uninterested in anything besides living. Lukas Haas, a young actor who I was familiar with from "Testament" and "Witness", plays a character very much like his other early roles. He is quiet, withdrawn, slightly scared and sad, somehow. These are qualities that seem natural from him.<br /><br />Perhaps a title like "Convicts" is a disservice to this film. That title, along with the opening scene, seem to create an image of a far more high-strung western type picture. If slow-paced stage productions don't interest you terribly, you'll want to pass on this one as well. Otherwise, this might be exactly the film you wish they made more often.<br /><br />Enjoy.
|
I saw this movie literally directly after finishing the book, and maybe that was a neutral idea or a very stupid one. I think it was the latter. First of all, it was inaccurate in many small, yet important details. One of the first things I noticed was, during Winston's day to day life in his work, his conversations, eating in the cafeteria, etc. he feels free to look unhappy and make suggestive glances at people without immense fear. One of the most important parts of the book, was that even in small activities it was virtually impossible to safely show even a hint of his true emotions on his face AT ANY MOMENT. This is also shown in the scenes on the streets of the proletarions. In the book Winston knew that this was a huge risk to wander around there and was skeptical and frightened at every trip. While in the movie, he does it so often and without fear, that you lose the important feeling of heavy surveillance and risk right off the bat.<br /><br />Other minor inaccuracies included Winston hiding his diary in the wall, yes a very small change, but it begs the question, what's the point? There was also the most annoying thing a director can do with a book, and that is morphing characters.<br /><br /> The large inaccuracies were far more disturbing, however. First of all, one of the important pieces of the book is that Big Brother is a government based on an intelligent, yet crude philosophy. In the movie, they skip that and go straight to making you think that the government is run by Hitler with technology. Which is true, in a sense, when directed with its facism, but if that's all you get out of Big Brother, you really missed the point of the book. The terrifying thing about Big Brother is that, in a way, it has some points behind its philosophy. When O'Brien is picking at Winstons mind in the Ministry of Love, he is LISTENING to everything Winston says against Big Brother. The fact that he listens, and advances forward in his philosophy, is in effect what is most creepy and intriguing. In the end, (careful SPOILER ahead) when Winston says he loves Big Brother, the terrifying thing is that you are not sure whether it was souly the beating and torture that caused this, or the actual power behind the philosophy. I am in no way saying that the Big Brother's philosophy has points that appeal to me, but its intelligence and depth is what makes this book incredibly disturbing.<br /><br /> Also, how could anyone feel any connection between Julia and Winston in the film? It was awful, no connection whatsoever.<br /><br /> And where was O'Brien before he gave Winston his address? One of the things that carried the book was Winstons thoughts about O'Brien BEFORE he made contact with him. In the movie, they just jump the gun.<br /><br /> But that about sums up why this movie was a terrible adaption: because its impossible NOT to jump the gun and morph characters in less than two hours. How could anyone think this movie was watchable if it was under two hours? At the very least, the movie demands 3 hours to be able to capture some of the important moods and connections. Anything less is just pointless.<br /><br />If you loved the book, and I mean TRULY adored it, you will not approve of this movie, and chances are, you already knew you wouldn't. Because the book is unfilmable, and this movie just proves how impossible it is cram something decent into a small reel of film.<br /><br />Two stars out of ten
| 1,775 |
I didn't expect much from this, but I have to admit I was rolling on the ground laughing a few times during this film. If you are not grossly offended in the first ten minutes, this might be a film for you. Ditto if you are the type that would enjoy watching Amanda Peet shuffling cards for an hour and a half. It's certainly not a momentous work of comedy, but given the low-budget indy genesis this is masterful. To level the playing field for comparison, imagine all of the studio films with their budgets slashed by a factor of 100 or so and see what you get! Kudos to Peter Cohen and his network for seeing this through. I look forward to his next effort.
|
The Hamiltons tells the story of the four Hamilton siblings, teenager Francis (Cory Knauf), twins Wendell (Joseph McKelheer) & Darlene (Mackenzie Firgens) & the eldest David (Samuel) who is now the surrogate parent in charge. The Hamilton's move house a lot, Franics is unsure why& is unhappy with the way things are. The fact that his brother's & sister kidnap, imprison & murder people in the basement doesn't help relax or calm Francis' nerves either. Francis know's something just isn't right & when he eventually finds out the truth things will never be the same again...<br /><br />Co-written, co-produced & directed by Mitchell Altieri & Phil Flores as The Butcher Brothers (who's only other film director's credit so far is the April Fool's Day (2008) remake, enough said) this was one of the 'Films to Die For' at the 2006 After Dark Horrorfest (or whatever it's called) & in keeping with pretty much all the other's I've seen I thought The Hamiltons was complete total & utter crap. I found the character's really poor, very unlikable & the slow moving story failed to capture my imagination or sustain my interest over it's 85 & a half minute too long 86 minute duration. The there's the awful twist at the end which had me laughing out loud, there's this really big sustained build up to what's inside a cupboard thing in the Hamiltons basement & it's eventually revealed to be a little boy with a teddy. Is that really supposed to scare us? Is that really supposed to shock us? Is that really something that is supposed to have us talking about it as the end credits roll? Is a harmless looking young boy the best 'twist' ending that the makers could come up with? The boring plot plods along, it's never made clear where the Hamiltons get all their money from to buy new houses since none of them seem to work (except David in a slaughterhouse & I doubt that pays much) or why they haven't been caught before now. The script tries to mix in every day drama with potent horror & it just does a terrible job of combining the two to the extent that neither aspect is memorable or effective. A really bad film that I am struggling to say anything good about.<br /><br />Despite being written & directed by the extreme sounding Butcher Brothers there's no gore here, there's a bit of blood splatter & a few scenes of girls chained up in a basement but nothing you couldn't do at home yourself with a bottle of tomato ketchup & a camcorder. The film is neither scary & since it's got a very middle-class suburban setting there's zero atmosphere or mood. There's a lesbian & suggest incestuous kiss but The Hamiltons is low on the exploitation scale & there's not much here for the horror crowd.<br /><br />Filmed in Petaluma in California this has that modern low budget look about it, it's not badly made but rather forgettable. The acting by an unknown (to me) cast is nothing to write home about & I can't say I ever felt anything for anyone.<br /><br />The Hamiltons commits the cardinal sin of being both dull & boring from which it never recovers. Add to that an ultra thin story, no gore, a rubbish ending & character's who you don't give a toss about & you have a film that did not impress me at all.
| 1,776 |
Trick or Treat, Quickie Review This zany romp of a film revolves around the 80's culture of Heavy Metal and horror movies--two things which I love dearly. So, as you can imagine, this movie appealed to me pretty easily. Plus, for no apparent reason, Ozzy Osbourne plays a preacher.<br /><br />This film is about an unpopular high school youth who, like all us losers, ended up drenched in a world of "evil" Heavy Metal. His favorite Metaldude dies and, of course, is miraculously resurrected--by playing his latest unreleased album backwards. This allows the corpsified singer to go around killing people with demons and sh*t helping out.<br /><br />Okay, it's pretty cheesy at times, but you know what? It's got a surprising number of good qualities. Decent acting (including Gene Simmons as a radio DJ), pretty good special effects, very brief nudity, decent atmosphere... All in all, it's actually a decent horror film. But what really sucks is the music. Ironic, huh? Well, this "uber-evil" Metal guy is one of the most obnoxious, high-pitched, wailing, Motley Crue rejects on the planet--and the "Metal" is little more than putrid 80's Pop/Hair Metal. He hits all the cliché's here, from prancing around like a gay fairy, to looking mean, to screaming "Rock and Roll!!!" in a pitch high enough to make King Diamond retch. Aside from that atrocious musical representation, it's actually pretty good. 7/10<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com
|
Creepshow 2 had a lot of potential, they just didn't put enough time in perfecting it. The stories were pretty cool and creepy enough, but it was lacking. It's a good movie, but after you've seen it once, you might want to see it again. This movie could of been better.
| 1,777 |
A surprising rent at a local video store, I was pleased to find a media satire worthy enough to challenge Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers." And almost as disturbing. I think it went well with my viewing to be in late 2004 watching the Republican Machine do it's magic on the majority of America's television viewing populous. It brings up the question "Are we really that manipulative?" <br /><br />It definitely skewed my view. There was also a larger theological question being provoked- the story of Christ. Could word of mouth and overwhelming dependence on something exploitive as television produce a messiah? Could the story of Christ been exaggerated? Could it have been completely fabricated? It's something the movie puts in a extremely perceptive light.
|
While not as bad as his game-to-movie adaptations, this hunk of crud doesn't fare much better.<br /><br />Boll seems to have a pathological inability to accept that he doesn't make good movies. One of these days he'll run out of money and stop inflicting the world with his bombs.<br /><br />The acting was sub-par, the dialog sounded like they were reading TelePrompTers and Boll's special little 'touches' were seen throughout the whole thing.<br /><br />Like all Uwe Boll movies, this one just shouldn't exist.<br /><br />Plain and simple.<br /><br />Just like Uwe Boll himself shouldn't exist. >_>
| 1,778 |
I've recently watched this movie, in a lazy Sunday afternoon, with some friend of mine and we have a lot of fun! This movie is a masterpiece of trash. Try to watch it with this purpose! It hadn't been expected, of course, but the performance provided by the actors (and Alberto Tomba is absolutely the best), the weak script and the low-cost budget had created an amazing mix of foolish things. Tomba was just retired from alpine ski racing, where he was a dominant technical skier in the late 1980s and 1990s. Tomba won three Olympic gold medals, two World Championships, and nine World Cup season titles. Seriously about the director: nobody knows why Damiano Damiani he has signed this movie. All the other Damiani's directions are considerable.
|
This is the first film of the Horrorfest I have watched and after Im almost thinking I don't need to see any of the others. I was told its a "thinking mans horror movie" and have to say that if this was supposed to make me think I shutter to think what the splatter/gore films in the collection will be like. Don't get me wrong not even the gore in this film is worth sitting through.<br /><br />The plot is very washed out with way too much art for arts sake. The camera effects and music are out of place most of the time and the characters are banal to say the least. Several characters and scenes seem worthless in the end when they start to reveal some of the hooks of "The Hamiltons". I figured out who Lenny was about half hour in when I figured out the movie. I was so visually under whelmed and confused by the Lenny reveal that I completely felt ripped off. I expected what I got but they could have gone so much further, in fact all the gore falls completely flat. With movies out there like "Hostel" and "Saw" you need to come a little better for a film that is "considered to graphic or too disturbing for general audiences".
| 1,779 |
Well i do disagreed with the other comment posted. Piedras is much much better them Magnolia or any of the other films that were mentioned.<br /><br />specially about non real characters, i think that someone just wrote that only because he never lived in the Spanish society like i did (and i'm not Spanish), is a very real film with real characters, very well done by one of the best Spanish actress Antonia San Juan.<br /><br />about be a European film in contrast with an American film, well we different societies, personally i dislike American modern films a lot (i like the classics and some of the Andy American films but they are very few).<br /><br />Is a film about the continuous Constitution of a person, liked or not we all make mistakes but some can learn about the mistakes.
|
I would of enjoyed this film but Van Damme just does the same old same old rubbish time after time. Poo knickers fight scenes as per usually. The only thing this loser left out was the Russians normally end up being killed in the end. This film is utter doggy do do of the highest nature, please please please Van Damme get some acting lessons, you need them. Anyone who likes Van Damme has issues, It seems sad that the only way Van Damme ever gets any acting work is when he co writes the film, co produces the film and does the screen play for the film. AVOID VAN DAMME AND HIS SLICKED BACK NASTY WIG. I give this film a two out of ten, because the one with the the sandman was better. To add insult to injury I wasted a quid on this manure
| 1,780 |
Melissa Joan Hart shines! This show is amazing!! There is no match. Except for maybe Melissa in Clarissa Explains it All. She was marvelous in that, too. This is SO much better than Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. This show is WONDERFUL!
|
Shiri Appleby is the cutest little embodiment of evil turned good girl demon-kicking Buffy clone, Elle. But I'm getting ahead of myself, you see Lilith was the first woman made by god as a companion to Adam. But she got all uppity evil feminist so god banished her from Eden. A clandestine order known as The Fath captures her but doesn't kill her, so now with amnesia (which is not really explained that well) Lilith (now Elle) is free to become the aforementioned Buffy-clone who has to battle with a mad scientist who got an injection of Lilith's blood. <br /><br />If the previous paragraph sounded hideously convoluted, that's because it is. The movie is also dull, generic, and for a film with a plot steeped in theology it doesn't seem to know a lick about it. This bargain basement lousy-CGIed movie was apparently a failed series pilot. All I can say to the fact that it didn't get picked up is a resounding Amen.<br /><br />My Grade: D-<br /><br />DVD Extras: Commentary by Writer/Director Bill Platt and Co-writer Chris Regina; and Stills gallery; video effects samples: before & after (it also has an "also available" selection that you would THINK would lead you to some trailers, but nope on DVD covers for other films, which is a stupid idea)<br /><br />DVD-ROM extras: Final shooting script and Deleted scenes transcript both in PDF format
| 1,781 |
I enjoyed the cinematographic recreation of China in the 1930s in this beautiful film. The story is simple. An older male performer wants to pass on his art to a young man although he has no living children. The faces of the actors are marvelous to see. The story reveals the devotion and gratitude of children to those who treat them well and their longing to be treated well. The operas in the film remind me of FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE, which was more sophisticated and intricate. The story here reminds me of a Dickens tale of days when children were almost chattel. The plot is a bit predictable and a bit too sentimental for me but well worth the time to view for the heroism, humanity, and history portrayed.
|
During the first 3 seasons Fairly Odd Parents was as tasty as hard candy, bright and sweet and addictive. Now it's as tasty as Pepto-Bismol. And unfortunately Pepto-Bismol is what you'll need after viewing the more recent episodes, where all the sweetness has been replaced by insults and violence resulting in no laughs. Cosmo, once one of the more endearing Nick characters, has devolved into an abusive unfunny cretin that the cast of Family Guy wouldn't even want to know. Timmy has become a selfish arrogant jerkwad that Bart Simpson would happily beat the snot out of (and given Timmy's snottiness, that would take a lot of beating). And poor Wanda...a real charmer who's become the victim of her husband and godchild, she's now labeled a "nag" for caring about the well-being of others. Plus Cosmo's stupidity causes pain to everyone else but he's never punished for it, nor does he learn any lessons. Which pretty much sums up Butch Hartman's attitude towards kids: they're crude, vulgar and not too bright. Thank god this crummy toon has been cancelled, along with Butch Hartman's darling, Danny Phantom. At least Butch got what he deserved - unlike Cosmo.
| 1,782 |
"Cinema is dead, long live the cinema!" said Peter Greenaway, one of the most innovative and productive contemporary directors, at the last year's Romanian film festival Anonimul, which got to the third edition and takes place in the Danube Delta. This year the direction prize went to Jafar Panahi's "Offside". I got to see it this evening in Bucharest at the festival's retrospective. Cinema is dead but still very lively. Panahi's film tells in a compelling manner how Iranian society looks. Digitally filmed, "Offside" is a story inspired by a real-life event happened to Panahi's daughter: the trouble and risk took when decided to attend a football match. This is forbidden in Iran as we are informed. What Panahi manages to do is to render with few means, but with, probably, a lot of work, intelligence and humor the cultural patterns in a society that places women at a distinct level. The absurdity of the laws becomes comical. The film has a happy end, after all because Iran's team goes to the World Cup. What I appreciated most was the concept, the idea behind this film. I would be very interested to see Panahi's other films that were forbidden in Iran as well. I guess that he can be thought as an activist director.
|
I'll be short and to the point. This movie was an insult to any one with a room temperature IQ. Sorry liberals, feminists, etc. No women will ever be a Seal. They can forget about the draft or being in combat too. Ain't going to happen. You see, hard as it is to understand or accept, men and women are physically different.Regardless of the fact it is 2007,reality cannot change things in order for people to avoid having their feelings hurt. Men can't give birth or breast feed babies( Oh-I forgot about San Franfreako ).<br /><br />Women lack the physical strength to be on par with men in a combat or other physically challenging situations. How many women play in the NFL or NHL? Lastly, I couldn't give a bloody hoot in hell if what I just wrote upsets you.Come to think of it - if this does upset you that only warms my heart more. I didn't write one thing that wasn't the truth. This imbecilic movie is nothing more than a comedy and a lousy one at that.
| 1,783 |
A movie made for contemporary audience. The masses get to see what they want to see. Action, comedy, drama and of course sensuous scenes as well. This is not exactly a movie that one would feel comfortable watching with entire family. It isn't for eyes of children. I had to fast forward quite a number of scenes.<br /><br />If it is just entertainment you are looking for, then this movie has it all. The songs are catchy. A lavish production, I must add.<br /><br />However, the message of the movie is not universal. It emphasizes on the idea of karma. That is, if you do good, you will get good. And if you do evil, you will get evil. The fruit of good deeds is good, while the fruit of evil is evil. <br /><br />In real life, this is not always true. It is well-known that most people do not get justice in this world. While it is true that some evil people do meet with an evil end, there are many who escape. And then, there are many people who do good, and yet in return they meet with a sorry end.<br /><br />If you don't care about the message, and all you want is an escape from worldly reality, this movie is an entertainer alright.
|
I picked up Time Changer because it looked like a nice low-budget scifi time travel movie and I was in the mood for something like that. The description said it had something to do with some biblical stuff and time travel but I didn't expect a fundamentalist Christian film!<br /><br />The movie had decent special effects and an interesting premise that could have gone places and been far more interesting than it ended up being. Our hero, who is a bible professor from the 1890s, eventually travels forward to the 2000s and finds that modern life is filled with the influences of evil - Jesus is nowhere to be found. This wonderful technological feat is accomplished with the assistance of a fellow bible teacher who somehow managed to invent a functional HG-Wells-style time machine. The movie starts to lose some credibility at this point, which is unfortunate because this happens very early in the film. Earlier (or perhaps immediately later, can't remember for certain), our hero professor was seen teaching what appeared to be a science class where he claimed that scientific findings could only be considered validated if it could be matched with what the bible says. What should be obvious to anyone is that this is clearly not what the scientific method is about, however it is presented such that the filmmakers appear to prefer the point of view that science is useful only if it supports their claims and otherwise is not useful.<br /><br />In any case, that belief is perfectly valid and sensible in the context of the character at the time. So, if we accept that as the fact of life for these bible professors, then obviously the professor who went and invented the time machine isn't a very strong believer as I don't think there's any evidence (and none was offered) for the physics of time travel in the bible. So immediately there's a problem with mixed messages and credibility there, but never mind...<br /><br />After the professor is convinced to take the leap into the future, the shock of modern technology was handled quite well in most cases. It was also fun to not have it pinned down to an exact year (as the character is reading the date off a newspaper to himself, a car honks a horn and it scares him into not finishing the date: it's just two thousand and... *honk*). Some of the shock went on a little too long, though. For instance, the car was one of the first things he encountered when he arrived and around two days later he's invited to a church movie night and takes a ride in a van. He sticks his head out the window like a dog might, is scared by the headlights and the starting engine, etc. That seemed a bit off since he'd been there a few days by this point and the city appeared to be quite busy with traffic. In any case, that's easy to ignore. The rest of the tech shock was well done - especially his first encounter with the TV which was delayed because he didn't even realize what it was until he saw a kid watching one and using a remote.<br /><br />Unfortunately, our hero predictably starts to preach to virtually everyone he meets as if he's an authority on all life and religion just because he's from the past and is an elder. Eventually he gets himself a brief moment in the spotlight at the church he had been visiting where he proceeds to explain his concept of Christianity to them in a long monologue that was supposed to be moving and insightful, but mostly was just more of the same. A couple of husbands in the church begin to get a funny feeling about this guy (go figure) and investigate his name. They eventually conclude that he either is a time traveler or is impersonating this long dead bible professor and decide to find out which it is. The movie frames these guys as non-believer bad guys for being skeptical.<br /><br />Just before the professor is to head back to his own time, he is confronted by those two men. In an effort to avoid being arrested or hauled away, he eventually breaks into an almost insane-like rant about how Jesus is coming soon and that he's a prophet so they should listen to him. Just in time, he's whisked away and one of the husbands wonders if perhaps this is the rapture he'd heard so much about.<br /><br />The irony is that this essentially means the professor became a self-proclaimed (and most likely false) prophet claiming to know that the rapture was near and he was sent by God when truthfully he was sent by his fellow bible professor and did not have any God-given knowledge (that was stated or even hinted at).<br /><br />As I understand it, Revelation claims that the time of the end is only for God to know and at the end of the film we see the inventor professor trying (and failing) to send a bible into the future. First 2080, then 2070, etc. as the scene fades out. Clearly he's trying to determine the exact date of the end times - which he shouldn't be able to know! Essentially, the entire premise of the movie cancels itself out because by being so insistent on their religious beliefs and how certain things are for God to know only, it means there couldn't ever BE a time machine in the first place because then mankind could find out something that only God should know! The entire movie's premise collapses and makes the whole thing basically worthless as it undermines it's own credibility in the end.
| 1,784 |
Henry Fool surprised me. I didn't expect it to entertain and amuse as well, or as strongly, as it did. Fay Grim continues to surprise in that it provides solid continuation to a story that seems not to need it. Once the viewer watches the first 20 minutes of the movie, however, it becomes blindingly aware that this is one of the BEST sequels to brilliant indie film. At least as good as Ginger Snaps Back, if not better.<br /><br />I am a little disappointed that Jeff Goldblum's part is so small, but I'm happy he is a part of this short run. He is convincing and delightful as Agent Fulbright. Also a delight is Liam Aiken who quite aptly portrays Ned Grim, the son of Fay and Henry.<br /><br />This movie is a pleasure for so many reasons. I am pleased, for example, to discover that Henry isn't really the loser he seems (by the end of Fool), and to further discover that he is, in fact, a genius...well, that really is a lovely stroke of the pen.<br /><br />I am hoping they do a third...like the end of the trilogy. It seems to be missing. They should entitle it Ned Fool Grim and it should be Liam looking for his father, to validate the awesome change in his mother, and the sense of near-genius he himself feels welling inside him. Assuming, of course, that Fay continues withholding many of the most important facts from her son, concerning his father. It feels like it needs to be done. I'd buy it.<br /><br />Even with more action, this is still not an action flick. It is more drama and intrigue...a mystery, of sorts. I'll watch it often.<br /><br />It rates an 8.3/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
|
This film is really ONLY Bill Maher's interpretation of religion. There are several funny moments, and some interesting points, but don't go into this expecting an even-handed discussion of religion. This is what I consider to be the worst kind of documentary - Everything is arranged ahead of time and in editing to provide you with the opinion of the director, rather than letting you make your own decision.<br /><br />EDITING - It's very chopped up, inter-spliced with clips from pop culture and the media to reinforce the point. The interviewee barely has a chance to finish a sentence before he is interrupted by the editing. The only people given a fair chance to speak their mind are those who say what Bill Maher wants them to say. Once someone deviates from the gospel according to Maher, they get edited.<br /><br />INTERVIEWEES - They are meant to represent the absolute MOST extremist religions. From the TV evangelical to the ultimate Jewish stereotype, to a TRUCK STOP chapel (Seriously. A TRUCK STOP CHAPEL). He's picked the worst money-grabbers, the heavy extremists, and those who don't have the budget to say no to pick on. And when he does get a good person to interview, he edits the hell out of them.<br /><br />STEREOTYPING - All religions are portrayed as stereotypes. Especially hard hit are the Muslims. During the Muslim segment, he barely gives anyone the chance to speak before interrupting them either himself, or through editing in pieces with suicide bombers. ALL Muslims are portrayed as gun-toting extremists through the editing, and none of the people interviewed is edited fairly.<br /><br />ENDING - The message at the end is INCREDIBLY heavy-handed, and while it is an interesting idea, it's not presented with fairness to the countless people who are not religious extremists. Bill Maher explains himself while clips of destruction play in the foreground. This literally gives the message that religion is stupid and dangerous, and that it will destroy the world. He also states that everyone involved in religion is stupid.<br /><br />With the faults to the film, it has some good points, and the humor, while very unfair, is actually funny. But know going in, it is a very one-sided view, Bill Maher's view, of religion. He's not discovering anything. He's telling you what he thinks.<br /><br />4/10 - Some good moments, but heavy-handed with an extremely irresponsible documentary style.
| 1,785 |
In this film we have the fabulous opportunity to see what happened to Timon and Pumbaa in the film when they are not shown - which is a lot! This film even goes back to before Simba and (presumbably) just after the birth of Kiara. <br /><br />Quite true to the first film, "Lion King 1/2 (or Lion King 3 in other places)" is a funny, entertaining, exciting and surprising film (or sequel if that's what you want to call it). A bundle of surprises and hilarity await for you!<br /><br />While Timon and Pumbaa are watching a film at the cinema (with a remote control), Timon and Pumbaa have an argument of what point of "The Lion King" they are going to start watching, as Timon wants to go to the part when he and Pumbaa come in and Pumbaa wants to go back to the beginning. They have a very fair compromise of watching the film of their own story, which is what awaits... It starts with Timon's first home...<br /><br />For anyone with a good sense of humour who liked the first films of just about any age, enjoy "Lion King 1/2"! :-)
|
I went to school with Jeremy Earl, that is how I heard of this movie, I don't really know if it was in the theater's at all. I don't recall the name. I have seen it, it is like one of those after school specials. The acting is OK, not great. The plot was kind of weak and the lines were pretty corny. So the only comment I can give this movie is "Eh" I borrowed the movie from Jeremy, if I was in a movie rental place, this is one that I would walk past and after watching it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone past middle school age. I've also noticed that many times when urban kids are portrayed, the slang is overused or just outdated. Many times I think thats what makes their characters unbelievable.
| 1,786 |
I saw this at the theater in the early 1970's. The most memorable and scary scene is when the German army attacks with yellow cross mustard gas for the first time. The Germans and their horses are covered from head to toe (or hoof) with eerie protective suits. The experienced British soldiers don gas masks (only) and once again await the clouds of gas and the German attackers. The gas clouds move ever closer, finally enveloping the British defenders. The Germans move forward slowly menacingly in their scary looking garb. Suddenly a scream from the defenders... This gas is like no other that they have experienced before.... <br /><br />Now you will know why I have remembered this scene for the last 30+ years and still shiver, I think that you will too!
|
It's terrific when a funny movie doesn't make smile you. What a pity!! This film is very boring and so long. It's simply painfull. The story is staggering without goal and no fun.<br /><br />You feel better when it's finished.
| 1,787 |
<br /><br />"Burning Paradise" is a combination of neo-Shaw Brothers action and Ringo Lam's urban cynicism. When one watches the film, they might feel the fight scenes are only mediocre in nature but that doesn't matter, it's attitude and atmosphere that counts. This great film has both!! Always trying to be different than his contemporaries, Lam gives us to traditional heroes(Fong Sai-Yuk and Hung Shi-Kwan)and puts them in a "Raiders of the Lost Ark" setting. However, these are not the light-hearted comedic incarnations that you might see in a Jet Li movie. Instead these guys fight to the death with brutal results. What makes the film even better is that anyone could die at anytime, there is no holding back. Too bad, they don't make films like this more often.
|
this movie begins with an ordinary funeral... and it insists so hard on this ordinary funeral feel that i lost interest within 5 minutes of watching, and started skipping scenes. it seems to me whomever made this movie is afflicted to the extent of becoming trapped in a permanent morbid trance, unable to contemplate anything else but death and destruction. well, i ain't one of the dark kids from Southpark, i want a movie that within 10 minutes gets me well into an interesting story, i won't sit and watch 10 minutes of nothing but preparations for a funeral.. my grandma on her last years was fascinated by funerals, perhaps she might have enjoyed this "movie".
| 1,788 |
While the original 1932 version, with Preston Foster, was good, there's no remake more worthy than this 1959 one, or more impossible to find anywhere, just as I strongly suspect Mickey Rooney to have had something to do with that. Never could a mere performance have ever been so masterfully brilliant, or a script more thought-provoking, as well as an improvement upon the original. Many years after the last of my several viewings of this film, in 1970, I read an article in which Mickey Rooney was recounting a visit he'd made to death row, and which had apparently very drastically eliminated whatever sense of personal identification he'd felt with people in similar circumstances. The article was about as short as the main character here, and didn't cover much, other than the extent to which his extreme disillusionment with the quality of the inmates themselves had been emphasized, even in language I would not care to explicitly quote here. . . . . One of my main problems with capital punishment is that, of course, it is not evenly, impartially applied, just as many innocent people are far-too-carelessly, thus unnecessarily sent to meet this particular fate. Another problem I have with it is that it is not applied swiftly enough, or, for that matter, even publicly enough! The bible makes a special point, in such cases, about one of the more important purposes of such, as a deterrent, being ineffectually obscured, minus, not only a public viewing, but also the direct participation of all! As for those who claim to prove, statistically, that such is not an effective deterrent? In addition to having a problem about the reliability of their data, I have little if any objectively disprovable doubt many are behind bars now due to the extent that such a deterrent is lacking. However, I do have a problem about the fact that Robert Duvall, in The Apostle, had been punished at all, for his particular "crime," or that the only hope of leniency for one such as he would have to be based on a "temporary insanity" defense, as though that would serve as the only acceptable excuse in his kind of case. . . . In addition to various other questions concerning the motives of Mickey Rooney for that particular visit he'd recounted, and about the answers to which I can only try to speculate, I suspect the main one had been of a decidedly religious nature. I don't know exactly when he'd become the professing Christian he now makes it a special point, whenever possible, to emphasize that he is; but, as anybody should be well-aware, this particular category of people tends to be the most vehemently out for blood, when it comes to extracting an eye for an eye. However, I have no particular bone of contention concerning that, per se, just as there's no doubt, scripturally speaking, that not all, and perhaps not even most, shall be spared the same ultimate fate, at the hands of the Lord Himself, as a result of His sacrifice on the cross. However, there is a problem, for me, about the spirit or attitude with which most professing Christians emphasize their enthusiasm for capital punishment; for, contrary to the Lord Himself, who would love to see everybody saved (Ezekiel 18:32) (II Peter 3:9), they seem to go vindictively out of their way to find reasons to condemn! . . . What most people, on either side of this superlatively ever-burning issue, cannot appear to sufficiently appreciate, is that the Lord is as dynamically and elusively soft in nature as He is hard. The two sides of His nature appear to be so inherently incompatible as to render Him mentally deranged, at least by any strictly human reckoning. Yet, regardless of how harrowingly ungraspable this miraculously dynamic blending of the water and oil in His nature surely is, there can be no doubt that anything short of it, or anything fanatically and characteristically on either one side or the other of this equation, falls inadequately and unacceptably short of the entire judicial truth. Indeed, I've seen the most blood-curdling thirst for the same come out, self-contradictorily enough, on far-too-many occasions, whenever the categorically anti-death penalty advocates are confronted, even in the most rationally well-balanced ways, with the fact that, although the Lord died for everybody, not all are thereby going to be saved. After-all, in order to receive absolution, one must, to repeat the same term, reach out and receive it, that is, repent (Luke 13:3-5). Could anything make more sense? . . . But, then, what about the Lord's command to forgive, even in the case of one's enemies, of those who despise and persecute you without a just cause or provocation? One of the far-too-prevailing difficulties with this kind of sentimentality, as popularly misinterpreted, is the way it obscuringly over-simplifies the real meaning of forgiveness. The act of forgiveness does not, in itself, mean the same thing as unconditionally excusing the one being forgiven. When one takes a clearly sober, rationally well-balanced view here, from the perspective of God's own attitude, all it actually amounts to is a fervent wish that the one forgiven will ultimately succeed at finding his way, seeing the light, and being granted mercy. This attitude is, of course, the very opposite of, say, that of Jonah, who actually resented it when God told him that his preaching to the people of Nineveh would result in their repentance. Jonah didn't want them to repent, but vindictively desired that they be destroyed. How self-righteously, cold-bloodedly like unto most professing Christians he was, save that even his reasons were undoubtedly better than most! I envy Jonah almost as much as he would me! However, minus the repentance of the one being forgiven, any forgiveness he may receive from a genuine Christian is not going to do him any good. In such a case, the only one to benefit is the real Christian himself!
|
"They Are Among Us" is poor science fiction at best. Mediocre acting bogs down this film. The plot holes are numerous. Aliens that somehow came to earth on a meteor and have been hiding among us for over 100 years, but need a plastic surgeon to make them appear human. In their alien form they supposedly have exo-skeletons (which is why they need the plastic surgery) but when you see them they have teeth and fingernails. The heroine's father "disappeared" after Project Blue Book closed, but was supposedly an F-16 pilot. And on and on. If you want to see an alien invasion movie, pick "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", and see how it is done right.
| 1,789 |
The only part lacking in this movie is Shue's part as the daughter wanting to follow in her "aunt's" footsteps as a daytime soap star. Otherwise it would be a perfect 10.<br /><br />It seems that every actor enjoyed their parts and overacting to fulfill their own enjoyment as well as the script - I have to wonder if a little ad lib'ing wasn't taking place in parts. It was well cast and there are some classic lines that will stick with you.<br /><br />It's a fantastic movie everyone should see at least once. I'd recommend not drinking anything that would sting coming out your nose.<br /><br />You'll definitely want to watch the last scene closely, 'Nurse Nan' has a little secret she'd rather not have shared with you.<br /><br />If you love daytime soaps or despise them, this move pokes fun in all the right places.
|
The only redemption was the small part by Larry Miller. It seemed that the movie was trying too hard to be "Something About Mary," but I didn't even like that movie and it still fell short of those standards. The actor who plays Paul was great, but Selma Blair is stuck in the stupidity of her Cruel Intentions character. James Brolin was great, but Paul's father seemed like he was trying too hard to be the Randy Quaid character from the National Lampoon's Vacation movies.
| 1,790 |
This movie is a must for all people that enjoy soccer as an art. What strikes first about this movie about a soccer world cup is the way it is filmed. Besides following the play like a TV broadcast, there is generous footage dedicated to follow individual players in the games. This brings forward the emotions and situations these men go through as they attempt to reach glory. Today's TV broadcasting style, so different than that of 1986, is still inferior in quality compared to this movie.<br /><br />The players are not the only stars. The audience, the referees, the journalists covering the matches and the environment itself all play a central role in the development of what today is history. In this movie you can see how all these factors play together in a very explicit way. In that regard, today's TV broadcasting style has not yet reached this level of quality, although it is now much closer than before.<br /><br />There are several highlighted players: Maradona (Argentina), Elkjaer and Laudrup (Denmark), Francescoli (Uruguay), Platini (France), Lineker (England), Rummenigge (Germany), Butrague#o (Spain), Socrates (Brazil), and Sanchez (Mexico).<br /><br />This movie is not a collection of the best soccer moves of Mexico 1986, although most of them are well covered. Across all the movie, there is a stress for presenting several aspects of the game and the competition itself based on the progress of these players and teams, even at the cost of skipping relevant plays of the games themselves. This is what makes this movie so interesting and unique.<br /><br />Because of what happened because of referees during Mexico 1986, much of the comments about this movie and world cup are extremely Maradona-biased. Much of these comments do not take into account that there is a referee and two linesmen, that they are as human as the players, and that all of the abovementioned make mistakes one way or the other. Soccer rules do not allow referees to use TV based replays to make decisions, so for the most part referees have to decide on what they perceive. As a consequence, referees play an active part in the development of a game. Their influence can be seen in several parts of this movie.<br /><br />The sequel movie for the 1990 World Cup, compared to this one, is just a source of bitter disappointment. Much of it comes from the fact that it became too involved in the game, whereas this movie tells things from a more distant, unbiased point of view.
|
...this would have been what you got.<br /><br />Words alone cannot describe how bad this is. If you're having trouble sleeping pop this in and I guarantee you'll be out in fifteen minutes.<br /><br />Robert Lowery was a pretty good actor in the 40s-- but he's phoning it in here. In an interview, Johnny "Duncan" Robin said that in one scene he and Batman had to run from the car to the house and that Lowery was doubled over out of camera range because his girdle was too tight! Duncan himself looks more like a motorcycle hood than a boy wonder-- in fact he's more like a guy in his thirties waiting for Lowery to kick off so he can wear the big cape.<br /><br />Driving a Batmobile that looks like it rolled off Honest Al's Used Car lot at below sticker price-- the Dynamic Duo don't put a lot of effort into hiding the fact that it's Bruce Wayne's car they're driving-- in fact it's noted by several characters throughout the serial.<br /><br />The acting is wooden-- the sets are cheap-- the dialogue is horrendous and if there was even a script they were following I'm sure it read along the lines of "Batman says something here" because it certainly seems like they're making it up as it goes along.<br /><br />Batman's Utility belt is made out of thin fabric with no apparent pouches to hold his gadgets-- in one scene when Batman needs a full size blow torch the producers just tuck one in as the scene starts-- never to be seen again. His cowl is so bad he can't even see out of it and his ears look more like flopsy mopsy the disgruntled easter rabbit than they do anything batlike.<br /><br />In one scene (I am not making this up), Batman substitutes counterfiet radioactive money that will burst into flames the second it is exposed to air as a payoff to some hoods. It's radioactive so he can trace it-- the reason it's so highly flammable isn't explained. Well, unfortunately the thugs open the package in a cardboard warehouse-- we know it's a cardboard warehouse because Batman sneaks in and pushes these boxes that look to weigh about six ounces on the hoods to knock them out-- and soon the whole place burns to the ground. Thanks Batman!<br /><br />In another scene after the Batmobile is disabled, Batman flags down a passing motorist in the middle of nowhere and takes his car-- leaving the man to fend for himself and telling him not to worry because if Batman smashes up the car the police will surely buy him another one! Yes, you guessed it, said car careens off a cliff within a few short seconds. Not that it matters much to the motorist who has probably died from exposure trying to hoof his way back to Gotham City.<br /><br />There is a tired subplot with Lois Lane clone Vicki Vale who is convinced Bruce Wayne is Batman-- she must have noticed the Batmobile parked outside of Bruce's house-- or maybe she saw Batman and Robin running up the walk in the clearly densely populated suburban neighborhood.<br /><br />Everything about this serial is bad-- and all but the youngest in the audience will want to hurl toast at the screen. IF you're looking for bad cinema you could not hit a better mark-- if you want entertainment, try the Burton Batman films, the Adam West Batman TV Series or the earlier Lewis Wilson Batman serial.
| 1,791 |
i've just read the most recent remarks about this movie and i would like to respond. you're probably not familiar with the original story of rap group N.W.A. which dates back to the beginning in 1988, in 1989 ice cube left the band to go solo and ultimately in 1991, the band breaking up when Dr.dre left. which led to a lot of beef starting with the departure of ice cube and dr.dre in 1991. this story was somewhat based on that.<br /><br />further more this movie was a 90 minute laughing spree, the way they explained the bootie juice song to be a political statement was hilarious. not to mention the "love song" tasty was hooking up. and when vanilla sherbert got his ass kicked, just like the record company executive is also hilarious and having they're managers getting shot every time too.<br /><br />people who didn't enjoy this movie probably didn't get it or were complete idiots, my opinion
|
What starts out as an interesting story quickly disintegrates into nothing. Don't bother watching to the end hoping for an explanation of what is stalking the visitors, there is no ending. No explanation, no resolution, zip. This could have been a good movie it they had purchased an entire script.
| 1,792 |
If there was anything Akira Kurosawa did wrong in making Dodes'ka-den, it was making it with the partnership he formed with the "four knights" (the other three being Kobayaski, Ichikawa, and Konishita). They wanted a big blockbuster hit to kick off their partnership, and instead Kurosawa, arguably the head cheese of the group, delivered an abstract, humanist art film with characters living in a decimated slum that had many of its characters face dark tragedies. Had he made it on a more independent basis or went to another studio who knows, but it was because of this, among some other financial and creative woes, that also contributed to his suicide attempt in 1971. And yet, at the end of the day, as an artist Kurosawa didn't stop delivering what he's infamous for with his dramas: the strengths of the human spirit in the face of adversity. That its backdrop is a little more unusual than most shouldn't be ignored, but it's not at all a fault of Kurosawa's.<br /><br />The material in Dodes'ka-den is absorbing, but not in ways that one usually finds from the director, and mostly because it is driven by character instead of plot. There's things that happen to these people, and Kurosawa's challenge here is to interweave them into a cohesive whole. The character who starts off in the picture, oddly enough (though thankfully as there's not much room for him to grow), is Rokkuchan, a brain damaged man-child who goes around all day making train sounds (the 'clickety-clack' of the title), only sometimes stopping to pray for his mother. But then we branch off: there's the father and son, the latter who scrounges restaurants for food and the former who goes on and on with site-specific descriptions of his dream house; an older man has the look of death to him, and we learn later on he's lost a lot more than he'll tell most people, including a woman who has a past with him; a shy, quiet woman who works in servitude to her adoptive father (or uncle, I'm not sure), who rapes her; and a meek guy in a suit who has a constant facial tick and a big mean wife- to those who are social around.<br /><br />There are also little markers of people around these characters, like two drunks who keep stumbling around every night, like clockwork, putting big demands on their spouses, sometimes (unintentionally) swapping them! And there's the kind sake salesman on the bike who has a sweet but strange connection with the shy quiet woman. And of course there's a group of gossiping ladies who squat around a watering hole in the middle of the slum, not having anything too nice to say about anyone unless it's about something erotic with a guy. First to note with all of this is how Kurosawa sets the picture; it's a little post-apocalyptic, looking not of any particular time or place (that is until in a couple of shots we see modern cars and streets). It's a marginalized society, but the concerns of these people are, however in tragic scope, meant to be deconstructed through dramatic force. Like Bergman, Kurosawa is out to dissect the shattered emotions of people, with one scene in particular when the deathly-looking man who has hollow, sorrowful eyes, sits ripping cloth in silence as a woman goes along with it.<br /><br />Sometimes there's charm, and even some laughs, to be had with these people. I even enjoyed, maybe ironically, the little moments with Rokkuchan (specifically with Kurosawa's cameo as a painter in the street), or the awkward silences with the man with the facial tics. But while Kurosawa allows his actors some room to improvise, his camera movements still remain as they've always been- patient but alert, with wide compositions and claustrophobic shots, painterly visions and faces sometimes with the stylization of a silent drama meant as a weeper. Amid these sometimes bizarre and touching stories, with some of them (i.e. the father and son in the car) especially sad, Kurosawa lights his film and designs the color scheme as his first one in Eastmancolor like it's one of his paintings. Lush, sprawling, spilling at times over the seams but always with some control, this place is not necessarily "lighter"; it's like the abstract has come full-throttle into the scene, where things look vibrant but are much darker underneath. It's a brilliant, tricky double-edged sword that allows for the dream-like intonations with such heavy duty drama.<br /><br />With a sweet 'movie' score Toru Takemitsu (also responsible for Ran), and some excellent performances from the actors, and a few indelible scenes in a whole fantastic career, Dodes'ka-den is in its own way a minor work from the director, but nonetheless near perfect on its own terms, which as with many Kurosawa dramas like Ikiru and Red Beard holds hard truths on the human condition without too much sentimentality.
|
I wish I could give this movie a zero, or even lower, because sadly that's what it deserves. I honestly never walk out of a movie, but this one was so dreadfully awful that I couldn't stand another minute of it. Please,please, please- for the sake of mankind- skip this movie. If you want a hot lesbian movie that you can really delve into, this isn't it.<br /><br />It has unattractive, unappealing leads, choppy structure, ridiculous dialog, and it is absolutely unconvincing in every imaginable way. On an absolutely basic level, it fails to entertain. Everything about "Mango Kiss" is so stagey, it is WORSE than any student film I have seen.<br /><br />As if that weren't enough, the entire movie relies on constant (and I mean CONSTANT) voice over narration. The script writer may as well have written a novel, because they insisted on TELLING everything, instead of SHOWING it. We are just supposed to assume that Lou and Sassafras are the best of friends and have a special connection, even though there is no character development to illustrate this. Also, this film continues to introduce to new characters after the first five minutes, and not in a natural way, but in a freeze-frame of the characters with their name written over the screen. There is no introduction, no development of any of the characters. We don't really get to know any of them.<br /><br />This is the most amateur movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />I am a gay woman, who watched this film with my roommate (another gay woman) and we both found this movie to be a depressing representation of queer cinema. I am beginning to think that lesbian and gay movies are a lot like Christian rock - it doesn't matter how atrocious it is, people will still flock to it, and champion it, no matter how poor the quality is. Please don't rent this!! Instead, let's encourage the production of QUALITY gay and lesbian movies by renting "But I'm a Cheerleader" or "Fire" or "Heavenly Creatures", instead of swallowing whatever mindless tripe they aim at the gay community (i.e. Queer as Folk).
| 1,793 |
The way the story is developed, keeps the audience wondering what is the tenant's dark past. We get some clues during the series, but enough to keep us interested in the mini-series. The characters are all believable and I personally felt immersed and surrounded by the story.
|
WOW, this movie was so horrible. I'm so glad i didn't have to pay money to see this horrible movie. it was like a history nut went on a coke binge! the previews of it made it look decent but it was REALLY bad. i will say the idea sounded decent but come on. it was really really bad. If u sat down and thought about it you would also realize it was UNREALISTIC. come on back in the day u think they had all that stuff to work with. It wasn't like ben franklin sat down one day and made a damn riddle. it was completely ridiculous, and it you want to see a bad movie then by all means go see this one. All and ALL HORRIBLE movie it might actually be on my top 10 WORST films I've ever seen.
| 1,794 |
To be honest I watched this movie only because of my pubert needs. I mean, I couldn't get women at my age (I was 9 or 10) so I thought watching Elvira's cleavage was the closet thing to sex.<br /><br />I ended up having a great time with this cult classic about horror comedy, Halloween parties, sassy humor, and some sexy evil displayed by Elvira.<br /><br />They just don't make movies like this anymore... It had the feeling of an amateur effort mixed with a late night cable talk show host style. <br /><br />The truth is that it generated plenty of fans because of it's humor and the ability to perform by Cassandra. <br /><br />This is classic that reminds me of the good days of USA Up All Night.
|
This film differentiates itself from the run-of-the-mill "wonder of the human body" documentaries by bravely, if bizarrely, opting to elicit disgust in the viewer. In one scene, the camera closes in on a gigantic 50-foot zit as a teenager squeezes pus and fluid out of it. In another, the camera is semisubmerged in a swamp of half digested food and stomach acid as parts of a pasta salad drop in from the esophagus and plop into the goo. In a final tour de force, the camera takes the viewer on a harrowing ride through a forest of...teenage armpit hair. Unfortunately, I'm not making any of this up. See this film if you must, but: bring your vomit bag, and don't have pasta salad beforehand.
| 1,795 |
Made in 1946 and released in 1948, The Lady and Shanghai was one of the big films made by Welles after returning from relative exile for making Citizen Kane. Dark, brooding and expressing some early Cold War paranoia, this film stands tall as a Film-Noir crime film. The cinematography of this film is filled with Welles' characteristic quirks of odd angles, quick cuts, long pans and sinister lighting. The use of ambient street music is a precursor to the incredible long opening shot in Touch of Evil, and the mysterious Chinese characters and the sequences in Chinatown can only be considered as the inspiration, in many ways, to Roman Polanski's Chinatown. Unfortunately, it is Welles' obsession with technical filmmaking that hurts this film in its entirety. The plot of this story is often lost behind a sometimes incomprehensible clutter of film techniques.<br /><br />However, despite this criticism, the story combined with wonderful performances by Welles, Hayworth and especially Glenn Anders (Laughter) make this film a joy to watch. Orson Welles pulls off not only the Irish brogue, but the torn identities as the honest but dangerous sailor. Rita Hayworth, who was married to Welles at the time, breaks with her usual roles as a sex goddess and takes on a role of real depth and contradictions. Finally, Glenn Anders strange and bizarre portrayal or Elsa's husbands' law partner is nothing short of classic!
|
I was expecting to love this movie--film noir, serial killer, dark irony. I was baffled by many choices the characters made ("Hey, I know they're creepy looking, but let's hook up for a cross-country road trip anyway!"), found the pacing to be glacial, and the emphasis on moody lighting to take the place of original thought by the director and cinematographer.<br /><br />Thinking about it now, this would have been a much better movie if someone had just run the script through the common sense-o-meter (1992 model) before starting to film...
| 1,796 |
I've been trying to find out about this series for ages! Thank you, IMDb! I saw this as a child and have never quite been able to get it out of my mind. As a 6-year old, of course, I was particularly struck by the episode of the cyclops, which was absolutely chilling (I talked about it so much that my older brother made me a cyclops out of a plastic cave man figurine, which I still have) What I also remember, though, was the atmosphere, which was unusual right from the beginning - mysterious, austere, and extremely authentic. When I read the original many years later I experienced that same sensation. It's a very hard thing to capture - and probably impossible in Hollywood. Every 'Odyssey' I've seen since has been an enormous let-down. The characters in this series seemed genuine, real people - ancient Greek people - and not some Hollywood stars in costumes. This is a real masterpiece! But - Why is it not better known? And why isn't it available on VHS or DVD? I would just love to have the chance to see this again!
|
I must say that I was disapointed with this film. I have never been a huge BNL fans, I find their songs kind of childish and obsessively nostalgic (this is me in grade 9, if i had a million dollars, shoe box of life etc). However, I have seen clips of their live show and I really like the improvisational and goofy nature of the show. I was hoping that this movie would highlight this which is, unfortunately, the most interesting part of the show because their music is well played yet somehow bland and not that compelling (there is a standup bass solo in the middle which was completely pointless and boring, despite how much Jim Creegan was digging himself). The film does not and shows only a few minutes of it (and you know they've had better moments, as in the Afgahnistan concert "Koffee Anan, he's the man in charge, my name's Steve Paige and I'm really large") .<br /><br />BNL are kind of like when I went to Europe a few years ago and heard that godawfull "Blue" song by Effeil 99 or whatever every 2 minutes, I came back to Canada and then a month later that song was all over the place *again*, I nearly chewed off my own arm. BNL is like that, years ago I remember many a fond memory of sitting around campfires in Canada listening to people play "If I had a million dollars". BNL was a cult phenomenon in Canada, and much of their humour has a particular Canadian slant to it (Kraft Dinner is a staple for many students up here, and the name "Gordon" is quintessentially Canadian) a few years went by where they slipped into obscurity and I was somewhat gratefull. Then all of a sudden they become huge in States, and everyone down there thinks they are this brand new band (yeah, they're brand new, but they're all in their 30's!) while the rest of Canada is going "Oh geez, I thought those guys folded years ago, do I have to listen to 'million dollars' again?"<br /><br />The concert footage is not bad, but I would have liked to have seen more of their stage routine, the shooting is not that great, and things like clips from their massive free show in Boston are glazed over much too quickly. The interviews are surprisingly dull for such a funny bunch of guys, I think they're all old and they have families and houses and stuff and have settled down a bit. There are times when they go into Spinal Tap type of material, where they deliver deadpan satire, then they break into laughs and giggles that kind of ruins it. The interviews with Moses Znaimer (a Canadian media mogule) and Terry David Mulligan (Music dude) are extremely pretentious and verge into Tap territory unintentionally.<br /><br />This movie doesn't really document very much either, I mean, it's basically one show and at the start of the film, they are already huge and have a massive touring entourage, it's not like we see them rising from obscurity and "surprise" they are popular, it's a methodically planned out event, so in the end it's rather lifeless, kind of half live concert, half documentary, and not much of either.<br /><br />
| 1,797 |
When a rich tycoon is killed in a plane crash, his spinster twin sister, Martha Craig (Madge Kennedy), doesn't believe he grabbed the controls in a suicide dive (even though self-snuff runs in the family) but his three beautiful daughters couldn't care less. The pilot, Jim Norton (John Bromfield), goes to work for Valerie Craig (Kathleen Hughes) who soon coerces him into helping her wrest control of the estate from her troubled sister, Lorna (Sara Shane) and the family lawyer (Jess Barker). Valerie wants Norton to seduce Lorna when he's not fending off the advances of another sister, the nymphet Vicki (Marla English), but her plans are thrown into a tailspin when Norton falls for his prey. All bets are off as a world of woe -including corporate chicanery, seductions, suicides, blackmail, a murder plot, the Mann Act, double-crosses, disfigurement, and poetic justice- befall "Craig Manor", an imposing mansion on a bluff overlooking the sea...<br /><br />This preposterous potboiler would have made a perfect second feature for WRITTEN ON THE WIND, also from 1956. Douglas Sirk's saga of a powerful (and powerfully dysfunctional) oil clan was said to have inspired the 1980s night-time TV serial DALLAS but the Craig's low-brow excursion into insanity seems right out of it's sinful sister-soap, DYNASTY. All three siblings (only one of whom is really bad) are great beauties but it's Kathleen Hughes' cartoon villainy that stands out. Valerie is relentless in her quest to inherit the family fortune and her unbridled enthusiasm for evil is one of the movie's many guilty pleasures. Teenage sister Vicki is quite a piece of work as well, reminiscent of Carmen Sternwood in THE BIG SLEEP. When they first meet, she pulls the equivalent of trying to sit on Norton's lap while he's still standing by coming on to him with the line "I graduated summa cum laude from Embrace-able U." Whew!<br /><br />THREE BAD SISTERS, produced by schlockmeister Howard W. Koch, is a terrific trash-wallow in exploitation excess and the cast is B-Movie Heaven: Marla "She Creature" English, 50s hunk John "Revenge Of The Creature" Bromfield (once married to French sexpot Corinne Calvet), Universal starlet Sara Shane (discovered by Hedy Lamarr), Jess "Mr. Susan Hayward" Barker, Kathleen "It Came From Outer Space" Hughes, and former silent screen star Madge Kennedy give it all they've got -however much or little that is. Future Eurotrash star Brett Halsey (TRUMPET OF THE Apocalypse) is seen briefly as one of Vicki's victims.<br /><br />B-Movie rating: 10/10 Marla (and her body English) made marvelous movies! THREE BAD SISTERS was recently seen on the big screen as part of the Palm Springs Film Noir Festival but the jury's still wiping soap suds out of ...aw hell, it's noir (5/10 on the noirometer).
|
The only reason I watched the movie till the end was the "hope" to see something interesting. The movie is really bad and the performance of the girl it is really, really bad, honestly, I am not a movie critic neither an expert but you just need common sense to notice that this work it is incredibly bad.<br /><br />The first thing that came to my mind as soon as she started to talk was: "She has an affair with Willem Dafoe and he accepted to help her with the screenplay and appear in her movie since she is the brilliant director"... surprise, surprise, next day after I watched the film I found out on internet that Giada Colagrande is his wife. Awful story and terrible performance.
| 1,798 |
It's a shame that this piece of work wasn't acknowledged as a piece of work. It has everything a historical film must have: a serious historical research, outstanding performances of every actor involved and a discrete but great direction.<br /><br />When I saw the movie I knew it should be a prototype for every biographical movie.
|
Opening scene 'explains' why Hurt is later 'immune' to the 'Contaminated Man'. Too bad it doesn't explain anything else: How did he get whatever he 'caught'/what was it/why does it work so fast. Then we go to "Present Day Budapest". OK, was the opener in the past or the future? It turns out to be the past, of course, but for a minute it looks just as likely to be the nd of the movie moved to the beginning. Sorry, I should have paid closer attention, huh? Or maybe it's just badly done. Then a lot of confusion about the different jobs he's had in related fields, and finally a mention about how he should have died from the original experiment the n s a did on him. Aha! So the n s a and private industry got together to poison one of their top guys to watch the effects? He must have been one of the top guys, he's friends with the c e o of the Chemical company, for God sakes. Then there's the substance itself: Technically a poison, but it mutates in immune 'carriers', so we can have whatever we want; a poison, a disease, an allergic reaction, all very different things in real life. Magically, it's not contagious from one dying victim to another, only from the carrier. How convenient. Then there's the h a z m a t protocol: They jump into a situation without having any idea what's in store, or how prepare for it. Did the producers not have enough money to show a proper wash-down after the crew just left the scene of a deadly unknown substance? I kept thinking Hurt was going to die from bad cleanup technique, and the open scene would turn out to be the closer after all.
| 1,799 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.