text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
In a very short time, the movie showed a boy's odd life of taking pictures, showed his life and everyone else's get turned upside down as a result of his photographs, then brought everything back to normal in the end. One to see if you're looking for something interesting. | pos |
Steven Seagal's intent is to be commended, and his acting in this film is equal to that in many of his others, if you ignore the fact that he is supposedly portraying a brilliant scientist. The problem I had was with two items of the plot, which stretched my suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point.<br /><br />First, how is it that a carefully engineered variation on a nasty germ, whose antidote must be just as carefully researched and engineered by a big lab, is cured by drinking tea from a flower growing high in the mountains? and that Grandpa's family seem to be about the only people who know anything about this?<br /><br />Second, and this one really takes the cake: Having gathered up enough of the cure to fix a whole town, wouldn't you expect the army to land the helicopter and start rushing bags of flowers to all the homes in this small town? No, they instead decide to sprinkle the flowers all over the town and force the sick people to go out and gather them up all over again. Just plain silly, unless under Native belief the power in the drug somehow depends on one's having gone out and gathered the flowers oneself.<br /><br />Add in the cardboard nature of the villains and the unsuitability of the title, and you might think my vote on this movie is actually high. | neg |
As a veteran screen writing instructor at Richland College in Dallas and a former MGM screenwriter back in the days of decent films, I am thrilled to have accidentally clicked on Channel 33 in Dallas tonight and watched this enchanting film in which Betty White is GORGEOUS and makes one yearn for the good old days of truly good movies before Hollywood started banging out all this crap for the teenagers. If a producer is listening, I'd like to state that there are enough of us over 60's who will happily pay a buck to see a movie that has no guns, no killing, no special effects, no sex and violence and just a good touching tale of human relationships that leaves you with a good warm feeling, as this film did for me. | pos |
Despite all it's trappings of style and cinematic invention, this is basically another serial killer thriller, following the same sort of plotline favoured by such old favourites as Silence of the Lambs ? team of cops follows the trail of (particularly nasty) murders, someone else gets taken and they somehow have to find out where they are before it's too late. Only in this case, the only person who knows, the killer himself (powerfully played by Vincent D'Onofrio) is in a coma and we need psychologist Jennifer Lopez' sci-fi mind-meld machine to get into his head and force him to tell all. This is where the film gets all new and different, as we enter (via a 21st-Century CGI update of Dr Who's kaleidoscopic favourite, the trendy time tunnel) a kind of Hellraiser-y weird world of scary crazy stuff going on all over the place, ruled over by D'Onofrio, now a kind of superking overlord of his twisted mental world, inside his comatose body. The inside-the-mind sequences are well realised and often pretty stunning, all the leads perform adequately, the gruesomeness is to the max if you like that kind of thing, but the hype around the whole thing led to a disappointment for me, as I had expected something completely new and unlike anything ever done before, not this fairly successful blending of serial-killer and special-effect-horror genre staples. Sometimes horrifying, often pretty, a fairly gripping story told with care and attention by talented film people, but by no means the great leap into the unknown it has been marketed as. | pos |
Plot is never the strong point of a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movie, but "Follow the Fleet"'s screenplay is exceptionally mediocre. Fred and Ginger still come off all right--they play "Bake" Baker and Sherry Martin, dancers whose personal and professional partnership ended when Bake joined the Navy. When they meet again, their love-hate relationship generates some entertaining comic moments. But for much of the movie, they take a backseat to a tedious subplot about Sherry's sister Connie (Harriet Hilliard), her love for sailor Bilge Smith (Randolph Scott), Bilge's dalliance with another woman, and an old schooner that Connie inherited from her father. Though Hilliard is rather charming, this plot is uninteresting.<br /><br />But at the same time, "Follow the Fleet" is blessed with an exceptional Irving Berlin score that gives the stars plenty of chances to show off their talents. Astaire gets two good solos with "We Saw the Sea" and "I'd Rather Lead a Band." He sings expressively and, of course, dances electrifyingly--and the sailor suit makes him look a little more boyish and athletic than usual. Rogers sings the catchy "Let Yourself Go" and later does a solo tap-dance to the same tune. <br /><br />The three duets really save the film, even though they're all shoehorned into the plot with silly excuses. Fred and Ginger win a dance contest by doing an energetic routine to another reprise of "Let Yourself Go". Later, they sing and dance "I'm Putting All My Eggs in One Basket" as if it were an early rehearsal of the number, flubbing the choreography to comic effect. At the end, the movie finally figures out how to get Fred and Ginger in evening clothes for a romantic duet--it makes it part of a show-within-the-show. The situation is contrived, but the song, "Let's Face the Music and Dance", is one of the most sinuously beautiful things Berlin ever wrote (it's reminiscent of Cole Porter), and the dancing matches it in elegance. Quintessential Astaire and Rogers.<br /><br />It would be a chore to sit through most of the dialogue sections of "Follow the Fleet" again, and, in fact, it's not necessary, because the plot rarely propels the musical numbers. But I could watch the songs over and over. | pos |
This is one of the best martial art(Kung-fu) movies of all time. if u love martial art movies this is a not to miss. From flying nuns to training monks this movie has top kungfu styles and a good story line. Its about a priest from the wu dang clan trying to eliminate all the shaoulin fighters to be claim the title of being the best in martial arts. after killing key members of the shaoulin temple the faith of the shoulin is remained in the hand of two boys secretly training under a shaoulin monk. The white abbot or the priest from the wu dang clan develops new techniques that turn him into iron. well this a not to miss classic. It involves Ninjas, shaoulin and nuns fighters. it a great classic | pos |
After reading the book, I happened across this DVD at Wal-Mart for 3 bucks and thought, sure, what the hell... I got the DVD and watched it last night. When I started watching it, I checked the run time and it was about 90 minutes. I thought, OK cool... It seemed to run rather slowly, knowing the story and how much of it there was. By the time I got to the actual killings, I was like, "how much time does this have left?" Checked. "One minute?! What the hell?!" I felt incredibly cheated, thinking that the movie only progressed through a third of the overall story.<br /><br />But then, I happily noticed that the DVD's scene selection menu included a part 1 AND a part 2. I still had another hour and a half to go! I then sat very happily and enjoyed the second half of the movie, even more so than the first.<br /><br />I admit that I have not seen the 1967 original film (despite my sincerest desire to), I have however read the novel and felt that this was a fairly descent film, for a two-part TV miniseries, that is. I think the casting of the role of Perry was completely wrong and a few minor inconsistencies jumped out at me, but still very well done. The first half drags on a bit, while the second half is much more gripping. I think they should have proportioned the movie more like Capote did his book: 1/3 before the murders, 1/3 after, and 1/3 after the killers are arrested. Instead, the film makes it more 1/2 before the murders, 1/4 after, and 1/4 after the killers are arrested. Again, this makes the second half more exciting, but at the same time, less compelling while making the first half drag on and on...<br /><br />Now I look back and realize I have just made the same mistake about making things drag on and on, so I will shut the hell up. Go watch the movie and make up your own damn mind! <br /><br />Nick Houston | pos |
This program didn't do it for me, although I'm a fan of the genre. The major factor that disappointed me was that there was not a single scene which was not dominated by the main character. This made it a bit two-dimensional and I gave up before the program was over.<br /><br />I was hoping to leave my critique there as I'm no movie critic, however, the guidelines on IMDb state that you must put in 10 lines of commentary. It did remind me of Hudson Hawk in the way the main character is in every single scene, and I would hope that the writers of this program could employ some more diversity to engage with the viewers. I don't doubt the talent of any of the cast and crew, it's just that after watching things like "the wire", I've come to expect great things from cop drama. | neg |
This belongs in their top tier, although there were others, such as Micro-Phonies and Punch Drunks, that were more deserving of Oscar nominations than this one. But if nothing else, the recurring loudspeaker announcement, "Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard," followed by Curly's "Woo woo woo woo," makes this a classic on two levels. First, it symbolizes all that the Stooges represent; my daughter loves to repeat the announcement when she is in the middle of doing something silly. Second, the absurdity of these three as physicians in a hospital; I imagine the terror I would feel if I were a real patient in a real hospital and heard this announcement over the loudspeaker. Throughout this short, you hear that announcement and you know that something horrible is about to happen, and the loudspeaker voice stays with you for months afterward. | pos |
If you're a fan of Gothic horror, then you're definitely absolutely guaranteed to LOVE this wondrous Italian 60's film "Castle of Blood". We're really talking about creepily creaking doors, eerie portraits that appear to be moving, spontaneously dying candles although there's no wind and smoke coming from underneath heavy wooden chamber doors. Speaking in terms of atmosphere and style, this masterful piece of Gothic film-making is one of the best out there; just one tiny league below landmarks such as "Black Sunday", "The Three Faces of Fear" and "Curse of the Crying Woman". The prominent directors duo Sergio Corbucci ("The Great Silence", "Django") and Antonio Margheriti ("Cannibal Apocalypse", "Killer Fish") are successful in all areas, including a powerful plot (one that is genuinely nightmare inducing), ultra-sinister scenery and filming locations, stylish black and white photography, spine-chilling music and a brilliant gathering of talented performers. Barbara Steele, starlet of the aforementioned "Black Sunday" and Italian goth-muse number one, shines brightly again as a spiritually tormented character and she's literally surrounded by excellent co-players. One of them, Silvano Tranquilli, even gives away a fairly credential depiction of author Edgar Allan Poe. The story involves him and another wealthy visitor of a countryside tavern challenging a brutal young journalist to accept a morbid wager. If he Alan Foster would survive spending one night in the infamous Blackwood Castle, he receives the astonishing reward of $10 and a newspaper interview with Poe. Needless to say the ordeal is much more dangerous than it sounds, even for somebody like Alan Foster who's a firm non-believer in ghosts and vampires. The night starts out great for him, as he even meets up with the stunningly beautiful woman of his dreams, but gradually he learns that Blackwood Castle is a hellish place where the ghosts of the previously deceased visitors are trapped for all eternity. I don't know about you, but this is seriously one of my favorite horror movie premises of all time. Co-director Antonio Margheriti clearly was proud of this film as well, because he remade it himself a couple of years later as "Web of the Spider". That movie had a handful of trumps, like for example the casting of no less than Klaus Kinski in the role of Edgar Allan Poe, but in general this original is vastly superior. "Castle of Blood" literally oozes with atmosphere and maintains a thoroughly unsettling ambiance throughout. This truly is one of the rare films that can make the hair on your arms and back of the neck rise with fear if you watch it in the right circumstances. Watch it late at night, preferably alone and in a candle lit room, and you'll get an idea about the true definition of horror. | pos |
I like Breillat's movies, but this one is the best I've seen at balancing animal warmth with sexual intelligence. Anne Parillaud is electric, and the script is amazing - especially considering it's supposed to take place on the set of another of Breillat's movies. You don't have to agree with her take on everything to get a lot out of this. It made me think a lot about vulnerability and power. Try to imagine a male director with Jeanne's openness - not impossible, but a little mind-bending. The unannounced sexual undercurrents that are always present when humans get together to make anything is held up to bright light here, but not a cold light. | pos |
The summary line above, spoken by James Cloud (Robert Preston) to his brother Tom (Robert Sterling) just about says it all. Jim, AKA Kid Wichita, has a way of making things happen, only trouble is, he usually leaves dead bodies where he's been. Not the sort of mentoring Tom envisions for younger brother Jeff, who likes what he sees in Jim, especially when defending their ranch against local Texas cattlemen.<br /><br />The opening credits state 'Introducing John Barrymore Jr. as the Younger Brother', in this his very first screen appearance. That seemed rather odd to me, particularly since he was addressed as Jeff almost immediately into the story. Approximately eighteen at the time of this movie, he bears a passing resemblance to Sean Penn. No stranger to personal and legal problems throughout his career as well as estrangement from his family, I was left wondering if his daughter Drew Barrymore might have ever seen this picture. I'm inclined to think not.<br /><br />On the subject of resemblances, I was also struck by the thought that the young Robert Sterling looked a bit like Roy Rogers early in his career. Knowing Sterling previously only from his role as George Kerby in the early 1950's TV series 'Topper', I thought he looked out of place in a Western, but that might just be me. His character becomes emboldened by his brother's resourcefulness at creating trouble, and provides some of the edginess to this not so typical story. Minor subplots abound, including the relationship rancher John Gall (John Litel) has with his son the Sheriff (who Kid Wichita kills), and the troubled marriage between Kathleen Boyce (Cathy Downs) and her husband Earl (who Kid Wichita kills). Chill Wills rounds out the main cast as one of Tom Cloud's hired hands, and figures in the somewhat predictable finale.<br /><br />What's not quite predictable is how things eventually wind up there, and for that reason, this Western earns points for following a less traveled, hence not quite as formulaic a plot as a lot of good brother/bad brother Westerns do. Combined with the eclectic casting of the principals, it's one I'd recommend, even if you have to endure some of the jump cuts and sloppy editing that I experienced with my copy. | pos |
Best animated movie ever made. This film explores not only the vast world of modern animation with absolutely boggling effects, but the branches of the human mind, soul, and philosophy. The story features a family of cats, where in the big sister dies, the younger brother sees this and rescues her body, but when she awakens she is left without a soul. So, the two sibling cats embark on a journey to find it. I have related this journey to many things. The history of the world, the bible, the cycle of life, and every time I watch it I discover more and more hidden themes and metaphors. If you aren't so into the physiological aspect of it then, you will still adore it. The animation is superb, and the creative scenes will have you attached to the screen. For example, the ocean freezing in time, god eating soup out of the earth, a strange and slightly SNM retelling of Hansel and Gretel. To conclude, Cat Soup is an absolute treat for anyone.<br /><br />PS- Not for kids, gratuitous violence included. | pos |
Worst movie ever made!!! Please see the Real movie reviews from the pros on this movie.Check Rotten Tomatoes on the web for some good independent reviews on this film. The comments made on this site are apparently from folks with some financial interest in this film. I find the positive comments very misleading. I find it amazing how the negative comments are so bad against this movie and the positive comments sound like an Academy Awards Speech. Don't waste your hard earned money!!!!!! This Film is retarded!! I can't believe a film like this would ever be made. Why would Hollywood waste their time on such junk? This film is an attempt at nothing. I ask myself what looser would actually sink their money producing such trash. I went to blockbuster and the attendant even told us not to waste our time or money. I didn't listen and I did waste my time and cash. Please don't make the same mistake! It really is the "Worst movie ever made!" | neg |
(Warning: spoilers! -- although it's hard to spoil this film by telling story details.)<br /><br />Eisenstein's black and white propaganda film is not for everyone. It's very old and it's, er, clumsy. What makes it great for me is the soundtrack, not the original but the updated soundtrack. Better still, the orchestral version Prokofiev created (my favorite performance is by Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony).<br /><br />The film is actually funny in places. It's reminiscent of the old "Midsummer Night's Dream". Some of the outdoor scenes are quite magnificent. Some of the actors are also quite magnificent. (The actor who played Nevsky could have been a superstar today. Ditto for the warrior chick, Vasilisa -- definitely a rocker.) <br /><br />This may be the world's best collection, on film, of pithy Russian sayings (there are tons of them -- they make up the bulk of the spoken lines).<br /><br />The battle scenes actually look much more realistic than most high-budget Hollywood flix. These guys are as clumsy with their fighting as real peasants would be. The weapons look nasty, so the actors were probably trying to avoid actually wounding one another.<br /><br />The actor playing the German "grand marshall" is trying *really* hard to look scary early in the film, but he looks like he was really a pussycat. After he's captured he looks *so* pathetic. (Speaks volumes about the intended audience, da?)<br /><br />A really humorous touch is that the German army brings an *organ* with it, played by a character in a black robe. Watch the Russians bring this guy down *while* he's playing.<br /><br />After the battle is over and almost all of the Germans are dead comes the best part of the film (and the music), the song sung to the dead soldiers who've died defending the motherland. This part is so sad it's almost an anti-war statement.<br /><br />Ten times as many men as ladies have rated this film. Wonder why?<br /><br />Warning: Joseph Stalin liked this film. Ironic -- he killed more Russians than anybody. "Those who come to Russia carrying a sword will die by the sword". | pos |
A brief history of time. The cosmological content of this documentary is fascinating, the thoughts provoking and the man... brilliant. Yet I had a hard time enjoying this documentary. <br /><br />The way the family members and professors are interviewed feels so unnatural. These members were interviewed on specifically built sets and were directed uncomfortably. Mostly, their accounts came across as very acted and forcefully directed. The (deliberate) non-inclusion of asked questions manipulates the given information into a very harsh and impersonal format. <br /><br />I do not know who are responsibly for the interviewing but they did a dreadful job and with that took away from the viewing experience.<br /><br />Overall still a fascinating documentary well worth seeing, if only for the interesting concepts presented. | pos |
Two old buddies are sent to Japan to get back results of a genetic research containing videotape, which is stolen by the black suited ninjas at the beginning of the movie. First they just have to learn some ninja skill, because "only ninja can beat the ninja."<br /><br />Sakura killers tries hard to be enjoyable ninja-flick but fails that badly. The whole movie is just so hollow and predictable that is hard to say anything good about it: Same plot has been seen in different variations dozens of times before, characters are too briefly drawn, direction is dull and script doesn't offer anything surprising, even in the ending scene, which by itself reduced movie's (trash)value.<br /><br />Even 80's ninja-flick-fan, who understands the esthetic of trash-movies, is hard to find this movie even barely enjoyable. It simply doesn't offer anything new to viewer, neither in visual level nor in plot. Shurikens are thrown and katanas are swinging, but it's not enough to lead the movie direction it meant to be and recurred similar fighting scenes numbs even the most calloused viewer after the first 30 minutes.<br /><br />It's hard to recommend movie to anyone. Even Franco Nero's clumsy performance in "Enter the Ninja" falls behind Sakura killer's American-ninjas. Even in visual level movie doesn't have any balls and it's waste of time to try to find any great fighting scenes in this movie: There isn't any. In all, one of the most futile ninja-flicks, I've ever seen. Doesn't interest even in curiosity. Trust me on this one.<br /><br />½ out of 10. | neg |
British comedies tend to fall into one of two main types: the quiet, introspective, usually romantic study and the farcical social satire. Settings, characters, and concepts vary but certain characteristics place the vast majority of shows into one of the two categories. Butterflies is perhaps the epitomé of the first type. <br /><br />The scripts are very verbal, including long interior monologues by the main character Ria, a basically happy but unsettled housewife curious about what she might have missed out on when she embarked on a thoroughly conventional life. When she meets a successful but clumsy and emotionally accessible businessman (who makes his interest in her quite clear), she toys with the idea of finding out what the other path might have offered.<br /><br />The acting and scripts are always on the money, which makes one's reaction to the show almost entirely a personal one: I was neither blown away by it nor turned off. My mother, on the other hand, adored this show. I think the degree to which one identifies with Ria's dilemma is the most important factor in determining one's reaction to Butterflies. | pos |
This video was my first exposure to Eddie Izzard. We had several friends over one night and for some reason or another had channel-surfed to HBO during the course of the evening. Someone by the name of "Eddie Izzard" was on.I tried not to laugh too loudly at the first few jokes. I didn't want to be held "responsible" for the rest of the group's enjoyment of something that was obviously killing me. After holding in my laughs for more than was healthful, I let go--as did the others of us(we were not stoned, by the way, nor talking of insurance and pensions...). We were asphyxiated after that. The story lines, the plot, the bizarre yet ingenious connections throughout the sketches are nothing short of brilliance. I have since been addicted to every Eddie-Izzard-piece-of-comedy I can get my hands on. His work is sheer genius. His comedy appears effortless. He seems more like that hysterically funny friend hanging out at your house and rambling on about this or that...It's convulsively funny. He gives you the impression that the joke is between you .. and himself, the only true aficionados of humor, after all. If you are disappointed in this video, you have no sense of the penultimate in humor--or humour, as they say in the UK. | pos |
The film is somewhat entertaining, but the greatest feature is Shalom Harlow's laughable performance. It has been 4 years since this movie was released and hopefully Harlow has gone through more training. Perhaps she should stick to the more worldly, somewhat corruptive characters that she has generated in other performances. | neg |
I first viewed "They Died With There Boots On",about 1970 and though it has been many years since,this film and its impression remain.the cast was good to excellent and the lead man was truly heroic.When I first saw this film I knew the wisest as well as the only real position to have was to enjoy this film as a rousing bit of entertainment and then some.I felt then as I even feel now that the Silver Screen does not as such provide for a true depiction of much of anything let alone The Life of George Armstrong Custer,however the Director Raoul Walsh was to contribute to the real value represented in this film when I watched a semi-documentary with other great directors like Vincent Mennelli wherein these central figures talked about there accomplishments with valuable comments providing a glimpse into the Hollywood mind set.This is what I considered something of interest and where all of this became terribly interesting and very enjoyable.Yet, there have been so much made of all the problems with the silver screen and its story telling ability that some of the enjoyment has been lost and perhaps you would find that to be true here as well.Custer ranked 34 in a graduating class of...34.Much has been made of Custer's final class ranking,but of the 68 cadets who entered the Military Academy with him in 1857,half of them had already flunked out or quit by graduation day,June 24,1861.It is suggested in the movie as the various instructors are determining if a soldier is fit for command and then they come upon the name of George Armstrong Custer and there is to be certain an exchange between the two sides and here is where the Sargeant on Duty says in almost a low tone even to suggest as if that came out by accident"His squadron would follow him to hell,"Your at attention Sargeant,reprimands Tape.If Iam not mistaken when Flynn shows up at a initial battlefield it acknowledged that Custer did not see action right away and indeed he was doing work as a reliable attaché to not only Sheridan,but Hancocks forces as well only to end up for a time with the Army of The Potomac under General George McClellan.There is some truth to the audacity attributed to Custers battlefield heroics as was illustrated when in a counterattack ,"young Custer spurred his horse to the lead and boldly plunged in among the stunned Confederates.As a lone Union Soldier surrounded by rebels,Custers audacity shone through.He accepted the surrender of several enemy soldiers,including a rebel captain.Yet most outstanding was that in this action he personally captured the very first Confederate battle flag taken by the Army of the Potomac.This notable act of courage marked him as an officer of great battlefield promise."Robert L.Bateman-Armchair General.There is a problem here and that is the telling of the story and the truth as to George Armstrong Custer,the story is good Hollywood entertainment perhaps even great entertainment but for whatever reasons all that could be told was changed for entertainment purposes.Though this maybe jumping the gun it might be well to know that Tom Custer was to lose his life at the "Little Big Horn" only a few feet from where George Custer was to die as well.They were brothers and Tom Custer to this very day holds a honorable distinction of being amongst a very small group perhaps only 3 others to have been awarded the Medal of Honor twice in his military career.The list of engagements that the motion picture shows indicate that Custers indeed was an active young officer.He was not with Union forces at either Chancellorsville or for that matter Fredericksburg however he was with them at the Battle of Antietam and at that point in time he was actually promoted to Captain by General McClellan but that was not to last as McClellan was soon to be replaced due to the historical fact that The Army of The Potomac had the means,and the information(discovered wrapped around some cigars was General Lee's plans to split his forces)and yet he failed to act for some 17 hours.It can be speculated that the war could of been over then and there had that occurred but when McClellan failed to act President Lincoln replaced him permanently and the promotion was lost as a result. Custers greatest victory may of in fact come at Gettysburg,Pa.His forces which occupied an area called cemetery ridge at the field at Gettysburg in the summer of 1863 were able to defeat a Jeb Stuart Led Cavalry of some 6,000 rebels with but a force of 2,300.I Think the heroics at Gettysburg by Custer are worth some discussion.There is speculation had in the movie that Custers appointment was a blunder, well you better guess again because not only did Custer have men in his corner but he established a petition to present to the Governor of the State of Michigan which by the way was relatively new to the Union Cause and where preparing to form Cavalry regiments.Though Custer was severely admonished for that kind of shenanigan when he showed up in all that Gold Braid it was not by accident as you would be led to believe.The truth be told Custers defense at Gettysburg prohibited Jeb Stuart from having lunch at the Unions rear stores and vitally protected that flank.This action by the way occurred and it was timed to coincide with Picketts Charge so to make for the greatest likelihood of success.It was a critical victory and Custer was at his bravest and best.His men did follow him to hell and lived to tell about it. | pos |
Above-average film and acting partly spoiled by its completely predictable story line. Even the music is chosen so that the words fit the action every time. A scent of "Pleasantville" camp hangs around this flick. As a period piece, it's more accurate than not. Its depiction of the tragedy of company towns and lack of upward mobility is sketchy but moving. Chris Cooper turns in a first-class performance as Howard's coal-miner daddy. | pos |
Bounty killer George Hilton, smooth Mexican bandit Gilbert Roland (who's great), and bank representative Edd Byrnes each try to outwit one-another while searching for a large amount of gold from one of Roland's train robberies that was hidden by a treacherous member of his gang.<br /><br />Though not the greatest that the genre has to offer, It's still breezy enough with a lot of light-hearted, action-filled fun and a satisfying finale.<br /><br />Any Gun Can Play is mainly remembered for it's opening gag where George Hilton easily guns down three outlaws resembling Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Django.<br /><br />The next year, Hilton and Roland were reunited alongside Van Heflin and Klaus Kinski in the highly recommended The Ruthless Four. | pos |
I saw this movie a few months ago on cable, and it was fantastic. William H Macy is one of my favorite actors, and his performance was just amazing. He makes you care for his character, even when he is clearly doing the wrong thing, and Neve Campbell gives a performance that is with out a doubt the best performance I have seen by an actress this year. She is fantastic as a wild young woman who is wise beyond her years.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland is just plain creepy as Macy's father, and John Ritter is fine as a shrink stuck in the middle of everything that is happening.<br /><br />I wish that this was in the theater because I feel that it's a movie that should be view by a wider audience. That's a shame, because it's a hell of allot better that most of the new movies coming into the theater now.<br /><br /> | pos |
What i like about you is one of those series you need to see but aren't sure you would see, the beginning is cool and its sucks you into the series just for fun, the second part i season 2-3 which are more stale, they come and go in what you want. what happens with many series is that they don't end with something special because the second part of the series always goes down into the drain, this one also somewhat did, the third part is the one to spoil and ruin the whole series, usually, but it doesn't, this ending is perfect for the series, it fits perfect, actually i was pretty angry about all these guys in Val's life, actually i wanted to end with Jeff in the end, but later on it changed, they chose to take Vic into the series after almost 3 seasons without him, and that was the biggest surprise and also what made the series go on top.<br /><br />see it many times the series is actually very cool just don't expect the second part to be that good it isn't but the third part does what was needed and made the series to one that was worth the whole thing, i am happy to say i was glad and happy about the series and now i will go over to see two guys a girl and a pizza place, when i have seen the whole series i will be back... | pos |
what ever you do do not waste your time on this pointless. movie. A remake that did not need to be retold. Everyone coming out of the theater had the same comments. Worst movie I ever saw. Save your time and money!!!<br /><br />Nicgolas Cage was biking down hills, swimming in murky water and rolling down hills while being attacked by bees but yet his suit was still perfectly pressed and shirt crisp white until the very last scene.<br /><br />Although a good cast with Ellen Bernstein and Cage the acting was just as unbelievable as the movie itself. It is amazing how good actors can do such bad movies. Don't they get a copy of the script first. If you still have any interest at all in seeing the movie at the very least wait for it to come out on DVD. | neg |
There wasn't a dry eye amongst the audience yesterday afternoon after I left the cinema, having seen this gem of a film in a sold-out house as part of this year's Hamburg Film Festival. And the tears shed were all of laughter. This film was hilarious, there's no other way of saying this. There wasn't one boring bit in it, I laughed right through it and with me everyone else of us three hundred lovers of French cinéma.<br /><br />Alain Chabat was absolutely terrific. A great clown if needs be and serious if the situation calls for it. The performance was of course completely over the top, but this was exactly what the story needed and what made it work so well. Equally great was Charlotte Gainsbourg who I love to see a lot, and the mother was also a very strong performance. The sisters could have been a bit more detailed in character script-wise, but apart from that there is nothing to moan about. I had a great afternoon seeing this film while Hamburg was drowning in rain outside, and I wish films like this from France would get a regular release in Germany. But the distributors is this country don't seem to understand that the French make good films. I at least can't wait to find a DVD which offers subtitles (Hello Australia? Please?) because that film I need at home to watch several more times! | pos |
The most positive points in this film were the credits (text style) and some moments in Ice-T's acting. The story-line; two rival gangs having to fight it out, with the sub-plots of betrayal, power and change are well worn plots but in this case painful(very) to wade through. The decrepit scenery, which added slight believability in places, and questionable lighting, constantly distracted from any interest/identification with the characters (the shine off of the actress's forehead/nose was blinding, not to mention other scenes with the same problem.) Not even half way into the film I wanted to know more about how and why it came about as opposed to what was going on on screen. A disappointment if you have seen Ice-T in other roles. Kudos to other actors/actresses who seemed to get into their roles despite the weak direction; Corrupt's side kick and the other restaurant worker. | neg |
I am a new convert you might as well say. I borrowed the dvds from my local library. I have been interested in samurai since watching 'The Last Samurai.' My dad told me he used to watch Shintaro when he was a kid. He said that it was pretty good. We are up to series 3. I absolutely love it. It takes a little to get used to the dubbed English voices over the characters speaking Japanese but I really enjoy it all the same. It is a little strange to watch the slight pauses when the ninja stars are thrown at characters and they stick into a tree or wall. I was not used to this but I am now. But I suppose that's the technology they had in the 60s. I've noticed that Shintaro is kind, friendly, willing to help those in need, he's very humble, most of the time he doesn't big note himself (he only says he is better than the enemy ninja). I admire Shintaro for these qualities. It's really interesting to watch the swordsmanship that Koichi Ose has. It is amazing. This series is for anyone who are interested in samurai. | pos |
This was the worst acted movie I've ever seen in my life. No, really. I'm not kidding. All the "based on a true story/historical references" aside, there's no excuse for such bad acting. It's a shame, because, as others have posted, the sets & costumes were great.<br /><br />The sound track was typical "asian-style" music, although I couldn't figure out where the "modern" love song came in when Fernando was lying in his bed thinking of Maria. I don't know who wrote & sang that beautiful song, but it was as if suddenly Norah Jones was transported to the 1500s.<br /><br />The Hershey syrup blood in Phycho was more realistic than the ketchup spurted during the Kwik-n-EZ battle scenes.<br /><br />But the acting. Oh, so painfully sad. Lines delivered like a bad junior high play. If Gary Stretch had donned a potato costume for the County 4H Fair he may have been more believable. Towards the end he sounded more like a Little Italy street thug. At times I half expected him to yell out "Adrian!" or even "You wanna piece of me?!".<br /><br />Favourite line: When the queen says to her lover (after barfing on the floor) "I'm going to have a baby." He responds "A child?" I expected her to retort "No, jackass, a chair leg! Duh." | neg |
This movie was an embarrassment. Ulma Thurman looked like she had some kind of disease and John Travolta looked like he was walking in his sleep. I was expecting this to be a so-so sequel to Get Shorty not a half-baked remake of the exact same movie (except that some of the character's have different names and clothes)<br /><br />I would not recommend this to movie to my worst enemy. I feel like I was ripped off and Hollywood has once again tricked me into seeing another horrible sequel ( I also suffered through Alien Vs. Predator).<br /><br />The best thing that I can say about this movie is that it has my vote for the worst movie of 2005! | neg |
THis was a hilarious movie and I would see it again and again. It isn't a movie for someone who doesn't have a fun sense of a humor, but for people who enoy comedy like Chris Rock its a perfect movie in my opinion. It is really funnny | pos |
My mate and I chose to watch this obvious piece of junk purely based on its tagline
After nearly 30 years of lousy and rudimentary teen slashers, I can't believe that only just now some nerdy horror brainiac come up with the brilliantly witty slogan "They Axed for it"! Other than that, "Miner's Massacre" is just as random, annoying and forgettable as all the rest out there
. Perhaps even more! The script contains all the typical clichés and features all the dreadfully stereotypic characters you wish a horrible and painful death to. The gore effects are computer engineered and thus beyond pitiable and the obligatory "big" stars (Karen Black, John Philip Law and Richard Lynch) are entirely wasted in spite of their top billing. Cursed mines and abandoned ghost towns form an ideal horror setting the creators of "My Bloody Valentine" already figured that out in the early 80's but his dull film simply hasn't got any innovative ideas or even remotely surprising elements to offer. Bunch of greedy twenty-something losers, which refer to themselves as friends even though they clearly can't stand each other, desecrate an ancient mine in search of the gold that is allegedly hidden there. Of course they unwarily resurrect the zombie miner this way and he just 150 years of rest in order to prepare for a massive teen massacre. Yay! The cast is exceptionally irritating in this one. The girls all have impressive racks but refuse to show anything. Instead, they all prefer endless whining and the taking of needless risks. The dim-witted blokes clearly just serve as screen fillers. In her barely five minutes of playtime, Karen Black still manages to make an utter fool out of herself by depicting the most prototypic and hysterical local nut woman ever. The zombie has a stupid and very unconvincing face, but he looks okay and reasonably menacing when shown in the distant shadow of the moonlight whilst swinging around his pick-axe. Since the best thing about "Miner's Massacre" concerns the aforementioned tagline and you can read that on the box in the video store itself, there's very little else to recommend here. Director John Carl Buechler scored a few modest hits during the eighties, like notably the original "Troll" and a fair "Friday the 13th" sequel, but it's obviously time to retire now. | neg |
This film was shot on location in Gerard Gardens in Liverpool, and was the UK's answer to films such as 'Blackboard Jungle'. The film stands the test of time quite well, with all the moral stories still (or even more) relevant today. The film feature some fine performance from some notable British actors such as David McCallum, Stanley Baker, Peter Cushing and Anne Heywood. Baker plays a Liverpool cop assigned to juvenile liaison duties, with the premise that if you catch the kids at an early age, they will end up being responsible adults.<br /><br />Notable cameos in the film include Freddie Starr (Fred Fowell) and Melvyn Hayes (Gloria). Tsai Chin and Michael Chow play brother and sister (they are real life brother and sister) who are caught up in an arsonists web. Tsai Chin is still acting and can be seen in the latest Nicole Kidman film 'The Interpretor'.<br /><br />Violent Playground features a gun siege in a school, so is unlikely to be shown on TV following similar events in Scotland / Russia.<br /><br />I lived in Gerard Gardens where the film was shot (though was not born at the time), and have fond memories of the area. I have recently completed a documentary on Gerard Gardens which includes extracts from 'Violent Playground', and a small UK film 'Coast to Coast' which stars Lenny Henry and Pete Postlewaite. The tenements were demolished in 1987 and the films go some way in keeping the memory alive.<br /><br />There were some complaints from the residents when the film was released, as the film portrayed the area in a bad light. Time has helped heal those wounds.<br /><br />A little gem of a film, I would recommend you seek this out | pos |
Abderrahmane Sissako may have known what he was doing when he made "Bamako," but the rest of us can just sit back in mystification and confusion trying to figure out what that purpose might have been.<br /><br />The nominal "plot" involves a young African singer who's planning on leaving her unemployed husband to find work in the city. But far more of the screen time is taken up with what the publicists for the film describe as "a mock trial against key financial institutions" dealing "with the overwhelming economic hardships of Africa." That's all well and good, I suppose, but when the arguments and ideas are put forth in as undramatic and pedantic a way as they are here, they lose both force and impact. Put another way, if the director had found the means to actually incorporate issues such as the injurious effect of colonialism on the African people and the problem of African debt into anything even remotely resembling a compelling storyline, the film might have achieved the intellectual and emotional resonance it now so clearly lacks.<br /><br />The topics the movie is dealing with may be relevant and important, but trying to pass off what amounts to two hours worth of speechifying as an actual, honest-to-God movie is not likely to garner much of an audience for one's message. | neg |
Previous comment made me write this. It says that Muslims are blonde and Serbs are dark (because our blood is mixed). This comment just says that this opinion can be made by racist.Look,race is nothing.I'm color blind.I look like Pierce Brosnan but I'm no Irish. So what?I might add that I am not 100% Serb,that I have some Austrian and Croat blood within me but whats the point.I'm dark, half-breed?Is that so? Anyone using racial prejudices with such bad intent like Lantos(producer9and director is racist for me.Karadzhic, Izetbegovich, Milosevic, Tudjman they are all monsters and I blame them for destroying my life, my family, my country, Yuggoslavia. Hope they will be all in hell but that wont return our dead relatives back. I am proud of being Serb and I am proud of my cousins, Austrians,Croats,Muslims, Hungarians, Arabs (yes I am from Serbia and I have multiethnical family).This movie doesn't show sufferings of Serbs or Croats within Sarayevo,terrible terrorism of street gangs,Muslim extremism.I add: I kneel and pray for all innocent sisters and brothers Muslim,catholic or orthodox, killed in this war.This film is manipulation with our misery,false humanitarianism's which doesn't help at all.It helps Lantos to fill his pockets with more doe,alright! | neg |
Before I begin, a "little" correction: IMDb states that Richard Gere is 180 cm tall. Wrong! I passed by him 10 years ago, and he can't be an ant's a** bigger than 165. I'm 183, and he looked like a child next to me.<br /><br />Should have been called "Wheatlands"; an appropriate title to complement Malick's previous (and much better) movie "Badlands". This movie shows that not all directors have as their prime objective to entertain. In fact, some of them have as their main objective to show wheat in all its splendour.<br /><br />The movie is depressing and relatively uninvolving, with the obligatory tragic ending. Nothing more than an average and predictable love triangle drama, with the male two-thirds of the triangle not surviving the movie. Praised for its visual quality; while it does have that realistic 70s feel to it, there are limits to how spellbinding wheat fields can be. You can shoot them with 1500 mm cameras, for all I care, but they are still wheat fields.<br /><br />Gere, who at first seems miscast as some kind of lower-class factory-worker-turned-Wheatfield-worker, is quite solid, while Brooke Adams appears distant and cool for most of the movie, making one wonder just how much she loved either of the two hunks. But for those looking for a movie that displays all the glorious colours of a field of wheat, look no further: you've found your dream!<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Richard Gere and other Hollywood intellectual heavyweights, contact me by e-mail. | neg |
Okay, I know this does'nt project India in a good light. But the overall theme of the movie is not India, it's Shakti. The power of a warlord, and the power of a mother. The relationship between Nandini and her husband and son swallow you up in their warmth. Then things go terribly wrong. The interaction between Nandini and her father in law - the power of their dysfunctional relationship - and the lives changed by it are the strengths of this movie. Shah Rukh Khan's performance seems to be a mere cameo compared to the believable desperation of Karisma Kapoor. It is easy to get caught up in the love, violence and redemption of lives in this film, and find yourself heaving a sigh of relief and sadness at the climax. The musical interludes are strengths, believable and well done. | pos |
Fans of horror comedy will like this one. Others might get quickly annoyed and shut it off. It's sort of a buddy film, with over-the-top violence and gore, deliberately stereotyped characters, and a lot of craziness.<br /><br />It looks to have been made on a budget of about $100, by a bunch of fraternity guys after a big beer keg party. There's a lead who's a frustrated nerd, and his loudmouth prank-pulling friend who mocks him about 30 times per second. There's a cool monster truck chasing them for hundreds of miles, which is the highlight of the film. Whenever this thing and its gnarly-mask wearing driver appear, it's a great scene. There's a mysterious girl who randomly appears in their back seat, and plenty of giant guys in overalls hanging out in red neck bars. The nerd's friend never shuts his yap, and gets them in one mess after another. Their arguing got on my nerves, but other aspects of the film make up for it.<br /><br />Sight gags poking fun at several "psycho tormenting and trying to croak somebody" films are everywhere. Take your pick which one is riffed the most: Hills Have Eyes, Saw, and Jeepers Creepers were some that I recognized.<br /><br />It's enjoyable insanity, if you're in the right frame of mind. Sensory-dulling brewskies with your friends can make viewing this more fun; it's a good bet that's the condition of the movie makers when they put this thing together. | neg |
Following on directly from the last episode of the previous series Yes Minister.<br /><br />Jim Hacker now finds himself inside Number 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister of Great Britain, instead of a Cabinet Minister and a member of the government, he is now leading Her Majesty's Government.<br /><br />All this after some scheming maneuvers by Sir Humphrey Appleby after the previous Prime Minister resigned at the end of Yes Minister. <br /><br />Sir Humphrey Appleby is now the head of the Civil Service.<br /><br />I thought that this series was better than the first series, or though it did not last as long as the first series unfortunately. | pos |
This is possibly the single worst film i have ever seen - it has no good features at all.<br /><br />It looked as if it was made in about 20 minutes with the other time filled with title graphics.<br /><br />The lead male transformed from deaths door to superman - eh you what<br /><br />Other than that totally predictable and not at all interesting.<br /><br />I left the cinema feeling cheated.<br /><br />Needless to say i could not reccomend this film to anyone. | neg |
As I saw the movie I was really shocked to see what the 60's was about. I know I may be wrong about some things, but it seemed like the 60's really had an effect on people of the time. Some people said they would want to go back to the 60's. From what I saw I would say yes for the excitement and no for the outcome. But that's my opinion. | pos |
If movies like Ghoulies rip off Gremlins, then Hobgoblins sinks to the new low of ripping off garbage like Ghoulies. These barely-animated furbies have some kind of scheme to fulfill fantasies (which involve basically groteque characters' sex dreams - oh joy), but what that has to do with anything is anybody's guess, except to let the director indulge his kinky penchant for erotica. They show this down in the 8th circle of Hell, one suspects. There's no real plot - just "goblins - kill!" and feeble attempts at humor and a mild attempt to arouse the viewing audience. | neg |
From the film's first shot - Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet wandering reading through a field at dawn, thus invoking all the clichés cinema has developed to address the phenomenon of the strong-minded rebellious female character in period drama - I knew I was in for something to make me want to kill myself.<br /><br />Joe Wright seemed not only to have not read the book, but to be under the regrettable misapprehension that what he was filming was not in fact Jane Austen's subtle, nuanced comedy of manners conducted through sparkling, delicate social interaction in eighteenth century English drawing-rooms, but a sort of U-certificate Wuthering Heights. Thus we were treated to every scene between Elizabeth and Darcy taking place outside for no apparent reason, in inappropriately rugged scenery and often in the pouring rain. Not to mention that Jane Austen, and in particular P & P, is not about passion, sexual tension or love. It's about different strategies of negotiating the stultification of eighteenth century society. Which was completely ignored, so that the Bennets' house was a rambunctious, chaotic place where everybody shouts at once, runs around, leaves their underwear on chairs, and pigs wander happily through the house; the society balls become rowdy country dances one step away from a Matrix Reloaded style dance-orgy; and everybody says exactly what they think without the slightest regard for propriety.<br /><br />The genius of Jane Austen lies in exploring the void created by a society in which nobody says what they think or mean because of an overwhelming regard for propriety, and the tragic predicaments of her characters arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications enabled by that speechless gap. So both the brilliance of Jane Austen and the very factor that allows her plots - particularly in this film - to function was completely erased. Subtlety in general was nowhere int his film, sacrificed in favour of an overwrought drama which jarred entirely with the material and the performances.<br /><br />It was so obviously trying to be a *serious* film. The humour - which IS Pride & Prejudice, both Austen's methodology and her appeal - was almost entirely suppressed in favour of all this po-faced melodrama, and when it was allowed in, was handled so clumsily. Pride & Prejudice is a serious narrative which makes serious points, yes, but those serious points and weightier themes are not just intertwined with the humour, they are embedded in it. You can't lose Jane Austen's technique, leaving only the bare bones of the story, and expect the themes to remain. Not even when you replace her techniques with your own heavy-handed mystical-numinous fauxbrow cinematography.<br /><br />Elizabeth Bennett is supposed to be a woman, an adult, mature and sensible and clear-sighted. Keira Knightley played the first half of the film like an empty-headed giggling schoolgirl, and the second half like an empty-headed schoolgirl who thinks she is a tragic heroine. Elizabeth's wit, her combative verbal exchanges, her quintessential characteristic of being able to see and laugh at everybody's follies including her own, her strength and composure, and her fantastic clear-sightedness were completely lost and replaced with ... what? A lot of giggling and staring into the distance? Rather than being able to keep her head when all about her were losing theirs, she started to cry and scream at the slightest provocation - and not genuinely raging, either; no, these were petulant hissy fits. And where the great strength of Austen's Elizabeth (at least in Austen's eyes) was her ability to retain integrity and observance while remaining within the boundaries of society and sustaining impeachable propriety, Knightley's Elizabeth had no regard whatsoever for convention. Furthermore, she seemed to think that wandering around barefoot in the mud in the eighteenth century version of overalls established her beyond doubt as spirited and strong-minded, and therefore nothing in the character as written or the performance had to sustain it. An astonishingly unsubtle and bland performance. In which quest for blandness and weakness, she was ably matched by Matthew Macfayden.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet seemed weak, ineffectual and permanently befuddled without the wicked sense of humour and ironic detachment at the expense of human relationships that makes Mr Bennet so fascinating and tragic. His special bond with Lizzie, as the only two sensible people in a world of fools, was completely lost, not least because both of them were fools in a world of fools, and that completely deprived the end of the film of emotional impact. Mr Bingley was no longer amiable and well-meaning to the point of folly, but was played as a complete retard for cheap laughs, and the woman who was playing Jane was so wildly inconsistent that she may as well not have tried to do anything with the character at all. The script veered wildly between verbatim chunks of Jane Austen - delivered with remarkable clumsiness - and totally contemporaneous language which would not be out of place in a modern day romantic comedy.<br /><br />Just get the BBC adaptation on DVD and save yourself the heartache. | neg |
This is a funny, intelligent and, in a sense, realistic comedy about a 14-year-old trying to live her first love while on vacation, and also about the complex, sometimes amusing, sometimes touching, relation between a divorced father and her growing daughter... and about how far a women (not only Nicole, the teen-ager) can go to get the man she loves! I laughed a lot with this lively scenario that never drags. | pos |
Having loved 'Paris, Je T'aime', I highly anticipated this film and I admit I went in with high expectations, but was sorely disappointed for a number of reasons.<br /><br />Although, I was not expecting a re-make of 'Paris' in New York I was expecting the same structure. What I liked about 'Paris' was the breakup of the neighborhoods. You got a sense of each directors style and the story they wanted to tell. In 'NY', there is no clear separation of the stories, at different points in the film, characters from different stories run into each other which made me confused as to who I was watching and what exactly was going on. Also, the switch in directing was evident but confusing since there was no flow.<br /><br />Another thing I loved about the 'Paris' film was the different takes on love. It wasn't all romantic. There was love between parents and their children, unrequited love, a lonely, middle-aged woman yearning for love etc., it explored so many layers of the complexity of love between humans. 'NY' seemed to only go for an edgy, over-the-top sexuality. There were some redeemable shorts (the older couple having spent a lifetime together, Julie Christie's short), but overall the'NY' film didn't evoke any emotion for me. I didn't connect with any of the characters like I did with 'Paris'. I remember watching 'Paris' and feeling a deep sadness, loneliness, yearning, hopefulness, wonder... it just had so much soul. For me, there was no soul in the 'NY' film.<br /><br />Maybe if I had gone into it without having 'Paris' looming in the back of my brain as a comparison this film might have elicited a more favorable response, but as a self-titled re-take of 'Paris, Je T'aime' I was sorely disappointed. | neg |
Pretty poor Firestarter clone that seems more like a bad TV movie than a bad feature film. How disappointing for this to come from Hooper and Dourif!<br /><br />Government contractors do a human experiment with a Hydrogen bomb. The boy born to the couple from the experiment constantly runs a fever of 100 degrees, and when he's an adult, people in his life start spontaneously combusting. He tries to find out why.<br /><br />The people completely on fire are well done, but when they get to the point that they are well done in another sense, they're obviously changed to dummies. When jets of fire shoot out of characters' arms, it looks silly rather than alarming the way it should. Also ridiculous is fire that evidently travels through phone lines and erupts in huge jets from the receiver's earpiece. How is that supposed to happen, exactly?<br /><br />Something else that struck me as silly about the movie is when a character has visions of his late parents. We later see the exact same shots from those visions in home movies. | neg |
That might be a bit harsh for me saying that, but sadly so far in his directing career its true. Just have a look at what he as done so far. They barely make it past the 3 star mark.<br /><br />Why did I watch this movie? 2 reasons. Lucy Lawless and Heroes star Greg Grunberg. Lucy was outstanding in this movie, her performance carries the whole movie. I do hope she gets a "blockbuster" and breaks into the bigger league of actors, she clearly has the skills. Greg was not so impressive, typical TV acting style.<br /><br />The movie is oddly categorized as a horror. The only "horror" is short flashbacks, and they last a max of 2-5 seconds with a little blood in them. I personally would call this more a "drama/thriller".<br /><br />But no matter how interesting the story actually is, bad directing, editing and acting (appart from Lucy) destroys it. You get no real connection to the actors, something which is very important in a story like this one. You just sit there watching feeling nothing. Its like watching a bad TV soap....actually I think the TV soap would be more interesting.<br /><br />My advice: Stay away from this movie...or better yet just stay away from anything Michael Hurst is involved with. | neg |
... because while I thoroughly enjoyed this film, it seems from other user comments that I'm in the minority. Maybe not one for the philosopher (eek), there are some wonderful scenes here (- particularly the techno), and the great life adventure story originally portrayed. Go see for yourself! | pos |
This *should* have been an amazingly funny movie...but it falls flat on its face. (In fact, I stopped watching it halfway through, which is something I rarely do...) -- Bill Murray plays Jack Corcoran, a second-rate motivational speaker who is bequeathed an elephant by his father (whom he had presumed to be dead before he was born) ; he then has one week to get the ponderous pachyderm across the country. His adventures on the way are only mildly amusing at best. Janeane Garofalo's considerable comedic talents go largely untapped. Anita Gillette is impressive in her small role as Jack's mother (who has a lot of explaining to do), and Pat Hingle stands out as a former circus associate of Jack's father. -- Perhaps the second half of the movie was better than the first, but I find that hard to believe... | neg |
Frightmare begins with a horror movie icon killing a director and then his servant before he is laid to rest. This icon, who has some Christopher Lee qualities to him, then continues to haunt those around him when a group of horror film society students steal his corpse from the mausoleum he is in.<br /><br />The first ten minutes is well-filmed, good writing and lots of potential for murderous mayhem. But the film drags in the middle (although thankfully not as much as "House of Death") and never really gets that initial spurt of energy back.<br /><br />Lots of the deaths are confusing, as they seem to have people just falling over scared when they see a floating coffin or other odd things. Twice we see poisonous gas being used. But the box promises that this horror star will be the embodiment of all the monsters he has played. Boy, is that false advertising, unless he spent his career playing boring old men who take naps and watch "Matlock".<br /><br />The general principle of the film is decent: horror society kids stealing a corpse of a dead icon. A modern equivalent (digging up Vincent Price or Peter Cushing) would make a great film. Maybe a remake is in order if that wouldn't be too disrespectful. Sometimes theory doesn't come across as well in application, and this film offers that example.<br /><br />The only redeeming quality of this film (besides the beginning) is the brief appearance of a very young Jeffrey Combs. I saw him and thought "that's Jeffrey Combs" but felt I was mistaken as the box never mentioned him. But sure enough, Combs was present. (A note to this movie's film-makers: mention Combs on the cover of the DVD, you'll sell more copies if if you would be deceiving customers.) If you're a Jeffrey Combs die-hard, check out this early role. Otherwise, I cannot offer this as a great selection for a horror movie marathon. Let me suggest "Intruder" or "Popcorn", as those are both pretty decent and will stand the test of time. | neg |
Acting is horrible. This film makes Fast and Furious look like an academy award winning film. They throw a few boobs and butts in there to try and keep you interested despite the EXTREMELY weak and far fetched story. There is a reason why people on the internet aren't even downloading this movie. This movie sunk like an iron turd. DO NOT waste your time renting or even downloading it. This film is and always will be a PERMA-TURD. I am now dumber for having watched it. In fact this title should be referred to as a "PERMA-TURD" from now on. Calling it a film is a travesty and insult. abhorrent, abominable, appalling, awful, beastly, cruel, detestable, disagreeable, disgusting, dreadful, eerie, execrable, fairy, fearful, frightful, ghastly, grim, grisly, gruesome, heinous, hideous, horrendous, horrid, loathsome, lousy, lurid, mean, nasty, obnoxious, offensive, repellent, repulsive, revolting, scandalous, scary, shameful, shocking, sickie, terrible, terrifying, ungodly, unholy, unkind | neg |
Deliverance is the fascinating, haunting and sometimes even disturbing tale by James Dickey, turned into a brilliant movie by John Boorman. It's about four businessmen, driven by manhood and macho-behavior, who're spending a canoeing weekend high up in the mountains. Up there, they're faced with every darkest side of man and every worst form of human misery...poverty, buggery and even physical harassment! These four men intended to travel down the river for adventure and excitement but their trip soon changes into an odyssey through a violent and lurking mountain-land, completely estranged from all forms of civilisation. All these elements actually make Deliverance one of the most nightmarish films I've ever seen. Just about everything that happens to these men, you pray that you'll never find yourself to be in a similar situation. Pure talking cinema, Deliverance is a very important movie as well. John Boorman's best (closely followed by Zardoz and Excalibur) was - and still is - a very influential film and it contains several memorable scenes that already featured in numberless other movies. Just think about the terrific "Duelling banjos" musical score and, of course, the unforgettable homosexual "squeal like a pig" rape scene. All the actors deliver (haha) perfect acting performances. Especially Jon Voight. A must see motion picture!! | pos |
At the rate these movies are ploughing through the artifacts from the Amityville house it won't be long before we get down to the floorboards, but for now it's a mirror that's causing problems for more cardboard characters in this sixth entry in the series. A homeless man hands it over to artist hairdo Ross Partridge, who then has strange visions and discovers some unpleasant revelations about his past. This mundane horror trundles along at a dull pace, leaving us waiting for a build up that never comes as the various 'spooky' goings-on lead to a dumb finale. Bland and lifeless, with ropey acting and Partridge's huge hair not helping matters. | neg |
After high school Track & Field athelete, Laura Remstead, dies of natural causes during a race (an event that is shown multiple times, in slow-motion none-the-less), an unknown killer is murdering all the people who were on that same aforementioned team close to Graduation Day (hence the name)in this laughably inept slasher flick.It brings absolutely nothing new (or even good) to the slasher table, instead opting to merely unleash the most god-awful song I've heard in quite some time with ' Gangster Rock' being played in a roller-disco party that went on far too long.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Denise Cheshire & Linnea Quigley get topless <br /><br />My Grade: D- | neg |
This should have been a short film, nothing more. The Length of 1,5 hours is much too long, because after 10 minutes you have seen almost every joke. It's getting more and more on your nerves untill you finally kick out your brain to endure that movie.<br /><br />To do yourself a favor, don't mention to see that movie... | neg |
Usually, I know after the first minute of a movie if I will hate it or adore it... but now, I was wrong.<br /><br />The start was great; the "this is based on a true story" and blah blah blah thing was funny. After, the cartoons and the description of the guys' life with pictures made me think I had made the right choice.<br /><br />Then, seeing the hilarious fake look of Toronto was cool. Also, the situation and appearance of the house seemed to confirm my first idea.<br /><br />That was maybe the first 10 minutes of the movie... which afterwards looked like an eternity.<br /><br />Maybe that's just me not understanding English Canadian humour (that's possible, English Canadians also do not always understand Quebecois humour), but hey... there was enough stuff in that for a short movie, *nothing* more. Maybe that could be a meaning for the title? Anyway, almost everything was filling, and very few things were even close to funny in my opinion.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, the "making of" was better than the movie. At least you understand the motivation behind that which made everything bad. The potential of the idea was great; that's why I rented the movie, being interested in the "annoying people disappearance" thing. But yet, I did not know the whole universe would vanish, and with it even a point to the movie.<br /><br />If you are English Canadian, it seems you could appreciate the local humour, considering the surprising number of people who gave this movie an 8. Otherwise, just think twice before losing your precious time... | neg |
I see absolutely nothing funny---even remotely funny---in this stupid movie. An unrealistic, silly, ridiculous idea--just completely ridiculous. Hard to believe that the main character, who seems so articulate, intelligent and imaginative, would not be accepted to any college. Even more difficult to believe is that no one shut the place down. The actors portrayed characters straight out of Characterville. We have seen their lot many a time over in many films. Nothing new here. I found it on late night TV, and since there was really nothing else on, I watched the whole boring, stupid film. What a total waste. Maybe if you are a teenager, you may find it amusing. Films are made for an immature mind, so teens, go for it. The rest, no way. | neg |
Okay, sorry, but I loved this movie. I just love the whole 80's genre of these kind of movies, because you don't see many like this one anymore! I want to ask all of you people who say this movie is just a rip-off, or a cheesy imitation, what is it imitating? I've never seen another movie like this one, well, not horror anyway.<br /><br />Basically its about the popular group in school, who like to make everyones lives living hell, so they decided to pick on this nerdy boy named Marty. It turns fatal when he really gets hurt from one of their little pranks.<br /><br />So, its like 10 years later, and the group of friends who hurt Marty start getting High School reunion letters. But...they are the only ones receiving them! So they return back to the old school, and one by one get knocked off by.......Yeah you probably know what happens!<br /><br />The only part that disappointed me was the very end. It could have been left off, or thought out better.<br /><br />I think you should give it a try, and try not to be to critical!<br /><br />~*~CupidGrl~*~ | pos |
It is fitting that the title character in Sydney White is defined from the beginning of the film by her awkwardness because the film, like the character, tends to begin every scene with a well-meant but inappropriate statement, then backtracks inadvertently making it worse and leaving the viewer in total confusion.<br /><br />This scenario gets old quick. Now imagine a hour and a half of this, throw on the most predictable storyline imaginable; add some vague Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs references and Amanda Bynes blinking in wide-eyed puzzlement and you have Sydney White...for more of my review http://www.helium.com/items/1433421-sydney-white-review | neg |
If your idea of a thriller is car chases, explosions, and dozens of people being mowed down by gunfire, then "House of Games" is definitely not the movie for you. If you like and appreciate psychological drama and suspense, then, by all means, see it.<br /><br />"House of Games" tells the story of an esteemed psychologist and writer, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), who tries to help a patient and gets involved in the shadowy world of con men led by the charismatic Mike (Joe Mantegna). To say anything more about the plot would ruin the suspense. Frankly, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they saw the twists coming. Just like a clever con artist, this movie draws you into its web and lulls your vigilance.<br /><br />The story is taut and well-crafted, the dialogue smart and laconic, the acting uniformly good (Mantegna is superbly charismatic). Some have complained that Dr. Ford is not a very sympathetic character, and wondered why Mamet would make Lindsay Crouse look so physically unattractive. But Dr. Ford is supposed to be cold and aloof; moreover, her homeliness is in a way essential to the plot (at one point, I believe that an injury to her sexual self-esteem is a key part of her motivation ... I'll say no more).<br /><br />"House of Games" is a dark look at the underside of human nature that concludes on a note of discomforting ambiguity. It will hold your attention every second while you are watching, and stay with you for a long time afterwards. | pos |
Babyface - Notorious Barbara Stanwyck flick where she is told by the local professor type that she has power- he tries to get her to read Nietzche- she says books ain't never done her no good.Soon we find out her father is basically pimping her out to a local politico and others.Finally she has had enough and relocates to the big city.We follow her trail of men up the ladder of success in an international bank.The dialogue is quite saucy for it's time and it was one the last films to come out before the self inflicted Hollywood production code.Look for a cameo by a young John Wayne as one of Stanwyck's willing victims.Part of the Forbidden Hollywood collection - I watched the extended version- the DVD has both versions plus Red-Headed Woman and Waterloo Bridge.An interesting movie and foreshadowing for future femme fatale roles that Stanwyck would play in the era of film noir. B+ | pos |
-me and my sister have right now watch that movie. we have laugh to the deaf. can u imagine on covers there is nomination for Oscar?? --first, musician have mix about 4-5 different style of music... and the music is not synchronized with the scenes and the character moves...<br /><br />---main character Silvester do not fit in there. he look like Mexican Tarzan.<br /><br />----Russian soldiers are everything but not Russian faces :-) -----ok, the main points: 1. airplane called charter painted in black...<br /><br />2. what is an idea when Rambo go to jump from the airplane, but he stuck? rope mix 3. a Girl? the best scene is when she dies. She means a lot to him. he knows her for ages? he cries for her, ... o my god samurai 4. how many arrows is he got? his arrow bag is always full of the arrows? i didn't notice a scene where he collect them - but i have seen the scene where arrow stay in the Vietnam solder head - that is very important 5. how many rockets helicopter can hold??? (real one) i have seen 4. but Rambos have hit about 20 of them.<br /><br />6. the main part. what the Russian special army helicopters do in Vietnam????????? after the war? 7. first scene when he enter into Vietnam's camp... his first idea was to liberate the refuge who is standing on the tree on the open space' wow, what an idea than again: 1. with the knife u can cut the iron wire? maybe only made in Vietnam? 2. mortar - using for hit one running man? o my god, u Americans really need to learn about the weapons! do u know how much it takes to calibrate the mortar (i think writer have been watching to much movies from II world war) | neg |
I am a huge Willem Dafoe fan, and really sought out this film (I had to get a Region 5 Chinese DVD of it!). But, it is truly one of the worst that I've seen in quite a while.<br /><br />The acting (except for Dafoe) is horrible. Dafoe and Colagrande BOTH wrote and directed this ( though he isn't credited as a director), and they have NO discernible talents for writing or directing. (Stick to acting Willem; Giada get out of the business, PLEASE!)<br /><br />Absolutely nothing happens. Except a series of completely unconvincing, totally without believable motivation, acts by these two people (that just met) in this house. Colagrande's sleepy, I couldn't care less expression practically NEVER changes. And the sex scenes are downright lame. I actually cringed twice at one of them. Yuck! They're definitely not the least bit erotic, and yet are the only time the film isn't putting you to sleep. Then, it's busy repulsing you.<br /><br />Just awful. | neg |
Most of Wayne's B westerns are kind of fun in a naive way, but this one really stinks. The editing is terrible, and the direction and pacing is completely lethargic. Most of the cast stands around waiting for the mute guy to write down his thoughts on a pad of paper, and I was bored. Sorry, Duke, but this gets a 1. | neg |
A pretty transparent attempt to wring cash out of the thriving British club scene, Sorted is a film that shows promise in certain departments, but does very little else. A perfunctory thriller plot (which is there merely to string the club sequences together), variable acting and a pretty ludicrous script, all stop Sorted from being the showcase that director Jovy obviously intended.<br /><br />However, although Jovy is sometimes over indulgent (especially when using the often ill-fitting dance music) he does show potential, and the lack of an anti drugs message is enormously refreshing. Overall however, the film is a wasted opportunity, and the prospects for a great clubbing movie remain out there somewhere. Watchable nevertheless. | neg |
A terrible movie containing a bevy of D-list Canadian actors who seem so self-conscious about the fact they are on-camera that their performances are overly melodramatic and quite forgettable.<br /><br />This film is badly written, badly edited, and badly directed. It is disjointed, incomprehensible and bizarre - but not in a good way. McDowell does a great job with what he is given, but is the only one in this film to do so - he really has a bad story and script to work with. It's not even camp enough to be funny.<br /><br />I have yet to see Van Pelleske act in a credible manner, and even the sub-characters like Eisen (with his nasal, whiny voice) confirm that we are on a lot in Toronto rather than on a barge off Africa.<br /><br />Didn't the director see that the 'creature' looks like a jazz dancer in an alien suit? The fight between the blue bolts of lightning and Pelleske's orange wisps of 'magic' (!?! for lack of a better word), is obviously the result of bad actors, with no choreographer, overlaid with completely derivative special effects. Was there even a director on set or in the editing room for this disaster film (not the good kind)? <br /><br />Learn from the mistakes of others ... don't even waste your time with this one, you'll regret it like I did. I have nothing more to say about this waste of celluloid. | neg |
"The Beautiful Country" is a big disappointment. It doesn't come up to my expectation. Bihn, a tall muscular guy, is a son of an American GI and a Vietnamese woman during Vietnam War. We were told that that he was treated "less than dust" in Vietnam in the early 90s, so he fleeted to America to seek his American father.<br /><br />Sounds like a heart broken material? Maybe, but showing in this film. I find myself having a hard time to connect to Bihn emotionally, because the film is full of cliché and I simply don't understand or believe him. The writing of this film is a total failure. The plot is full of holes. It grabs some events on a needed basis trying hard to stir the emotion of the audience. We are not that stupid and it doesn't work that way. Let's see what the film is trying to do. So, you don't feel Bihn's boat trip (yeah, he was on a boat!) is hard enough, let's have a storm over night and let the ship shake a little. Still not touched? Fine! Get a little kid to suffer the heat, the hungry, the sickness, the violence with the adults on the boat, hopefully that will do the trick to touch the audience. Still not touched? You heartless SOB, let's... OK, I don't want to give any spoiler of the film, but you get the idea.<br /><br />The film is really long and slow. It never tell us why Bihn didn't go to find his mom and dad, until the moment in the film when he left to look for his mom and dad. What has he been doing the 20 some years before he went to Saigon to look for his mom? And guess what? He has the luck and everybody will tell him where to find the person he is looking for, and he will find anybody without a scratch. I really think the Department of Homeland Security should hire those Vietnamese who helped Bihn. The beautiful country? Which one? Both Vietnam and America seem hell to Bihn. | neg |
Director/screenwriter Allan Burns seems to have patched two different scripts together before coming up with this minor outing: a comedy about infidelity and a melodrama about loss and sabotage. It results in a wincingly unfunny film. Christine Lahti plays a crass, cynical TV news reporter who makes friends with aerobics instructor Mary Tyler Moore and is soon having dinner with Moore and her family--only to discover Mary's husband (Ted Danson) is Lahti's secret affair! Burns has a strange, stop-and-start rhythm to his dialogue which is neither realistic nor effective (just increasingly annoying, because nothing important ever seems to get said). Rail-thin Moore, looking alarmingly frail in her leotard, has a radiant smile but doesn't convince as Danson's wife, and Danson gets stuck with a paltry, thankless role (he's just there to be a cad). The movie attempts to cover all the bases in a classic case of overreaching (woman's role in the workplace, the TV news-biz, the cheating family man, the working wife and mother who wants more, a woman's need for female friendships, et al), but nothing substantial comes out of these ideas since Burns only half-heartedly examines the issues. As a writer, he is surprisingly free of punchlines, but is devoid of a purpose as well, and the heavy plotting just gets all fouled up. *1/2 from **** | neg |
It was originally meant to be a film that Gene Kelly would star in, but when the makers couldn't get him they got "the greatest actor in the world", and the result is pretty good. Basically Nathan Detroit (Frank Sinatra) is having trouble doing what he does best, setting up a high stakes crap dice game, because he needs $1000 to get the place. So to get the money he needs, he has a $1000 bet with old friend Sky Masterson (Marlon Brando) that he can't get Sergeant Sarah Brown (Great Expectations' Golden Globe winning, and BAFTA nominated Jean Simmons) to go with him to Havana. Meanwhile, Nathan is having trouble trying to get rid of the woman who wants him to ask her hand in marriage, Miss Adelaide (Vivian Blaine). Also starring Robert Keith as Lieutenant Brannigan, Stubby Kaye as Nicely Nicely Johnson and B.S. Pulley as Big Jule. An interesting romantic comedy musical, with Brando singing all his own songs, and Sinatra being smooth and cool. It was nominated the Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design and Best Music for Jay Blackton and Cyril J. Mockridge, it was nominated the BAFTA for Best Film from any Source, and it won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy. Frank Sinatra was number 43 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, Marlon Brando was number 30 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 11 on The 100 Greatest Sex Symbols, he was number 4 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, Sinatra was number 35, and Brando was number 1 on The World's Greatest Actor, "Luck Be a Lady" was number 42 on 100 Years, 100 Songs for , the film was number 23 on 100 Years of Musicals, and it was number 36 on The 100 Greatest Musicals. Very good! | pos |
David Cronenberg, much like colleague David Lynch, is an acquired taste. A director who plays with themes like reality, perversion, sex, insanity and death, is bound to get the most extreme reations from audiences. He proved this with films as The Fly, Naked Lunch, Crash and eXitenZ (capital X, capital Z) and more recently, Spider. It's best to see eXistenZ with a clear mind. Try not to read too much about the plot, or it'll be ruined for you. What I can tell you is that Cronenberg takes you on a trip down into the world of videogames that acts as a metaphor for any kind of escapist behaviour. Living out fantasies is something people always dream of, but how far can you go into it, before reality gets blurred and the fantasy takes over and turns into a nightmare? Those are the themes touched in eXistenZ, an exploration of identity, the human psyche, physical bodies being invaded by disease and most importantly, reality itself.<br /><br />The story and directing are excellent. Cronenberg knows his trade very well and succesfully brings to life an artificial world, avoiding the usual pitfalls and clichés linked to stories such as this. The film shows some pretty disgusting stuff, but is unusually low-key in the gore department in comparison to Cronenbergs other work. The shock effects he plays on are never over the top and the plot progression is very intelligent and creative. It's not the most intellectual movie ever, but it will leave you thinking about it, wondering and pretty confused.<br /><br />The acting gets two thumbs up as well. Both protagonists, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Jude Law, play their parts perfectly and cleverly portray their character's shifting moods and identities. The dialogue may seem a little stale and clinical at times, but that is part of the effect Cronenberg was going for, to create a disaffected and alien atmosphere that puts you quite at unease. Supporting actors as Ian Holm, Don McKellar and an especially creepy Willem Dafoe lift the movie even higher with their disturbingly familiar performances.<br /><br />This movie takes some getting used to, but if you can appreciate the dark tone, blood-curdeling imagery and existentially warping story, you'll love it. | pos |
This film is brilliant it has cute little dolphins in it and its a great storyline and it has elijah wood in it which makes it a great film too. his acting skills are very good and if you want a good soft family film. this is the one to watch. | pos |
The movie 'Heart of Darkness', based on the 1899 book by Joseph Conrad is one with little to no detail and has an almost schizophrenic like plot line. If you have read the book then you know that little to none of the important "story making" scenes were put into the movie. In the book there is so much that is left up to the imagination and I feel that that is one of the part that make the book what is it. An example would be when Marlow spent timeless hours and days, even months waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. Again if you have read the book then you would know that this scene in the book is one that almost describes the main, theme of futility, best. Finally I feel that the movie was too cut and dry. Not enough though was put in to the original text and how that made the story what it is today.<br /><br />If you have not read the book, 'Heart of Darkness' (preferably, the Norton Critical Edition) then don't waist your time in renting or buying the movie. However if you have read the book then I think that you will appreciate the book a lot more if you decide to watch the movie <br /><br />Eric 2007 | neg |
"Jefferson in Paris" is a truly confounding film. It presents Thomas Jefferson (Nick Nolte) in the most unflattering light possible, painting him as a liar, racist and pedophile, yet offers not a shred of condemnation for those sins. This is the way he was, the film seems to say. End of sentence, end of movie, the door's behind you.<br /><br />After arriving in Paris with his daughter Patsy (Gwenyth Paltrow), Jefferson proceeds to win the heart of Maria Cosway (Greta Scacchi), the wife of a homosexual English painter (the criminally underused Simon Callow). A turn of events sends Maria to England, however, and Jefferson proceeds to forget her with astonishing speed for a man who, mere minutes of screen time before, was asking her to live with him in America.<br /><br />He's been bewitched, you see, by Sally Hemmings (Thandie Newton), one of his slaves just arrived from America. Just why he's bewitched is hard to tell--although Sally is undeniably beautiful, she acts like a simple-minded child in front of Jefferson. When she isn't telling ghost stories in exaggerated "darky" speech patterns, she's slinking around his bedroom, practically oozing lust for her distinguished massa.<br /><br />If her behavior is an attempt to excuse Jefferson's, it doesn't work. Jefferson damns himself further when Maria, tired of waiting for his letters, travels from England to see him. I've not changed toward you, he insists, offering weak excuses for not writing. To her credit, Maria sees through his brazen lies immediately. When Sally appears, and she and Jefferson flirt openly (and cruelly, to my mind) in Maria's very presence, the illusion falls apart completely.<br /><br />No one today believes that Jefferson, Washington and the rest were utter paragons of virtue and morality. Yet, are we supposed to believe that the learned, distinguished Jefferson would be attracted to Sally, a woman whose most intelligent conversation is about how "massa's Frenchie friends don' unnastan' aw corn" and who rubs herself against his front as she passes, right before Maria's eyes?<br /><br />Even if we let that slide, it's followed by the horrifying revelation that Sally was only 15 when this affair took place (Jefferson was 41). Strangely, this fact comes out only toward the very end, when Sally's brother James is understandbly furious at her blase announcement that she is carrying Jefferson's child.<br /><br />Jefferson is equally blase when told that Sally is carrying his child, and patronizingly tells her that she'd be far better off under his protection than free and living in France with her brother. But, he promises, I'll free her when I die and our children (including any more that come, Jefferson says, in a chilling declaration of Sally as *his*) when they reach 21. Oh thank you, massa, you feel like telling the screen. Big deal.<br /><br />The worst scene is still to come, however, involving Jefferson's daughter Patsy. She is already angry at him, first for breaking his vow, made to her mother on her deathbed, not to marry again. (Obviously the woman wasn't just talking about matrimony.) Jefferson has also refused to allow Patsy to become a nun as she wishes, despite earlier moralizing about freedom of religion (that seems to mean freedom to agree with him).<br /><br />Having promised Sally and her brother their freedom, Jefferson calls in Patsy to witness the bargain and promise to fulfill it should anything happen to him. Sally's brother blurts out the impending birth of the child, and Jefferson asks, "do you swear?" Paltrow's performance in this scene is brilliant, although she has almost nothing to say. Her face nearly contorts in agonizing pain at this revelation, yet she controls her grief and whispers yes.<br /><br />If anything, and the filmmakers could have had something if they'd emphasized this point more, "Jefferson in Paris" is an indication of the status of woman in the late 18th century, viewed even by men like Jefferson as attractive property, pleasing but without true intellect or souls. We see Jefferson shed a few tears over a letter from Maria, obviously telling him where to get off, but he's soon laughing away at a wild dance from Sally, complete with tossed hair and heaving bosom.<br /><br />I don't know whether this is an accurate portrait of Jefferson or not. I don't care to watch it, however, just for the sake of watching it. This Jefferson is no hero or even an anti-hero. He's a selfish, lying child-molestor--and one who gets away with it--not the kind of man I want to see a movie about. | neg |
Tim Robbins did a masterful job directing this film. I say this because he avoided convention and cliché. He also oversaw superb performances from Susan Sarandon (who won an Oscar for her role) and Sean Penn. Even more amazing, Robbins doesn't patronize. He just tells the story and lets the events play on the viewer's mind. This is so effective because it allows the viewer to form his own opinions on the death penalty, one of the most controversial subjects of our time, without being unfairly manipulated in either direction. I can't recommend this film enough, 9/10. | pos |
I am obviously disappointed so I'll be brief and won't waste your time. First off, the plot was uninspired... at least. The animation was even worse, we're in 2008 for god's sake and it looked like a shinier version of G.I.Joe. I won't even bother characterizing the actors' performance and the dialogs. Or maybe I will 'cause I just saw that in order to post a comment over here you need 10 lines (?!??!?!). Where were we? Oh yeah the performance, well it was totally flat, lacking passion and talent if I am excused. Now as for the dialogs, just like the acting, no memorable quotes, nothing that someone wouldn't expect. Let's just hope the movie will be decent ...at least. | neg |
The film was apparently spawned from an idea one of the writers had when he 'saw' one of his creations in a supermarket. The inhabitants of Royston Vasey head into 'our' world to persuade the writers not to stop writing about them and thus destroy their world.<br /><br />If that sounds a bit too serious, don't be put off. Within the first few minutes we get: Bernice (the vile female vicar) letting rip at an unfortunate penitent during confession; Chinnery (the vet who inadvertently destroys every animal he touches) attempting to collect semen from a giraffe; Mickey (thick beyond belief) being, ah, thick; and Tubbs (inbred sister-wife and local shopkeeper) being sweet as ever - but still disgusting.<br /><br />Some of the regular characters are missing, but a new idea by the Gents introduces some 16th-Century characters - and we have the Gents themselves in the action too. If you're new to The League of Gentlemen, this is an easy introduction and a lot of fun. If you're a long-standing fan, this has everything you've come to expect - including the joys of Jeremy Dyson spotting.<br /><br />All told, it's got the same faintly surreal humour that's the hallmark of the series, plus some moments of quite touching 'introspection'. Herr Lipp, for example, maintains a gentle dignity on learning that he's regarded by his creators as a 'one-joke character'. While most of the characters stay as they are, some develop in unexpected ways that are perfectly natural when they happen.<br /><br />This film is a 'swan song' for Royston Vasey, but it's also a showcase for the Gents who prove that (gasp!) they can write other stuff - and it can be very funny. (But you knew that anyway.) | pos |
This film is very creepy indeed. Unfortunately, not for the reasons the film makers would hope.<br /><br />There's a mastermind serial killer too, but he's not what's creepy either. He's just your standard comic book villain, a cross between Hannibal Lecter and Freddie Kruger, though with nothing particularly fresh to add to either. Incidentally, for even the vilest and most reprehensible of criminals, can they be detained chained in a stress position, on their feet, arms outstretched 24 hours a day week in week out? I suppose in the world that gave us Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, anything's possible.<br /><br />No, what's really creepy about this film is the central character, Danny. This unappealing young man, aided and abetted it's true by some ludicrously lax security arrangements and a doctor entirely careless of any notion of professional ethics or patient confidentiality, wanders into the hospital room occupied by what can only be described as a highly vulnerable and defenceless young woman, and on the basis of nothing whatsoever (her chronic sleeping precludes from being able to give anything like informed consent) imagines himself to have some sort of special relationship with her.<br /><br />Seemingly within days, he has arrogated to himself the right to abduct her, believing (completely falsely, as we discover) that he is better able to care for her than anyone else, and within minutes of getting her back to his apartment, is sexually molesting her though she is (again due to her sleepiness) entirely unable to consent or resist.<br /><br />Our suspicions as to why he would feel this connection are pretty soon confirmed. He is of course more or less unable to form any mature adult friendships, let alone sexual relationships, so instead falls back on this essentially infantilised woman, who because of her permanent sleeping has a mental age corresponding to a lived experience of only a few years. The scene where she discovers ice cream is particularly cringe-making, and the coyly knowing look she gives him when he gloatingly says he'll have to clean her up again causes a particular shudder of horror. But again, I'm afraid, not that shudder of horror the film makers were hoping for, but a much more straightforward spasm of revulsion. We can all see clearly what's on the end of our forks here - it's the paedophile's perfect dream of innocence, sexual compliance and utter dependence. Horrible, horrible, horrible.<br /><br />What else have we got in this mish mash? Twisted dreamscapes not quite as good as del Toro. The compulsory "You need to go to the police" argument, where the lead character always has a reason for not doing so even though it's the only sensible course of action. The automaton sequence, much praised in the comments here, though completely and utterly pointless ("It serves no function!", as Sigourney Weaver memorably protested in Galaxy Quest) and looking to me just like the Abominable Doctor Phibes rehashed in one of the Saw derivatives.<br /><br />Jeffrey Combs does his best though, so a star for that, and a couple more because you have to keep lower rankings for films that are even worse than this, and in general this is well-shot and competently performed. | neg |
Simply put, there are two parts of this series that made me cry till my eyes fell out. First: The part where he was set to wash the toilet, but ended up drinking the toilet water while imagining it was the hot director giving him a golden shower!!! (I laughed so hard!)<br /><br />Second: The part where he tried to prove worthy of a swimming school instructor. He seemed like a pro diving in, but as expected, he couldn't swim (proper at least^^). However the funny part of this was when he finally reached the end and said "how was that" or something. That was so friggin hilarious, I couldn't stop laughing. <br /><br />If you get the chance to see this anime series, I strongly recommend it. One of the best I've seen. <br /><br />Definitely the funniest! | pos |
A little girl's dead body is found stripped of all possible means of identification. When it is discovered that one leg is longer than the other, it is assumed to be the body of a couple's missing daughter. After this trauma, the couple separates and the mother becomes addicted to tranquilizers and leads a miserable existence. All of this changes when one day, many years later, she receives a phone call from her daughter! With the help of an ex-cop and a reporter, she sets out on a journey to determine if her daughter is indeed alive. "Los Sin Nombre" is a mess plot-wise, moves at an achingly slow pace, and is completely unscary. The saving grace is Emma Vilarasau, who does an outstanding job as the desperate mother. The best part of the movie is the ending, but I'm not sure it is worth enduring the rest of the film. Beware of the English subtitles on the recent R1 release--they aren't very accurate. | neg |
Way to go ace! You just made a chilling, grossly intriguing story of a necrophiliac cannibal into a soft, mellow, drama. Obviously a movie called Dahmer would be one of two kinds: Horror, or documentary right? This was neither. It wasn't close to any detailed facts, (in fact it barely had any substance at all) It wasn't really morbid or scary or didn't even try to be very disturbing.(as if you would've had to try!!) What the hell was this writer/director thinking?? Here's one of the most REAL examples of sick serial killers ever and we get badly shot, poorly acted gay bar roofie rapes and lengthy droning flashbacks to alone time in his old parent's house. I think Jacobson was actually trying to present (or invent) 'the soft side' of j.Dahmer. | neg |
My baby sitter was a fan so I saw many of the older episodes while growing up. I'm not a fan of Scooby Doo so I'm not sure why I left the TV on when this show premiered. To my surprise I found it enjoyable. To me Shaggy and Scooby were the only interesting characters *dodges tomatoes from fans of the others* so I like that they only focus on those two. However, this may cause fans of the original shows to hate it. I like the voice acting, especially Dr. Phinius Phibes. I liked listening to him even before I knew he was Jeff Bennett. And Jim Meskimen as Robi sounds to me like he's really enjoying his job as an actor. I also get a kick out of the techies with their slightly autistic personalities and their desires to play Dungeons and Dragons or act out scenes from Star Wars (not called by those names in the show, of course). | pos |
This movie is terrible. A true hockey fan would have to assume that the people that appeared in and produced this movie never played or watched a real hockey game. I got this hoping that it would be a "guy movie", but the only people that would probably enjoy this movie are females between the ages of 13-17. The hockey scenes are terrible, defensemen playing like they're 5 years old, goalies diving at shots that are 10 feet wide of the net, etc. It's so difficult to predict the end of this movie, though!! For those who have seen it, who would have guessed?? For those that haven't seen it, don't waste your time!<br /><br />I figured it out less than halfway through the movie. To call this movie a drama is ridiculous!! | neg |
Every American who thinks he or she understands World War Two should see this movie. Few Hollywood films about the war have defied the stereotype of Japanese soldiers as emotionless brutes obeying orders without thinking. We like to think that every Japanese man was ready and able to fight to the death, right up to the day we bombed Nagasaki. "Fires on the Plain" shows a different reality: troops pathetically undersupplied, demoralized and starved to the point of cannibalism. They euphemistically refer to human flesh as "monkey meat." The movie and novel on which it was based also put to death the myth that Japanese soldiers all preferred death to surrender: They had good reason to believe that their enemies were in no mood to take prisoners. To me it raises a question most Americans would rather avoid: If the Japanese military was so beaten down at this point in the war, why was it necessary to nuke Hiroshima? | pos |
Now i really liked this movie, it was so funny.Both Akshay Kumar and John Abraham are brilliant actors, i think after watching this film they should do lots more films together in the future.<br /><br />Akshay Kumar gets himself into a bit of trouble by dating 3 women at the same time, but the way he handles in when one comes out of the door and then the other one was just so funny to watch, he acted really well int his film and i hope that he makes more great comedy's like this one in the future, John Abraham plays his best friend, he plays his role really well and he is so underrated i am glad that some of his amazing work has got noticed but he is a really Good actor. i just love John, Neha Dhupia has a small role in this film and plays it well.<br /><br />The muse is really good i really recommend this movie to everyone. | pos |
Perhaps I couldn't find the DVD menu selection for PLOT: ON OFF. Clearly, the default is OFF. When the end credits began to roll, I couldn't believe that was it. Like our poor, but beautiful protagonist, I felt used, dirty, cheap....<br /><br />The characters were drawn in very broad strokes and the writer's disdain for wealthy Thatcherites was all to apparent. I consider myself a "Roosevelt Democrat", but would appreciate a bit more subtlety.<br /><br />Of course, the problem could be with me. I see that many others seem to find some meaning or message in this picture. Alas, not I. <br /><br />The only thing that kept me from giving this a "1" was the nice scenery, human and plant. | neg |
Anyone who rates this movie above a 3 has a very distorted view of movies, anyone who rated this piece of sh!t 7 or higher, i have absolutely no respect for their taste in movies, and doubt they have ever seen a good one. I am always up for giving any movie a shot and i did with this one, i tried to pay attention, i tried not to let my money go 2 waste but 15 minutes in my friends were laughing at me cause i was listenin 2 my iPod, 25 minutes later i couldn't even watch the overacting that was occurring within the film, so i up and left, i have never ever ever walked out of a movie, until this garbage, Anyone who said they enjoyed it is a liar, or they should be banned from this site. I get so angry when i see a person rate this an 8 when the Godfathers overall rating is a 9.1 its like saying that that movie was close which it isn't. | neg |
i actually thought this is a comedy and sat watching it expecting to laugh my ass off. pretty soon in became clear this is no comedy, or at least not a 'Jim Carrey type' one. what kept we watching was the characters - the movie starts with some pretty grim, troubled people, gathered together to try and fight one of their basic fears - fear of water, fear of swimming. we start to get bit by bit into their lives, witness their troubles, guess of their thoughts.<br /><br />actually i made it look much darker than it actually is, and besides the chain of events soon brings some light and hope to their lives.<br /><br />i probably wouldn't have watched the movie had i known its not a comedy but rather a drama, but i had good time, enjoyed the story and don't mind i spent about 90 minutes with it.<br /><br />many films treat the alienation between people in the western world, this movie shows how people can get together and help each other<br /><br />"and if in the light of dying day you meet her, don't let her pass you by and leave, don't loose her, she is your gift from the sun..."<br /><br />9/10<br /><br />peace and love | pos |
I saw this movie because it had a giant person and was labeled as a monster movie. I do not understand why it is called a monster movie. The movie is a drama. I was expecting a lot of destruction, but what did I get? Most of the movie was relationship problems and people thinking that a woman was a loony because she saw a spaceship crash with a giant inside for an unexplained reason. The action started a few minutes toward the end. Since the woman was killed, isn't that murder? Couldn't they have done anything else besides murder her? If you watch this because you expect it to have action because it is labeled as a monster movie, don't watch it. It is not a monster movie. It is a drama. | neg |
This movie gives a cinematic example of the word worthless. It's awful, you can forget plot or decent acting, cause it's not there. And with the dismissal of any decent story or acting or even the trait of being mildy frightening then there is usually only one plus left for a horror film. The appeal to those who like soft core porn. This film doesn't even have that. The women show a little skin, but not really anymore than say the Xena show. Except for the main star who is not particularly attractive and has a couple of poor, and I mean poor sex scenes. So in short if you like good movies you have no interest in this film, if you like cheese you still don't have any reason to rent this film, if you like erotica and soft core porn you really have no motive to rent this film, and most importantly if you value your time in the slightest, you cannot do better than to avoid this movie. | neg |
'Anita and Me' is a drama about growing up in multi-ethnic Britain, rather like 'Bend it Like Beckham', or more closely, 'East is East', with which it shares a 1970s setting. The tone is resolutely chirpy (in spite of the dour Black Country accents), but the film lacks 'East is East's vigour and the result seems rather thin and trite. Moreover, the portrayal of the film's central relationship, between an Asian girl and her white friend, is insufficiently deep to justify the way that the movie is structured around it. I have also grown tired of films where the hero years to be a writer, this is naturally often something that real writers have experienced, but hardly a fresh element in a fictional story. 'East is East' was fun and sharp; 'Anita and Me' seems obvious and dull in comparison. | neg |
Josef Von Sternberg directs this magnificent silent film about silent Hollywood and the former Imperial General to the Czar of Russia who has found himself there. Emil Jannings won a well-deserved Oscar, in part, for his role as the general who ironically is cast in a bit part in a silent picture as a Russian general. The movie flashes back to his days in Russia leading up to the country's fall to revolutionaries. William Powell makes his big screen debut as the Hollywood director who casts Jannings in his film. The film serves as an interesting look at the fall of Russia and at an imitation of behind-the-scenes Tinseltown in the early days. Von Sternberg delivers yet another classic, and one that is filled with the great elements of romance, intrigue, and tragedy. | pos |
I enjoyed watching Cliffhanger, at the beginning when that woman (Sarah) was full of terror when she was slipping, i thought that was a terrifying scene as i would think that when you see that see, your nerves in your body get to you because it makes you get full of fright and your heart beats faster. I did like watching Cliffhanger, i think Silvestar Stallone is a great actor and i think he'll be known as playing Rambo and Rocky. | pos |
I would bet a month's salary "The Magnificent Seven Returns" (MSR) was made-for-TV. Other reviewers attest that MSR was a theatrical movie, and I'll take their word for it. The logical answer must assume it was originally shot for TV, and after a change-of-studio-heart, it was released theatrically instead. Every actor is primarily a TV actor: Mariette Hartley, Michael Callen, Ralfe Waite, Stephanie Powers... TV performers all. Lee Van Cleef split his time between TV and theater screens. Stephanie Powers has only made 3 or 4 "real" movie appearances in the last thirty years of a very prolific television career - proof positive this was shot for TV. Minor players are veteran small-screen actors who can be seen on old reruns of "Gunsmoke", "Wild Wild West," "Streets of San Francisco," and so on.<br /><br />The ho-hum sets are identical to the Universal Studios Tour sets, often seen in old episodic TV. And the editing betrays the one-or-two-takes-hurriedness of TV, with limited camera movements, positioning, cutting, and lighting. The sound track, exclusive of the original Berstein themes, are straight from seventies television. Yep, I'd bet money it was shot for TV.<br /><br />That's an important point in evaluating MSR. Initially I watched MSR on cable assuming it was an old theatrical release. In comparison to the original "Magnificent Seven", it's a joke, a cartoon, an amateurish attempt at movie making. Acting, lighting, writing, settings, action, cinematography, music (exempting the Berstein themes), editing, pacing,...on and on....all pale in comparison to the classic "Magnificent Seven" which is close to the perfect 60's western, and one of the great action movies of all time. <br /><br />However, viewed as an early 70's made-for-TV movie, as I suspect, the film is actually better than average. Those unfortunate enough to live through the 70's as an adult, know what I'm talking about. MSR would have competed against "Alias Smith and Jones" and similarly bland network shows. During the seventies, "Gunsmoke" was a quality show, concentrating on character development rather than action, deemphasizing gun play to two shootouts a week. The first shooting, usually a murder, sets the hour's plot into motion - the second shootout climaxes the episode by killing the guest star, his nemesis, or otherwise resolving the conflict with Marshal Matt Dillon. MSR has more action than a whole season of "Gunsmoke." In this light - in this frame of reference - MSR is passable entertainment, a cut above the TV fare from that decade. | neg |
First of all, I really can't understand how some people "enjoyed" this movie. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. Even the actors seem to be bored...and I think that says it all!<br /><br />However, I have to give my applause to the opening credits creators - that team seems to have a really good future. That's why I recommend the big studios to watch ONLY the opening credits, and one or two special effects sequences (if they're watched outside this movie, it almost looks like a good movie).<br /><br />Better luck (or judgment) next time for the producers of this, this... this "thing!". | neg |
Arthur Bach is decidedly unhappy in his life as a multi-millionaire and is attracted to people 'below him' in social standing - he pays for a hooker in the opening scenes and then is enormously attracted to a shoplifter.<br /><br />He drinks quite a lot too, and sometimes he is driving while drinking, too, which of course is not funny, ever. <br /><br />The movie is great but behind the comedy is some reality, too. John Gielgud wipes the floor with everyone else on screen and created a character for the ages. Talk about deserving an Oscar. Moore and Minnelli have their moments, but its Gielgud as "Hobson" you'll remember the most. | pos |
I live and work in Lexington, Kentucky, the town where Zombie Planet was filmed. I'd heard about the film forever ago, from various people who claimed to be a critical part of the production. Then, for several years, I heard absolutely nothing. Imagine my surprise when I found it sitting all by itself at the local video store, just itching for a rental. So, being the cinephile that I am, I decided to give these local filmmakers a shot.<br /><br />Bad idea.<br /><br />Zombie Planet is overlong, boring, poorly acted, miserably shot -- and that's just the good stuff. I tried my hardest to enjoy it, which included removing my brain and setting it on the table so that it wouldn't get in the way of the horrible storyline. Alas, nothing worked. Zombie Planet is so bad it's pathetic. And the very idea that they're planning a sequel leads me to believe that the director and his henchmen have listened to none of the criticisms I'm sure they've heard. Move on, you guys. Please. In fact, refrain from film-making altogether. Or attend a few classes on pacing, storytelling, and, well, basic direction.<br /><br />Otherwise, for the love of God, hang it up. | neg |
WINCHESTER 73 is the story of a man (Jimmy Stewart) obsessed with getting back his prized possession, a repeating rifle made by Winchester. The rifle keeps changing hands, and Stewart doggedly keeps after it. This 1950 B&W effort by Anthony Mann is more a crime film than a traditional western, and the cowboys often seem more like modern-day gangsters than old-fashioned cowboys. Shelley Winters plays a woman of questionable virtue who is headed for a ranch with a man (Charles Drake) she may marry. She ends up falling for Stewart, but not before she is passed around a bit. Winters is the most complex character in a film filled with unusual characters. Watch for a young Dan Dureyea as a nutty killer and Tony Curtis in a very small role. A woefully miscast Will Geer plays Wyatt Earp. | pos |
I guess it wasn't entirely the filmmaker's fault though. The film suffered from the unimaginably stupid decision to tell Clayton Moore (who had done the role in the 1950's and was the Lone Ranger us old folks grew up with) he couldn't wear the mask in public. Now mind you, the poor guy wasn't making all that much money doing so, and it wasn't like he was going to take anything away from this film, but the whole thing seemed... gratuitous.<br /><br />The other thing the film suffered from (besides a leading man whose voice was so awful they had to overdub it) was that fact that Westerns weren't so hip in 1981. John Wayne was dead and we had just been subjected to a decade-long major liberal guilt trip about how the west was built on genocide of the Native Americans. (That and Blazing Saddles sent up the whole genre! The Campfire scene. Enough said!) Hollywood shied away from Westerns, because Science Fiction was COOL then.<br /><br />The one scene that underscored it was when after rescuing the drunken President Grant (and seriously, I'd have let Grant stay with the bad guys. The country would have been better off!) Grant asks Tonto what his reward should be "Honor your treaties with my people". Yeah, right, like THAT was going to happen! | neg |
How can stuff like this still be made? Didn't Seinfeld, Arrested Development, The Office etc etc kill this old-fashioned unfunny crap off? Apparently not...<br /><br />I'm actually quite a fan of Michael Rappaport and have enjoyed his various cameos and supporting roles (Copland , Friends) but in this he sucks but anyone would struggle with this script.<br /><br />My wife enjoys it. But she's Brazilian. And if you've ever seen a typical Brazilian sit-com you would understand why she would think this so funny.<br /><br />Just to demonstrate how predictable the show is and to prove a point with her I guessed what the next 3 or 4 plot developments/lines would be while watching it for a while and was correct almost word for word! I felt very smug. This annoyed my wife as she hates it when I do that (can understand why but I felt good so screw-it!) | neg |
Subsets and Splits