review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
My one line summary should explain it all, but I'll have a go at it.<br /><br />From the get-go, this movie seemed like an overdone soap opera, and that's about all I can comment on. There were a few interesting scenes, such as the "Big one" that hit during the middle of the movie, but, wait, what's that? The earthquake *gasp*, wait a minute! That's Dante's Peak! Well, parts of it butchered and slapped in. I can't believe how poorly this movie was done, "borrowing" scenes from other, much better films. One wonders what director thought that viewers are dumb enough to believe large wooded mountain-esque backdrops exist in downtown LA, ala Dante's Peak.<br /><br />My advise, forget the Bond Wanna-be, Nash, in this film and go for the real thing (again, someone from Dante's Peak coincidentally.)<br /><br /> | negative |
Okay okay, I must admit, I do somewhat like Peter Liapis and I'll admit this is not the best Ghoulies sequel. I mean, yeah, it had its flaws, such as NO GHOULIES themselves. But the two Ghoulies that come to earth were really funny, I guess they were called, Dark and Lite. I enjoyed the plot of the movie. And even at the end of the movie both Ghoulies implied that there would be a sequel. Still waiting. lol. Peter Liapis reprised his role as Jonathan Graves, this time playing a detective, how cute! Ghoulies IV may not be scary or suspenseful, but it is definitely funny. I thought I would comment on this movie and just say -- it's not that bad. It is worth watching even though the Ghoulies aren't in it. | positive |
I have always loved the ironic symbolism and brilliant cinematography of Coppola's masterpiece. I was lucky enough to meet Martin Sheen outside the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium one night in 1981, as he waited for Charlie and Emilio to leave a concert. He was very humble about the praise I shared with him for this work of art, especially his portrayal of the young Captain. This is, without a doubt, a must see, a complete 10 and an important part of American Film History. "Charlie Don't Surf". Robert Duvall's famous line (the other one) does not need repeating as it has become an oft repeated anthem and his Pattonesque character will long be remembered as a classic American war hawk in the John Wayne tradition. It is a surprise to see how young Laurence Fishburne looks. | positive |
I sat down to watch this movie with my friends with very low expectations. My expectations were no where near low enough. I honestly could not tell what genre this movie was from watching it, and if it was a comedy, the humor was completely missed. The plot was nonexistent and the acting was horrendous. My friends and I managed to watch approximately 30 to 40 minutes of this film before we turned it off and promptly begged the video store to take it back. I do NOT recommend this movie to anyone unless you are purposely trying to watch the worst movies of all time. I honestly don't know how this film lasted more than a day in theatres and moreover I can not understand why anyone would willing watch it, considering not only it's very uninteresting title but also the lack of any famous actors/actresses in it's cast. This review is not a joke and I honestly think this could possibly be the worst movie ever made. It's certainly the worst movie I've ever had to sit through. | negative |
I don't think this movie was rated correctly. I took my copy and blacked out the PG rating and wrote down R. I would NOT recommend this for anyone under 17 or 18, whatever the R limit is.<br /><br />Why? It contains a scene in the jungle with several topless Indian women. I don't know about you, but that's not something for little children to be watching. True, it might be the traditional "clothing style" of the African (?) Indians, but... I think partial nudity should give a movie an R rating.<br /><br />I haven't seen the movie recently, but I guess otherwise, it was alright. | negative |
This film is really a big piece of trash trying to make itself look like a Hollywood production.Poor story outline(stupid robot story)...ultra bad acting by untalented pop idols...and they are trying to"FIGHT"!!!My goodness...those miserable actors uses wires to make them look like they are "good fighters"...:(and I hate that arrogant Edison Chen...the worst actor I have ever seen!!!I will never touch his movies again.AVOID this movie at all costs!!!I wanted to give it a negative value out of ten...not even worth a 0/10. | negative |
I'm a Geena Davis fan for life because of this movie. I've always loved Samuel L Jackson. And the two make a great pair on screen. This said, I think 'TLKG' is the best action movie I've ever seen, forget the twist endings that audiences have now come to expect and that filmmakers now try (mostly failing) to incorporate into their movies.<br /><br />10/10 | positive |
A great 90's flick! Parker Posey is fabulous in this story about the nightlife in Manhattan that requires so much cash. Posey gives an amazing performance as a librarian and a night crawler. This is a good, light movie for Saturday night before you go out. The soundtrack rocks, the outfits are out of this world, the script is funny and the actors do a great job. The redeeming value : you can make it in this world if you try, just find your niche. I believe Parker Posey is the PERFECT actress for this kind of character: young, fabulous and broke. (You must look up the movie "Clockwatchers" ). If you watch Party Girl you are bound to have a good time. Enjoy! | positive |
This fantasy was utter garbage. I thought Michael Moore cornered the market on ridiculous anti-government movies, but this one was far worse than anything he ever did. No wonder critics of the British media complain it's driven by tabloid journalism. This movie is a left-wing loony's greatest fantasy come to life on the big screen. Anyone even slightly to the right of such rabid Bush-bashers should be appalled it ever got funding to be made. I'm sure it will do well in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, though. It's hard to believe that in these days of insane Muslims blowing up innocent commuters there is anyone in the U.K. who thinks Britain should surrender in the war on terrorism. I guess it's no longer the country I admired for standing alone against the Nazis nearly 70 years ago. All hail Neville Chamberlain and the pathetic policy of appeasement! | negative |
Satan's Little Helper is one of the better B Horror movies I have seen. When I say better I mean the story. The film hatches a new plot, something that's not so cliché in the Horror genre - something fresh. But there are also some ridiculous questions that come along with it. Questions you will be asking yourself throughout the movie.<br /><br />The film first caught my attention while I was cruising the Horror section in HMV. I was tired of all the so called "terrifiying" Hollywood blockbusters and wanted something different. The cover art for Satan's Little Helper immediately caught my attention. As you can see, the image draws you in - it's chilling! I knew it was a straight to DVD release - but I took a chance. I mean, I just seen "Boogey Man" the night before - so It couldn't get any worse! After I watched the movie, I was semi-satisfied. I loved the plot of the movie. It was really creepy how the killer was pretending to be the little boys friend, so he could kill. In some sick deranged way, he actually thought he and the little boy would become partners - a duo of terror. It was a great idea to set the film on Halloween night. This way, no one would think anything of a masked man beside a little kid. They would simply think he was his guardian. But, this is also where the "plot holes" begin to surface.<br /><br />If your son came home with a "friend" he met trick or treating - that's fine. You wouldn't think anything of it - if he was 9!, or round about the same age as him. If however, he appeared with a strange man in a mask, you would be startled and protective of your child. You would ask the man to remove his mask and identify himself. You would ask why he is with your son. He doesn't know him. You would tell him to please leave. He isn't a family friend. He's a stranger. Now, we're supposed to teach our child not to talk to strangers. In this case, the mum is completely fine with it. Huh? They never seem to think it's a tad odd that the "man" doesn't speak - at all. Gruanted they think it's the daughters boyfriend, but after 10 minutes of not talking you would pull the mask off and ask him why he's not saying a word.<br /><br />The film goes down hill from there. The thing that got me the most was, all the mum said was "Do you want some cider?". I can't count how many times she says this in the movie. It's like, oh you're dying - we have cider though, it's all good!! The movie started promising, and failed to deliver. It was more of a horror/comedy, and even as that it fails to deliver. I guess you could call it a "Dud","Flop" etc..<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is the cover art. Though, something tells me that's not worth the 12 dollars! | negative |
Cartoon-like special effects, horrible acting and dialogue, and dry plot! This movie has it all! My friend and I went to blockbuster to find a horrible movie that we could make fun of, but this was just too much. The movie begins with a women and her son vacationing on a made-up island in the Bahama region. The women, who just happens to be a doctor/virologist is in the area when a man collapses. He has a strange wound on his arm, and she immediately knows that it is a contagious virus. The story goes on to show startlingly fast romance between the two teenage leads (this is justified by the girl saying "I know it's fast, but it just feels nice." ????) Anyway the entire island gets infected with this virus and the CDC is brought in. We are told that within three months, if the virus is not treated and contained that it will spread to the united states and kill millions of people. This information does not stop the CDC from leaving the island to save themselves. Thankfully the cure to this horrible virus is found just in time, and the entire island is saved. To celebrate the death of there loved ones, the island people have a smashing party where everyone is dancing, having fun, and forgetting about the horrible epidemic that just occurred. | negative |
Much about this movie was beautiful. The acting, the scenery, and without a doubt, Aaron's cinematography background showed through on the beautiful shots. Definitely worth watching, as your attention will be captivated the entire time, and it ends on just the right note.<br /><br />The acting by newcomer Jonathan Furr was superb, as one would think he was a pro acting since he was born. He has gone on to act in other feature films, but this starring role will always be remembered.<br /><br />The film does have that academy award feel to it at times, where it's slow and scenic and quiet, so it's not a movie that a.d.d. kids can sit through. However, the rustic feel of East Bend and Yadkinville played out well as a 1940's era film. | positive |
I will admit I didn't pay full attention to everything going on in this film, but to be honest, I don't think it would have mattered. Basically local councillor Sidney Fiddler (Sid James) persuades the incompetent Mayor Frederick Bumble (Kenneth Connor) of Firecombe to hold a beauty contest, to improve the town's image. They face opposition from women's liberationist Augusta Prodworthy (June Whitfield) trying to sabotage the contest, but they do have publicity agent Peter Potter (Bernard Bresslaw) and Palace Hotel owner Connie Philpotts (Joan Sims). Soon enough the young, beautiful wannabe models show up, including Hope Springs (Barbara Windsor), Paula Perkins (Valerie Leon), Dawn Brakes (Goldfinger's Margaret Nolan), Debra (Sally Geeson) and Ida Downs (EastEnders' Wendy Richard). When the girls have cat fights, it does draw away regular residents, but after quite a while of some plodding not that funny innuendos and William (Jack Douglas) having over-active twitches, it does finally reach the competition, and it's just afterwards I couldn't be bothered. Also starring Patsy Rowlands as Mildred Bumble, Peter Butterworth as Admiral, Joan Hickson as Mrs. Dukes, David Lodge as Police inspector, Angela Grant as Miss Bangor, Arnold Ridley as Councillor Pratt, Robin Askwith as Larry, Patricia Franklin as Rosemary, Jimmy Logan as Cecil Gaybody and Dad's Army's Bill Pertwee as Fire brigade chief, Charles Hawtrey had obviously quit the Carry Ons, but where's Kenneth Williams? I suppose seeing Babs and young, beautiful looking Pauline Fowler in bikinis, but for comedy value, this fails miserably, and the overuse of the swanny whistle just gets on your nerves. Pretty poor! | negative |
From all the bad comments about this movie and add them up I feel the same way. It may look like the Australians are weaklings instead they were brave soldiers. In this film it was very terrible and too graphic. I didn't see enough heroism just more cowardice which is ashame because its nothing from what I read. We don't need the extremity of violence like that we can use our vivid imagination of what they went through. It's like saving private ryan where the nazi is pushing his knife slowly in the soldier. For example Mel Gibson is a over extreme director for his movies not because of the violence but for the level of historical inaccuracy. Letters of Iwo Jima was one of the war films that was close enough to history (although I could be wrong) except Flags of our Fathers and Bridge of the River Kwai. You're better off reading it its an insult to the victims and the fallen if you don't tell it right, and the movie drag on for too long there was nothing interesting about the dialogue and not enough retribution from the aussies to kill Japanese soldiers. Just read history on the internet, mags and in books. Movies always kill the sense of realization. What they did to POWs in Singapore and the Philippines was just dreadful escpically to civilians. It just makes me feel proud to see goodies beat the baddies but movies like this ruin it. | negative |
Eh. This is a popcorn movie, nothing more. I watched this with a bunch of friends (and though that might NOT be the best way to view a horror movie...) and most of the dialogue and action was laughable.<br /><br />It left me yearning for a real film. :)<br /><br />The main problem is the lack of tension in the film. It keeps flashing back to 'explanation' scenes, which dissipates any discernible tension.<br /><br />And the character relationship 'twists'? Yeah, they suck. I won't say what they are, but they just don't add anything to the film/storyline.<br /><br />(By relationship, I mean the two main characters.)<br /><br />Eek. My recommendation is this: watch this movie if you can't think of anything better. Mediocre at best...Maybe not even that. | negative |
To say I was disappointed is an understatement. An amateur film made by professionals. I was about to leave the theater in two or three occasions (something I've never done)I was stopped by Cloris Leachman really. She rings true, the only one I should say. This new women are less modern than the George Cukor women of the 30's. This ones are "acting" for us trying to be with it but their "conflict" is exactly the same as it has always been, in movies anyway. The fun of the original was based on a crisp, vitriolic and very funny script. A masterful direction and an unrepeatable cast. All the elements that are missing here. TV actresses mingling with models and Oscar nominees/winners. There wasn't anything organic about it. The whole thing felt like a put on, improvised in the moment without a clear objective. 2/10 | negative |
This picture for me scores very highly as it is a hugely enjoyable and amusing spoof of Alien Invaders taking over a town and many of its' men folk.<br /><br />The town and the players are all decked out in sort of 1950's style and the whole movie has a deliberate tacky and kitschy feel to it. Some of the scenes are hilarious like with the birth of an alien creature.<br /><br />All the actors give full blooded and serious performances which makes the film even funnier and the special effects and Aliens are at least it seems to me intentionally 3rd rate to add to the amusement.<br /><br />These type of films often deserve a cult following:<br /><br />8/10. | positive |
What I hoped for (or even expected) was the well known "stop motion" imagery and extreme slow motions, extreme zooms and all embracing fish eye takes. In short: The art of a) finding interesting Visual Events and b) capturing them in a way the human eye is not capable of, to be replayed so that the human eye can see. The stuff that made the other Qatsi's hits.<br /><br />I just wondered how the creation of the whole would fit the title.<br /><br />Having watched the movie I got the feeling that the focus in this third part was on the message and not on the wrapping. That's fine, especially since the message is so valid. But I already knew the message, and it appeared there was nothing else left for me. More then half the film was solarized or colorized or posterized or transformed through some other filter. It looked a lot like the effects your video camera does but you never use. A lot of the images would have been prettier without the filters, like the giraffe and zebra chase. You could say that 'technology or whatever human based malicious source disfigured our beautiful nature' but why use these seventies effects to symbolize that? At the point that there had been more than 10 minutes in a row of this cheap looking effect I was ready to leave. The hope that the rest just couldn't BE that bad made me stay. But then there was the slow motion: slow motion is good because it gives you time to analyze the moving picture. But if there are no more than 24 or maybe 50 or 60 frames a second, then there's just not enough motion to slow down. Please, record the motion-to-be-slowed faster, like was done with the beautiful shots of the foaming and splashing water (some of) the laughing people and the drill song singing soldiers. I acknowledge that archive pictures can't be redone, but I had already seen a lot of that footage anyway, it could have done without it. It must have been a lot of work to search through the archive footage, and the effects can't have been that easy to apply and arrange as well. On top of that, a lot of the work was mixed with each other. It shows that the creator wasn't out to lengthen the movie or to spare himself. But I didn't like the mixed stuff one bit... The idea behind it was sometimes nice or even clever, but the implementation was insufficient. The computer generated images didn't bother me that much, however out of date. The 'bits' streaming along circuits (in the first part of the film) looked more recent and were nice. Mandelbrot is always fun, the fractal-mountain was less. I was pleased to hear a cello playing a major role in the music. A little less vibrato at certain moments would have been appropriate with Glass' music, but that's a matter of taste. As is all of the above, of course. I do hope that there will be another Qatsi story to tell soon, where computer imagery will have a less significant role and that will inspire somebody to get into the field again.<br /><br /> | negative |
The turgid pace of this movie numbs us to any shocks that it might provide. There was no real suspense. Most of the characters were insipid. The chesty Irish priest was as lame as the love interest. Interest is misleading. The girl that they chose to provide the film's sensuality might be better. The central conflict of the main character was uninvolving. This film is entirely devoid of positives. It is like a tedious exercise by someone who didn't want to go to the gym that day but did anyway. | negative |
Not the best of the Lone Star series, but it moves along quickly with good performances. <br /><br />Introduced as "Singin' Sandy" in the main title, John Wayne as a 'singing cowboy' isn't successful-- you never even see a front close-up of him while he's 'singing.' The actual singer is the director's son, Bill Bradley, who warbles away sounding like many popular singers of the day such as Hutch or Joseph Wagstaff. <br /><br />The film features: Cecilia Parker (also seen in "The Lost Jungle" serial, "Tombstone Canyon," and as older sister Marian in the Andy Hardy movies) doing her best Katherine Hepburn-- "Really they mustn't; really I'm not"; Al St. John, before he literally became "Fuzzy" filling all his available screen time with his characteristic business of hat flipping, head and chin scratching, grimacing, and gawky physical gestures and movements; George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as a gentle pipe smoking father; and Forrest Taylor, minor vet of 395 movies and TV shows, playing the oily villain with string bow tie and prop cigar. <br /><br />Fun or odd moments: Yakima Canutt's great 'under the stagecoach' trick; the 'gay' scene when Singin' Sandy ties Bert and Elmer together face to face, drags them roped to his horse, and dumps them at Kincaid's office, where Kincaid says, "You're a fine pair of lovebirds!"; Denton's rapturous comment after an atrocious song and guitar playing performance by 'Sandy,' -- "Ummm. I could listen to that all night!"; Kincaid's reply, We won't go into that," after being told by a rancher "You've got the soul of a snake!"; and, of course, he utters the immortal, "I've made Denton an offer he can't refuse." <br /><br />The plot of the movie is saved by Sandy's tricking Kincaid, and later saying the three magic words in many of these films: "I'm from Washington." FDR has saved us from the Depression! (Is that why the villains are always either bankers or in real estate?) <br /><br />The shootout sequence is taken from the earlier Bradbury film "Man from Hell's Edges" (1932). All of the Lone Star westerns are special because of their unique mixture of interesting characters, the troupe of actors and stunt people, and the spin on the clichés and repetitive back stories and situations. This one ranks a little low, marred by the inappropriate and mis-used "Singing Cowboy" gimmick. I'll give it a 4. | negative |
I saw this movie with a friend who ran a marathon with me, and we both had the same feeling about it: it wasn't terribly motivating, and didn't even broach the idea of what a training schedule would look like, so that non-marathoners could have an idea of what it would take for them to train and run one. In fact there was almost zero technical information at all. I didn't expect this to be a tech-heavy instructional video, but when that info was near zero then the film just wasn't balanced, and wasn't particularly useful to non-marathoners contemplating their first run.<br /><br />There were other problems. Some of the very first images were people collapsing near death while trying to run a race. Yeah, real inspiring. The timing was also hard to follow, because it was semi chronological, but the filmmakers rarely gave you any good clues as to what point in time you were looking at. And they withheld information. You see that Kantor has an injury, and you just assume it's from all her training, but then several scenes later they finally clue you in that it's because she tripped over a pine cone in her yard.<br /><br />Some parts were very good, though, like the bit about a woman defying race officials who wanted the run to be men-only, and the coverage of a Chicago race where two of the runners portrayed earlier were vying for first place.<br /><br />Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of other chronological documentaries, like Supersize Me, and Grass, where you always know where you are, and you feel like they told you everything you wanted to know.<br /><br />In short, it wouldn't have been hard to make a better marathon film, and as it stands I can't recommend this to non-marathoners to educate and motivate them to try one, because I don't think it will have that effect. | negative |
"The Love Letter" is a somewhat pleasant, very very low-key romantic comedy in which the use of just the right few words in a mysterious love letter unlocks the secret passions and longings of a sleepy sea-side town's inhabitants.<br /><br />It's not for all audiences. "The Love Letter", I feel, benefits from it's simple and quiet tone. Never intentionally wacky and phony like most romantic comedies it's quaint, picturesque, and comfy. However, for these exact same reasons, many viewers will be bored and disinterested.<br /><br />The cast is nice. It's great to see Tom Selleck again, and is such an underplayed role. And it's hard to believe this is the same Kate Capshaw we met 15 years ago in "Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom". She's quite naturally good here; improving in every role I've seen her in since grating on Indy's nerves. And is it possible Capshaw is just getting lovelier and lovelier with age ? ( What is it about that Spielberg!?)<br /><br />It doesn't amount to much; but after another noisy summer movie season I'll probably look back with brief fondness for this light-as-a-feather romance. | positive |
My wife and I just finished watching Bûsu AKA The Booth. She fell asleep during some parts of the movie. I really wish I had taken a snooze with her, but the unfortunate fact is that the main character's voice is so loud and grating that it was impossible for me to sleep. When our protagonist speaks, it makes me want to hear Regis Philbin and William Shatner sing karaoke. He also has no redeeming qualities. I was hoping he'd get hit by a bus five minutes into the film.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I love Asian horror cinema, but The Booth is extremely irritating and full of scenes that really make no damned sense at all. If you want some good Asian cinema, check out A Tale of Two Sisters or Into The Mirror. Avoid The Booth like the plague, especially if you suffer from frequent migraines. | negative |
May be spoilers so do not read if you do not want to Just like watching the TV news , everything is already happened, a great tsunami looms over a city bay and CUT , no more to see, Tokay suffers a large earthquake , did anyone see more than the 5 seconds I saw? If you want to make a love story , make a love story but if you want to use a disaster movie title , do please be kind enough to show me THE DISASTER , pd after watching this movie watch JISHIN RETTO or any GODZILLA film to satisfy the part that was willing to see people screaming and buildings collapsing that did not get a chance to do in this movie. Don t take me wrong I love disaster movies and I love the original Nihon chimbotsu and Jishin retto, I even like the latest Poseidon , not to much of a story there but a very good and graphic disaster sequence , New Nihon chimbotsu looses the point as many times as pearl harbour or the day after tomorrow but at least this two movies do show good disaster sequences, and also enough with the expensive FX that did not show anything , give me fake buildings if you like as long as you do destroy them properly , I know I must sound like a sadistic freak, however I did go to see Love actually when I felt like going to see a romantic film , grrrrrrr even kimpachi sensei makes me cry and this movie didn:t . there is also a TV series called napping chimbotsu made in 1975, I have on DVD and it is much better | negative |
it's a lovely movie ,it deeply reflects the Chinese underground bands' current lives. if you chinese culture ,traditionaled rock n roll music, there you go, i will highly recommend this one .but one thing i am wondering is whether this movie has been showed in Mainland ? i sorta doubt it ,:D | positive |
IN COLD BLOOD has to be ranked as first-rate movie-making, even if the subject matter is about as grim as it gets in the world of make-believe, but film noir fans should definitely find this one a gripping piece of work, based as it is on a true-life crime spree.<br /><br />It opens with Quincy Jones' music under the credits and starkly dramatic views of a highway bus heading toward Kansas City, effectively setting the mood of the film even before the credits end. The B&W photography of Conrad Hall does a superb job right from the start.<br /><br />Also clear from the start: ROBERT BLAKE and SCOTT Wilson are natural born actors. They do a great job of portraying free spirited buddies looking for the next thrill. "Ever see a millionaire fry in the electric hair? Hell no. There are two kinds of rules in this world. One for the rich and one for the poor," says Wilson, taking a swig of alcohol behind the wheel.<br /><br />Both are destined to cross the path of a farm family, showing no mercy and leaving no witnesses behind.<br /><br />Blake, reminiscing about movies, and thinking of hunting for gold in Mexico, says: "Remember Bogart in 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre'?" (An ironic moment, because Blake himself was in the film as a little boy selling lottery tickets). "I got you pegged for a natural born killer," Wilson tells Blake.<br /><br />JOHN FORSYTHE is one of the lead detectives on the case, discovering that all four family members were tied up, shot in the head and one had his throat cut. "Don't people around here lock doors?" asks PAUL STEWART. "They will tonight," is the terse reply.<br /><br />After the murders, the killers discover that there was "no big fat safe in the wall", like their prison informant told them. So, in the end, it was truly a stupid, senseless crime. The question is: WHY did they do it? And this is something the second half of the film explores in depth. It takes an hour and a half into the movie before the detectives catch up with the killers and begin the interrogation.<br /><br />It's these final scenes that carry the most conviction and the most interest as the boys are told they've made numerous mistakes and left a living witness. The actual events up to and including the murder are saved until the end. "It makes no sense," Blake tells Forsythe. "Mr. Cutter was a very nice gentleman. I thought so right up until the time I cut his throat." The screenplay by Richard Brooks is concise and to the point--and so is his direction.<br /><br />Summing up: Brilliant depiction of two aimless young men on a crime spree that made no sense then or now for a mere $43. Chilling. | positive |
It's Die Hard meets Cliffhanger when a ski resort is besieged by terrorists and it's up to one cop, Jack (Crackerjack) to stop this.<br /><br />A B-action movie that borrows from other films and is quite good with pretty good action, a ridiculous plot (as always in these movies) and three fine stars. Thomas Ian Griffith as the cop and Nastasja Kinski and Christopher Plummer as terrorists. If you don't like stupid B-action movies this is not for you. | negative |
People like me will tear this movie apart. It's just not realistic. The Plot is sooooooo predictable. You can anticipate everything that happens convientantly Of course, they find the treasure and become filthy rich, and trick the bad guy. We've seen it a million times before. The writers of this movie must think that the majority of the movie going public is stupid. They must be right because The majority of people actually liked this film. I mean solving riddles in a matter of seconds. The secret treasure room hidden under the Manhattan subway? You'd think with all the work that's gone on in New York underground That room would have been discovered before. and all that was constructed during the civil war? PLEASE And the love story between Ben and Abigail?? how cute, and I thought the romance in Clive Cussler novels was weak. They just fall in love like that, in 2 seconds WHATEVER I'd be more concerned with saving my own ass then getting some. the hell with the girl and the stupid piece of paper. 1/10 Garbage | negative |
I was totally surprised just how good this movie actually is because when I first saw it I was only mildly amused! I must say however, that I am still very disappointed that Donald O'Connor wasn't given a bigger and better role! He was an enormous talent.<br /><br />There is a great chemistry among all the main cast members and Matthau has never been funnier.<br /><br />I am tremendously glad that this picture got made because we get to see Lemmon and Matthau team up for the very last time; in a vehicle that puts their talent to great use. Brent Spiner proves that "Data" from Star Trek the Next Geeration is not the only good character he can play.<br /><br />The storyline is really quite simple but the comedy and the characters work really well and I laughed heartily throughout this movie and I highly recommend it. | positive |
The oddly-named Vera-Ellen was to movie dancing what Sonja Henie was to movie ice-skating: blonde, girlish, always delightful to watch, but not an especially good actress and usually lumbered with weak material. When I watch Vera-Ellen's sexy apache dance with Gene Kelly in 'Words and Music', I can't help noticing that her blouse (yellow with narrow red horizontal stripes) seems to be made out of the South Vietnam flag. For some reason, the very American Vera-Ellen starred in *two* musicals (made several years apart) set in Edinburgh, a city not noted for its tap-dancers: 'Let's Be Happy' and 'Happy Go Lovely'.<br /><br />In the latter, Cesar Romero plays an American impresario who for some reason is staging a musical in Edinburgh. There's a vague attempt to link this show to the Edinburgh Festival, which is nonsense: the Festival is not a showcase for splashy leg-shows. We also see a couple of stock shots of the Royal Mile: apart from a few Highland accents, there's absolutely no attempt to convey Scottish atmosphere in this movie. The funniest gag occurs at the very beginning, when we learn that the title of Romero's show is 'Frolics to You': this is a cheeky pun that Britons will get and Yanks won't.<br /><br />Vera-Ellen is, as usual, cute and appealing and an impressive dancer, but the very few musical numbers in this movie are boring and bad. The plot -- mistaken identity between magnate David Niven and reporter Gordon Jackson -- is brainless, though no more so than the plots of several dozen Hollywood musicals. Romero is less annoying than usual here, probably because (for once) he isn't required to convince us that he's interested in bedding the heroine.<br /><br />The single biggest offence of this movie is its misuse of Bobby Howes. The father of Sally Ann Howes was a major star of West End stage musicals; his wistful rendition of "She's My Lovely" was a big hit in Britain in 1937. Here, he shows up in several scenes as Romero's dogsbody but never has a chance to participate in a musical number, nor even any real comedy. It's absolutely criminal that this movie -- with a title containing the word 'Lovely', sure to evoke Howes's greatest hit -- would cast a major British musical star but give him nothing to do!<br /><br />The delightful character actress Ambrosine Phillpotts (whom I worked with once) shines in one restaurant sequence, and there's a glimpse of the doomed beauty Kay Kendall. As Vera-Ellen's confidante, somebody named Diane Hart speaks in one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard: it sounds like an attempt to imitate Joan Greenwood and Glynis Johns both at the same go, but doesn't match either. Val Guest has a story credit, but this movie doesn't come up to the quality of his brilliant comedies. The colour photography is wretched, though I realise that postwar Britain could not afford Hollywood's process work. 'Happy Go Lovely' is at utmost best a pleasant time-waster, with 'waster' being the operative word. I'll rate this movie just 4 out of 10. | negative |
Once I watched The Tenant and interpreted it as a horror movie. It uses many of the tropes of the genre: the sinister apartment, suspicious neighbors, apparitions, mysteries, hallucinations. The life of the hero, Trelkovsky, seemed surrounded by evil, secret forces trying to drive him mad.<br /><br />Last time I watched it I challenged this initial interpretation. If this movie is a horror movie, it's only horror in the sense that a Kafka novel is horror. In fact this movie can be understood on a literal level as a lonely man slowly becoming crazy without any external influence.<br /><br />Polanski made in his career three movies dealing with madness: Repulsion, which I don't particularly like because the development of madness in the heroine never convinced me; Rosemary's Baby, in which the heroine is driven mad by evil forces; and The Tenant, which might be the best study of paranoia ever made in cinema.<br /><br />Trelkovsky is a young man who rents an apartment in which a woman killed herself. He becomes obsessed with her and slowly starts becoming her: he wears her clothes, puts on makeup, talks like her. But is he being possessed by a spirit, or is he just letting his wild imagination get the best of him? It's this hesitation between what is real and imaginary, and which Polanski never resolves, that makes this such a fascinating movie. Many events in the movie can be attributed to the supernatural as easily as they can be to normal causes, and it's up to the viewer to decide what to believe in.<br /><br />Although this is not my favorite Polanski movie, it is nevertheless a good example of his ability to create suspense and portray madness in very convincing terms. And technically speaking, it's a marvel too. Suffice to say he collaborates with film composer Philippe Sarde and legendary director of photography Sven Nykvist (Bergman's DP) in the making of this movie. A slow pacing and sometimes uninteresting segments may make this movie difficult to enjoy, but it's an experience nevertheless. | positive |
Demi and Woody are married, but they're poor. They meet Robert Redford, and he's REALLY rich. He takes a fancy to Demi, and since he's a gambling man he makes the couple an "indecent proposal:" one million dollars for a night with the little woman.<br /><br />At this point you need watch no more of the film because you can put the details together in your sleep. Of course Demi is going to accept the offer. If she doesn't there's no first half of the movie. Of course it will affect Demi and Woody's marriage. If it doesn't there's no second half of the movie. And of course everything will turn out okay by the time the credits roll. If it doesn't, there's no happy ending for the sake of box office.<br /><br />The absolute best thing you can say about INDECENT PROPOSAL is that Demi Moore looks good in a black dress. As for the rest... The script is incompetent, the direction amateurish, the performances negligible. I suspect Redford, Moore, and Harrelson blush and change the subject every time the film is mentioned. Do them--and more importantly yourself--a favor. Unless some one offers you a million... Miss It!<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | negative |
The "Wrinkle in Time" book series is my favorite series from childhood. I have read and re-read them more times than I can count over the last 35+ years. The characters, with all their virtues and flaws, are near and dear to my heart. This adaptation contained very little of the wonderful, magical, spiritual story that I love so much. To say I was disappointed with this film would be a great understatement.<br /><br />If you have never read the book(s) I imagine you will enjoy the movie. The acting is passable, the special effects are well done for a made for TV movie, and the story is interesting. However, if you love the books, avoid this movie at all costs.<br /><br />I found this statement at the Wikipedia page of the novel: "In an interview with Newsweek, L'Engle said of the film, 'I expected it to be bad, and it is.'"<br /><br />I, like another reviewer here, feel the need to read the book again to dispel this movie from my mind. | negative |
I've seen this film criticized with the statement, "If you can get past the moralizing..." That misses the point. Moralizing is in the conscience of the beholder, as it were. This is a decent film with a standard murder mystery, but with a distinct twist that surfaces midway through. The resolution leaves the viewer wondering, "What would I have done in this position?" And I have to believe that's exactly what the filmmaker intended. To that end, and to the end of entertaining the audience, the film succeeds. I also like the way that the violence is never on stage, but just off camera. We know what has just happened; it's just not served up in front of us, then rubbed in our faces, as it would be today with contemporary blood and gore dressing. Besides, the violence is not the point. The point is the protagonist's moral dilemma, which is cleverly, albeit disturbingly, resolved. | positive |
I must warn you, there are some spoilers in it. But to start it off, I got "Spanish Judges" on February I think. It was mention it was the last copy, but as I see, it wasn't back-ordered. But either way, I have it. I thought it was good. I wanted to see this mainly because of the great actor, Matthew Lillard (I'm surprised no one on the reviews mention the scar) although it is kind of low budget, getting enough money to make this film would be worth spending. Man, what a good actor.<br /><br />The story it about a con artist known as Jack (Matthew Lillard) who "claims" to have merchandises called The Spanish Judges. If you don't know what Spanish Judges are or haven't seen the trailer for this and this is the first review you have read, I won't even say what they are. I figure it would be a big twist of no one knew what it was. He needs protection, so he hires a couple who are also crooks, Max and Jamie (Vincent D'Onofrio and Valeria Golino) as well as a crook that goes by the name of Piece (Mark Boone Junior). He has a girlfriend who won't even tell anyone her name because she's from Mars, as she said. So they (mainly Jack) call her "Mars Girl". Everything starts out fine, but then it turns to one big game. A game that involves some lust, lies and betrayal.<br /><br />There was some over acting in it (Matt and Valeria, as well as Tamara, were not one of them). There were some scenes they could've done better and the score could've been a little better as well. Some of the score was actually good. The theme they used for the beginning and the end (before the credits) was a good song choice, that's my opinion. The fight scene in the end could've been a little longer and a little more violent, but what can you do? One more comment on Matt: Damn, he plays a smooth, slick con man.<br /><br />I know this is a review, but I need to make a correction towards NeCRo, one of the reviewers: Valeria Golino is not a newcomer. According to this site, she has been acting since 1983. To me, and hopefully to others, she is well known as Charlie Sheen's Italian love interest in both the "Hot Shots!" movies. But good review.<br /><br />Although I think it's one of the rare films I've seen and it's really good (which is why I gave it 10 stars above), I will give the grade of what I thought when I first saw it.<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
Not the best of the films to be watched nowadays. I read a lot of reviews about Shining and was expecting it to be very good. But this movie disappointed me. The sound and environment was good, but there was no story here. Not was there a single moment of fright. I expected it to a horror thriller movie, but there was no horror no thriller. The only scene where I got scared was during the chapter change scene showing "Wednesday". There are lots of fragments i the movie. Most of the things are left unexplained with nothing to link it to anything. The story does not tell us about the women or other scenes that is shown. Might be a good movie to watch in the 80's, but not for the 21st century. | negative |
I had intended to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Marcello Mastroianni's passing with numerous unwatched films of his that I own on VHS; however, given my ongoing light-hearted Christmas marathon, I had to make do with just this one! As it happens, it features one of his best performances - and he was justly Oscar-nominated for it (with the film itself being likewise honored). This was also one of 14 collaborations with that other most widely-recognized star to emerge from Italy, Sophia Loren; both, incidentally, are playing against type here - she as an unglamorous housewife and he a homosexual! <br /><br />By the way, the film's title has a double meaning: the leading characters are brought together on the historic day in which Hitler came to Italy to meet Mussolini (the event itself being shown in lengthy archive footage), but it more specifically refers to the stars' 'brief encounter' in which they share moments of friendship, revelation and, briefly, passion - though each knows that a return to their normal existence is inevitable, which leads to the film's abrupt bittersweet ending. This is virtually a two-hander (with all other characters - save for the nosy concierge of the apartment block in which the story takes place in its entirety - which include Loren's gruff and fervently patriotic husband, surprisingly played by John Vernon, appear only at the beginning and closing sequences); still, the cramped setting doesn't deter director Scola (for the record, this is the 7th film of his that I've watched and own 3 more on VHS) and cinematographer Pasqualino De Santis, so that the result - though essentially low-key - is far from stagy: the camera is allowed to prowl the various sections of the large building, observing the proceedings intimately or dispassionately as the situation requires, but always keenly.<br /><br />The narrative, of course, depends entirely on the performances of the two stars for it to be convincing, and they both deliver (their on-screen chemistry is quite incomparable); it's interesting, however, that while Loren walked away with the prizes in their home turf, it's Mastroianni's moving yet unsentimental outsider (the film, somewhat dubiously, does seem to equate his sexual deviance with Anti-Fascism!) who generally impressed international audiences! | positive |
Actually, Goldie Hawn is from Washington (Takoma Park, Maryland), but I digress. This is sort of a Mr. Smith goes to Washington type of movie, with some variations but the same premise. I taped this movie off of cable years ago because I had a huge crush on Goldie Hawn. The story is interesting, but it's highly unlikely that some cocktail waitress will get an important job in the government just because she saved some big shot's life. It made me laugh and made me mad at the same time. It made me laugh because some of the situations she found herself in were so ridiculous, I had to laugh. (POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD). It made me mad to think that our government would set up an average citizen in the manner she was set up. And the speech she made at the end...beautiful. Too bad not many people have guts like that in real life. | positive |
I was looking for a documentary of the same journalistic quality as Frontline or "Fog of War" (by Errol Morris). Instead I was appalled by this shallow and naive account of a very complex and disturbing man and his regime: Alberto Fujimori. This movie should be called "The return of Fujimori". The director presumes she made a "perfect" movie because alienates both pro and anti-Fujimori factions when in fact it is a very biased and unprofessional piece of work. <br /><br />The movie has few crucial facts wrong: <br /><br />1) She uses the so called "landslide" election of 1995 in which Fujimori was re-elected with 65% of the vote, as an example of the massive popular support of Fujimori. But we all now know to be the fruit of a very organized electoral fraud.<br /><br />2) The movie states that Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) killed 60,000 people. In fact, the Truth Commission's final report states that there were 69,280 deaths due to political violence in Peru. 33% of those were caused by SL. That leaves the other 67% in the hands of the police, military and other groups. The fact that she uses the same misleading information that Fujimori has been using for 10 years it is another example of how terrible this movie is. <br /><br />For any person with some education on Peruvian politics and history, Fujimori is clearly a consummated manipulator, a delusional character and remorseless egomaniac. His regime was very far from being democratic. He is still a menace to Peruvians. Despite these facts the director lets Fujimori tell the story. Not only on how he wants the camera to be positioned but the narrative and direction of the film seem to be part of his political agenda. He always seems to have the last word. There are no journalistic "cojones", just soft questions and unchallenged remarks. Where is Oriana Fallaci when we need her? The director, when questioned after the screening, didn't hide the fact that she was deeply impressed by Fujimori, his charm and intelligence. Yes, she has been definitely charmed by him, and you can tell by looking at this film. It's obvious she has a very hard time to digest the multitude of facts that point towards his responsibility on the corruption, murder and deception that took place. She assured the gasping audience that Fujimori was really a "patriot" when few moments earlier, one of the leading Peruvian journalists was very adamant in telling us that Fujimori was, above all, a "traitor". She went on to say that despite all the accusations not "a single dollar" was found on any bank account on his name, etc, etc. It was like hearing again the same gang of ruthless thugs that ruled the country for 10 years defending their master. It was a sad moment for journalism.<br /><br />This film makes injustice to history. It is an insult to hundreds of dead people, disappeared or unjustly incarcerated by Fujimori's regime. No wonder she later confessed that all the Peruvian intellectuals she befriended while making the movie felt betrayed by it. Unbiased? The words "oportunistic", "naïve" and "denial" come to my mind instead. | negative |
For anyone with a moderate sensibility, a moderate feeling of the human and humane condition, for anyone capable of getting above the Hollywood ilk, for anyone who is satisfied seeing cinema which does not have a series of Seagals/Willis/Van Dammes blasting the brains out of anybody or seeing who gets into bed with whom, for anyone whose intellectual level reaches a capacity to grasp, sympathise with, comprehend, laugh WITH, cry WITH natural tender heart-warming hilarious compassionate HUMAN BEINGS, `Le Huitième Jour' is waiting for you. Jaco van Dormael has not achieved simply a masterpiece, that would have been too simplistic; he has achieved one of those rare monumental works of art in the cinematographic world which defies any kind of encapsuling. Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? No: it is the story of Georges, a wonderful funny pitiful laughable loving frightened beautiful personality, a sufferer of the Downes Syndrome. It is a story which has you laughing through your tears, but this is not one of those classic tear-jerkers; this film moves through a world that has you at once mixing your feelings of compassion or pity or even shame with those of admiration, warmth and even love. A successful banking salesman, Harry, bumps into Georges: they were both going in opposite directions with absolutely opposing ideas, problems and priorities; skillfully van Dormael melts these two unlikely men into a warm friendship, but which is so much more than the good buddy friendship of those having a beer down the road. This is a relationship which develops into a profound needing by both for the other. The cuasi-surrealist scenes fit in perfectly: Georges recalls (or invents) past scenes of his life while either day-dreaming or sleeping; even the almost phantasmagorical final scene is totally correct. The only scene which might be considered a little out of place is when they steal a bus and drive it out of the show-rooms. However, this does not detract from the whole. This film is a monument. Even if your French is not up to much, please bear seeing it with sub-titles. `Le Huitième Jour' is worth the trouble. As for anything else, well, just read the following commentaries I go along with all of them. This film is a joy, it is majestic, it is unique. If you have seen `Rain Man' which I consider an excellent film, you must see this one: it is far superior because it has not the superficial veneer of famous Hollywood-produced world-renowned actors; it has Pascal Duquenne and Daniel Auteuil TEN oscars for these two, and three more for Jaco van Dormael. Who cares
? Yes: 11 out of 10 if the IMDb rating doesn't break down under the strain.<br /><br />Magnifique! Chapeau! | positive |
I am stunned to discover the amount of fans this show has. Haven't said that Friends was, at best an 'average' sitcom, and not as great as others have made out. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the casting of Courtney Cox Arquette, David Schwimmer, Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston and Matt Le Blanc, then who knows whether this show would've lasted as long as it has done. I very much doubt that. Although as the series progressed, Friends got more progressively predictable, lame and boring that I couldn't care less about the characters- of whom are the most overrated in TV history- or of their plight, nor of who was sleeping with whom. And it went from being funny in the first four seasons to occasionally funny. And even when it had all these A-list Hollywood actors from the movie world, I still didn't bother to tune in. The writing in Friends became stale that I lost interest in this show from the sixth season onwards and as for the ending, well it was predictable to say the least.<br /><br />What was annoying though was that this lasted for ten seasons, whilst some of my favourite shows lasted for only three, four seasons for instance and were eventually cancelled and taken off the air for good. The show should've came to an immediate halt by the time the cast wanted bigger salaries. In truth, as much as the series waned, it was the show that was bigger than the actors themselves, not the other way round. <br /><br />When it ended in 2004, I was so relieved to see the back of this sitcom. Now, there is talk of a friends reunion show coming to our TV screens very soon. And yet, I for one will not be looking forward to it whatsoever. | negative |
"The Invisible Ray" is part science fiction and part horror. It was also the third of seven Karloff/Lugosi features. In this entry the dominant role goes to Boris Karloff.<br /><br />Through specially designed astronomical equipment, Dr. Janos Rukh (Karloff) demonstrates to colleagues Dr. Felix Benet (Bela Lugosi), Sir Frances Stevens (Walter Kingsford), his wife Lady Stevens (Beulah Bondi) and their nephew Ronald Drake (Frank Lawton), that a meteorite containing a powerful element, landed on the African continent many millions of years in the past. Rukh impresses his guests who invite him to accompany them on an expedition to Africa to find the mysterious element.<br /><br />Rukh goes off on his own and discovers the place where the meteorite landed and the element which he names "Radium X". Due to Rukh's long absences, his comely young wife Diana (Frances Drake) becomes attracted to Drake and the two fall in love. Meanwhile Rukh becomes contaminated by Radium X to the point that anyone he touches will die instantly. The contamination causes his skin to emit a bright glow in the dark.<br /><br />Rukh goes to Benet for help. Benet devises an antidote which if taken on a daily basis, will provide temporary immunity to the element. Unfortuneatly, the deadly element also affects Rukh's brain, slowly turning him into a vindictive murderer.<br /><br />While Rukh is continuing his work, Sir Frances takes news of the discovery back to France. Diana and Ronald accompany him. When Benet informs him of this action, Rukh accuses the party of betraying him and his discovery and secretly plans his revenge. When he returns to France he learns of the healing power of Radium X as he cures his mother's (Violet Kemble Cooper) blindness and of Benet's work in curing the maladies of his patients.<br /><br />But Rukh's madness intensifies. First he murders an innocent man whom is identified as Rukh. Upon hearing of Rukh's apparent demise, Diana and Ronald marry. This angers Rukh and he begins to exact his revenge on the five other members of the expedition. One night he is lured into a trap set by Benet and...........<br /><br />Karloff is excellent in the lead role moving from a happily married ambitious scientist to a raving maniac. Lugosi has a straight role for once and does what he can with the limited part.<br /><br />At 79 minutes this film was the second longest of the six Karloff/Lugosi collaborations. Karloff's film all the way. | positive |
The exclamation point in the title is appropriate, albeit an understatement. This movie doesn't just cry -- it shrieks loud enough to shatter glass.<br /><br />Filmmakers Andrew and Virginia Stone made shrill, humorless suspense thrillers that strove for a semi-documentary feel. Here, they shot on actual New York locations with tinny "real-life" acoustics to jack up the verisimilitude. But the naturalism of the sound recording only serves to amplify the Stones' maladroit dialog and the mouth-frothing histrionics of tortured butterfly Inger Stevens.<br /><br />In a performance completely devoid of modulation, Stevens plays the wife of electronics whiz James Mason (looking haggard and bored); both are held captive by extortionist Rod Steiger (looking bloated and bored) and his slimy cohorts in a scheme to blackmail an airline with a deadly bomb that Mason has unwittingly helped construct.<br /><br />Here is another credibility-straining instance of a criminal mastermind so brilliantly attentive to every detail, yet knuckleheaded enough to hire a drug-addicted degenerate as an underling. The Stones' idea of nail-biting tension is to trap the hysterical Stevens alone with Benzedrine-popping rapist Neville Brand, filling the frame with his sweaty, drooling kisser. But the camera work is so leaden and Brand so (uncharacteristically) demure that the effect is hardly lurid, much less suspenseful. The Stones, a square pair at heart, don't even have the courage of their own lack of convictions.<br /><br />The film, which ends with the portly Steiger chasing the fleet-footed Stevens on a subway train track, is as clumsy as its ungainly heavy. With Angie Dickinson as Steiger's amoral girlfriend, Jack Klugman, Kenneth Tobey, and Barney Philips. | negative |
Robert Carlyle excels again. The period was captured well and the soundtrack, although hearing modern techno in this period piece was a little disconcerting at first, proved to be very well chosen.<br /><br />Well worth a watch. | positive |
This TV series is about a foolish and unconventional English gentleman who gets up to all sorts of merry mishaps.<br /><br />I remember watching Mr Bean with my family back in 1990, when I was still a child. My family laughed so hard at every episode, and the contents of which still come up in our daily conversations twenty years later. The memorable scenes which are still in my head include Mr Bean attempting to get out of his car park, shooting out the lights, counting sheep, and him in the swimming pool. We bought all the Mr Bean videos on VHS, no mater how expensive they were. It was worth it because we watched them over and over again! It is so rare to see a very funny TV series that is suitable for all ages. | positive |
The movie was disappointing. The book was powerful. The views and the learning of Little Tree were powerfully portrayed in the book. The movie just coasted along and finally dribbled away. Still a nice tale for kids. | negative |
So often these "Lifetime" flicks are one-dimension, with over-the-top characterizations and performances, and with contrived plot lines and climaxes which are intended to trade any semblance of reality for drama.<br /><br />But most of all, many of these flicks provide characters where it's difficult to feel a trace of sympathy or empathy for even the "good guy/good gal" characters, much less the"bad" ones.<br /><br />However, here the performance were all good, the characters realistic, and the relationships among the three leads (as well as the ex-husband/father and the two females) rang true throughout.<br /><br />The mother's boyfriend was portrayed as being about halfway in age between mother and daughter, and the actors were age-appropriate to this in term of their actual ages. None of the characters was portrayed at an extreme - either all-good or all-bad - and all rang true.<br /><br />Without in any way condoning his allowing the relationship with his prospective stepdaughter to advance to the level which it did - you can still feel some sympathy for him without retracting blame.<br /><br />Neither mother nor daughter were perfect, neither good nor bad, but simply two individuals whose relationship seemed realistic and not contrived by the script writer.<br /><br />Lifetime flicks - even those which begin with some semblance of normality - often end with a deranged character brandishing a carving knife or such. Other stories seem to need to provide the "everyone lived happily ever-after" close.<br /><br />This film presented a realistic premise, story and resolution, from start to finish - a welcomed variation to the norm of this genre/ | positive |
Sometimes they get lucky and have a hit on their hands (Wayne's World, the first one, not the second). But most often they have duds (It's Pat comes to mind rather quickly). This time out it's Tim Meadows as The Ladies Man. This movie falls somewhere in between a hit and a dud. It was very funny for the first 20 minutes, but then, as usually happens with SNL skits, it starts to slow down, before finally ending, long after it should have.<br /><br />Tim Meadows is Leon Phelps, a radio DJ with a nightly show called The Ladies Man. He answers any and all questions dealing with sex and relationships, usually in the crudest way possible. Everything seems to ultimately come down to the butt. After pushing the buttons of the station manager, Leon, along with his producer Julie (Karyn Parsons) gets fired, and needs to find another job. Out of the random blue, comes a letter from one of his ex-ladies. The letter offers him wealth and luxury for the rest of his life, the only problem being that the letter isn't signed. So Leon needs to track down all the women he's been with to find the woman of his dreams. But sometimes, as Billy Dee Williams says in the film, the woman of your dreams is standing right in front of you. There is also a sub-plot about a bunch of guys who's wives/girlfriends have all slept with Leon, and they want to first figure out who he is (by a tattoo he has on a part of his anatomy), then kill him. Leading this bunch of guys is, surprise! Will Ferrell from SNL. First off, I thought the sub-plot was rather lame. The singing and dancing stuff was just completely worthless. I usually like Will Ferrell but here he just never clicked for me. And the rest of the guys were just schlubs who tagged along, and in the end all decided that having their wives/girlfriends cheat on them was in fact their fault. So back to the main story. The story basically centers around Leon and sex. So what it comes down to is, if you don't like the character of Leon, you won't like the movie. His voice, his mannerisms, his dialogue is what carries the movie. I am not a big fan of Tim Meadows. I never thought he was a particularly good actor on SNL. The only thing I ever really liked of his, was his Ladies Man skits. But the best thing about those, is that they usually involved the guest host (remember the one with Cameron Diaz?), and they were short. For about 5 minutes, they were pretty funny. And here, for about 20 minutes, it's really funny. What I thought was good about the character in the movie, is that he stayed in character throughout. He never wavered from his wanted to just get laid persona. Until right at the end where there was this transformation, and the ever present speech to tie things up. Other than that, it was pretty good at keeping Leon as Leon, and not changing him into something less crude than he was. There isn't a lot of substance to this movie, if you couldn't guess. But like I said earlier, the beginning of the movie I found to be very funny. Some real laugh out loud moments, all revolving around sex and his crudeness. The problem of course with this movie, and most other SNL spin offs, is that these are characters that are only supposed to be shown for a few minutes at a time. Stretching the concept into 80 minutes is very difficult. That difficulty is obviously why they needed the sub-plot, because without it, this movie would have been a little under an hour. When it was good, it was good, but when it wasn't good, it got to be boring.<br /><br />So overall, The Ladies Man wasn't as bad as other SNL films, but it wasn't as good as others. It had some funny moments, the first 20 minutes was pretty good, but the rest of it dragged on. There was an unnecessary sub-plot whose only purpose was to lengthen the film. The bottom line is, if you like Tim Meadows and his Leon Phelps character, you'll be able to watch the film. If he annoys you, don't even bother going. Unless you just want to see Tiffani Theissen in some nice revealing clothing. <br /><br /> | positive |
Like most other people, I saw this movie on "Mystery Science Theater 3000." Although it received some well-deserved barbs, it's one of the better films to be featured on that show.<br /><br />The premise is better than even your average Hollywood blockbuster these days; it poses some interesting moral dilemmas. Although the score is sometimes obtrusive, it also provides a few lovely moments when Richard is walking by the river. Watching the movie, you can see where a lot of plot developments probably looked very good on paper. Richard's discomfort in modern society is an interesting problem to ponder, and the ending probably would have been a nice '70s-style mindfuck if the preceding affairs hadn't been so goofy.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the movie is visibly cheap, making the flaws all the more obvious. The "clone farm" is very obviously a college campus, and a beer can serves as a major plot point. Lena and Richard have zero chemistry -- we are supposed to believe this is a meeting of kindred minds, but there doesn't seem to be a brain cell between them. The "cranky old couple" schtick also gets real old, real fast. There are also some mistakes that can be blamed on bad directorial choices, such as the decision to hold a climactic conversation out of reach of any audio equipment whatsoever.<br /><br />In all, a noble effort, but is nonetheless best viewed on MST3K. | negative |
David Lynch's ninth full length feature film, Mulholland Drive is a deeply touching story about betrayal and jealousy. If anything, it brutally contrasts our ambitions and hopes to the often bitter truth. Every frame of this movie has importance and links to other parts and to themselves at the same time. Nothing is what it first appears to be and you're left with a real puzzle as you end up trying to put the pieces together. It is a movie that does not compromise, nor does it fail to fully handle the challenging form and camera language, as might have been the case earlier with Lost Highway.<br /><br />Although one clearly recognizes classic lynchian motifs and devices, the movie remains highly original, even in the light of it being a Lynch movie. Lost Highway marked a new way of telling a story; bred an unconventional mean of setting emotions on to the screen. With Mulholland Drive, Lynch not only managed to control this technique, but takes it to new levels in making it much more complex and multi dimensional. In doing this, he creates a framework of different layers in time and of the human mind. In a press conference on the Cannes film festival 2001, David Lynch said that striving for perfection at best could give a result where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Talking about synergies like this becomes highly relevant to Mulholland Dr. where the different sequences and many details contribute to the total; dreamscapes and parallels intertwine to create the story. In some art, the beauty of it lies in its simpleness. This is not the case with Mulholland Drive, and has never been with Lynch. It is the complexity that colors and builds the worlds Lynch creates, the same complexity that characterizes the real world.<br /><br />It never gets forced like, in my opinion, for example Memento does, using an original way of communicating with the viewers. Further comparing Mulholland Drive to other movies, I think it proves David Lynch as a master of what he does and bridges art and film making in a way that no one has ever done. Compared to for example Alejandro Jodorowsky or contemporary Matthew Barney, I do believe that Lynch more clearly manages not letting the artist dominate the film maker or, more likely, David Lynch better understands and executes film making as an art form.<br /><br />Understanding the plot is no small feat, but Lynch's way of working with sound, perspective, chronology and form paints a work of art so dark and frightening that it sometimes feels more realistic than real life. The lynchian cinema is often, and most definitely in Mulholland Drive, a surge of human emotions. Working with emotions is a delicate craft that demands understanding and depth. As Lynch puts it: "A little bit too much, and the emotion goes away. A little bit too little, and it doesn't happen." In Mulholland Drive, David Lynch has no problem making this balance. Lynch's portraits span all kinds of dimensions and take different directions, creating incredibly realistic characters and situations. Watching Mulholland Drive is a journey through the subconscious. It is a truthful and naked movie with indisputable artistic value. That is why I love Mulholland Drive and what's taken it to the pinnacle of cinema history. The ultimate movie. | positive |
Power rangers, the moronic merchandising television kids show from the 1990s, has got to be the most pointless and ridiculous television show ever created.<br /><br />What exactly is the point of this show anyway, other than to sell second rate plastic nonsense to children? There is nothing even remotely redeeming or interesting about this show in anyway.<br /><br />Look at the costumes, which look like spandex gone bad.<br /><br />The mullet style hair, earrings, and fashions of the early 1990s look completely ridiculous these days.<br /><br />Avoid this show at all costs! | negative |
I have to agree with the previous author's comments about the excellent performances and plot. Started watching this movie by accident...(lazy Sunday afternoon clicking channels to see if anything good was on)...and was mesmerized by Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez. Wow! Gut wrenching! Kudos to everyone (have always admired Martin Sheen) but was particularly impressed with Emilio! Excellent job of acting and directing...simply superb! So why have I never heard of this movie before? I'll have to spread the news. | positive |
Okay, I'm just going to disagree with the past comments that criticized this show. I happen to think this show is awesome. (I mean when Jasmin Weber was still on and Franzi was still alive, so addicting!). And I was surprised to learn that this was categorized as a soap, because it just doesn't carry the same look and feel as soaps in America. Soaps here are absolutely horrific! At least GZSZ films on location, features real music and more plausible story lines. Moreover, the acting on GZSZ, for the most part, is quite believable especially with Josephine Schmidt and Felix Jascheroff. (Plus, soap actors are some of the hardest workers around in the business as they have the most demanding work schedules). If it's ratings are that high, it must be doing something right; soaps in America are shown in the day-time and, historically, have always had rock-bottom ratings. Give GZSZ a chance! Trust me, it's good! | positive |
I was so let down by this film. The tag line was something like 'The story of a girls sexual awakening'. You can only imagine how disappointed I was. I was seventeen at the time and I took my girlfriend to see it. I thought we were going to see a sexy movie that would leave my girlfriend gagging for it. Sadly that was not the case. I guess we just weren't ready for a deep and meaningful movie that required an element of sophistication that we just didn't possess at the time. I'm not so sure I possess it now, and I have long since parted company with that particular girlfriend (pity really... my first love). We left the cinema half way through the film, my friend, who should have known better, stayed for the whole thing. I still got the required result with my girlfriend, the film just didn't help much. It would be interesting to see it again so that I can make a more informed critique, though I feel the experience has left me scarred for life. | negative |
Deep Shock plays out like a TV movie: a whole cast of commercial-quality actors, a poorly designed creature to be the "bad guy," and a script that is more full of technical, political jargon and importances than it knows what to do with.<br /><br />I checked out the movie because of the creature (I love to see what filmmakers have in mind for their designs in these cheaply made videos), and right off the bat, I got disappointed because the creature on the box was not the one in the movie. The actors I expected because of the type of film it is (really quite generic and not thought out past a certain point). The music was typical, not-thought-out action symphonic music.<br /><br />I liked the design of the computers and technical equipment, along with the mini-sub design. The movie even flowed really well, with guiding screens letting you know which set you're watching the story unfold in. But there isn't much of a story here anyways.<br /><br />This movie gets a 3/10 stars IMO. The boring search and destroy mission to blow up the North Pole and these creatures protecting it...kinda lame. Even lamer is the tagged-on love relationship between two of the characters that you don't see coming. Chalk this one up to being a movie which tries to get actors' careers off the bench and into a video. Don't bother. | negative |
An absurdly hilarious and strikingly human tale of the jealousies and infidelities surrounding a beetle marriage, Russian animation pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz's "Mest kinematograficheskogo operatora" ("The Cameraman's Revenge", or "The Revenge of a Kinematograph Cameraman") is a delight of early animation, brimming with highly-effective stop-motion puppetry and no shortage of imagination.<br /><br />Mr. and Mrs. Beetle have a completely uneventful marriage, and both yearn for more excitement in their lives. Mr. Beetle's desires can only be satisfied by the beautiful exotic dancer at the "Gay Dragonfly" night club, whom he visits whenever he takes a "business trip" to the city. She is the only one who understands him. A fellow admirer of this dancer, an aggressive grasshopper, is jealous that Mr. Beetle has stolen his lady and, as fate would have it, he is also a movie cameraman. The devious grasshopper follows Mr. Beetle and his acquaintance to a hotel room, where he films their exploits through the keyhole.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Mrs. Beetle has, likewise, acquired a friend to add excitement to her life. He is an artist, and he brings her a painting for a present, before they both settle down on the couch for some intimacy. At that moment, however, Mr. Beetle returns home and witnesses the entire spectacle. As Mr. Beetle bashes through the front door, the artist friend clambers up the chimney, but he doesn't escape without Mr. Beetle first venting his anger and frustration upon him.<br /><br />There is a certain irony in the statement that follows: "Mr. Beetle is generous. He forgives his wife and takes her to a movie." He is generous enough to forgive her, and yet he had been equally unfaithful just minutes earlier. At this point in time, however, we still haven't forgotten the jealous movie cameraman who had been plotting his revenge, and it is no surprise when he turns out to be the projectionist for the film Mr. and Mrs. Beetle are attending. Suddenly intercut into the film they are enjoying is the footage of Mr. Beetle's disloyalty, and the angry wife hits him across the head with an umbrella, before the frightened and angry husband dives through the theatre screen in search of the grasshopper.<br /><br />In the final scene, both Mr. and Mrs. Beetle, now somewhat more appreciative of each other, are serving time in prison for the fire that broke out when Mr. Beetle sought his final revenge. We do, indeed, hope that "the home life of the Beetles will be less exciting in the future
" This film may appear to be a mere story of the comings-and-goings of a miniscule insect species, but Starewicz is communicating so much more than that. This isn't a story about beetles it is a story about us. And it's startlingly accurate, isn't it?! | positive |
Every once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.<br /><br />Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG. | negative |
*SPOILERS*<br /><br />I'm sure back when this was released in 1958 it was much appropriate for its time. Back then films were slower paced to allow audiences to follow and analyze the story. Here a man moves into a house owned by his last wife that died mysteriously with his new wife. The gardener Mickey (played by Alex Nicol, who also directed he film) really is an underappreciated character. He gets a skull to indirectly warn Jenni that she is in trouble, since he knew that there was foul play in the first wife's death. He can't tell Jenni directly what happened, so he tries to scare her off with the skull. Jenni, we also find out, saw her parents die, thus causing a lifetime of mental anguish that lead to institutionalization. Like many audiences today, I found the pacing to be a little too slow for my tastes. But if you like slow-paced horror without a lot of gore, this film is for you.<br /><br /> | negative |
It's a bit unnerving when a studio declines to screen a film for the press before it goes into wide release. That many movies suck is no surprise, but when a studio itself admits as much ahead of time, the process of movie-going becomes a passion play of sorts. Consider it an early Christmas gift from Hollywood, then, that "Aeon Flux" isn't nearly the affront to taste and decency one might expect, given the above. Though ultimately overwhelmed by its flaws, it at least has (sort of) an idea with which to toy around. Too bad director Karyn Kusama seems to have little clue how to execute it all.<br /><br />It's the future. There's been a plague. There is a dictatorship, and there are rebels. The latter are known as the Monicans, and far from being a cult of beret or tennis racket worshipers, they're into attempts to overthrow the former, called the Goodchild regime. The regime is occasionally mean to the citizenry, which is more than Aeon Flux (Charlize Theron) and her pals can stand. Through some sort of biochemical virtual reality technology, the Monicans receive orders from their dear leader (Frances McDormand), a mystical priestess-type who appears to have been cross-bred with a carrot. It falls to Aeon to strap on some form-fitting, futuristic spandex get-ups to carry out the High Carrot's orders, which are of course some version of "destroy the regime." Having years earlier watched her sister get liquidated by the Goodchilds, she needs little convincing.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, things get complicated. The Goodchilds might not be quite what they seem, and Aeon herself might have an unexpected history with them. Though occasionally muddled, the film's central conceit (of which I won't reveal more) contains some neat notions about the nature of human existence and survival. There's room for much more examination of which the film doesn't take advantage, but the ideas are there, at least. The big problems of "Aeon Flux" are technical. Kusama has made the baffling decision to film nearly all the action so close that we can rarely follow what's going on. To make matters worse, it's edited in a flurry of jump cuts that leave us completely lost. The result is some serious spacial disorientation that takes over the film. "Aeon Flux"'s aesthetic is one of sleek costume, oddly-angled architecture, and nimble characters. Much of the action occurs in minimalist, open spaces that beg for some unbroken long shots that might convey the grace and athleticism implied by the above. Instead, we get split seconds of flying limbs, breaking glass, and accompanying sound effects.<br /><br />There is a pretty good movie trying to get out of the morass of "Aeon Flux." Put this stuff in the hands of the Wachowski brothers, say, and the results could be quite different. As it is, though, I felt like "Aeon Flux" was willfully pushing me away from a movie I wanted to enjoy. This film is unattuned to its own strengths. Like a novice poker player dealt a royal flush, it somehow finds a way to lose in spite of its potential. | negative |
I admit I had no idea what to expect before viewing this highly stylized piece. It could have been the cure for a zombie virus or the common cold for all I knew. It began with great visuals, little snippets to grab your attention and cause your imagination to run wild. As it continued I learned quickly through voice overs what was taking place. A nice little neo noir story that I felt was not a waist of a few minutes of my time. The little clues given to the audience through visuals at the beginning give them a sense of accomplishment as they piece together the plot. Along with a nice twist at the end its a cool package overall. The score, though not bad, gave the film almost a music video feel. It just felt a little dated, not adding anything to further the storyline. Some of the performances felt overly dramatic but fit perfectly with the feel of the overall piece. I walk away from this very satisfied. I was given a lot of information in a short period of time but through great editing and voice-over work it didn't feel rushed or pushed. Great job! | positive |
This is a really fun, breezy, light hearted romantic comedy. You cannot go wrong with Meg Ryan's cute perkiness combined with Albert Einstein's genius. Normally, I'm not a fan of completely fabricated fictional tales about actual people, now deceased and not able to defend themselves, but I think the late Einstein might himself have gotten a chuckle out of this one.<br /><br />It's the 1950's...Princeton, New Jersey in the spring. The story revolves around a pretty, young, scatter brained mathematician, Catherine (Meg Ryan), who is all set to marry a stuffy jerk, a behavioral researcher named James, merely because he has the brains she's looking for in the father of her future children. However, it's love at first sight when her car breaks and she meets an auto mechanic named Ed (Tim Robbins). As she doesn't think Ed is intelligent enough, her uncle, none other than Albert Einstein, plays match maker, assisted in his endeavors by three mischievous cronies, all theoretical physicists. Uncle Albert must make Ed appear suitably smart, so concocts a charade portraying him as a physicist...naturally with amusing results.<br /><br />Walter Matthau is his usual hilarious self, and pulls off the character of Einstein quite effectively. With his three professorial buddies, Kurt, Nathan, and Boris, a lot of laughs ensue. The real Einstein had a genuine human side and this film just takes it one (outrageous) step further. If you suspend all logic, you can almost imagine this silly story happening!<br /><br />It might not be rocket science (despite its main character) but it is a wonderful sweet, refreshing movie. One of the best of the comedy romance genre. | positive |
Awful, awful, awful times a hundred still doesn't begin to describe how crappy "Biggest Loser" is. Picture this: take two fat couples with nothing interesting to say, humiliate them, and let them work to lose weight, all on prime time television. Am I the only one who thinks that this isn't something people with IQs in the 3-digit area WANT TO WATCH? Everything drags on forever, with the lumps of lard whining on about how losing weight is going to mean so much for them and their lives. Does anyone care? Do they think we care? Do they care if we care? Probably not. I think I'll videotape myself doing crunches and sell it to some major television corporation. If this passes for television, then so can my workouts! | negative |
Old bat transforms to younger OK looking girl after drinking a potion. This movie was dreadful. The acting atrocious. The camera work made me head spin. And it features the longest, most excruciatingly boring strip-tease ever put to film. Piero Vivarelli should be ashamed for directing this. Eduardo Manzanos Brochero should'voe been blacklisted just for writing something so awful.Don't rent this movie, the only exception I can this of is maybe If you're dying and only have less then 90 minutes to live, watch this film cause it will feel like an eternity and you'll be begging the Grip Reaper come a little early.<br /><br />My Grade: F | negative |
The basis for this dynamic docudrama is the true story of one of the most extraordinary card players ever.<br /><br />STUEY is a tight, cohesive biopic of a true poker Ace whose life is a one-way trip down the Highway to Hell with few detours.<br /><br />This dramatic feature stands wide apart from other films about poker. It represents a rare and earnest attempt to bring to the silver screen a true story of ultimate gambling compulsion. The complete obsession that annihilates any proximity of spirituality and nullifies any chance of redemption. This is the least likely movie a Vegas Casino executive would recommend. And it is the sole poker DVD you are likely to find on the shelves of Gamblers Annonymous.<br /><br />There are scenes in this movie that poker buffs are sure to refer to as some of the best gambling scenes ever. Stu reading his opponent's hand and, particularly, a Texas hold'em bluffing scene.<br /><br />Prophetically, early on in the movie we see a young Stu bullied out of his pocket change by a bunch of neighborhood hoodlums. Poker is for loners seeking revenge. It is a game of patience which bullies lack. 'You can't bully me!' may very well be an underlying sentiment of the punishing force that a champion poker player unleashes upon his adversaries.<br /><br />Conservatives will look upon this film as a cautionary tale of a soul lost in sin. They may evoke Mark Twain: 'The best throw at dice is to throw them away.' The young and liberal masses will inevitably have a more simplistic and sympathetic outlook. They may not have heard of Twain's quote, but will sure remember a remark made by Stu's stunned pal who learns from up-and-coming Stuey that he'd won a car from a local character in an overnight game. 'You tell'em to go to hell and they look forward to the trip'.<br /><br />The mosaic of Las Vegas vignettes that we see in STUEY will long linger in memory. Frank Sinatra, the most generous tipper? Forget about it! Nobody tips as extravagantly as a hot-shot gambler. And for Vegas visitors who may not know the impact of tipping on the quality of their stay, check out the scene of Stu checking in a Vegas hotel!<br /><br />'This is what i was meant to do, this is where i was to be. Movie stars in Hollywood, politicians in Washington and gamblers in Vegas.' | positive |
A slick romanticizing of the sexual exploitation of NewOrleans black women by white men of power and privilege. Ooh. Does that whet your appetite? Well, then, belly up to a VHS or DVD and gorge on this gratuitous trolling through a seamy segment of history. For good measure, it's adapted from the book by celebrated hack Anne Rice. The directing is as cloying and melodramatic as the cheesy dialog. Most of acting is amateurish. The production's sole worthwhile note is that it employed practically a dozen black actors, all of whom have scarcely been in employed in today's market (Jasmine Guy, Ben Vereen, Pam Grier, Eartha Kitt), including some faces that have barely been seen at all (Bianca Lawson, Rachel Cuttrell). It also is, despite itself, a sterling showcase for Nicole Lyn. The pompous and ponderous James Earl Jones is on-hand as well. So, is the late Ossie Davis, a minimal talent who owes his success to having been affiliated with the legendary Negro Ensemble Company. This film should be rated "T" for tripe. | negative |
Well, when before I saw this film I really wasn't sure whether it would be my cup of tea...how wrong I was! I thought that this was one of the best films I've watched for a very long time, a real family classic. The story of a young evacuee and his new 'foster' dad, this film ticks all the boxes. I've not read the book (maybe that's a good thing & meant I enjoyed the film more) but with regards to the story, I really can't think of any bad points, hence scoring it 10 out of 10 (and I hardly ever think anything warrants top marks!). By the time William proclaimed 'I CAN RIDE MY BIKE, DAD!' I was sobbing my heart out (anyone who's seen it will understand, I'm sure). Really heartwarming, and definitely recommended. | positive |
I understand that Roger Corman loves to do things on the cheap, but this is just sad. I purchased this flick from the dollar bin at my local video store not a month after watching the original Carnosaur. I was blown away; It was the same damn movie, with just some Corbin Bernesen spliced in! It reminded me of all of those 80s ninja movies that took old Kung Fu movies and spliced in a bunch of white ninjas running doing cartwheels with the word "ninja" written on their headbands (if you haven't seen them, check out "Ninja Terminator", "The Thundering Ninja", "Black Dragon" and "Ninja Warriors"). Thanks Roger Corman; you just made me waste a dollar. | negative |
It's often said that Tobe Hooper just struck lucky with his grisly 1974 horror film 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' and every time I see another Hooper film - that view is only reinforced. It would seem that Hooper wanted to make his own version of films such as Scanners and Firestarter in 1990 and so we end up with Spontaneous Combustion; a film with a couple of good ideas and a whole load more that are borrowed from other films. Put it all together and you get a messy, boring film that most people would do well to miss! The film leads the audience to believe that it might be half decent initially with an intriguing back story that focuses on some experiments carried out on two young people in the fifties. The couple have a child and shortly thereafter burn to death as a result of the experiments done on them. Fast forward some years and the baby is now an adult named Sam; but naturally he's not a normal person and soon finds when it's discovered that he has the ability to set things on fire at will.<br /><br />The film stars Brad Dourif, who must have seemed like a good casting choice given his success with Child's Play two years earlier; but actually was an uninspired decision as the central performance is really terrible; and not helped by the terrible supporting performances. The turgid direction and dull script also don't do the film many favours and the trend of lacking in favours is continued by the special effects, which are very unrealistic and have nothing on the films that this one is ripping off; all of which were made some years earlier. The plot is really slow and it's almost an hour before anything of note happens, and I didn't care for it even then. It soon becomes obvious which direction the film will go in and it all boils down to the sort of tedious ending you would expect. The final confrontation is a big disappointment and nothing is really explained during the film. Not that any revelation would have been interesting anyway. Overall, this is a rubbish film and another reason why Tobe Hooper is a long way from being a great horror director. See Firestarter again instead. | negative |
Unbelievably close to real life feelings and emotions captured by Joseph Mazzello as a hemophiliac child affected by AIDS and his new young neighbor, a wanna-be tough redneck played to perfection by Brad Renfro. Although the story may seem slightly farfetched (the two boys attempt to river-raft several hundred miles to find a doctor who claims to have the cure to AIDS), the emotion, actions and interactions of all characters involved are tragically close to real life. Being a "big brother" to a boy in a similar situation who died a few years after this film was released, I strongly recommend this picture to anyone who has ever wondered what really happens in the life of a child with AIDS. Superb direction by Peter Horton creates the perfect mood and setting for each scene and draws the viewer into the various emotions affected by friendship, illness, prejudice and the final parting of two friends who fought hard to overcome adversity. | positive |
It may be a remake of the 1937 film by Capra, but it is wrong to consider it only in that way! It was supposed to expose Hilton's novel in a completely different way. As a musical is excellent. The scenery is terrific, the characters good and anyone like "Leonard Maltin" who considers the Bacharach music awful must be completely deaf! I strongly recommend it. | positive |
Fiction film (it lists as based on a story though it does have a "documented by" credit) about a group of scientists going into the wilds of Canada to try and find a Bigfoot.(They want to capture one and then attach a tracking device). Its lots of scientific mumbo jumbo mixed in what is really a dull film of a bunch of people wandering around in the wilderness. There are some attempts at creating tension and scares, but to be perfectly honest there is nothing here worth seeing outside of some great looking shots of the wilds. This is a perfect definition of an exploitation film, it promises you so much, a look at Bigfoot, but in reality it delivers very little. Recommended for insomniacs only | negative |
"Crossfire" is ostensibly a murder mystery but what distinguishes it from other similar movies of the period is the killer's motive, which is anti-Semitism. The story highlights examples of the kind of ignorance which fuels bigotry and contains references to a "hillbilly" and an Irish immigrant who also suffered maltreatment because of their ethnicity.<br /><br />The movie's plot is based on Richard Brooks' novel called "The Brick Foxhole" which is about a hate crime where the victim was gay. It's ironic that this story about a form of intolerance should be met with intolerance by the censors who stipulated that, for the screen version, the type of bigotry involved should be changed to anti-Semitism. Another irony is the behaviour of a soldier who seems fiercely proud of having served in a war against the Nazis and yet embraces their hatred of Jews. The director and producer of this movie also suffered another type of intolerance when they were blacklisted after being called to appear before the "House Un-American Activities Committee". All these points just seem to underline the deeply entrenched and intractable nature of the whole problem of bigotry as depicted in this movie.<br /><br />When Police Captain Finlay (Robert Young) investigates the murder of Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene), he discovers that on the night when he was killed, Samuels had been socialising with a group of soldiers and one of these, Corporal Arthur "Mitch" Mitchell (George Cooper) is quickly identified as the prime suspect. Further information is also gathered from Montgomery (Robert Ryan) who is another of the soldiers who was present that night and Sergeant Keeley (Robert Mitchum) who's a friend of Mitchell. Keeley, with the help of some other soldiers, then searches for Mitchell and when he finds him, hears his account of what he did on the night of the murder including his meeting with a dance hall hostess called Ginny Tremaine (Gloria Grahame).<br /><br />Keeley helps Michell to avoid being arrested and tries to identify the murderer. Ginny Tremaine is questioned but her information is insufficient to prove Mitchell's innocence but Finlay's investigations lead him to recognise the motive for the crime and subsequently, he sets up an elaborate trap which leads the real culprit into exposing his own guilt.<br /><br />"Crossfire" is a movie with a message and the identity of the murderer is revealed at a very early stage in the story. The "message" is conveyed in a way which was, no doubt, appropriate for the period in which it was made but by today's standards seems rather heavy handed. The cinematography by J Roy Hunt is just wonderful with low key lighting and creative use of numerous strategically placed table lamps combining to evoke a look which is perfectly compatible with the drama being played out on screen.<br /><br />Despite it being a low budget production, "Crossfire" was a great box office success and benefited from having an absorbing and very relevant story with a marvellous cast, two of whom were nominated for Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor (Robert Ryan) and Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Grahame). The additional nominations for Edward Dmytryk (Best Director), producer Adrian Scott (Best Picture) and John Paxton (Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay) are just further evidence of the positive recognition which this movie justifiably received. | positive |
This movie was recommended to me by the same person that blessed me with a copy of The Chronicles of Narnia. Shadowlands is one of the most amazing screenplays ever written. It is well executed, acted and directed. The cinematography is a bit dark for my taste but I'm sure it was intended to be so. The screenplay is like poetry in portions of the movie, through out the movie I found myself taking pause to reflect on the comments just made on screen. This is a wonderful piece of cinema and I can only hope that more people will run across it and add reviews. Fair warning though this was a 6 tissue movie for me. Very touching. Very Heartfelt performances. | positive |
Jeff Lieberman's "Just Before Dawn" is definitely one of the most underrated horror movies ever made.The film,whilst a little bit influenced by "Deliverance" and "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre",is extremely creepy and memorable.The suspense almost never lets up and the atmosphere is genuinely eerie.The cast is excellent,Deborah Benson and Jamie Rose are great female leads.The inbred twins are truly frightening and remorseless killers.The film is beautifully shot-it was actually filmed on location at Silver Falls State Park in Oregon.There is very little gore,but one killing,when Verchel is stabbed in the groin,is pretty nasty and unpleasant.A must-see for slasher fans.10 out of 10-what else? | positive |
An uninspired and undistinguished "new" Columbo which sees the man-in-the-mac attend his nephew's wedding, only for his bride to disappear on their wedding night. Columbo investigates...<br /><br />And that it is about it: indifferently plotted and surprisingly laden with a flat script, given that it is written by Robert Van Scoyk, who penned the highly enjoyable Columbo story "Murder Under Glass" in the detective's heyday; there is not even a murder to speak of and the greatest amount of ingenuity afforded to Columbo by the script-writer is the narrowing down of suspects via the photos taken at the wedding, which include everybody who was there!<br /><br />Devoid of every Columbo trait possible, I thought I was watching an episode of Hill Street Blues. An insult to the history of the series, with appropriately soap-opera style acting. Very avoidable stuff. | negative |
The mystery here is why this delightful, small comedy has been ignored by most critics and has failed to find the audience it deserves. Simply showcasing the budding talent of Audrey Tautou should be enough to generate greater recognition from the cognoscenti. <br /><br />Lacking in pretension and relying on quirky characterizations, itÕs rumination on the interconnection of human behavior manages to be both amusing and life affirming and, unlike some of itsÕ more critically acclaimed competition in the genre, such as The Taste of Others, it actually entertains. | positive |
Right on Colmyster. I totally concur with all your sentiments and add these. I came to my PC especially to post a comment on this dreadful (minus)Bgrade movie. I was going to say that in this day and age I am at a loss to comprehend how anyone could possibly make such a woeful movie - but you beat me to it. Anyone reading this and Colmyster's comment, trust me ---- DON't waste you time and money. It's an absolute shocker. The acting is totally pathetic, the script is way worse, and the (so called) special effects are a joke. Surely no-one actually invested money to make this movie? I really cannot think of anything else to say about this so called horror sci-fi product, but must pad this commentary to make 10 lines of comment in order to have it accepted for submission. | negative |
As to be expected, there's a pretty good reason why this film is so obscure and unknown in spite of dealing with the always-popular premise of zombies and starring the 80's B-movie queen Linda Blair, namely: it sucks! "The Chilling" is trying enormously hard way too hard to be a story with depth and factual background, whereas it should have just been a light-headed and gore-packed horror flick about frozen zombies. It takes an incredibly long time before anything remotely interesting or significant happens. There's a lot of drivel about cryogenics, which I learned in my physics class is the study of products and their behavior at extremely low temperatures. So naturally, in this film a bunch of people are studying the behavior of human corpses when deep frozen. Needless to say this is extremely boring, until two dim-witted night watchmen decide, during an electric power failure, that it's a good idea to put the metal-constructed cool cells outside at the heights of a thunderstorm. The coolers are struck by lightening, obviously, and the bodies spontaneously defrost and come to live to go on a murderous zombie rampage. "The Chilling" is a boring and surprisingly (for a late 80's effort, at least) gore-free horror film that doesn't even use up a quarter of its potential. All the painful attempts to build up an atmosphere of suspense and eeriness fail tremendously and I can't think of any reason why the zombie-attacks had to be so bloodless. Even in spite of the low budget available, they could have done better. The set pieces, make-up effects and costumes are pitiable. The research lab, for example, looks like a proper apartment flat whilst the zombies couldn't look less menacing with their green faces and foil-wrapped outfits. How Linda Blair managed to get involved yet again in such an embarrassing low-budgeted horror flick is a complete mystery. She's attracted to lousy B-movies like bees are to honey. | negative |
From an artistic standpoint, the movie fails to entertain or provide any moral resolution. The plot is hard to follow, if there is one at all. The acting is tough to stomach. The dialogue is cliche and clearly written by somebody who doesn't know English. Only the cinematography was worth watching in this movie, although you can still see flaws in the picture.<br /><br />As an Asian-American female, the movie angered me because it proved how narrow minded people can be. Politically speaking, putting Asian women in such disgraceful roles should be outlawed. Perpetuating stereotypes of Asian prostitutes is not only bad for the self-esteem of Asian women, but also to the country as a whole. I feel for the lead actress who played Maya and the exploitation she must have faced in playing such a role.<br /><br />As Americans, please avoid this movie. Art should be used to develop our tolerance and respect for one another, not hold it back. | negative |
My mom took me to see this movie when it came out around Christmas of 1976. I loved it then and I love it now. I know everyone makes fun of Barbra's hair in this one, but I think she looks and sounds great! ...And I seem to remember a number of women who copied that permed look at the time! Also, the bath tub scene between Streisand and Kristoferson is just so sexy! The music is great as well. This is the groovy 70's Babs at her best! | positive |
For all those people who believe the dialog is worth something, and who appreciate a farce that is clever enough for you to take it seriously, this movie will surprise you. It is not a 'whodunit' for people who can't aren't able to follow the verbal exchange of our hero, Professor Dexter Cornell (Dennis Quaid).<br /><br />Cornell teaches in Southern California, near the tar pits. He has not published a novel in four years, his wife is divorcing him, he drinks a bit much, and is blessed or cursed with caustic wit, which he freely dispenses to his students. He has recommended a friend for advancement, and one bright young student has submitted a manuscript to him as an independent project. Cornell doesn't even want to read it, so gives it an "A", and pushes it to the side. Leaning back with a drink in his office he stares out the window, when the bright young student falls past his window on the way to meeting the sidewalk in a splat encounter.<br /><br />Hal comes to talk, and they chat, drinking some more. The Cornell realizes that he HAS to read the manuscript, now. When he goes home, his wife is waiting with divorce papers. He drinks some more. She leaves, and he goes to a faculty affair, only to find her there. He drinks even more. And when his wife learns that the student is dead, she swoons, and he learns that she had been having an affair with the student. This of course prompts him to do some more serious drinking. The next morning he wakes up to find himself in the dorm room of one of his students, a freshman named Syd (Meg Ryan).<br /><br />He feels worse than a hangover, goes to the doctor and learns that he has been poisoned, it is irreversible, and he has 24-48 hours to live. He doesn't have much time to find out who killed him, and there are sub-plots, motives, relationships and surprises at every turn, although everything makes sense at the end. All his discoveries and exchanges are adorned with sarcasm, dry wit and keen observations. Let's just say that this movie will give new meaning to the adage "publish or perish".<br /><br />There are no bad performances in this movie. There are recurrent images, and symbolism used at careful intervals. Watch for the cracked glass, and images distorted through glass. Some of the camera shots are revolutionary for 1988, and some of the violent action is carefully and skillfully choreographed. The music is unobtrusive and appropriate, although occasionally it makes it's own statement, in song lyrics. The visuals in this flick are impressive.<br /><br />If there are any failures, it is that the opening 20 minutes move a little slow, and nearly puts you to sleep. But the pacing picks up quickly, with just the right amount of exposition in between action segments.<br /><br />There are no explicit sexual encounters, although there is violence and some bad language.<br /><br />This is a writer's movie, and is best appreciated by those who have a sense of humor about their own success or failure. I do think if you take it seriously, you're already in big trouble. | positive |
I love most Jet Li movies (with the exception of Romeo Must Die) and I bought this movie in a VERY cheap three-pack with "The Master" and "Twin Warriors". While Twin Warriors was very impressive and I was thoroughly intrigued by it, and the master was a bit "Karate Kid" but also enjoyable, I thought this movie was TERRIBLE. I'm not just saying that because I'm used to better movies. I'm saying that it was almost down there with "Kazaam". The fight scenes were terrible (blurry cameras and no real fighting) and the plot was your typical "stupid kung-fu plot". If you are going to have a plot this stupid (see 'man turns into woman to become all-powerful then falls in love with Jet Li') you best have some great fighting to go with it. If you are looking for an original HK Jet Li movie, I suggest you go rent "Shaolin Temple 2" (aka Kids from Shaolin). | negative |
Preminger's adaptation of G. B. Shaw's ''Saint Joan''(screenplay by Graham Greene) received one of the worst critical reactions in it's day. It was vilified by the pseudo-elite, the purists and the audiences was unresponsive to a film that lacked the piety and glamour expected of a historical pageant. As in ''Peeping Tom'', the reaction was malicious and unjustified. Preminger's adaptation of Shaw's intellectual exploration of the effects and actions surrounding Joan of Arc(her actual name in her own language is Jeanne d'Arc but this film is in English) is totally faithful to the spirit of the original play, not only on the literal emotional level but formally too. His film is a Brechtian examination of the functioning of institutions, the division within and without of various factions all wanting to seize power. As such we are not allowed to identify on an emotional level with any of the characters, including Joan herself.<br /><br />As played by Jean Seberg(whose subsequent life offers a eerie parallel to her role here), she is presented as an innocent, a figure of purity whose very actions and presence reveals the corruption and emptiness in everyone. As such Seberg plays her as both Saint and Madwoman. Her own lack of experience as an actress when she made this film(which does show up in spots) conveys the freshness and youth of Jeanne revealing both the fact that Jeanne la Pucelle is a humble illiterate peasant girl who strode out to protect her village and her natural intelligence. By no means did she deserve the harsh criticism that she got on the film's first release, it's a performance far beyond the ken and call of any first-time actress with no prior acting experience. Shaw and Preminger took a secular view towards Joan seeing her as a medieval era feminist, not content with being a rustic daughter who's fate is to be married away or a whore picked up by soldiers to and away from battlefields. Her faith, her voices, her visions which she intermingles with words such as "imagination" and "common sense" leads her to wear the armour of her fellow soldiers to lead them to battle to chase the invading Englishman out of France.<br /><br />And yet it can be said that the film is more interested in the court of the Dauphin(Richard Widmark), the office of the clergy who try Joan led by Pierre Cauchon(Anton Walbrook, impeccably cast) and the actions of the Earl of Warwick(John Gielgud) then in Joan herself. The superb ensemble cast(all male) portray figures of scheming, Machievellian(although the story precedes Niccolo) opportunists who treat religion as a childish toy to be used and manipulated for their own ends. The sharp sardonic dialogue gives the actors great fun to let loose. John Gielgud as the eminently rational Earl whose intelligence,(albeit accompanied by corruption), allows him to calculate the precise manner in which he can ensure Joan gets burnt at the stake and Anton Walbrook's Pierre Cauchon brings a three dimensional portrait to this intelligent theologian who will give Joan the fair trial that will certainly find her guilty. Richard Widmark as the Dauphin is a real revelation. As against-type a casting choice you'll ever find, Widmark portrays the weak future ruler of France in a frenzied, comic caricature that's as close as this film comes to comic relief. A comic performance that feels like an imitation of Jerry Lewis far more than an impetuous future ruler of France.<br /><br />Preminger shot ''Saint Joan'' in black and white, the cinematographer is Georges Perinal who worked with Rene Clair and who did ''The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp'' in colour. It's perfectly restrained to emphasize the rational intellectual atmosphere for this film. Preminger's preference for tracking shots of long uninterrupted takes is key to the effectiveness of the film, there's no sense of a wasted movement anywhere in his mise-en-scene.<br /><br />It also marks the direction of Preminger's most mature(and most neglected period) his focus is on the conflict between individuals and the institutions in which they work, how the institution function and how the individual acts as per his principles. These themes get their most direct treatment in his film and as always he keeps things unpredictable and finds no black and white answers. This is one of his very best and most effective films. | positive |
I was on my way out one morning when I was checking something on the T.V. and came across this film. I don't ever remember seeing this or hearing of it. What a fun and interesting one to watch. Well, my meeting was pushed back, because I couldn't get out of this film. It had some real interesting things in it that marked it's time in history, and some fun things that they don't have people do in today's film because it's not pretty. Well, there was a lot of realism in it. The acting was good for a 1954 film. Subtle and genuine actions on the part of the characters that had me watching what they were going to do next. That is why I ended up watching it. I don't know why they don't show it more often. I would rather watch this than some films they play more than necessary. For history buffs, people who like period films, and those that are in the film appreciation groups will like this one. "The Egyptian" has a variety of flavors dealing with a lot of things to look at in human nature that has not changed since it's time. What does that say about us? Those that don't like movies that take their time to unfold and tell a good story....are not into film.<br /><br />I haven't had the time to rent it if it is available, but if I get a chance to see it again, I would probably vote it a 10. | positive |
This is a great movie, all 3 were. The last one was not as good as the first 2 but it was made along time after and it was pulling at straws. But you want to watch it cause it tells the end of the story. Just not how we might think it should end.<br /><br />These movies made me want to be there to be in all the hardship, love, tears, and laughter that the people in this movie go threw. It is one of the few movies that is good every time you see it no matter how many times that is.<br /><br />There are some parts in the movie that the little kids wont understand and the older ones maynot be old enough to watch. but it is a great movie, spanning over 20+ years. | positive |
I saw this tonight with moderate expectations - if Tartan Films have picked up on something and are releasing it the that's generally a good sign, however I'm not normally a fan of Julie Walters, generally disliking her comedy roles (sorry to any fans, but it's a personal thing - I just don't find her funny in comedy).<br /><br />This was magnificent though - a great performance by all, but Grint and Walters are exceptional! Plenty of laughs, plenty of pathos, great timing and a wonderfully paced film - such a coming of age film wouldn't normally be something I'd expect to like so much but I can't recommend this highly enough - and watch Rupert Grint as he matures into a fine fine actor. | positive |
I should have known when I looked at the box in the video store and saw Lisa Raye - to me, she's the female Ernie Hudson A.K.A. "Le Kiss of Death" for *ANY* movie. Its almost *guaranteed* the movie will be bad (e.g. Congo)if Hudson is in it (with the exception of the Ghostbusters films, which were intentionally campy and bad). Despite my instincts, and the fact that I just saw Civil Brand, yet another cinematic "tour de force" starring Lisa Raye, I rented it anyway. After all, I ignored my "Hudson instinct" on OZ and ended up watching a very quality series so I figured I'd give this movie a chance.<br /><br />If you are a lover of bad movies, this is a definite must see! This has got to be the most unintentionally funny movie I've seen in a loooong time. The plot is fairly straightforward: Racheal's (Monica Calhoun) sister is killed by a band of brigands (Led by Bobby Brown!) and, like many an action movie before this, she straps on her guns ONE LAST TIME and vows to avenge her sisters death. To do this, she reassembles the titular Gang of Roses (supposedly based on a true story of a female gang) and they go out and exact revenge and, along the way, there's some subplot or something or other about some gold that might be buried in the town. One nice thing I will say about this movie is that from what I could tell, the stars did their own riding and they looked GREAT galloping.<br /><br />The funniest (albiet unintentionally funny) scenes? Look for when they introduce Stacy Dash's character or when Calhoun's character rescinds her vow not to strap on her guns (replete with a clenched fisted cry to the heavens) or Lil' Kim's character joking with Lisa Raye's character or Stacy Dash's character being killed or Lil' Kim's character convincing Lisa Raye's character to rejoin the gang or the Asian Chick or Macy Grey's character talking bout "The debt is paid", etc. With the exception of Calhoun's Racheal and Bobby Brown's Left-Eye, I can't even remember the names of the other characters cuz I was laughing so hard when they were introduced.<br /><br />If the director had gone for parody and broad comedy this would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, he tries to take it seriously seemingly without first taking exposition, sound design (in his defense, Hip-Hop is notoriously difficult to work into a period piece), set design, script writing nor period historical research (was it me,or were these the cleanest people with the whitest teeth in the old west?) seriously. Usually when I see a movie that's not so good, I ask myself "Could you have done any better?" This is the first time in a long time where the answer is an unequivocal "YES!" | negative |
I don't mind sequels; sometimes they're better than the original. However, many times the originals are best left alone....especially when you can't duplicate the cast. One of the big reasons "The Magnificent Seven" was such a hit was the very popular cast.<br /><br />This is hardly the "magnificent seven," when only Yul Brynner returns as one of the members of that famous group in "The Magnificent Seven." With six of the seven guys absent and replaced by much lesser-known actors, this loses its appeal in a hurry. In other words, except for Brynner, these guys have no charisma! This is a like a championship sports team fielding all substitutes except one.<br /><br />Brynner is good, once again: fun to watch, fun to hear with that distinctive deep voice of his, but the story, not just the rest of the crew, is lame. This movie should never have been made. In the original, we cared about the "seven;" in here, we couldn't care less. | negative |
I watched this movie with big expectations. The blurb on the back indicated that this was going to be a nasty one. But it was pretty tame and a little unsatisfying. The violence was nothing I haven't seen a thousand times before, the gore level was only average (mind you there was probably more than what has been seen in Hollywood in the last 5 years - perhaps more), and at no stage was I even feeling uneasy let along frightened. Again a CAT 3 movie with big wraps, has not lived up to its hype.<br /><br />Sure hire this movie, but don't go in with any expectations. I am so keen to get into the whole Asian horror scene, but am continuously disappointed. I did love Ichi, and Audition, but then again, Miike stands alone at the moment.<br /><br />Please inspire me..... there is a large cluster of jaded genre fans who are starved of quality horror! | negative |
This "coming of age" film deals with the experiences of two young girls, Dani and Maureen, as they learn about life and love one fateful summer.<br /><br />Directed by Robert Mulligan, famous for his superb work in "To Kill a Mockingbird," the film never hits a false note. All the acting is superb. As Dani, Reese Witherspoon makes a stunning film debut. Watching this beautifully photographed and superbly directed and edited film, I felt like I was looking through a window to reality, rather than watching a movie.<br /><br />I have watched this movie at least 5 times, and can honestly say that it is one of the single best movies ever made about being young, being in love, and going through the feelings, challenges, and changes of young adulthood. Families with children between 10 and 15 should watch it together, and use it as a discussion piece, as it raises a number of issues about sibling rivalry, how to deal with being in love, the responsibilities of a parent, etc. | positive |
We see Thomas Edison, with a glowing smile on his face, trying to electrocute a 5 ton living being. Eventually he was successful, and so the first animal snuff film is born, cleverly disguised as an amazing achievement in technology. This is scientific arrogance at it's worst, folks. It ranks up there with the doctor who decapitated a monkey just to prove that he could keep its severed head alive for 22 minutes.<br /><br />Oh yes, there's the absurd excuse that the elephant had been convicted of "murder" and sentenced to death, and that this was a fair and humane "execution". To all the people who are satisfied with this sophistry, please form a line on my right. I'm going to give you all a big collective Three Stooges slap across the head.<br /><br />Go watch "The Advocate" (1993), a movie based on the true story murder trial of a pig in Mideval France. 500 years later, humans are still a bunch of morons I see.<br /><br />What's next? We arrest birds for stealing our blueberries? Arrest pricker bushes for assault and battery? Thomas Edison, I hope you have a big fat worm crawling through your eye socket right now. Oh wait, that would be trespassing, wouldn't it? lol | negative |
This production is an insult to the Stooges, especially Moe. It is inaccurate and poorly acted. Many of the events depicted just didn't happen that way and too much was left out or skipped over. Read the books written by Moe and his daughter Joan instead. This was a waste of time. | negative |
This is a really obnoxious show. It is in fact an example of how low television has fallen since 'reality' got in style. Tanya is pretty but she is also extremely rude and has awful taste. Is a house show the place for sex appeal? Apparently some males like the show because they find Tanya attractive. The other boss is not pretty but he's fully as rude and also has awful taste. It is unfortunate that so many houses have to be shown while someone is still living in them. Most of the people who are allegedly viewing these houses before changes are made should be moving into brand new houses or completely empty ones so they will not be insulting anyone. Most of them ..like the 'crew'..need to be taught manners. I can imagine how awful the British show is since the British reality shows tend to be even worse when it comes to manners and taste.<br /><br />What happened to the Arts and Entertainment channel? When it started out (and for some years afterward) it was filled with treats. Now it's one big trash machine. | negative |
Valley Girl is the definitive 1980's movie with catch phrases filtered throughout this wonderfully acted movie. The characters are so convincing that you forget it is a movie and not a video of an actual "day-in-the-life" of any high school, USA. This flick is to the 1980's what the Brady Bunch TV series is to the 1970's. If you don't like it, well then "Gag me with a spoon." | positive |
Dr. K(David H Hickey)has been trying to master a formula that would end all disease and handicaps, but needs live donors to complete his work. His doctor brother Richard(Dennis O'Neill)has a son named Eddie(Derek Philips)who is accepted to medical school. Eddie has a girlfriend named Sarah(Lizabeth Cardenas)who is pre-law and plans to attend law school herself the coming fall. She and Eddie resume their relationship when Sarah calls things off with her current boyfriend who is also shagging the lady of Walt(Bill Sebastian;Eddie's best friend who recently paid for his cheating girlfriend's boob job). Eddie accidentally gets hit by a car and appears on the throes of death when Dr. K makes a suggestion to Richard..let him "recuperate" Eddie using his secret, illegal methods. When Dr. K applies his serum to Eddie horrifying results occur. Eddie's face bulges massive warts while he has also acquired a taste for human flesh. Many will die so that Eddie can feed this uncontrollable appetite he can't quench. Soon he may even pose a threat to his father and girlfriend..Eddie Monster must be stopped.<br /><br />Typically awful direct-to-video horror flick suffers from a severe lack of budget, acting, and overall talent. The premise, which seems like an interesting fright-fest, fails to deliver even as a zombie flick. The gore is limited with a few munching scenes but most of the violence occurs off-camera. The use of time to move the story along can really get annoying. | negative |
Another great movie by Costa-Gavras. It's a great presentation of the situation is Latin America and the US involvement in Latin American politics. The facts might or might not be accurate but it is a fact that the US was deeply involved in coups and support of Latin American dictatorships.<br /><br />Despite this though the spirit of the movie follows the typical leftist/communist propaganda of the Cold War era. Costa-Gavras is a well-known communist sympathizer and his movies are always biased. For example he presents the US actions as brutal and inhumane, while representing Tupamaros' extremist activities as something positive.<br /><br />As it turned out it was a blessing for Uruguay and the rest of the Latin America that the US got involved. Europe is filled with poor East European prostitutes. I never heard of poor Uruguayan or Chilean girls prostituting themselves en masse as it happens in most East European countries. The US was fighting a dirty war and god bless us all the monster of Soviet Communism was defeated. It is unfortunate the US had to do what it did in Latin America (and elsewhere) but sometimes you need to play dirty. This is not an idealistic world as Costa-Gavras and Matamoros like to believe. Had Matamoros come to power in Uruguay, we would've had another Ukraine in Latin America.<br /><br />All in all this movie follows corrupt and bankrupt leftist ideology of times past and tries to pass it as idealistic and morally correct. | negative |
Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more.... | positive |
Handsome and dashing British airline pilot George Taylor (a solid portrayal by Guiseppe Pambieri) gets beat up by thugs after a wild night in Hong Kong. George meets and falls in love with the sweet and virginal Dr. Emy Wong (a fine and charming performance by the lovely Chai Lee). George regains his health and goes back to work. When Emy fails to hear from George for a lengthy amount of time, she succumbs to despair and becomes a prostitute. While director/co-writer Bitto Albertini does indeed deliver a satisfying amount of the expected tasty nudity and steamy soft-core sex, this film is anything but your routine wallow in leering sleaze. Instead it's a surprisingly thoughtful, touching and tragic love story between two well drawn and highly appealing characters (Chai as Emy Wong is especially radiant and endearing). The picture starts out bubbly and cheerful, but the tone radically shifts into a more grim and harsh mood about two thirds of the way through. Emy's descent into vice after she falsely assumes that George has abandoned her is bleak and upsetting; ditto the remarkably sad and heartbreaking surprise bummer ending. Granted, the narrative is certainly melodramatic, but never too silly or trashy. Moreover, the sex scenes are quite tasteful and even genuinely erotic. Notorious Italian porn star Ilona Staller has a nice sizable supporting part as George's jealous and uninhibited secretary Helen Miller. Guido Mancori's polished cinematography offers many strikingly gorgeous shots of the exotic locations. Nico Fidenco's funky, throbbing score hits the groovy spot. Worth a look for those seeking something different. | positive |
This film breeches the fine line between satire and silliness. While a bridge system that has no rules may promote marital harmony, it certainly can't promote winning bridge, so the satire didn't work for me. But there were some items I found enjoyable anyway, especially with the big bridge match between Paul Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk near the end of the film. It is treated like very much like a championship boxing match. Not only is the arena for the contest roped off in a square area like a boxing ring, there is a referee hovering between the contestants, and radio broadcaster Roscoe Karns delivers nonstop chatter on the happenings. At one point he even enumerates "One... Two... Three... Four..." as though a bid of four diamonds was a knockdown event. And people were glued to their radios for it all, a common event for championship boxing matches. That spoof worked very well indeed.<br /><br />Unfortunately, few of the actors provide the comedy needed to sustain the intended satire. Paul Lukas doesn't have much of a flair for comedy and is miscast; lovely Loretta Young and the usual comic Frank McHugh weren't given good enough lines; Glenda Farrell has a nice comic turn as a forgetful blonde at the start of the film, but she practically disappears thereafter. What a waste of talent! | negative |
Mardi Gras: Made in China provides a wonderful, intricate connection between popular culture, nudity, and globalization through the making and tossing of beads. I saw this film at the International Film Festival of Boston, and was expecting a dry introduction to globalization, but what I got was a riveting visual display of shocking footage from both China and the United States. The eye-opening film is humorous, in-depth, serious, non-patronizing, and it leaves you wanting more as the credits role. It is worth comparing to Murderball -- it's simply that well done. The young women workers in China have various points of view, and the owner is amazingly open about the discipline. The revelers during Carnival are the highlight, but only because this excellent film provides in-depth context inside the factory in China without narration. Bravo to the filmmaker for getting inside and finishing the film! I would have never thought about the connection between beads, China, and New Orleans; now I think about the human connection between almost every object, but also the role of globalization, inequality, and fun. More importantly, I can make these connections without feeling a sense of guilt after watching this film, unlike other films on globalization that I've seen. | positive |
Subsets and Splits