text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
There is one really good scene in Faat Kine. The title character gets in an argument with another woman and after being threatened, Faat Kine sprays her in the face. The scene works because the act is so unexpected, bizarre, and rather funny at the same time. In that one instance, writer/director Ousmane Sembene gives the audience a character that is easy to root for, an interesting film character that could be worth watching for two hours. In the scene, he presents a brave woman who is bold in her actions. For the rest of the movie, the only other thing he seems to present is conflicting tones. <br /><br />The tone is all over the place. It's true not all movies have to clearly fit within a specific genre, but I don't think Faat Kine fits into any genre. Supposedly, it's a drama, though there are moments of such broad comedy (the aforementioned spraying in the face) that it cannot be taken seriously. On the other hand, the film is certainly not a comedy with the abundant amount of serious topics Sembene has crammed into the picture. There is a way to successfully mix comedy and drama together. Unfortunately, Semebene doesn't find that balance. Instead, one scene after another just drift into each other without much rhyme or reason, leaving two different tones hanging in the wind. <br /><br />Faat Kine also has the problem of running two hours long with an extremely drawn out finale. The film ends with a big party where all the characters' conflicts are resolved, only they aren't resolved quickly. The scene lasts longer than any other scene, going on for probably twenty minutes. Because the rest of the scenes up until this point have been meandering, the finale is particularly hard to endure with repetition beginning early on in the scene, making for a frustrating viewing experience.<br /><br />Perhaps I am being too hard on Faat Kine. I am not the right audience for it. I felt nothing towards the characters and had no connection to any part of the story. There are people who will probably find something meaningful in the story and see strong characters. However, I was unable to do so and thus cannot recommend it. | 0neg
|
Few films have left me with such a feeling of unease, and this is not a compliment. Since I saw it in a theater (How it ended there I can only wonder) I was subjected to 90 mn of hateful, derivative garbage, the main impression being a bit like this other sick-o movie "Don't answer the phone" - but worse. The nastiness of it all, rape and all, is shown without any distance (unlike strong stuff like "Last house on the left") and utter contempt for the (perfect ?) victims and everybody involved, leaving the viewer to be treated as a sadistic voyeur. At the end I felt like taking a shower. No credits to the director | 0neg
|
While not quite as monstrously preposterous as later works, this slow-moving, repetitive giallo offers some nice touches in the first half, but grows more and more lethargic and silly as it stumbles to its lame denouement.<br /><br />To be sure, the actors are above average - considering this is an Argento movie - and some moments show the director's visual skills, but whole sequences should've been cut and, basically, it's just the same exploitative trash as ever, wallowing in fake science and abnormal sexual depravity.<br /><br />3 out of 10 genetic disorders | 0neg
|
THE CAT O'NINE TAILS (Il Gatto a Nove Code) <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Cromoscope)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(35mm and 70mm release prints)<br /><br />A blind ex-journalist (Karl Malden) overhears a blackmail plot outside a genetics research laboratory and later teams up with a fellow reporter (James Franciscus) to investigate a series of murders at the lab, unwittingly placing their own loved ones at the mercy of a psychopathic killer.<br /><br />Rushed into production following the unexpected worldwide success of his directorial debut THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE (1969), Dario Argento conceived THE CAT O'NINE TAILS as a giallo-thriller in much the same vein as its forerunner, toplining celebrated Hollywood actor Karl Malden - fresh from his appearance in PATTON (1969) - and rising star Franciscus (THE VALLEY OF GWANGI). Sadly, the resulting film - which the ads claimed was 'nine times more suspenseful' than "Bird" - is a disappointing follow-up, impeccably photographed and stylishly executed, but too plodding and aimless for general consumption.<br /><br />Malden and Franciscus are eminently watchable in sympathetic roles, and cinematographer Enrico Menczer (THE DEAD ARE ALIVE) uses the wide Cromoscope frame to convey the hi-tech world in which Argento's dark-hearted scenario unfolds, but the subplot involving Euro starlet Catherine Spaak (THE LIBERTINE) as Franciscus' romantic interest amounts to little more than unnecessary padding. Highlights include an unforgettable encounter with the black-gloved assassin in a crowded railway station (edited with sleek assurance by cult movie stalwart Franco Fraticelli), and a nocturnal episode in which Malden and Franciscus seek an important clue inside a mouldering tomb and fall prey to the killer's devious machinations. But despite these flashes of brilliance, the film rambles aimlessly from one scene to the next, simmering gently without ever really coming to the boil. It's no surprise that "Cat" failed to emulate the runaway success of "Bird" when released in 1971.<br /><br />(English version) | 0neg
|
Rarely has such an amazing cast been wasted so badly. Griffin Dunne, Rosanna Arquette, Illeana Douglas, Ethan Hawke, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, and John Turturro, all jumped on board, only to be torpedoed by a script that seems like nothing more than a Hollywood in joke. Attaching Martin Scorsese's name to this was probably the draw, but the end result is way less than the sum of it's parts. Resembling a nightmare gone horribly wrong, each scene seems more contrived than the next. "Search and Destroy" is nothing more than abstract, stylish, self indulgent nonsense, and the entire film is decidedly dull.......... MERK | 0neg
|
From the start, you know how this movie will end. It's so full of clichés your typical NRA member will not even like this movie. I give it 2 out of 10, only because of the acting of William Benton. I can't believe people voted 6+ for this movie. It's so biased towards a 'certain point of view' (once a thief...). People aren't born bad. Neither are they born good. They are born with a clean slate. It's society, parents and education what makes them who they are. And if they take the wrong turn, somewhere down the line, it certainly isn't going to be the American penal system that gets them back on track! Anyway, avoid this movie like the plague. I bet you have better things to do with your time than waste it on this piece of crap.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
This is an extremely boring film. If you grew up during the Vietnam Was, as I did, then you've seen and heard all of the film footage and arguments here a hundred times by now. But what really makes this film boring is the narration by director Carlton Sherwood. The majority of the film is shot with Sherwood talking directly into the camera about his opinion of this conflicting time in the history of our nation.<br /><br />If you're old enough to remember Vietnam, then you won't find anything new here. There is no new evidence to condemn John Kerry or new evidence worthy of another documentary on Vietnam. Younger viewers who are interested in the subject should see George Butler's excellent film Going Upriver! Stolen Honor was clearly meant to be a hatchet job on John Kerry, but it fails miserably at accomplishing that goal. | 0neg
|
The British Public School system did not evolve solely with the idea of educating the upper classes despite that popular and widespread misconception.It was designed to produce administrators and governors,civil servants and military men to run the British Colonies.These people were almost entirely recruited from the middle classes.When the Public Schools had begun to show their worth the scions of the aristocracy were sent to them rather than be educated at home by tutors and governesses as had previously been the case.They tended to favour the schools nearer "Town" so Eton and Harrow became particularly popular with that class of parent. The vast majority of Public Schools took their pupils from lower down the social scale.Tom Brown,perhaps the most famous Public School pupil ever,was the son of a country parson,not a belted earl. Thus in late 1960s England,a country in the throes of post-colonial guilt and shedding the last of its commitments to its former dependants as quickly as Harold Wilson could slip off his "Gannex" mac,Lindsay Anderson's "If" was greeted with cathartic joy by the chattering classes and mild bemusement by everyone else. It must be remembered that the so-called "summer of love" was followed by the "October Revolution" a non-event that left a few policemen in London with bruised heads and the U.S. Embassy with one or two broken windows,but achieved absolutely nothing. So when Mr Anderson's film reached the cinemas the disgruntled former revolutionaries revelled vicariously in what they saw as Mr Malcolm McDowell's glorious victory over an amorphous "Them" despite the fact that he was ruthlessly gunned down at the end,a fate that would have undoubtedly overtaken them had they succeeded in their attempts to get into the U.S.Embassy. The film told us nothing new about Public Schools,homosexuality,bullying cold showers,patrician sarcastic teachers,silly traditions.an all-too familiar list .It was declared to be an allegory comparing Britain to the corrupt,crumbling society represented by the school.Well,nearly forty years on the same schools are still flourishing,the British social system has not changed,the "October Revolution" has been long forgotten except by those involved on one side or the other and Mr Anderson has completed his "State of the Country" trilogy to no effect whatsoever. If by any chance you should wish to read a book about schoolboys who did buck the system rather more successfully than Mr McDowell and his friends and furthermore lived to tell the tale,find a copy of "Stalky & Co."written by the man whose much-maligned poem "If" lent it's name to Mr Anderson's film,a man born in colonial India,a man whose work is quietly being airbrushed out of our literary history.And do it before the chattering classes succeed in declaring him a non-person.Perhaps somebody should start a revolution about that. | 0neg
|
I've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.<br /><br />*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.<br /><br />Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.<br /><br />The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.<br /><br />tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in "power" that annoy you.<br /><br />If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against "the man", this movie is juvenile and boring.<br /><br />You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.<br /><br />All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.<br /><br />If... only I could get my two hours back. | 0neg
|
Ah, the spirit of '68. The streets of Paris were running wild with rebellion, the hippies were high on the spirit of love. How was Britain marking this age of radicalism and revolution? Erm, by the looks of it, dear Old Blighty was focusing on making films about boys in boarding schools. If... contains the evil establishment. It contains the uprising of the oppressed. What it lacks in contrast to the Parisien passion and the hippy headtripping is any sense of excitement, except in its all-out ammo-and-artillery fire ending.<br /><br />Lindsay Anderson's If... stars the ever-marvellous Malcolm McDowell as one of three private school pupils who decorate their dorm with photos of Lenin and other left-wing radicals. It's clearly an anti-establishment movie in its depiction of the evil upper-class oiks who rule the roost and the antiquated autocratic practices of the pish-posh public school standard. What makes If... unusual though is that for all its radical sympathies, it doesn't explicitly give us any sense of great tension between human decency and the despotic school system, instead it just kind of floats: lacking in plot and lacking in personality.<br /><br />Surrealist bits fade in and out occasionally and the film slips from black-and-white to colour again (is it due to the low budget or is it an arty expression?), but there is little of interest to speak of. All we get is the poignant denouement where the young rebels reach for their rifles and shoot down the shady overlords of the establishment. Hooray! A revolution! At last something that demands a second thought unlike the rest of this dull exercise in boarding school daydreaming.<br /><br />If... could have been a powerful political statement, but as it is it drifts and only gathers any sense of direct interest at the end. Instead of being a testament to the dissident zeitgeist of the late-Sixties, it only succeeds in being a dazed document of upper-class British education. Anarchy? Apathy more like, the only man many viewers will want to stick it to after watching If... will be Lindsay Anderson. | 0neg
|
if.... is the cinematic equivalent of Sgt. Pepper's: Revered by baby boomers as the pinnacle of creation, and viewed as rather a silly bit of business by preceding and subsequent generations. Now that the children of the middle classes the world over are seemingly super human due to the internet, and view the prospect of boarding school as a wonderful opportunity thanks to the Harry Potter books/films, the relevance of if.... couldn't be further from modern concern. In fact, many scenes appear so alien and exaggerated as to hint at an inspiration for Pink Floyd's The Wall.<br /><br />One should never hold personal bias against a film while reviewing, and the cemented date of this film aside, there are a few flaws which others have overlooked. Lindsay Anderson was known to be a fan of Luis Buñuel, on top of generally being too smart for his own good. And despite a straightforward narrative through the first and second acts, the latter portion of the piece it taken hostage by cod Buñuel surrealism and strained attempts at symbolism. Anderson wasn't capable of this feat due to his over-intelligent cynicism, failing to see that Buñuel was jovial in his work. I have not found a critic whom champions the 'Chaplain in a drawer', and am almost certain it still gets sideways looks from those who adore this film. The ending is not so much a concise punch to the established class/values system, as a wet slap on a moving target.<br /><br />The British public school system was firmly for the middle classes (the upper crust being educated at home by private tutors). And the modus operandi of if.... was to check the boxes of public school life which Lindsay believed had been unexplored in film, thereby savaging middle class pretense. Homosexuality, generational cutlery, cold showers et al. In reality, such issues HAD been covered in many other great British films, if.... merely brought them to the fore. The Browning Version was a more oblique damning of such pomp, to name but one.<br /><br />if.... is oddly quaint, and simply can not be viewed with modern (especially American) eyes. Kudos to Anderson for avoiding Mick and Kieth in favour of African chant, and a few brownie points for the latent homoerotic overtones. Points deducted for pretension, establishing characters who disappear, and inciting a glib revolution which came to naught. | 0neg
|
I just saw "If
" I can remember the advertisements for the movie from 1968, so I was interested in finally seeing it. It may be the perspective of an American who never went to a British public school and misses some of the social references, but I thought the movie was awful. For one thing, as others have pointed out, it takes almost the entire movie for the much ballyhooed-at-the-time revolt to break out. For another, whether the last scene is real or imagined, what occurs isn't a revolt, but a shooting rampage. There's quite a difference.<br /><br />I know it may be bad form to judge a movie on subsequent events, but one cannot avoid doing it here. One person wrote a message board posting asking us not to compare the end of movie to the incidents at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. But if there's a scintilla of difference between Klebold, Harris and Cho on the one hand and Travis (Malcom McDowell) on the other, I simply can't see it. All four of them were under the delusion that their gunfire is going to purify a f___-ed up world that they arrogantly take no responsibility for.<br /><br />Which brings me to: why the hell are Travis and his chums even in a school they so despise? They are adults, or close to it. They're not in a military prison, like the inmates in "The Hill," a much better British film from about the same time. No one is forcing them to go to College and take beatings from the the whips, except maybe ambitious parents in need of a wake-up about the nature of their sons. I had the opportunity in college to join a frat, except I couldn't stand to be given silly, cruel orders by delinquents claiming to be my prospective "brothers." I took the consequences of not having the "in" with the Establishment that frats provide, and I can't say I regretted it.<br /><br />If Travis fancies himself the second coming of Lenin (whose unbearded picture hangs prominently in his room) he's free to go out and organize a fitter's union or work for Michael Foot in the next election. If he wants to be Jack Kerouac, then get on the road and start writing. What possible benefit is he giving the world in joyriding a motorcycle and getting drunk in his room?<br /><br />Sometimes reviewers have to be like the person who responded to the scene in "Last Tango In Paris" where Brando mopes about having had to go on a date with cow manure on his shoes. In the real world, the person said, a listener would say "Why didn't you scrape it off? Change your shoes?" --Don't allow fictional characters to lay a self-pity trip on you because you don't dare point out an common-sense alternative course of action for them. So it is here. | 0neg
|
Lindsay Anderson was very much a European film maker , whereas the likes of David Lean , Ridley Scott and Alan Parker make spectacular movies involving visuel scope Anderson`s movie are more about social commentary and subtext , so much so that the message often ends up taking over the entire film whose primary function should be to entertain the audience <br /><br />What you think of IF comes down to what you think of British film makers . I`m very much of the view that cinema should be a universial medium ( The best Brit movie makes are those who try to emulate Hollywood in my opinion ) , if you want to send a message try pony express , and I find the movie dated , pretentious and too set in the 1960s . 1968 was the summer of love and the year of student rebellion in France . You can just imagine every single French leftist worshipping this movie especially the climax . French new wave film makers will also admire the abstract surrealism of some scenes but a mainstream international will dislike it , and many will dislike it intensely | 0neg
|
That is quite an outdated movie which aims to showcase the youth's yearning for freedom in some dehumanizing British school. Oh yes it's like in the army, you learn to obey and do what you're asked to. Yes the young dream of something else but it breaks their dreams and sweeps away their optimism on the threshold of life. Great.<br /><br />Basically that's how you could sum up the nice intentions in If... Nice intentions that arouses no cinematographic challenges: the result is a declamatory movie. Do you see how boring I mean?<br /><br />At least that oldie helped Kubrick cast McDowell in A Clockwork Orange, a movie with a truly powerful social satire and no self-indulgent sentimentalism. | 0neg
|
I didn't like this Bill Murray vehicle when it was originally released in the 80s, so I tried watching it again to see if my distaste for this film was down to my movie-going tastes in the 80s or was it that "Stripes" is simply a bad movie. Well, the verdict is in and "Stripes" is a bad movie.<br /><br />Now, "Stripes" may have been innovative comedy in the early 80s, and it may appeal to people who have gone through basic training or who are Bill Murray fans, but its still a bad movie.<br /><br />Why is it bad? Mostly because "Stripes" is supposed to be a comedy but it's just not that funny. There are some laughs, but they are few and far between. Most of the movie is consumed by the dramatic plot which is incredibly convoluted and not very interesting. This lack of comedy is especially noticeable if you're used to more contemporary comedies such as "Anchorman" which strive for laughs in every part of the movie.<br /><br />"Stripes" further suffers from Bill Murray and Harold Ramis's lack of acting ability. Bill Murray is a great comedian but he was not a very compelling dramatic actor at this point in his career, and Harold Ramis is playing Harold Ramis. These two are just not good enough as actors to carry the dramatic arch of the movie.<br /><br />Lastly, most of the comedy that there is in "Stripes" revolves around Bill Murray's self-centered, smart-alec man-child character so if you don't find that character funny (like I didn't) you're not going to find most of what little comedy there is in "Stripes" funny either.<br /><br />"Stripes" is very much a movie of its era, it hasn't aged well and is not worth watching. If you want to watch an early 80's "buddy" comedy I would recommend "Stir Crazy." Like "Stripes" the humor in "Stir Crazy" is not as fast-paced as in contemporary comedies, but unlike "Stripes" it has aged much better and as a result is still watchable. | 0neg
|
Possibly not, but it is awful. Even the fantastic cast cant save it. OK, I admit it started off quite funny but it seemed to plummet downhill as soon as they jumped those girls in the Generals house. Bill Murray turned from being a quick witted, humorous guy into an arsehole who was shouting things at people in the street that just weren't funny, its like he was trying too hard to be funny. His character stole a weapon (an RV? come on...) and ends up being a national hero after invading another country and killing god knows how many soldiers, for a laugh. One good point is that this film shows the inadequacy and incompetence of the US Army and shows how arrogant and imbecilic they really are, albeit unintentionally. I actually felt disgusted that this kind of propaganda crap could really be released. | 0neg
|
*****WARNING, MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS WHICH WILL BE MORE ENTERTAINING THAN THIS TRIPE.**** <br /><br />Heres some good advise to anyone living in the U.K. Whenever Channel 5 has an old 80's comedy on late at night, read a book instead. I am currently in the process of recovering from a seizure, due to reading some of the comments on this film on here. I am actually shocked at the fact that someone actually said this film was realistic! All I can say is thank god the Cold War never escalated or else we might as well have given the Commie's our borders... I found this film dire in the utmost pretence, maybe it is just my British perception of what makes a film funny, who knows? But in all aspects, this film is not just awful, its teeth grindingly terrible.<br /><br />I've never been a fan of Bill Murray, and its rubbish like this that justify my feelings towards him. Don't get me wrong, I loved Ghostbuster's, which was made only three years after this film. But this just sums Bill Murray up really. I can safely say that I haven't wasted my time so blatantly like this since seeing the first running of Operation Delta Force over here, though these two films have more in common than you would think. For 1 thing, they both have terrible action sequences from beginning to end, and 2nd. They are both riddled with cheesy Cliché's, throughout.<br /><br />Heres one thing, these guys are supposed to be in the "U.S Army". Yet they are allowed to wallow around their Camp, Willy nilly, seducing female Military Police Officers, and subsequently shagging them silly in the Generals Quarters. Talk about Random! This film is just terrible for this I'm afraid. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no feminist sympathiser, but the fact that these two women actually fall hands over heels in love with the two characters shortly after arresting them, letting them go free... Twice, is just insulting to the female race. The fact that one tatty haired, fat lipped bum (Winger) and his hapless sidekick Ramis can simply sweet talk themselves into into the MP's underwear, to which they fall madly in love with the two of them is nothing short of ludicrous.<br /><br />Then there is the training scenes, where you get to meet the Squad "Phycho" who unconvincingly threatens to kill anyone who touches him or his stuff, followed by the overweight bloke (played by the late and great John Candy) who claims he joined the army to "avoid paying $400 for anger management classes". Leading to loud mouthed Murray paying tribute to the "Giant Toe," (WTF?) 'Drill Seargent' who honestly couldn't organise a pi$$ up in a brewery, let alone his band of recruits. All this scene serves to do is to prelude loads of fight scenes, with people saying "way to go ass hole'!" all the time, etc etc.<br /><br />The scenes then carry on showing the rag tag bunch making utter tits of themselves on the Assault Course, leading to a scene where one of them shoots wildly into the air at some passing birds with an assault rifle, peppering a watch tower with bullets. (Just like that. Yep, told you this film was random...He miraculously escapes undisciplined as well...) Eventually Leading up the the passing out parade, where the hapless squad make a magic turn around within the space of two hours. (Bugger me, Miracle!) Thanks to some wise words from Murray, to which they then direct a massively none military like dance routine in front of a Geriatric 'General' in front of the rest of the squads. All of this to the immense pleasure of their two Girlfriends on the stand, who really should've been arresting them... Everyone laughs it off though. This bit is nothing short of amazing though. He then chooses them to guard a new Multi-Million Dollar Prototype Armoured Vehicle in Italy (which turns out to be just a mobile home painted green with loads of gadgets on the inside), claiming "This is exactly what this Army needs!" righto...<br /><br />Then there is the dire finale, where Murray and Ramis decide to steal this top-secret prototype Military Vehicle to pick up their newly acquired and somewhat Hyperactive MP Girlfriends in Germany. To which the Hapless Captain (John Larroquette) then finds out and leads the Squad of fresh recruits on a retrieval Mission for this vehicle. To which they then take a "wrong turn" en-route and end up in Soviet Held Czechoslovakia, where they are captured. (Like we didn't see that coming...) Thus begins a rescue attempt by Ramis and Murray + Birds in hand, to which is where a big fight, loads of shooting from the hip and blowing tanks up. With them coming back as National Heroes, humiliating the Russians by calling them "pussies," etc etc. The end. Thats right. No Courts Martial, nothing. They only just stole a prototype Military vehicle, drove it into a Warsaw Pact country and almost caused an International incident which could've sparked WW3!<br /><br />This film is honestly more fun that being diagnosed with a terminal illness. I know its meant to be a Comedy, it got all the right actors for it, but where in the hell is it? Have Channel 5 cuts those bits out? The only redeeming feature in this film is the repetitive use of naked women taking showers, and female Mud Wrestling. (like I said, Random) Not that it helps to divert from the fact that this is an utterly crap film, of course. This film should realistically be aimed at immature 9 year old's, sadly, we have to watch it instead. 1 star out of 10 - Total Tripe. My advice, do something a little more useful with your time. Like Castrating yourself... | 0neg
|
What an insult to the SA film industry! I have seen better SA films. The comments I read about Hijack Stories,by saying it is worthy of a ten out of ten is quite scary. A movie's rating should not depend on.., "OH, A MOVIE FROM A DEVELOPING COUNTRY. LETS BOOST THEIR INDUSTRY BY SAYING NICE THINGS ABOUT THEIR WORK, EVEN THOUGH IT IS BAD." We have the expertise to make good movies. Don't judge the film industry on what people say how great they think Hijack Stories is. We can tell great stories such as Cry the beloved Country and Shaka Zulu. Cry the beloved Country I'll give 9 out of 10. Great directing by Darryl, great acting by two great elderly actors, irrespective from where they are. Hijack Stories.., I'll give 1 out of 10. It could only be people involved in the project who would give it high scores. I would've done the same if it was my movie. | 0neg
|
Set in South Africa, a young black guy tries to land a part in a 'gangsta' movie. But with no knowledge of street life, he's told to find out what that life is really like or he won't get the part. He manages to work his way into a gang led by an old friend of his from school and his chances of appearing in the film decline as he commits crimes to be accepted. But for the gang's leader, the burgeoning disaster of his new friend's life suggests a golden opportunity to do something better with his own.<br /><br />While that may sound relatively interesting, it's anything but. The first half of it is incredibly meandering and tedious, while the "hijacking" only takes place towards the end with some very poorly executed low speed car chases. In those "chases", only two police cars are used, both of which are early 90's Nissan Sunny's. Not only would these be rather cheap to pick up (and I find it rather hard to believe they'd be using such mundane old cars in South Africa in the year 2000), but as far as I can remember, there's only 2 involved and none of them get a scratch once. The car chases are very badly shot, with distant and badly timed camera angles and minimal traffic on the roads, and they're all over in around 2 minutes at maximum as you're supposed to believe that a very small kid is actually a highly skilled driver who can easily evade the police despite the driving being pedestrian and utterly unexciting. This now leads me onto the characters and the acting, which are equally bad. The aforementioned kid who drives the car, looks about 13 years old and supposedly is extremely skilled at losing the incredibly inept police. Everybody else is equally unconvincing, so much that they even look bored at times themselves.<br /><br />At the closing scene of the movie, our main character ("Sox Moraka") is asked by the gang leader to steal a car from a car park. While having trouble opening it, the Police arrive and ask him what he's doing and he replies by telling him it's their car. After a brief argument they try to arrest him and he then holds the Police at gunpoint and jumps back in their car. After he's in, the Police return fire and in turn he gets wounded. After another pathetic chase sequence, they decide to abandon the car and set it alight to destroy any evidence. What follows here is one of the most downright laughable and hideously awful special effects I've ever seen. When the car "explodes", superimposed flames suddenly appear from every window with awful sound effects that aren't even in time. It's so badly done and so phony looking that it's hard to even put it into words, and really needs to be seen to be believed. If you watch it in slow motion it looks even funnier. I've seen better effects than this in murder reconstruction documentaries. The car is a Volkswagen Golf MK2 GTi. Something that wouldn't be worth a huge amount at all, and they seriously couldn't afford to destroy it with a real explosion? I'd love to know how large the budget for this movie was. It feels so cheap that I'm surprised it made it outside of South Africa, and even more surprised it made it to a DVD release.<br /><br />I know it's not a big budget Hollywood production. I know it's meant to depict gangs in impoverished townships of South Africa who steal cars from the middle class in and sell the parts on the black market, but with the laughable effects, poorly executed car chases, awful acting and ludicrous characters, any sense of reality is completely lost.<br /><br />Overall, I most certainly do NOT advise you to watch this. If you want to have a laugh and see one of the most poorly done, low budget messes of amovie ever created, then I'd recommend it for that, and only that.<br /><br />It is a wretched, poorly made, poorly edited, poorly paced and tedious piece of low budget drivel that fails on all counts. I've seen many South African movies, including lots of cheap NuImage/Nu-World action pictures, and despite their cheesiness, they're far better than this on all counts. | 0neg
|
From a plot and movement standpoint, this movie was terrible. I found myself looking at the clock in theater hoping it would end and relieved after 80 long minutes that it mercifully did. Basically, five characters appear in the movie, A Son & Father, son's girl friend, and two male characters of the son's age who appear and then disappear without context or explanation. The movie and scenes seemed to suggest homo-eroticism, but nothing ever actually happened to reveal this one way or another. There were a couple of brilliant scenes. At the beginning of the movie, the son's girl friend shows up at a window outside his room and they engage in an odd conversation. The photography and acting lent an incredible seductiveness to the interaction between the two, ending with her admitting to having another man who was "older". End of that story. | 0neg
|
The film begins with promise, but lingers too long in a sepia world of distance and alienation. We are left hanging, but with nothing much else save languid shots of grave and pensive male faces to savour. Certainly no rope up the wall to help us climb over. It's a shame, because the concept is not without merit.<br /><br />We are left wondering why a loving couple - a father and son no less - should be so estranged from the real world that their own world is preferable when claustrophobic beyond all imagining. This loss of presence in the real world is, rather too obviously and unnecessarily, contrasted with the son having enlisted in the armed forces. Why not the circus, so we can at least appreciate some colour? We are left with a gnawing sense of loss, but sadly no enlightenment, which is bewildering given the film is apparently about some form of attainment not available to us all. | 0neg
|
This film is beautiful to look at, but is like watching really bad experimental theater. The plot (if there was one) doesn't make any sense. But it is very "artistic". Lots of shots of half-dressed actors wrestling and looking deep into each other's eyes. Lots of arty shots through windows and with people out of frame. Mumbling and people wandering wistfully. Lingering close-ups of faces and bodies. By the time you get to the threesome on the roof with the cat, you'll be ready to throw a bottle of KY at the screen.<br /><br />It is supposed to be about a father and son's relationship, but you will just be wishing the two of them would just f*$& each other and get it over with. If you have always wanted to see bad Russian gay porn without any money shots, your wish has been granted. | 0neg
|
Like wearing a hair shirt. Positively, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt one of the worst movies ever. Pure torture. Zero stars out of ten. One long, tedious, labored, pretentious, self-conscious, theatrical, and leadenly artsy scene after another. Intended to be dreamlike and impressionistic, the soul bared, it is, instead, morose mush. <br /><br />Half-naked, father and son grope and whisper to each other like lovers. "Homo-erotic" is the point, loud and clear. OK, so what? <br /><br />Repeated more than once by the son is the line, supposedly lifted from "Lives of the Saints," "A father's love crucifies. A loving son lets himself be crucified." The parallel to god and his son, Christ, is heavy-handed, irrelevant, and bombastic, like everything else here. <br /><br />Some reference points to the theme of Russian filiality: "Mother and Son" (1997); "The Return" (Andrei Zvyagvatsev, 2003); "Little Odessa" (James Gray,1994); Turgenev, "Fathers and Sons"; and, of course, Dostoyevsky, "The Brothers Karamazov."<br /><br />Credits in English indicate intended international distribution, meaning that the excuse cannot be used that you have to be Russian to understand this mess. <br /><br />This is nowhere near as accomplished or compelling as Sokurov's last, "Russian Ark" (2003).<br /><br />As in his "Mother and Son," an equally powerful soporific, some scenes are filmed from distorting mirrors, though not as interestingly. The film is almost monochromatic, shot from start to finish through beige filters, making it as visually as it is dramatically numbing. A soft-focus haze only adds to the drugged feeling.<br /><br />An annoying soundtrack drones on, never shuts up, like a tape loop. An old radio constantly plays in the background. Russian Romantic melancholy swells endlessly as "themes based on Tchaikovsky." The presence of a "sound designer" (Sergei Moshkov) signifies, of course, that all those irritating little sounds, radio static, noises, distortion, and such, are "designed." <br /><br />It's hard to believe someone (Sergei Potepolov) actually wrote this thing. It all seems as arbitrary as traffic, as if improvised by bored actors, popping out of nothingness into nothingness.<br /><br />Modern art has finally succeeded in signifying the thing without being the thing, so that what we behold is the idea of the idea, empty as a shell, but not even a shell, merely the idea of a shell. Could one ask for a better definition of decadence? | 0neg
|
I consider myself to be a bit of a snob when it comes to everything and although the cinematic experience is more suited to explosions than high drama, I can be very stuck up about films, too.<br /><br />Not all art films, however, are better than King Kong. I quite possibly would give Kong two stars, double this film's haul.<br /><br />My guess is that people got so excited about this because it was almost identical in style to what you can see in a play. For the less discerning art-buff, a film that looks like a play is 'great art'.<br /><br />This film, however, was useless.<br /><br />There was hardly any story so it relied on high drama. The only drama in this film was whether the cat would drop off the roof or not. So, deep and meaningful dialogue, then? No. Great acting? Hardly.<br /><br />To be excessively fair: Some of the scenery was interesting, though: Communist flats, city vistas (Petersburg?) and the Soviet trams still in service. | 0neg
|
There are two kinds of characters on THE SHIELD: people who try to do the best they can and do the right thing, and people who relentlessly pursue their own self interest and commit every mortal sin they can while telling themselves and everyone else that they are heroes, and everyone's only hope. More than any other show, THE SHIELD is about hypocrisy and self-delusion. Unfortunately, the hypocrites and self-deluders are the shows heroes, and as such have the typical genre-fiction heroes' improbable immunity to getting defeated or caught and they come out on top over and over again, making fools out of all of their peers.<br /><br />The show boasts excellent camera-work. The lead ins and the fade outs are always superb. It really is a work of art to see. Unfortunately the story is a cartoony, overwrought wish fulfillment scenario of gratuitous violence, rape, and lies.<br /><br />The hero, who drags everyone down with him in failed scheme after failed scheme, is wiley like a warner bros cartoon character, always escaping and making fun of all the elmer fudds (anyone who does not support him in his lies and crimes), automatically attracting any good looking woman supporting character to come on the show, always surviving any attempt to bring him to justice, and ALWAYS scraping your ears with his excruciating self justifications. If another cop detects something wrong with something he's doing, and someone gets hurt because of his actions, he always blames the suspicious cop, regardless of the fact that his schemes and elaborate lies and doomed plans are always the cause. Every time.<br /><br />Like 24, this show relies on contrivances and innumerable delays to drag its story out for season after season. Boring, unbelievable long term stories are injected into the storyline every season to provide a skeleton on which to hang the bloody, perverted chunks of meat that are the characters' corrupt acts and the inevitable cover-ups.<br /><br />Most disappointing though, is the writers' hubris as they try to change the viewers' sympathies back and forth, to and away form the characters on whims. Sometimes, they want us to see Shane as the enemy. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor misunderstood soul. Sometimes they want us to see Vic as a dangerous, sexual dynamo. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor guy with a heart of gold. Sometimes they want us to see Mara as a low down vile Jezebel. Then they think that if they show her sitting and talking over her dreams with Shane, that we will find her to be sympathetic and tragic.<br /><br />None of this manipulation is adequate to obtain the kinds of sympathies they want. Once they've shown these characters ruin other people's lives for their own ends, that's it. It is nonsense to keep trying to flip back and forth. But then, it is also nonsense to produce seven seasons of these bumbling clowns drawing every super model in existence to their beds and running a crime syndicate right out of the police station, right under everyone's noses. | 0neg
|
To sat how awful The Shield is, you'd have to write pages and pages, so suffice it to say that it is a monument to bad directing.<br /><br />"When Directors Go Awry" should have been the title of this production. Indeed, directors are supposed to infuse their work with a sense of visual style and story-telling that propels the story forward.<br /><br />How is constantly shaking the camera and playing with the zoom lens a "style"? How is it propelling the story forward? Of course there's also the "editing by random numbers" nonsense. Apparently it's become hip to just cut randomly.<br /><br />I guess it's too much work to do good editing.<br /><br />Well, that made it too much work for most people to watch The Shield which languished as one of the most over-hyped and unwatched shows of all time. | 0neg
|
I have no idea what the producers of The Shield were trying to do, but the result speaks for itself: The Shield is practically unwatchable.<br /><br />Supposedly the performances on The Shield are great...<br /><br />In reality, the show is so badly put together that you can't even really see the performances. For instance, the editing cuts away from reaction shots before they've had their full impact.<br /><br />I don't know what intellectual rationale there is for that, but it robs the show of all emotional impact.<br /><br />I'll give The Shield one point for ambition in its subject matter, but that's pretty much all I can give it.<br /><br />It's a shame to see a number of talented performer waste their gift on something so strangely badly filmed. | 0neg
|
Almost from the word go this film is poor and lacking conviction but then again most people would struggle to show commitment to a script as uninspiring as this. The dialogue really does not flow and sometimes as in this case more is less (or should have been). This is also backed-up by odd scenes (e.g. the Cemetry slow-motion walk) that you think might lead somewhere but only seem to waste a few more seconds of your life.<br /><br />The plot is a strange combination of gangster / situation comedy which I am sure seemed a good idea at the time but if ever there was a case for someone needing to be honest with the scriptwriter then here was it.<br /><br />Martin Freeman is okay but then he seems to have one character which always plays so I am beginning to wonder if he was given a script or just filmed and told to react as normal.<br /><br />Finally - humour. This reminds me of the 'Python (I think) quote about Shakespere, of his 'comedies' - If he had meant it to be humorous he would have put a joke in it. Well I didn't see one.<br /><br />Don't waste your time - I did because I was watching it with a friend and kept hoping that it was going to get better.<br /><br />It didn't. | 0neg
|
I hate to be the one to rain on a parade (even a small one like this) but from the very first scene, you could tell this film was going to be absolute shite. Its a shame really, as I quite like Martin Freeman and Danny dyer. I was intrigued as to how they would mix in a film together, but to my dismay, they did not even have a scene together!! I think I need to repeat this - The two lead actors (who stand side by side on the advertisement posters and DVD covers) did not have one scene together!!!! They did not speak to each other and never appeared on screen at the same time. Just about sums up this poor excuse for a movie. False advertisement.<br /><br />The dialogue was painful, every single character in the movie was unrealistic, and un-human like. The scenarios were far fetched, the plot was crap, the jokes were thin, Freeman tried too hard to be funny (and played a poor mans Tim from The office), nobody was likable, and worst of all, some of the characters were so annoying that it almost drove me to switch off, as I couldn't bear to watch, or listen to them any longer.<br /><br />This low budget stinker was an epic fail. Even Danny Dyer couldn't inject some humour and charm into this, but bless, he tried. What a waste of time.<br /><br />How anybody could rate this movie as 'ten stars' is beyond me. Ten Stars? Seriously? Come on....I won't even give some of the greats ten stars, as ten stars implies that a movie was perfect. This film was far from perfect, almost the opposite, meaning that it was almost completely dire throughout.<br /><br />Watch it if you like, but if you've seen a lot of movies, and watched a lot of great movies, your review will probably similar to mine.<br /><br />1/10 | 0neg
|
Oh dear. good cast, but to write and direct is an art and to write wit and direct wit is a bit of a task. Even doing good comedy you have to get the timing and moment right. Im not putting it all down there were parts where i laughed loud but that was at very few times. The main focus to me was on the fast free flowing dialogue, that made some people in the film annoying. It may sound great while reading the script in your head but getting that out and to the camera is a different task. And the hand held camera work does give energy to few parts of the film. Overall direction was good but the script was not all that to me, but I'm sure you was reading the script in your head it would sound good. Sorry. | 0neg
|
It pains me to write such a scathing review but by not doing so I'm simply encouraging these people. First off, just because a film is made on a small budget does not automatically make it good nor endearing. In fact in this case, the small budget is probably the films sole achievement in that it prevented large sums of money from being squandered on a one legged race horse with the shits. Have you ever seen a comedy at the theatre? Ever heard people laugh and thought "what the dickens are you on"? Well even these twats weren't laughing. Things got so bad by mid way my cat took his first ever bath. This is not film, this is children....no monkeys making images that leave you feeling like moving to France. Got to go, there's a clown at my door............. | 0neg
|
I had never heard of this one before it turned up on Cable TV. It's very typical of late 50s sci-fi: sober, depressing and not a little paranoid! Despite the equally typical inclusion of a romantic couple, the film is pretty much put across in a documentary style - which is perhaps a cheap way of leaving a lot of the exposition to narration and an excuse to insert as much stock footage as is humanly possibly for what is unmistakably an extremely low-budget venture! While not uninteresting in itself (the-apocalypse-via-renegade-missile angle later utilized, with far greater aplomb, for both DR. STRANGELOVE [1964] and FAIL-SAFE [1964]) and mercifully short, the film's single-minded approach to its subject matter results in a good deal of unintentional laughter - particularly in the scenes involving an imminent childbirth and a gang of clueless juvenile delinquents! | 0neg
|
Really it's a dreadful cheat of a film. Its 70-minute running time is very well padded with stock footage. The rest are non descript exteriors and drab interiors scenes. The plot exposition is very poorly rendered. They are all just perfunctory scenes sort of strung together. There is no attempt at drama in scene selection but rather drama is communicated by the intensity of the actors. Please don't ask.<br /><br />The plot concerns a rocket radiating a million degree heat orbiting earth five miles up threatening to destroy the earth. It's a real time menace that must be diverted if a custom built H-bomb can be fashioned and placed in an experimental rocket within an hour. Nothing very much here to report except for a mad speech by a scientist against the project because there might be some sort of life aboard and think of the scientific possibilities but this speech made by the obligatory idiot liberal was pretty much passé by then.<br /><br />What saves this film, somewhat uniquely, IS the stock footage. I've never seen a larger selection of fifties jet fighter aircraft in any other film. This is by no means a complete list but just some of the aircraft I managed to see. There's a brief interception by a pilot flying, in alternate shots, an F-89 Scorpion and an F-86. First to scramble interceptors is the Royal Canadian Air Force in Hawker Hunters and F-86 Sabre Jets (or Canadian built CF-13s) and even a pair of CF-100 Clunks.<br /><br />Then for some reason there are B-52s, B-47s and even B36s are seen taking off. More padding.<br /><br />"These Canadian jets are moving at 1200 miles an hour". I don't think so since one of them appears to be a WW2 era Gloster Meteor, the rest F-80s. The Meteors press the attack and one turns into a late F-84F with a flight of early straight wing F-84s attacking in formation.<br /><br />There's a strange tandem cockpit version of the F-80 that doesn't seem to be the T-33 training type but some sort of interim all-weather interceptor variant with radar in the nose. These are scrambled in a snowstorm.<br /><br />An angled deck aircraft carrier is seen from about 500 meters. It launches F-8U Crusaders, F-11F Tigers, A-5 Vigilantes and A-3 Skywarriors. The Air Force scrambles F-86s and F-84s and more F-89s then you've ever seen in your life as well as F-100 Super Sabres and F-102 Delta Daggers.<br /><br />The F-100s press their attack with sooooo much padding. The F-89's unload their rockets in their wingtip pods in slo mo. The F-86s fire, an F-102 lets loose a Falcon, even some F-80s (F-94s?) with mid-wing rocket pods let loose. There is a very strange shot of a late model F-84 (prototype?) with a straight wing early model F-85 above it in a turn, obviously a manufacturer's (Republic Aviation) advertising film showing the differences between the old and the new improved models of the F-84 ThunderJet. How it strayed into here is anybodies guess.<br /><br />There is other great stock footage of Ottawa in the old days when the capital of Canada was a wide spot in the road and especially wonderful footage of New York City's Times Square during one of the Civil Defense Drills in the early 50s. <br /><br />I think we also have to deal with the notion that this was filmed in Canada with the possible exception of the auto chase seen late in the picture as the Pacific seems to be in the background. The use of a Jowett Jupiter is somewhat mind-boggling and there is a nice TR 3 to be seen also. Canada must have been cheap and it is rather gratuitously used a lot in the background.<br /><br />As far as the actual narrative of the film there is little to recommend it other than the mystery of just who Ellen Parker is giving the finger to at the end of the picture. And she most definitely is flipping someone off. Could it be, R as in Robert Loggia? The director who dies before this film was released? Her career as this was her last credit?<br /><br />Its like the newspaper the gift came wrapped in was more valuable than the gift. | 0neg
|
I remember watching "Lost Missile" (actually throwing a fit until my brother and several cousins at whose home I was an overnight guest agreed to watch it with me - I was, from time to time, the Eric Cartman of the 1960s - sorry, guys) and being somewhat embarrassed when the sustained wave of million-degree heat emerged as a plot device - even as a second-grader I knew that a mere missile just couldn't carry the energy around for that much heat or devastation over more than the duration and limited radius of a nuclear detonation. <br /><br />My inflicting that turkey on loving relatives was a self-punishing crime.<br /><br />The film's production values were very good. The acting isn't bad (apart from the Shatnerism of the actor who played governor's aide that someone else here mentioned).<br /><br />But the idea of a missile Easy-Baking the surface of the Earth by means of the heat of its exhaust... no.<br /><br />How'd the people at "Mystery Science Theater 3000" miss "The Lost Missile," anyway? <br /><br />It's a great classic of unintentional comedy - watch it if you want something to drink beer to some weekend. | 0neg
|
The story idea behind THE LOST MISSILE isn't bad at all, but unfortunately the story does get a bit dull towards the middle and the overuse of stock footage as well as poor special effects sink this film to the sub-par level.<br /><br />The film begins with a missile heading towards the Earth. In a panic because it's about to strike the Earth, the Soviets manage to deflect the object. This isn't necessarily good, however, as this seemingly unmanned craft has a vapor trail that destroys everything in its path AND the ship is now in a low orbit over the planet. In other words, with each pass it makes, a swath of death follows--one that could potentially kill us all!! So, it's up to the good scientists of the US (led by a very young and hardly recognizable Robert Loggia) to formulate and plan to save us--and especially save New York that is in its immediate flight path! Unfortunately, they aren't able to save Ottawa (I've never been there, so I can't say whether or not this is a big loss) but thanks to good old American know-how, they are able to eventually destroy this harbinger of destruction!! <br /><br />So, as you can see, the story idea isn't bad and rather original. But, so many old clips of fighter planes and guys manning radar scopes gets a bit old and it seemed like padding. Overall, a decent but hardly inspired film that extreme fans of the genre may like--all others, see it at your own risk. | 0neg
|
This had all the makings of a very good film -- good actors (Robert Loggia, Ellen Parker), a good plot (mysterious missile from space threatens to burn up the planet) and lots of stock footage (if the Air Force had film of jets firing rockets, it was used). Unfortunately, it is ruined by too much melodrama and an impossible time-line.<br /><br />The movie concerns a missile from space that is attacked by the Soviets and inadvertently diverted into a low atmospheric orbit. At under five miles and at a speed in excess of 4,000 miles, it emits an exhaust of a million degrees, burning up everything on the ground, including glaciers, Distant Early Warning (DEW) line bases and Eskimos.<br /><br />Every attempt at destroying the missile fails.<br /><br />The first flaws in this film appear early on. While we don't expect much from low-budget films, some things can't be forgotten -- like a little research. For instance, both the Soviets and the US fire anti-ballistic missiles that home in on the missile with unerring accuracy. However, the first successful ABM tests weren't done until March of 1961 by the Russians.<br /><br />There is too much melodrama. Dr. Loring (Loggia) and his assistant Joan Woods (Ellen Parker) play their romance with about as much wood as a log cabin. Parker's character cries and boo-hoos at Loggia's sacrifice like she was at a screen test. Loggia is about as heroic as a bored businessman. A scientist (Phillip Pine) hams it up so much he makes William Shatner look like a thespian. A bus driver continually spits out end-of-the-world crap in scene after scene. The only good actor is the film narrator, played by veteran character actor Lawrence Dobkins ("Naked City").<br /><br />All of this could be overlooked if it wasn't for the time-line. After the missile's info is sent to DC, the Pentagon brings in a group of scientists. A general (Larry Kerr) announces that the missile will hit New York City in 63 minutes. After this, there are discussions by scientists and there is a deadly lull as word is sought from ambassadors to see if the missile is an attack from the Russians and if a response is necessary.<br /><br />The film shows the military being fully scrambled. Civil Defense people leave work and go to their stations. Eight million people scramble to fallout shelters while school buses pick up millions of kids (and we get to see the whitest New York City I've ever seen, though watching 50's sci-fi films made it seems like this was the standard). The press is kept in the dark for tens of minutes. Then, incredibly, a man at the Pentagon announces that the missile will hit Ottawa, Canada in 51 minutes! All of the aforementioned action happened in 12 minutes! Then, to add fuel to the fire, Loggia somehow thinks of a way to stop the alien missile. He slowly produces a caseload of plutonium, loads it in a jeep and takes it from DC to a distant missile base to put it atop a missile. Along the way, he is knocked off the road by a wild driver, breaks down and then is carjacked. He finally gets the plutonium back and drives to the base to arm the missile. Again, all this in the same 63-minute time frame.<br /><br />The movie also irks the viewer by making it seem as if Ottawa might be saved, only to show men, women and children get roasted. The missile is then said to have five minutes to reach New York. Loggia is still driving to the base (4 more miles to go). He gets to the base and arms the missile, a two-minute countdown is then announced. All within five minutes. The boroughs of New York should have been at least scorched.<br /><br />By the way, the missile is destroyed if you haven't guessed. The ABM warhead destroys it with a massive plutonium-based nuclear blast. Five seconds later, the blast dissipates and all is clear. Yeah, they caused a nuclear blast equivalent to 100 Hiroshimas on the outskirts of New York City and nothing happens.<br /><br />The film had all the elements necessary to be a good B film, but wasted them. Loggia played his character so lamely you didn't care that he sacrificed himself in the end. You didn't care about the other characters, not even the smarmy scientist played by Pine. The tension that should have moved the film along just wasn't physically possible in the time-line allowed (it still wouldn't be today, not even with Jack Bauer).<br /><br />This film is very difficult to find. As far as I know, it hasn't been re-issued on any medium and for good reason. I don't know if the film meant to be or if it was standard practice, but there's a scene where the government sends all of the best scientists, military men and businessmen into deep shelters, saying they're too valuable to lose. There isn't a single woman or minority in the bunch. Hari Rhodes is the only black man in the film and he gets a brief bit playing a piano. It was worse than "27 Days" where an alien gives five Earthlings the chance to either save or destroy the planet and he doesn't include any blacks or Hispanics.<br /><br />I saw this on a special Sci-fi night on Turner Classic Movies and I don't expect it to show up again. If you do find a copy of this somewhere, you might want to put it up on Amazon.com. | 0neg
|
This must be one of the most overrated Spanish films in history. Its lack of subtlety and complexity and its total political correction make it really childish, with only good/bad characters. The world is just not like this, and good movies show complex characters with opposite impulses, dilemmas, etc. However, what I HATE most about this film is Bola's friend's father. The director tries to teach us a good lesson: tattoo artists with shaved heads are not always bad guys, in fact they can be better than the average looking dad (wow, this is like... philosophy, or something). Thank you, Achero. I'll propose you for the Nobel prize of literature. | 0neg
|
If there was a God, he would have made sure this movie stayed in the toilet were it was crapped up. This is BY FAR the worst vampire movie I have ever seen. I may never watch a vampire film again because of this movie. It makes Zombie Lake look like The Sound of Music. | 0neg
|
Absolutely unwatchable, lowest quality film making. This film makes "Show Girls" look good. The acting is insufferable. The cinematography gives a bad name to amateurism. No wonder it went right to video and bypassed the theaters. This film wasn't released...it escaped. | 0neg
|
This movie is just plain terrible. Poor John Savage had to stoop this low in order to be in another movie. He stars as a rare type of vampire that is to help a lady that looks like a washed out and thrown in the streets hooker that is a dancer at a local strip club. She acidently tastes a drop of blood from another dancer who happens to be one of those rare vampires as they get carried away making out on the floor of the dressing room. Savage is then assigned by a short leader of this rare vampire breed that looks like a cross between 80's punk rock and one of the Olsen twins with purple hair. This movie just gets all to crazy with Savage rapping and dancing with a midget with a tattooed spider on his head, also one of the rare. He quotes the Elephant Man and Jimmy Durante and I just had to laugh. This just gets rediculas. And then the most gross special effects that they could come up with is Corri throwing up her organs and pulling them out of her mouth. And you can tell that that is all to fake. Her son doesn't know what to do with his moms new identity and becomes more of a pest than an object of serenity. I enjoy a good vampire film, believe me I do but I just HATED this one. Even the photography stinks, in and out blurs with the camera switching this way and that trying to make it look like the vampires move to fast for the camera to keep up and then the camera turns all to bright in the scene of Savage chasing the son of Corri around till he blinds himself. Avoid this one!! | 0neg
|
I was watching this with one of my friends, who is a vampire freak, and I was extremely disgusted at the fact that this film exists. This film should be shown to prisoners of war, yes, it's that bad. Even John McCain wouldn't be able to sit through this. So why the 3/10 rating? Because it had a vampire midget. Come on, what's more entertaining than a vampire midget? There's one scene in this film where John Savage gets laid by saying "I want to feel human again," and the chick, being the brainless stripper slut she is, lets him "feel human". I wish I could "feel human" with Jessica Alba or Megan Fox. This is a movie for stoners. There is bright flashy objects and random movements. All in all, don't waste your money on this garbage. I got it for free when I was walking down the street with my friend and we saw a garbage barrel full of video tapes and a sign that said "free". So, in a way, I didn't get ripped off, but still... | 0neg
|
This movie was horrible. I watched it three times, and not even the whole thing. It's just impossible to watch, the story line sucks, it's depressing, and utterly disgusting. I don't write spoilers for anything, so if you want to know why it's so disgusting, see it for yourself. The only good thing about this movie was John Savage, his dialogue at the beginning, and some funny parts in the movie. The little kid in this movie is annoying, and the whole situation is bullshit. I saw this movie at movie stores around America, so I assumed it would be a good movie. Jesus Christ, was I wrong!!!! The acting is all horrible, and the nudity itself is lame and nasty. Another thing is, Starr Andreef, the other main character, hasn't been in such bad movies in the past, in fact, she was in some pretty good ones. Same with John Savage. This movie SUCKS! | 0neg
|
This is probably the worst movie ever made it is just to bad the name of Roger Corman is associated with it. I could've understand it in his early years when he had lower budgets but nowadays there is no excuses for giving birth to this! I'm a "B" movie pervert and from certain people point of view all the flicks I love are put aside by "regular viewers" but take my word on this one, Vampire club makes the top of my list of the best of worst.It's hard to Imagine, vampires with no fangs, the music score is totally out of place,the sound effects are just not effective and finally Mr.Savage doesn't seem to know he is in a vampire movie at all witch is too bad 'cause he had a "not to bad" career over all. Let me know i'f I'm to hard on this one cause when I don't like a movie I tend to forget about it's good side. | 0neg
|
I will never be a member of any club that would have me,<br /><br />especially this one.<br /><br />Starr Andreeff is a single mom/stripper who gets attacked by a<br /><br />female vampire and left for dead. She begins to get a hankering for<br /><br />blood, and meets up with John Savage, looking like he's<br /><br />wondering where he left Michael Cimino's phone number. Savage<br /><br />is also a vampire and wants to let Andreef join his little vampire<br /><br />family, which consists of a British vamp, the blonde vamp who<br /><br />attacked Starr, and a green haired midget (I am not making this<br /><br />up).<br /><br />The family does not want Starr, so they try to kill Savage and Starr<br /><br />and Starr's kid.<br /><br />Someone forgot to tell John Savage that this was a drama. He<br /><br />spends most of his screen time exhibiting more facial tics than<br /><br />Hugh Grant on a Jolt Cola bender, and he reads all of his lines like<br /><br />he is making a Farrelly Brothers film. Andreeff tries to make the<br /><br />most of a badly written role, but screenwriter/director Ruben goes<br /><br />for all the vampire cliches, like Starr eating her son's pet hamster<br /><br />and buying a lot of raw meat to fight the craving for blood. The kid<br /><br />also gets knocked around a lot, for those who think watching<br /><br />violence against children is really entertaining.<br /><br />The film is extra gory, but not in a wild, over the top way like "Killer<br /><br />Tongue." Here, the gore is gross and never justified, it just occurs.<br /><br />It is just in the budget. Most of the R rating goes to Andreeff's<br /><br />coworkers, who are put through embarassing strip routines in the<br /><br />background of conversation scenes. The budget does not include<br /><br />vampire fangs! All the vampires here must stab their prey to eat.<br /><br />Nifty idea, unless you have already seen George Romero's<br /><br />"Martin."<br /><br />Even at 77 minutes, and once you throw in Ruben's attempts at<br /><br />arty direction (skewed frames, blurred scenes), this is one<br /><br />tiresome, dull, and dirty ride. Leave this club and take a shower,<br /><br />you will need it.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gun violence, sexual<br /><br />violence, strong gore, strong profanity, female nudity, sexual<br /><br />references, drug abuse, and adult situations.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Dakota (1988) was another early Lou Diamond Phillips starring vehicle. This film is similar to the later released film Harley. There are a few differences but they're both the same. I don't know which one came first. I guess it'll remain one of the mysteries of life. But they both are troubled "kids" who are trying to turn there lives around. Instead of bikes this one involves horses. They're basically the same movie and they're both cheesy as hell. If you're a serious L.D.P. fan then I recommend that you watch them both. You get some extreme mugging and posturing from L.D.P. if you're game then go for it.<br /><br />Not recommended, except for L.D.P. fans!!! | 0neg
|
This film is too skeletal. It's a fairly low-budget film (I hope!) which excuses it somewhat, but the lack of a decent cast and a fleshed out plot hurts it too much. Phillips is quite believable in his role as a torn-apart son of a well-off family who's searching for himself (though his family is...er...well, a little too white...), but the rest of the cast is grasping at straws. Every moment that has potential is ruined by excessive melodrama, and there are *way* too many sub-plots (which is an obvious sign of plot-deficiency. They needed filler...) I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone who isn't either a hard-core Phillips fan, or who has absolutely *nothing* to do. 4/10. | 0neg
|
Yes, this film gets a lot of attention and is considered a classic in the adult film genre. Still, I did not like this one at all. About a woman who commits suicide in a scene more fitting a horror movie, she is given the opportunity to return to earth briefly to live the life of lust she never did before in her mundane life. Crappy sex scenes to follow. Why are they crappy, for one they try so hard to be artistic that they take away from the actual sex act. I mean we watch porn for the sex do we not. Little Girls Blue also does things in an artistic way, but it is still very erotic and nice to look at. Of course the girls in that one are very cute. Here we have a rather unattractive lead actress and that does not help things. If you find the lead in your adult film unappealing there is no amount of artistic vision that is going to make me enjoy the film. The sex scenes range from yuck to bizarre...I mean there is a snake in one of them people. So for me this movie just fails as it does not excite me at all, but rather turns me off. | 0neg
|
There is a DVD published in the UK in 2002 Code HRGD002 on the cover, no ASIN, VFC 19796 on the disk, no IFPI code in the inner rim.<br /><br />Probably a straight transfer from VHS. <br /><br />There is no much point is commenting an adult film. But this one contains a minimal plot, and the characters are believable. It was shown in the United States in normal cinemas.<br /><br />I've seen it In Pensylvannia way back in 1975.<br /><br />As such it deserves a place in an Encyclopedia of Movies. The DVD has no special features and no subtitles, and was probably made using a VHS tape as source | 0neg
|
a friend gave it to me saying it was another classic like "Debbie does Dallas". Nowhere close. I think my main complaint is about the most unattractive lead actress in porn industry ever. Even more terrible is that she is on screen virtually all the time. But I read somewhere that back in those days, porn had to have some "artistic" value. I was unable to find it though. See it only if you are interested in history of development of porn into mainstream, or can appreciate art in porn movies. I know I am not. But the director of the movie appears to be a talented person. He even tried to get Simon & Garfunkel to give him permissions to use his songs. Of course, they rejected. | 0neg
|
One of those classics, held up next to "Deep Throat" and "Behind the Green Door."<br /><br />Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.<br /><br />Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a Fan. | 0neg
|
After watching some of HBO's great stuff - Band of Brothers, Rome, etc. - I must say I had pretty high expectations before watching the first episode of "True Blood". Jeez. Often the script seemed to be written by an 8-year-old, some parts are just horribly filmed, (The scene in which she "saves" Bill, I mean come on. She throws a chain at the guy and ow! it goes around his neck and it magically chokes him! That was pretty embarrassing if you want my opinion. Or a few moments before that scene, when she finds out that the couple is gone with Bill, ridiculous. She hears them plan their stuff, and like 5 seconds later, magic! The 3 of them are gone, and without any struggle or noise or anything!<br /><br />I mean the idea of the show seemed interesting, mysterious, intriguing, vampires co-existing with human in our modern society... but honestly I don't think they really wanted to make more of this than a petty soap show, that the average teen girl watches all the time but that nobody else cares about... Unfortunately, the script is written poorly, mediocre at best. It's shallow and extremely predictable. Often I thought that this was some kind of a joke or something. <br /><br />The actors deliver really unconvincing performances, if you want my opinion. They seem to take the show very lightly, as if it were some kind of a regular, low budget family TV show (well maybe thats what it is, if you take away the family part). The only actor that seemed somewhat good to me was Stephen Moyer in the role of Bill, considering the poorly written, extremely short replies he had to say "What are you..." "Can I give you a call sometime...", I think he did good in bringing out the somewhat mysteriously scary part of a vampire that anyone with a vampire role must have, actually. Anna Paquin was okay as well, but not more. But the guy, playing her brother though, jeez, he's horrible. The scene in which he gets arrested is just simply a shame to modern television. The acting is bad, the construction site looks fake to the bone, and the two other guys "Why is he getting arrested? Uh.. I dunno..." That was pretty embarrassing. <br /><br />Another thing that I think was completely missed was the way they presented Sookie's psychic powers. They make us hear what people think AND speak both at the same time and thats just wrong. Often it just seems unnecessarily chaotic, as if people's thought were some sort of an annoying radio channel, and that when she comes close to em she hits the right frequency level and has to hear everything that they think. <br /><br />And finally, the sex scenes are just plainly unnecessary and that vampire sex tape thing was just totally disgusting. <br /><br />Don't get me wrong - I wrote all these comments not because I thought the show was BAD, but because I was very disappointed. I expected quality stuff. I didn't think it was going to be like that. It's definitely not a GOOD show though. Mediocre at best. | 0neg
|
This show had a lot of hype but I didn't know about it until the midseason (season 1). Someone even recommended the show to me. But I decided that if I was going to watch it, I was going to wait until the end of the season so I could watch it in bulk. Due to the show's format, I'm happy I waited. I imagine it would have been fairly annoying have nearly every episode end in the middle of some cliff hanger then have to wait another week to find out what happens in the next second of the story.<br /><br />Somehow, this show has managed to throw in too much sex. Jason will have sex with pretty much anything that moves. Right after he finds out that one woman he had sex with was killed, he's in bed with another woman the next night! Then Tara and Sam get it on, despite each of them knowing that Sam is in love with Sookie. And for some reason, Sookie gets mad when she later finds out about it--even though she's sleeping with a vampire. One of the problems with the show, is that it doesn't do a good job of making you care about the characters. I really didn't care for Jason at all. Along with his endless pursuit of tale, he was rude to the people who actually were concerned for him. After a few episodes, I wouldn't have minded if he got killed somehow. For that reason, I was for the most part uninterested in the murders until Sookie's Grandmother became a victim (since the first two were more closely involved with Jason).<br /><br />Then once Sookie and Bill have sex, the story gets a few more subplots. Tara's mother wants an exorcism, then the exorcist lady tries to convince Tara that she should have one to remove her own demon. I wasn't so much bothered by the whole exorcism thing as I know there are some people who really believe in that stuff. However, they waste little time in showing that is it a farce right after Tara spends about $1300 on exorcisms for her and her mother. At other points, some of the developments happen too fast. Jason continues being a jerk, trying to sell his Grandmother's stuff to buy vampire blood, which apparently is the new crack or something. In his search he finds this girl who will do V (vampire blood) with him. They get high, and within three days fall in love with each other and kidnap a vampire for a constant source of V. Another example is when Bill has to go to a vampire tribunal. He's only gone for two days before Sookie starts to feel abandoned and start to wonder if he thinks "vampire politics" are more important than her.<br /><br />Subtlety is not this show's strong suit. It doesn't take a genius to figure out something is going on with the local dog. Although my assumption wasn't dead on, it wasn't that much of a surprise. But the finale two episodes was where it really got annoying as it just shoved all the developments in your face as if you couldn't possibly figure the out for yourself. When Tara gets into the car accident, the naked lady's face with the pig is clearly shown, and was easily recognizable when she shows up at the jail for the bailout. As if that wasn't enough, they later show the lady again with the pig at her house. Then it's time to wrap up the murder story. At the end of the penultimate episode, it's revealed that Renee is not who he says he is and most likely is the killer. In the final episode, they shove Renee being the killer in your face. Sookie remarks that it's odd that Renee's thoughts don't have an accent. I thought that was fine, as it adds to Renee being a fraud. But the next scene is full of incriminating evidence against Renee. They show that Renee has the tape of Maudette with the vampire and his fiancée finds a tape in one of Renee's boxes about how to fake a Cajun accent. At this point it was just ridiculous. I mean WE GET IT!!! So blah blah blah stuff happens. Bill almost kills himself while failing to save Sookie, who still manages to kill Renee. They start to set up season 2 by leaving unfinished issues. The naked pig lady and Sam have a history, Lafayette has gone missing and might have been killed. Jason is in the process of being brainwashed into being a religious nut by some anti-vampire church--which makes me care about him even less.<br /><br />It's almost surprising to see how many people absolutely love this show. I think I just expected this show to be better. I'm interested in seeing what happens in season 2, but if I watch it, I'll most likely wait for the season completion. | 0neg
|
For every series that makes it to television, a 100 ideas are formed, 50 scripts are written, 15 pilots are made, and one, just one, actually makes it to production. From such a selection process, we are lead to believe that the final product must be the cream of the crop, for what other reason could so many ideas be rejected to give us a single television series.<br /><br />And so it goes with True Blood; all the stars were in alignment and what started as a series of novels was transformed into an idea, a screen play, a pilot, and finally a series. Unfortunately, it can sometimes be a long journey and along the way there are many turns that ultimately change what was good and pure into and show that production people feel would be best for ratings. Oh how wrong they so often are...<br /><br />True Blood is an example of a creative concept that has developed into one of the poorest story lines, worst acting, and silliest subplots as anything in recent television history. Its international cast of relatively unknown actors struggle to find their voices but keep tripping over their fake southern accents. Alan Ball's not so secret desires for Ryan (Jason Stackhouse) gives us a fresh nude shot each week although it often has nothing to do with the storyline. Tara's angry black woman characterization fails to connect and you find yourself secretly hoping the vamps take her out quickly before she goes into another speech about white suppression while attend a ceremony for the Glorious Dead of the Confedercy. Sam finds suppressed love for Sookie and suddenly we are to believe he needs to watch over her morning, noon, and night despite years of working with her and avoiding any such relationship.<br /><br />As for Bill the Vampire, his moral high ground is quickly surrendered at the first chance to make love with Sookie and has no issue with make a quick snack of her (although she remains somewhat unharmed). We find the other vampires not so mainstream as Bill but greatly desiring to become accepted by a public as they look at the living as Happy Meals with legs.<br /><br />Despite my best efforts of suffering through the first six episodes, I have come to the realization that no matter how long you watch a bad show, its still bad. Somethings die for a reason, even vampires. Maybe this show should to. | 0neg
|
When I first watched the show, the first few episodes seemed promising. Bill Compton introduced himself as the stereotypical "mysterious" vampire and Sookie presented herself as an independent woman. However, the show went downhill from here and the once interesting characters are as entertaining as a cardboard box.<br /><br />As the story progresses the main characters lose their original personalities, along with their acting abilities. By episode 5, Bill's furrowed eyebrows are so low that his face just consists of a forehead. Sookie, or rather the actress, is even more dead than her vampire lover. All these tragic events are surrounding her and she only reacts to how enjoyable it was losing her virginity. Personally, I think they made the main characters sleep with each other too early in the show. The way they teased each other was something that had me hooked and could easily be toyed with a bit more. As soon as Sookie loses it she struts around like a total ditz, only thinking of Bill's libido and the size of his appendage. Bill also loses his debonair attitude and well, he just gets plain silly. His actions are never really explained except he does it for Sookie. Why? Their love for each other is never delved into, if there is any love. So far it just seems to be sex that is the core of their relationship.<br /><br />Yeah, yeah, vampires usually equal sex but come on. Every five seconds I see some sort of humping going on. It wasn't that much of a surprise, since HBO always tries to pass of a soft core porno as a decent TV show. Bill popping out of the dirt and just getting it on with Sookie with no reason what's so ever? I laughed so hard I almost peed myself.<br /><br />The plot is just a stream of consciousness. The characters never go into detail about anything. All the events that happen are usually left unexplained. The only thing that is constant is the sex.<br /><br />The only thing I can say that I do like are the minor characters. Tara and her drunk mother are far more interesting than the major characters. The only reason why I continue to watch the show is for the development of the minor characters. <br /><br />Minus the sex and the main characters the show would be much more worthwhile. | 0neg
|
Man, I really find it hard to believe that the wonderful Alan Ball had anything to do with this mess. Having seen the first two episodes thus far, I think I can safely say this show isn't going to be on my must see list. It's just got so many things working against it.<br /><br />None of the actors cast are particularly good. Anna Paquin as the lead character Sookie, is just awful. I remember her being better in a lot of other things I've seen her in so maybe it's just the writing. She's not really much fun to look at either, there are moments where to be honest she looks downright ugly. The actor who plays Bill is marginally better, if only because his character is supposed to be sort of wooden and aloof. The other actors do their best but with the cliché characters with difficult to perform accents they are given it's a tough job. Tara is an absolute misery to watch, Rutina Wesley absolutely murders the accent. It's like nails on a chalkboard bad. Almost as awful is Nelsan Ellis, it's difficult to understand what he's even saying sometimes. Both his character as well as Tara's also seem a bit racist to me. I don't know, having a character say 'whycome' on an HBO show that isn't The Wire just seems a bit odd. Rounding out the cast so far are Sookie's doddering grandmother, her sex addict brother, and the only bit of genius casting I've seen in William Sanderson as the sheriff.<br /><br />The story seems to be meandering towards it's destination at this point, with no real worry about keeping the viewer interested. The romance stuff is very Dark Shadow-sy. Although this show ups the camp factor from something like those old Dark Shadows episodes times about ten. At times it seemed so campy to me, that I just have to assume it was intended to be. But unlike a show such as Buffy, that pulled camp off masterfully, this show does not. Out of place with the campiness is the extreme gore and graphic sex of the show. I'm not averse to either of these when they are done well, as they have in many other HBO shows but here at least they prolonged rough sex scenes involving Jason Stackhouse seem a bit over the top and pointless.<br /><br />About the only nice thing I can really think to say about this mess is that I liked the opening title sequence. HBO has had a string of bad luck with their shows lately, I hope they cancel this after the first season and try to get something better on the air. | 0neg
|
As a fan of the Sookie Stackhouse books, I find this series to be a totally crass representation of them. Vampire Bill is not very good looking and looks much older than described in the book. I found that they have made already wonderfully colourful characters seem very course and vulgar. One of the things I loved about the books is that despite all the crap that she is going through Sookie is always a lady, and yet in the TV series she doesn't seem like that at all. Not only that but the prejudices displayed in the TV series are not nearly as wide spread in the books. I didn't expect an exact replica of the books but I at least expected the feel of them to be used for the series. | 0neg
|
I hope whoever coached these losers on their accents was fired. The only high points are a few of the supporting characters, 3 of 5 of my favourites were killed off by the end of the season (and one of them was a cat, to put that into perspective).<br /><br />The whole storyline is centered around sex, and nothing else. Sex with vampires, gay sex with gay vampires, gay sex with straight vampires, sex to score vampire blood, sex after drinking vampire blood, sex in front of vampires, vampire sex, non-vampire sex, sex because we're scared of vampires, sex because we're mad at vampires, sex because we just became a vampire, etc.<br /><br />Nothing against sex, it would just be nice if it were a little more subtle with being peppered into the storyline. Perhaps HAVE a storyline and then shoehorn some sex into it. But they didn't even bother to do that... and Anna Paquin is a dizzy gap-tooth bitch. Either she sucks or her character sucks, I can't figure out which.<br /><br />Another part of the storyline that I find highly implausible is why 150 year old vampire Bill who seems to have his things together would be interested in someone like Sookie. She's constantly flying off the handle at him for things he can't control. He leaves for two days and she already decides that he's "not coming back" and suddenly has feelings for dog-man? Give me a break. She's supposed to be a 25 year old woman, not a 14 year old girl. People close to her are dying all over, and she's got the brightest smile on her face because she just gave away her V-card to some dude because she can't read his mind? As the main character of the story, I would've hoped the show would do a little more to make her understandable and someone to invest your interest in, not someone you keep secretly hoping gets killed off or put into a coma. I can't find anything about her character that I like and even the fact that she can read minds is impressively uninspiring and not the least bit interesting.<br /><br />I will not be wasting my time with watching Season 2 come June. | 0neg
|
For those of you who've never heard of it (or seen it on A&E), Cracker is a brilliant British TV show about an overweight, chain-smoking, foulmouthed psychologist named Fitz who helps the Manchester police department get into the heads of violent criminals. It's considered to be one of the finest shows ever to come out of England (and that's saying something), and was tremendously successful in England and around the world back in 1993.<br /><br />Now, the original stars have re-teamed with the original writer to knock out one more 2-hour episode. I've loved this show ever since I'd first seen it, over a decade ago. The DVD box set holds a place of honor in my collection, and I can quote a good deal of Fitz's interrogation scenes practically word for word. The idea of Robbie Coltrane reteaming with Jimmy McGovern for another TV movie about Fitz filled me with absolute glee.<br /><br />I'll start with the good. One of the many things that impressed me about the original Cracker series was how quickly Fitz was defined as a character. Five minutes into the first episode with his lecture (throwing the books into the air), his drinking, and his cussing of the guy after him on the gambling machine queue and you knew, simply knew, who this character was. You could feel him "clicking" in your mind, the kind of click that only happens when a great actor gets a great role written by a great writer.<br /><br />Coltrane, of course, remained great throughout the show, but I always felt that some of the later episodes those not written by McGovern mistreated the character.<br /><br />So the good news is this: Fitz is back. As soon as you see him in this show making incredibly inappropriate comments at his daughter's wedding you'll feel that "click" once again. It's him: petulant one moment and truly sorry the next, always insightful, sincere to the point of tactlessness but brilliantly funny in the process. If you love this character as much as I do, you'll be delighted with how he is portrayed in the movie. And this extends to Judith and Mark: in fact, everything having to do with the Fitzs is handled perfectly.<br /><br />The problem I do have with this movie revolves around the crime Fitz is trying to solve. In standard Cracker fashion, we know exactly who the criminal is in the first five minutes the suspense lies in seeing Fitz figure it out. In this case, we have a serial killer who is out for American blood. And the reason for this, unfortunately, is not due to any believable psychological trauma rather, it seems that the murders are here simply to allow the writer to display his personal political beliefs.<br /><br />It's difficult for me to write this, as I truly believe that Jimmy McGovern is one of the greatest writers in the world. Nor do I have a problem with movies that are about current issues, or movies that take a political stand. But in the Cracker universe, we expect to see the characters behaving like human beings, not like caricatures. Instead, the Americans in this movie are all depicted in an entirely stereotypical fashion. They're know-nothing loudmouths who complain about everything, treat the locals like crap and cheat on their wives one of them even manages to do all of the above within less than 5 minutes. I honestly thought I'd mistakenly switched channels or something.<br /><br />But it doesn't stop there. We get constant reminders of just how badly the war in Iraq is going reminders that have nothing whatsoever to do with the story and appear practically out of nowhere. The killer is so busy ranting about how Bush is worse than Hitler that he almost forgets to get on with the killing; but more to the point, he is such a mouthpiece for the writer's political views that he forgets to act like a believable human being, and thus we as an audience don't buy his sudden transformation from a happy family man to a tortured serial-killing soul.<br /><br />I can't say that this ruined the show for me it's was still good TV, better than almost everything else in the genre (mainly due to, once again, Coltrane). But its constant politicizing made it impossible for it to be as good as the real Cracker classics like "To Be A Somebody" an episode that was just as "issuey", but one that was handled with far more subtlety and psychological depth.<br /><br />Two other small points: Panhandle not being around is a disappointment, but what's worse are her replacements. The entire police department which for so long filled with such great characters - is now full of vanilla. Completely interchangeable cops who lack any and all personality (how you could drain Coupling's Richard Coyle of personality is beyond me, but it is indeed missing here).<br /><br />Also, there are couple of moments where the show lost its believability for me. One such instance revolves around Fitz having to narrow down the entire population of Manchester from 1 million to a hundred based on some very strange criteria (French windows? How does the computer know if I have French windows?) he not only succeeds in doing this, but he succeeds in less than an hour. I don't think so.<br /><br />So, all in all, I was a little disappointed. It's recommended viewing, but remember to leave at least some of your expectations at the door. Still, if there's new series to come after this, it would all have been for the good: I'm convinced that McGovern can still write great stuff, and maybe now that he's got his politics out of his system he can go back to writing about people. | 0neg
|
I'm a true fan of the original Cracker series, and own all of them on DVD. Cracker had a tendency to be over-the-top on occasion, but Robbie Coltrane and the other cast members, as well as the writers, always seemed to carry it off despite themselves. I count the original Cracker among the great Brit TV crime series of that time, and there's some stiff competition: Prime Suspect, Inspector Frost, Inspector Morse, Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Homes, and a host of others. Cracker, along with Prime Suspect, was on the top of my list.<br /><br />Which makes "A New Terror" all the more sad...<br /><br />Ultimately, this was a very pale imitation of Cracker's former glory. I forced myself to sit through the whole thing, convinced that it couldn't actually be this bad, and that some spark would eventually ignite. I was wrong, it was bad from beginning to end.<br /><br />A few criticisms: First, just to get any potential bias up-front right off: I was offended by the anti-American, anti-war screed that droned on and on throughout most of the show. The topper: the murder of two American's innocent of any crime and a British Junkie is, in Fitz's words, "understandable, but not justified". I thought "I waded through two hours of crap just to hear this disgusting bit of drivel?" So I had a negative reaction to the anti-war/American tone brought on by my beliefs... Beyond the politics, I had the distinct sense that this Cracker was merely a prop for the propaganda, and it actually helped to undermine an already terribly weak script.<br /><br />Second, just how much air-time did Robbie Coltrane get? Fitz was almost a bit player in this one, as if he was an afterthought plugged into some story originally written without any thought of Fitz's role. Coltrane could have carried the show on his own broad and still suitably flabby shoulders, but the writer was apparently thinking of other things, and missed the chance, and by a wide margin.<br /><br />Third: WHAT AN ABYSMAL SCRIPT! There was some sparkle, and a couple of bits of actual character development (Fitz's son ranting that Fitz couldn't stay at his house if he missed his plane to Australia, the Detective that liked to beat his poor-performers over the backs of their heads, and some of the old sparks between Fitz and his Missus) but not nearly enough to carry the tedious storyline. <br /><br />Fourth, where the hell was Panhallagan? Now that would have been interesting... It was Manchester after all, and 10 years on she'd be up in the ranks. Another wasted opportunity (or perhaps the actress wasn't interested?) <br /><br />Well, there's much more (that's bad) to say , but I'll close with a curiosity: at the end of the show (as it aired on BBCA), when the advertisement announced that the "Director's Cut" was available on BBC On-Demand, I thought AH-HA! The Director's cut, which, presumably, one has to pay for, might have all of the goodies I expected to see tonight but never did, like a coherent, interesting storyline. Unfortunately, after convincing myself to sit through the horrible free version of "A New Terror" with the hope of seeing something, anything, worth watching, only to be disappointed, I have no hope left to motivate me to actually pay for a second, potentially longer and more tedious version. Besides, it angered me to think that BBCA sliced and diced, and sacrificed show time to accommodate the endless (every ten minutes or so) stream of commercials, and then turned around and asked me to pay for what probably should have been version aired tonight.<br /><br />To close, I quote the first paragraph of Variety's review of "A New Terror": it really says it all: "Initial excitement about Robbie Coltrane reprising his role as the BBC's flawed, boozing, womanizing criminal psychologist is snowed under by the heavy-handed political statement writer Jimmy McGovern is determined to deliver within this revival vidpic. Jolting at first in its message -- namely, that Americans are a bunch of whiny namby-pambies who didn't care a whit about terrorism before it came crashing onto our doorstep -- McGovern's chest-clearing rant overwhelms the narrative and mutes the pleasure of seeing Fitz back on the case." | 0neg
|
As a huge fan or the Cracker series, I have been waiting 7 years for the next addition. This Episode I'm afraid just does not live up to the legend.<br /><br />Fitz returns to Manchester after 7 years for his daughters wedding and gets involved in a murder investigation were a soldier, tormented by flash backs from his tour of duty in Northern Irland, goes on a killing spree.<br /><br />What I did not like about this episode is the extremely convenient way it is all set up and how fitz is led to the murderer. It is all fat to far-fetched.<br /><br />There are however some good scenes in flash backs from Northern Irland which are filmed great. | 0neg
|
A major disappointment. This was one of the best UK crime drama / detective shows from the 90's which developed the fascinating title character played by Scotland's Robbie Coltrane. However this one-off has little to add and perhaps suffers from an inevitable let down due to raised expectations when a favored show returns after a long hiatus. Coltrane isn't really given much to do, much more attention is spent on the uninteresting killer, and in what he has to act in, he seems uninvolved, almost bored. The ex-soldier's story is written by the books and the attempt to update us on Coltrane's family life seems lightweight. Perhaps if the writers had a whole series in front of them instead of just this one two-hour show they would have written this with much more depth. As is, skip this and watch the old Cracker from the 90's which is far far superior. | 0neg
|
The social commentary was way overblown and the mystery itself is built and solved through a series of implausible coincidences that were entirely unbelievable. Nothing has changed in Fitz's personal life in the past decade that makes it remotely interesting. <br /><br />I even had trouble understanding why he was complaining about his stay in Australia as compared to the opportunities to solve mysteries that he has in England. Can he not insinuate himself on the Australian police? It seems like a very artificial plot point to get him involved in a crime investigation.<br /><br />The latter episodes of the original series were pretty melodramatic and implausible, sometimes bordering on silliness, and this one picks up that mantle rather than returning to the focus of series one. Sad. | 0neg
|
Having heard so much about the 1990s Cracker series without seeing any of them, I looked forward to this eagerly. Surely the combination of Jimmie McGovern and Robbie Coltrane could not go wrong. How wrong I was! <br /><br />The polemics, backed by frequent, repetitive and violent flashbacks, were overpowering. The production tried to be super-modern, but the flashing boxes and even the childish font irritated. Robbie Coltrane sleep-walked through the two hours, coming up with unexplained and unlikely "insights", and the police were portrayed as one-dimensional bumbling idiots. As a result, the tension never built up and the next-to-final scene (no details for fear of spoilers) was as laughably bad a piece of TV drama as I have seen for a long time.<br /><br />No, I don't want to see any more of these, but I will go back to the DVDs of the 1990s series to see if they match their reputation. | 0neg
|
I enjoyed "American Movie", so I rented Chris Smith's first film, which I thought was a documentary too. In the first minute I saw that it wasn't, but I gave it a go.<br /><br />What a dead end film. Being true-to-life hardly serves you if you're merely going to examine tediousness, esp. tediousness that we're already familar with.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but will it come as a relevation to ANYONE that 1) a lot of jobs suck and 2) most of them are crappy, minimum wage jobs in the service sector??? I knew that before I saw the film. It didn't really provide an examination of that anyway, as while the film struggles to feel "real" (handheld camera, no music, etc.), what's going on hardly plays out as it would in the "real world."<br /><br />Would an employer be so cheerful to Randy when he picks up his check, after Randy quit on him after 3 days when the guy said he expected him to stay 6 months?? Or the day after abandoning his job (and screwing up the machine he was working on), that everyone would be so easy on him??<br /><br />A big problem is our "hero"(?), Randy. This guy is a loser. Not because he's stuck in these jobs, or has a crummy apartment, or looks like one. He's a dope. He doesn't pay attention or even really try at these jobs. He has zero personalty. If I had to hire someone, he wouldn't make it past the interview.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to what Chris Smith does next, but guys, knock off the "this-is-an-important-film" stuff. "American Job" doesn't work. | 0neg
|
I must say that I was disapointed with this film. I have never been a huge BNL fans, I find their songs kind of childish and obsessively nostalgic (this is me in grade 9, if i had a million dollars, shoe box of life etc). However, I have seen clips of their live show and I really like the improvisational and goofy nature of the show. I was hoping that this movie would highlight this which is, unfortunately, the most interesting part of the show because their music is well played yet somehow bland and not that compelling (there is a standup bass solo in the middle which was completely pointless and boring, despite how much Jim Creegan was digging himself). The film does not and shows only a few minutes of it (and you know they've had better moments, as in the Afgahnistan concert "Koffee Anan, he's the man in charge, my name's Steve Paige and I'm really large") .<br /><br />BNL are kind of like when I went to Europe a few years ago and heard that godawfull "Blue" song by Effeil 99 or whatever every 2 minutes, I came back to Canada and then a month later that song was all over the place *again*, I nearly chewed off my own arm. BNL is like that, years ago I remember many a fond memory of sitting around campfires in Canada listening to people play "If I had a million dollars". BNL was a cult phenomenon in Canada, and much of their humour has a particular Canadian slant to it (Kraft Dinner is a staple for many students up here, and the name "Gordon" is quintessentially Canadian) a few years went by where they slipped into obscurity and I was somewhat gratefull. Then all of a sudden they become huge in States, and everyone down there thinks they are this brand new band (yeah, they're brand new, but they're all in their 30's!) while the rest of Canada is going "Oh geez, I thought those guys folded years ago, do I have to listen to 'million dollars' again?"<br /><br />The concert footage is not bad, but I would have liked to have seen more of their stage routine, the shooting is not that great, and things like clips from their massive free show in Boston are glazed over much too quickly. The interviews are surprisingly dull for such a funny bunch of guys, I think they're all old and they have families and houses and stuff and have settled down a bit. There are times when they go into Spinal Tap type of material, where they deliver deadpan satire, then they break into laughs and giggles that kind of ruins it. The interviews with Moses Znaimer (a Canadian media mogule) and Terry David Mulligan (Music dude) are extremely pretentious and verge into Tap territory unintentionally.<br /><br />This movie doesn't really document very much either, I mean, it's basically one show and at the start of the film, they are already huge and have a massive touring entourage, it's not like we see them rising from obscurity and "surprise" they are popular, it's a methodically planned out event, so in the end it's rather lifeless, kind of half live concert, half documentary, and not much of either.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Can you say "All shock, no plot?" There were so many unexplored directions in this movie. There was no history about the room other than the deaths. *WHY* was it evil? What made it that way? Why an "hour" countdown? Then, there were the unexplored things hinted at; for example we *saw* a camera in the air vent, which he mentioned. But when he climbed up said vent, there was no camera.<br /><br />How about the fact that all the ghosts looked "Digital", and things "winked out" before hitting the ground making a static noise? Hmmm... when you put all of *those* things together, it makes room 1408 look like a high-tech spook house. Except that there was no follow up on that.<br /><br />Oh... by the way... electronics don't work in 1408. Well, except for the TV... the cell phone has no signal, but Wireless Internet works fine. How many incontinuities can you possibly add? I'm sorry, but this film was nothing but "shock after shock". It's all been done before. Reflections in the mirror. Things just out of site. Changing paintings. Bleeding walls. The "Oh, it was all just a dream... no it wasn't." And, if the room was "evil", why make our main character come to terms with his daughter's death, if it was going to keep him trapped there forever anyway? It just didn't make sense.<br /><br />Additionally, there was no background information about "The first book" that he wrote. Just some vague information about the "dad was a jerk" and so forth. Speaking of dads, what was with the bit about his father? "You'll be in my place".<br /><br />Overall, a truly HORRIBLE movie. It was 100% adrenalin shock factor, without any new or innovative effects, and certainly no back story, character development, etc.<br /><br />My overall impression is that the entire movie was made on the "Cheap"; pretty much using one set and a couple of location shots, and was nothing but an effects film of recycled, cheesy, "seen-that-before" effects. | 0neg
|
After spotting the high rating on IMDb, I decided to go see this movie. Beyond that high rating, I intentionally avoided reading any of the reviews. I wanted to go into the theater with a clean slate, without knowing the plot or having predetermined expectations.<br /><br />Given my rating, you can see that I was disappointed. I enjoyed the development of the main character Mike Enslin. I also enjoyed how the hotel manager attempted to talk him out of entering the hotel room. By the time Enslin entered the room, I was ready for some scary stuff.<br /><br />First chocolates appear on the pillow and the toilet paper is folded. Enslin reacts in a believable manner. He's freaked out. I'm encouraged and think to myself, this is going to be good. The people who made this movie understand that less is more.<br /><br />But it's what happens next that was a big let down. The subtleness is quickly replaced by the predictable shotgun approach... Just blast the audience with every Hollywood scary trick in the book and hope that something works. Let's see, a clock radio that turns on by itself? Good, that's always scary. Objects that move around in the room? Good, you can't complain about that. Blood dripping from the walls and sink? Great. Ghosts that commit suicide? Good. Anything else? How about loud noises, shaking, fire, more shaking, messing up the room, more blood, etc etc. It's all good. And it's all been done before. Overstimulate our Attention Deficit Disordered audience with all kinds of stuff in quick succession, and they won't be able to look away.<br /><br />Well, it didn't work for me. And you know what else? When I go see a horror movie in a theater, it's typical to hear several groups of girls in the audience yelling in fear at scary moments. But this movie had no scary moments. The audience was silent and disinterested. I felt no chill down my spine. Nothing. The Shining was 100x what this movie tries to be.<br /><br />So who are all these people who are saying that it is one of the best horror movies ever? Friends of the director? Sorry, I just don't get it. | 0neg
|
I don't see what everyone liked about this movie. The set-up was too long and talky, and when it was done, the main character remained as flat and opaque as he had been in the first scene. After the film finally got Cusack into the eponymous hotel room, I had to wonder, well, what's going to happen here for the next hour or so to keep me engaged. The answer: not much, just John Cusack having a long, drawn-out, mental breakdown.<br /><br />Maybe if the Cusack character had more depth . . maybe if his freak-out were a more thorough reworking of his everyday life . . . maybe if the film had either better developed its half-baked themes about loss and faith or had not tacked them on in the first place . . . maybe if the film had made a choice to be either psychological horror or thrill-ride horror and had fully embraced one of these styles . . . I dunno. All I do know is that I saw this movie with two other horror buffs and none of us much liked it.<br /><br />Except for the disquieting episode on the hotel ledge, the alarming crazy lady with the hammer, and the so-stupid-it-was-fun crypt keeper in the air duct, all three of which account for no more than five minutes of screen time, this film was a bore.<br /><br />By the way, this story seems to steal ideas from The Shining and use them here to much less powerful effect. Is Stephen King now reduced to stealing ideas from himself? | 0neg
|
'1408' is the latest hodge podge of cheap scare tactics. The kind that might make date-movie styled horror fans occasionally jump in their seat and scream in your ear, but disappoint audiences searching for a little depth and direction.<br /><br />John Cusak plays a writer who's made a career of writing books describing his experiences of staying in rumored haunted hotels. Despite assurances by patrons and owners that ghosts roam the halls, there is little to make him a real believer in the paranormal. When he learns of the history of Room 1408 at the Overlook Hotel--no wait, I mean, Dolphin Hotel in New York City--he decides it would make the perfect closing chapter to his latest book. But, Samuel L. Jackson, playing the hotel owner, strongly attempts to dissuade his guest with narration of the atrocities that have occurred in theat room since the hotel's opening many years ago. The story is simple and we, as possible skeptics, must sit through Jackson's lengthy foreshadowing ramble. <br /><br />In other words: be afraid! Be very afraid!<br /><br />Of course, it would be easy to convince audiences that they've just paid to see an edge-of-the-seat thriller if it didn't take so long to build up to this point. And also, if what followed was a lot more than cheap "boos" that become so frequent and arbitrary that eventually, you might soon expect them. The temperature in the room changes automatically. The walls drip with blood. The fearless writer can't open the door, etc. And after nearly an hour and a half of delivering these to audiences promised big thrills, you might sit and hope that at least you can be wowed by the ending. With suspicions of dream sequences and other derivative time-wasters, even that fails to quell our doubts that before the movie is over, we might finally have something to make the movie a little less than completely forgettable.<br /><br />Despite grand performances (as always) by Cusak, who essentially is the entire film, most everyone else of note is wasted (i.e. Samuel L. Jackson) in insignificant minor roles. The true mystery here is how this movie received such a high viewer rating. Ballot-stuffing ghosts? | 0neg
|
I am a huge, huge fan of John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, and Tony Shalhoub. I'm slightly less fond of Stephen King, but I like some of his work.<br /><br />This said, I should have LOVED 1408.<br /><br />***POSSIBLE SPOILERS AFTER THIS POINT**** <br /><br />I walked in eager. I walked out disappointed.<br /><br />This is not the fault of the actors. Shalhoub and Jackson both have very small roles because the premise of the movie puts Cusack in the "guy in a locked room" scenario.<br /><br />This wasn't a BAD movie, but I can't call it a good one either. It was a muddied mess that had moments of "ouch, that's just WRONG," combined with moments of "ouch, that's just painful," and moments of "oh, now THAT'S just unfortunate" with very little continuity-connectivity between them. Eislin's father shows up once, and there's no seeming connection to the rest of Mike's personal life that we see displayed while he tries to survive the room. <br /><br />A previous commenter described the Olin/Enslin argument as worth watching, and I very much agree. But other than that, aside from some clever musical cues (the room almost playfully torments Enslin a little bit, and gives him one chance to get out before upping the ante...at which point it gives him the one-hour countdown clock and the titular line from the Carpenters "We've Only Just Begun.") it's mostly "stuff jumps out at you when you least expect it!" type horror that was fun when I was fourteen, and surrounded by friends my age, clutching each other in the summer while Jason stalked Camp Crystal Lake.<br /><br />The rest of the movie was "let's make him relive some of his most painful experiences" mindgaming, with "let's animate the paintings in creepy ways" cliché cheesiness.<br /><br />******END SPOILERS***** <br /><br />I expected better from this movie with Stephen King's name attached to it, as well as the actors I mentioned above.<br /><br />We never find out the origin of the evil. We never get to see the evil defeated, though we can presume maybe it was defeated.<br /><br />And the ending was just a jarring "What?!" moment.<br /><br />Wait for it to come on cable. I wouldn't have minded paying for it as a matinée, but I'm feeling a bit shortchanged for having paid opening night prices for it. | 0neg
|
This movie was exactly what I expected, not great, but also not that bad either. In my opinion PG13 movies aren't scary enough so that's why I already knew I was going to be bored throughout the entire film. Sure there were scary things going on in the hotel room, but nothing we all haven't already seen. I guess I didn't like it because I thought there were too many twists and turns happening; it got old and repetitive. I also didn't understand if all the things Cusack was experiencing in the room was real or not. There is no explanation for any of the events that occurred. The movie just drags on and when it finally does come to an end you want it to keep going because you are still waiting around for someone to tell you what the whole movie was about. What I did like was the special effects. Other than that there wasn't much enjoyment from it. Maybe its just me but I thought this was below average. | 0neg
|
Director Spike Lee is famous for making films pointing out racism. In many of films, such "Do The Right Thing," most of the white people are all brutal racists. In this movie, interracial marriage is the subject, with racism once again being the entire issue.<br /><br />What Lee does, however, is once again demonstrate his bigotry against Christianity. It's amazing the double standards that exist in the film world. If Lee or anyone else ever produced this kind of bias against another group he would be vilified, but Christians? Hey, it's "open season" on them.<br /><br />Ossie Davis, a reverend in this film, shoots his son and then puts the smoldering gun down on top of his Bible. They zoom in on that for another closeup just in case you missed it. Hey, folks, here's another Bible reader and look what he''s like! Lee does this sort of thing in just about every movie he makes.<br /><br />He shows the same hatred when dealing with race relations. Who could argue with portraying racism as an evil thing? However, Lee perpetuates it in this film as he has in his other films. His obvious bitterness toward white people doesn't help the situation. It only adds fuel to the fire. <br /><br />Hey, Spike: start "doing the right thing" and leave your prejudices in the closet. Better yet, "get over it."<br /><br />This is too bad because the subject matter could have made for a thought- provoking film if it had been done with objectivity and intelligence. | 0neg
|
I'm not sure why Spike Lee made this train wreck of a movie and conned poor Stevie Wonder into eternally pairing his beautiful music with this theatrical mess. I also resent the way he uses profanity as a part of the normal prose of professional Blacks. The abuse of his hold on ethnic movie goers is a shame. Scenes which seem to be contrived out the blue and have nothing to do with the theme or sub themes, play as if some college kid wrote this. I especially detest the ludicrous scene where the two leads are playfully sparring for no reason at all and the cops come and rough up Snipes. The overacting of the leads makes one feel as if Spike has no respect for his viewers or he has no clue what a movie is all about. The final scene appears to be thrown in to justify the use of a sledge hammer to tack a point in. This movie also supports the myth that all people of culture use the F-word in casual conversation. I am hoping he will realize that the rest of his movies are in the same pool as this one where he is not growing as a film maker. I think his union with Scorcesee in Clockers was a wise move. He should stick to making documentaries like the Four Little Colored Girls. Shock movies do not an Oscar make. | 0neg
|
Jungle Fever is too highly stylized, stereotyped, and comes across as essentially dishonest. Wesley Snipes was wrong for the lead and there was no chemistry between him and Annabella Sciorra. Even though there's plenty of talent in this movie, it's mostly wasted because the parts are reduced to little more than decorative cameos. Also, instead of simply showing racism for the ugly and stupid thing it is, Spike Lee chooses to wave it around like a flag in a most whining and irritating manner. I made it through most of the film but I couldn't quite finish it, and that, for me, rarely happens. | 0neg
|
Who in their right mind plays a lyrical song at the same time they are portraying an emotional scene between two people? When Flipper confronts his wronged wife in the dressing room, the song sung with lyrical content is as loud as the dialog, so one can hear neither, diluting any emotional impact the scene may have had. The scenes of Annabella getting beaten by her father with his fists, a lamp and then a belt was so cartoonish as to be absurd. This entire movie is a cartoon, the rampant prejudice against whites is literally astounding. The discussion by the black women after flipper's wife finds out he has cheated on her with a white woman - as if it were a discussion by an oxford debating team, is ridiculous. The rampant racism might be possible to endure, but the soundtrack and the sound mixing during this 'movie' is too much. It was a technically poorly made movie. There is no understanding of the basic craft of movie making, the sound track, the editing and the desperate attempt of great actors trying to keep this movie afloat. I actually felt sorry for Anthony Quinn, wondering why he had accepted a role in this flick - his appearance in this is painful. This is the first movie I have seen by this director and it will be my last. | 0neg
|
In short:<br /><br />Spike Lee clearly has a lot on his mind. He's thinking about racism color-ism, media and hegemony, consumerism and capitalism, religion, sexism, 'hetero-sexism', politics of the drug war etc etc...<br /><br />That level of consciousness on is own is great. I think it is a blessing that more and more people are choosing to critically examine fundamental aspects of our daily lives; the silent and invisible forces that govern our societies. However, just because Lee is making contentious films does not make him a good film-maker.<br /><br />What comes across in "Jungle Fever" is a superficial understanding of these socio-political forces. This is largely the result of two main failures:<br /><br />firstly, Lee is simply trying too hard. He seems to be desperately trying to accommodate every political/social statement he can think of into the 90mins. And as such, the end result seems confused and irresolute as he allows himself no time to develop characters that can fully embody the ideas he hopes to present. And so he exhausts stereotypes and we are left with rushed testimonies and very loaded dialogs. The end result is very staged and unrealistic.<br /><br />Secondly, by attempting to make statements about such a wide variety of societal functions, he appears to have no concrete or original interpretation of the social/political issues presented. What comes across is a puddle of regurgitated non-sense. You feel that he bought an elementary level sociology text book and spewed out all 500 pages.<br /><br />These are highly problematic features because the artistry of film is sacrificed and the work is transformed into a loudspeaker for the voice of the voice of the filmmaker. He is unable to distance himself from the work, and allow it to speak for itself.<br /><br />It functions neither as a piece of art nor a sound political argument.<br /><br />Although I still do appreciate Lee bringing up these important issues, I must say:<br /><br />Two thumbs down. | 0neg
|
I have walked out of very few movies before they end, but I couldn't finish this piece of garbage. This was the biggest load of racism trying to pass as legitimate film since "Birth of a Nation". The characters were little more than cardboard cutouts. I don't see how any actor would want their name associated with this film. Lee must have better things to do that put out garbage like this. I know that I and anyone with a brain have better things to do.... like watching paint dry. I wish that someone would make a film about interracial relationships that dealt with the topic realistically. There is a lot more depth to this subject the shallow ranting of a bitter director like Lee. | 0neg
|
When I refer to Malice as a film noir I am not likening it to such masterpieces as Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity or The Maltese Falcon, nor am I comparing director Becker to Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Stanley Kramer or Luis Bunuel. I am merely registering a protest against the darkness that pervades this movie from start to finish, to the extent that most of the time you simply cannot make out what is going on. I can understand darkness in night scenes but this movie was dark even in broad daylight, for what reason I am at loss to understand. As it is, however, it wouldn't have made much difference if director Becker had filmed it in total darkness. | 0neg
|
Flat, ordinary thriller about a conniving woman who deceives all those she supposedly loves in order to boost her bank account. Nicole Kidman plays the deceptive Tracey, married to the doting Andy (Bill Pullman). When an old school friend of Andy's named Jed Hill (Alec Baldwin) turns up as the resident surgeon, trouble is not far behind him.<br /><br />Script fails in that it does not carefully develop the promising premise into an effective, tantalising thriller, and the severe lack of character motivation, background and development leaves the whole show reaching. None of the cast are able to generate interest in their shallow characters, especially Bill Pullman, whose own inexplicably curious Andy is impossible to believe.<br /><br />Poor director Harold Becker is left trying to resurrect an impossibly dead project, and is unable to make entertainment from any of it. By the time the 'secret' of the plot is revealed, you just won't care.<br /><br />At least the cinematography has Massachusetts looking good. Also stars George C. Scott, Peter Gallagher and Josef Sommer.<br /><br />Sunday, February 25, 1996 - T.V. | 0neg
|
I saw this movie a few years back on the BBC i sat thru it. How? i don't know,this is way up there in the "so bad it'Good " charts Kidman ,Baldwin,and Pullman must cringe when they see it now.I think Woody Allen would have worked wonders with the outlandish plot, and Baldwin's part could have been played with gusto by Leslie Nelson.it was on again tonight i tried to watch it again but life's too short. the few minutes i watched was for the lovely Nicole she was so hot around 93, has Baldwin ever made a good movie? Pullman played his stock in trade "nice but dim" character the F-word coming out of his mouth when the lady from "frasier" miscast ed as a detective accuses him of murder sounds so wrong. stay well away. | 0neg
|
Irene Dunne finished her illustrious career with this so-so movie. She should have gone out with a bang, being the classy actress she was, not in this unmemorable, almost unknown film. <br /><br />This lightweight comedy is okay, but nothing special. The first half of it is far better as it gets pretty stupid in the second half. Maybe Irene could see the handwriting on the wall and quit. Even her high-pitched voice got a bit annoying in here. Rumor has it she was not happy with this film. One can see why.<br /><br />The story reminded me of a 1950s television sitcom. Speaking of that, I thought David Nelson from the Ozzie & Harriet TV show was in this movie but it turned out to be a very young Richard Crenna. He looked and sounded just like Nelson.<br /><br />Overall, so-so at best and a sub-par ending for a great actress. | 0neg
|
For the love of god please don't see this movie! Its a waste of time, the plot is predictable, as are the romantic scenes. Trying to build too much with very little, this film and its evil predictable villain is just lame. The characters aren't developed, and most of the film is padded out with shots of Rome, which is much more interesting than the actual film. To top all of that, the acting is a disgrace. I know everyone tries to find their niche, but this is truly a disaster. I can't believe that someone actually paid however many millions of pounds to put this film on screen. Don't waste money or time on this film, go see your grandma or something worthwhile instead. | 0neg
|
This movie really has no beginning or end. And it's really VERY unbelievable. Mary-K and Ashley are supposed to be interns working in a mailing room for an Italian fashion company. But, for some reason, they're put up in a 5-star hotel (conveniently located across the street from the Coliseum), and all of the other interns they work with are just as abnormally model-looking as they are. One thing that I found obvious in this movie is the way that one of the twins DOESN'T end up with the guy. I guess they tried to twist their usual plot a bit. Nice try. | 0neg
|
No ,I'm not kidding. If they ever propose a movie idea, they should be kicked out of the studio. I'm serious. Their movies are exactly the same in every one, and they only consist of traveling to foreign locations, having a problem which they easily resolve, hoping to be popular, and getting new boyfriends. Think about it. If you have ever seen a movie starring them with a different plot, contact me and tell me its name. These "movies" are poor excuses to be on TV and go to other countries. There is a reason that the movies never go to theaters. I'm sure that when they were really young and made some O.K. movies, some studio boss bought all their rights for 15 years, or something, so that now that they're, what, 17, they can make movies in other countries whenever they want using the studio's money. Let me advise you, STAY AWAY FROM MARY-KATE AND ASHLEY! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! | 0neg
|
OK, this has got 2 be one of the worst excuses 4 a movie that i have ever had the misfortune of watching. Like all other Olsen twins movies with the possible exception of new york minute , this film had no story, gaping plot holes,disgustingly putrid acting and bad filming even!!!!!!!!! in case you haven't guessed yet I HATE MARY KATE AND ASHLEY!!!!!! The only reason i watched this was because i was really bored and nothing else was on. I wonder if the twins will EVER stop making the same stereotypical movies where they have an unbelievably stupid adventure in an exotic location and save the day meanwhile getting the help of two cute guys who drool over them immediately. The least they could would be to have a guy 4 1 of them or have them both falling 4 the same guy. The plot in this story was so imbecilic and just plain dumb. even a toddler could see the flaws in it.Maybe they should split up and start making films individually or maybe films with a different kind of story. Anyone who liked this movie was no offense-either really stupid, really artificial or has not seen any really good movie. or maybe they are really smart and just have bad cinematic choices. either way i would not recommend this movie to my worst nemesis for a good movie experience.. the only thing it is good 4 is some rib splitting laughter at the pathetic attempts to be cool. if you watch for laughs it's hilarious. basically i give it 0 or less. | 0neg
|
When In Rome is a definite improvement on Getting There. Getting There I found too predictable, contrived and slow, and to this day I still consider it as the Olsen twins' worst. However, while When In Rome isn't a terrible movie, it's not a great one either. If I had to sum it up in one word, I would say passable. It is good fun for teenagers, but I think adults won't find much to go on.<br /><br />When In Rome does have its good points. Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen are actually quite decent actresses, certainly very pretty as well. I will admit when I was 10 or so, I really liked them, and in general I kind of like them still. And I have enjoyed some of their movies like Passport To Paris and New York Minute. Back on target, both girls don't do that bad a job, in fact they are very appealing. Plus their outfits are to die for, and the scenery of Rome is absolutely breathtaking. The soundtrack ain't half bad either.<br /><br />However, where the film is brought down is in the plot and the script. The script is on the most part clichéd and has hints of deja vu. The plot, like most of the Mary Kate and Ashley movies, is very predictable, and anyone familiar with any other of the Olsen twins' work, will find some rather unoriginal elements to it. Most of the characters are cardboard thin, and you don't learn very much about them, and sometimes the pace is uneven. Sadly, the breathtaking scenery is spoilt by rather slapdash camera work, that looked rushed constantly.<br /><br />All in all, does have its good points, and certainly watchable. However, for my taste, it is harmless and predictable teenage fluff. 4/10 Bethany Cox | 0neg
|
Identical twin sisters Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen climbed to fame in sitcoms like "Two of a Kind", I had never seen them in anything before, but I had an idea of what to expect, but it was much worse. Basically the Hunter sisters Charli (Mary-Kate) and Leila (Ashley) are in Rome for a Summer Intern Program, but not long after starting their jobs they are immediately fired for a series of mishaps. But the man who owns the company they are working in, Derek Hammond (Julian Stone), gives them their jobs back, and they they do slowly prove themselves useful assets, and talented (fashion) artists, and help stop a mean man taking over the company. Also starring Leslie Danon as Jami, Derek Lee Nixon as Ryan, Ilenia Lazzarin as Dari, Archie Kao as Nobu, Valentina Mattolini as Heidi, Michelangelo Tommaso as Paolo and Matt Patresi as Enrico Tortoni. You can tell that this film was made to go straight to video, the camera-work is completely mismatched, and it doesn't help when you want to admire the sights of Rome. In fact the background is the only good thing to watch, the twin sisters are two of the most annoying celebrities around, I knew before watching that they weren't going to interest me in any way (their not even that pretty), this is awful gush of rubbish film. Pretty poor! | 0neg
|
The plot was dull, the girls were sickening and the supposed Italian male lead had clearly never heard an Italian accent.Someone said the boys were cute in this film but it just seemed to be filled with mediocre people. There were literally no redeeming features about this film.<br /><br />I think this is a graveyard for actors that will never work again, with the unfortunate exception of the Olsen twins who seem to fascinate people for no discernible reason.<br /><br />I hope the Olsen twins find something out of the limelight to keep them away from the entertainment business. They have no place in it. | 0neg
|
1st watched 12/7/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Steve Purcell): Typical Mary Kate & Ashley fare with a few more kisses. It looks to me like the girls are getting pretty tired of this stuff and it will be interesting what happens to them if they ever decide to split up and go there own ways. In this episode of their adventures they are interns in Rome for a `fashion' designer who puts them right into the mailroom to learn what working hard is all about(I guess..). Besides the typical flirtations with boys there is nothing much else except the Rome scenario until about ¾ way into the movie when it's finally revealed why they are getting fired, then re-hired, then fired again, then re-hired again. This is definetly made by people who don't understand the corporate world and it shows in their interpretation of it. Maybe the real world will be their next adventure(if there is one.). Even my kids didn't seem to care for this boring `adventure' in the make-believe. Let's see they probably only have a couple of years till their legal adults. We'll see what happens then. | 0neg
|
I do agree with everything Calamine has said! And I don't always agree with people, but what Calamine has said is very true, it is time for the girls to move on to better roles. I would like to see them succeed very much as they were a very inspirational pair growing up and I would like to see them grow as people, actresses and in their career as well as their personal life. So producers, please give the girls a chance to develop something that goes off the tangent a bit, move them into a new direction that recognises them individually and their talents in many facets. This movie that is being commented is not too bad, but as I have seen further on in their movies, their movies stay the same of typical plot and typography. When In Rome is good for audiences of younger generation but the adults who were kids when the twins were babies want to follow the twins in their successes and so hence I think we adults would like to see them make movies of different kinds, maybe some that are like the sixth sense, the hour, chocolat, that sort of movie - not saying to have just serious movies for them, humour ones too yes, but rather see them in different roles to what they have been playing in their more recent movies like this one and New York Minute. (Note: I am from Australia so excuse my weird spelling like reognise with the s instead of z) | 0neg
|
Acting was weak, but in a horror flick, I can live with that if the story is good. It wasn't. The initial event was an clumsy and obvious ploy to exploit most people's adoration of kids. OK, fine. Fast forward to the "place in the country" where they will recover emotionally. I like the revelation of the ghosts. OK, cool--this will be a supernatural kinda horror story, with rotting things partly in our world partly in...where ever. Then the action starts pulling like a three headed dog in a flurry of cats and birds--Is there an evil force trying to attack them directly? Is there an evil force trying to attack them INdirectly--make people do awful things they wouldn't really do? Oh, wait, no, maybe the whole REGION is some kind of psychic echo chamber where ambient discord can reverberate into murder? OK, hold on--maybe it's really just one little mentally tangled "Delbert"-style redneck boy who misses his Mommy and is on some kind of spree like a K-Tel Norman Bates knock off? Oh, yeah--extra points off: the only Black character seems to be the grandson of an "Our Gang" pullman porter. The actor plays it as straight as he can given the crummy dialogue, but the fact is, his purpose is "Y'all done betta get outa heah, Boss!" At least they wrote him smart enough to GTF outta there. The bit with the little girl being silenced and pulled away was definitely creepy, as was the chick in the shower. Those were just two of quite a few really delicious tidbits in this movie. The problem is that they are combined in disharmonious ways, like a bite of steak, a bite of chocolate and a bite of a Gummi bear. Each is great on it's own, but mixed up? Bleah! Such potential. Wasted. | 0neg
|
Grieving couple move to a cabin on a mountain after the loss of their daughter, discovering that there may be ghosts haunting the place, restless spirits of past occupants who committed suicide. Julie Pyke(Cheri Christian)blames husband Allen(Greg Thompson)for the horrible death of their daughter due to leaving the door unlocked and the marriage has deteriorated because of it. Julie remains in a zombie state, eliciting next to no emotion, remote and numb, only photographing a nearby abandoned prison, finding a startling image of a ghoul girl clinging to the bars of a cell. Though Allen doesn't see anything out of the ordinary, Julie continues to take pictures and we can recognize that something isn't quite right. A local handyman, Jim Payne(Scott Hodges), a rather distant fellow who harbors a secret becomes a dangerous threat when it is revealed that his dead mother might have something to do with the haunts occurring to the Pykes. Meanwhile the neighbors who sold the Pykes the cabin find themselves victims as well, alcoholic Mr Booth's abuse to his wife coming back to haunt him. Allen will conduct an investigation into the history of his cabin, attempting to unravel the mystery about the place.<br /><br />Plenty of ghosts moving about in the background in this somber supernatural tale with practically every character miserable. Cheri Christian remains so vacuous and lost, it's incredibly hard to connect with her despite the fact that you understand her plight. The acting, as is often mentioned, remains frustrating because none of the characters exactly are easy to latch on to. I guess it's supposed to be this way, under their circumstances, but the trouble I had was never being able to properly embrace the Pykes due to their constant state of aloofness. Cheri comes off as cold and detached, as I figure a mother would tend to be when you lose a child in such a way, but the icy nature left me pleading inside to embrace her which I just never could. I think the right performers, even if the characters are going through an emotional turmoil, can grab the hearts of their viewers, if a humanity reaches out to us..in this movie's case, the leads are unable to do so, for whatever reason. It could've been me, I don't know. I wanted to care for them, but nothing in the characters tugged on my heart strings. Anyway, as the film continues, Allen slowly uncovers certain truths and must defend himself against his wife who has convinced herself that their daughter is among them and she won't lose her little girl again. Jim, the unstable neighbor who believes that to stop the hauntings plaguing the area he must kill the Pykes, becomes a vital threat. The ghosts remain a central part of the movie, their presence, particularly Jim's mother, established throughout, off in the distance. The finale reveals all of them as Allen must find help for his wife while trying to thwart Jim's mission. I had a hard time getting into this one due to my unease with the leads and their characters. | 0neg
|
Give me my money back! Give me my life back! Give me a bit of credit. This movie was vomit worthy. Useless and time consuming. What a waste of energy and totally pointless. Okay I understand the premise and the idea sound but, give us a break! Next time just give me the money and let me spend it. Lost child, mothers remorse, blamed husband! Cliché yes~! Get a life! Sorry but this movie was a total waste of my time, my money and my being. I would rather watch eggs cook! No real explanation to why this happened. Prison? Why? Loss? obvious but Why? Acting deserves a What am I doing here Oscar and the cinematography a Am I just doing this for a Wage? How much did this movie make? Well this silly fool hired a copy. Enough said | 0neg
|
Okay. Look- I've seen LOTS and I do mean LOTS of these types of films. You know, the ones where the DVD cover just look SO good and scaarrryyy that you just cant WAIT to see it? Well, I got GOT again. And I'm getting' pretty tired of it. But I digress. It's pretty simple. It sucked(I know, rather juvenile) but it did. AndI SO agree with the other poster that if we had to sit through the boring thing, why oh WHY did the lead actress have to be so unnattractive?Distractingly so if I may add. And the scowl she used convey unresolved pain/grief over the death of her daughter did little help. I mean, Jesus.. Oh, but the crawling-on-her-back-demon thingee was pretty neat... | 0neg
|
I'm writing this because I somehow felt being led to believe Dark Remains was a good movie. Whilst it's not the worst I've seen, it certainly isn't good.<br /><br />A Weak script, weak actors, and weak directing. Even if they can't afford big name cast, would it be too much to ask for a more attractive lead actress? It was painful to watch a plain actress through out the film with her dull performance. The story was a cliché and poorly scripted. The special effects were minimal. The "suspense" tricks employed repetitively here were hard to swallow.<br /><br />To be fair, Dark Remains is no worse than quite some of the Masters of Horrors' episodes. But not quite on par with quality movies yet. Dark Remains is only recommended for the hardcore horror fans who don't want to miss any movie in the genre, even if it's a poorly made one. As for anyone else, time should be spent on something more valuable - which should be extremely easy. | 0neg
|
If you have ever seen a movie by Brian Avenet-Bradley and compares it to the feedbacks it gets on IMDb, you know that most of the comments and votes are faked. TRUST ME: you will be bored! People of the production team write their feedback themselves (sometimes they even admit it). But that's not enough: They also click constantly "no" whenever there is a negative comment on the movie. That's why negative critics are always placed behind the hyped ones.<br /><br />The movie itself is bad, bad, bad: bad acting, bad lighting, bad script, bad ending. Believe me now! If not, you will believe me later!<br /><br />Brian Avenet-Bradley might be quite a good business man. Otherwise it cannot be explained that he finds people who still finance his movies. (Okay, they are cheap, but nevertheless.) But as a creative person, he is a complete failure. | 0neg
|
This is the weakest of the series, not much of a plot and a rather odd-looking Wallace. But it's still pretty good, considering. A sign of greater things to come!<br /><br />6/10 | 0neg
|
For those of us that lived thru those weeks of filming in town and around the Valley - lest we not forget the tedious days of road closures and "film-making". As a reminder to those that live here - locales include Boulder Creek, Bonny Doon, Davenport, Big Basin. etc. The bank was the BC firehouse; chase scenes included Moon Drive off Hwy 236, Empire Grade Rd, and Hwy 1.<br /><br />Production: Jeffrey Jones was the most approachable, Matt Broderick was above us all - even back then. As far as the film goes - a joke of a script and even a bigger laugh regarding acting and plot - but who cares at this level. A nice time capsule for those that enjoy our coast and valley scenery.<br /><br />Additional notes; Joe's Bar (Jed's Tavern in the film), original name of the film was Welcome to Buzzsaw - the Old Erba's parking lot was the town square, the backyard shots were off of Grove Street in Boulder Creek; turn off the thinking cap and see a few actors in their early days. | 0neg
|
Quite possibly. How Francis Veber, one of the best comedy directors in the world (at least when sticking to his native France), managed to turn in a film so completely unwatchable is beyond the reason of mere mortal man to discern. It's not just that the characters are so unlikeable or that the film is so utterly devoid of even the lowest form of wit: it's genuinely physically painful to watch, such an endless parade of inept writing, acting and film-making that you cannot believe this is the work of experienced - and talented - filmmakers. For once the near-eternity spent in the cutting room and on the shelf before its blink-and-you'll-miss-it theatrical release tells the whole story. What were they thinking? | 0neg
|
A short review but...<br /><br />Avoid at all costs, a thorough waste of 90mins. At the end of the film I was none the wiser as to what had actually happened. It's full of cameos (Stephen Fry (3mins), Jack Dee (30 secs), the "Philadelphia" girls) and some vaguely recognisable people but it just doesn't make any sense. Whether the story just got lost in the edit I don't now but jeez...<br /><br />Put on a DVD instead or go to bed and get some rest!!!<br /><br />2 out of 10 (for the cameos and a Morris Minor car chase)<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.