text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Let me first state that while I have viewed every episode of StarTrek at least twice, I do not consider myself a Trekker or Trekkie. Those are people who live in their parents basement and attend conventions wearing costumes with pointed rubber ears. I gave this movie a seven casting aside the fiction historical errors. The acting was better than average, but the plot held no surprises. They tried very hard to reverse engineer the technology but still the special effects were just to great a temptation. Now as to the historical errors, if you call them that, the first Capitan to pilot the Enterprise was Commander April, then Capt. Pike, Jim Kirk, etc.. According to a statement made by both Riker and Kirk we dicovered the Klingons and educated them and gave them the technology (that's the reason a prime directive was created) but like I said these are no reason to discredit this fine series. I hope the plots will get deeper, and then special effects can take a backseat. | pos |
There's nothing wrong with softcore but this one is pretty clinical - lots of nudity but it's all fake (of course, it's always fake - it's a movie but you know what I mean). There's no sexuality or erotica, it's all random nudity and poor acting of "lust" and sex with each other.<br /><br />Part of it is of course, your personal preference. These women clearly have some body issues with their piercings, tattoos and silicon - not to mention that overly plastique & leathery look so if that's your thing - great, you get to see all that here.<br /><br />I don't think anyone's expectations are very high when looking at a movie title such as this but for many people, it would be pretty much like looking at cyborg fembots ... they almost seem real but it's really more creepy. | neg |
I too must apologize for a somewhat biased opinion of this endeavor as I contributed to the soundtrack. Still I received my copy, sat back and enjoyed the rolling cast of characters who were perhaps more colorful than the characters they were creating in this tale of a film sequel shanghai. For those who feel George Bush is a "credible Texan", one need look no further than this film to shatter the image that Texas is full of truck driving, one-dimensional rednecks. The cast contains some of the most intelligent, peculiar and humorous folks you'll find anywhere as they spin their tales of agony, bliss and disappointment in going for a great film sequel, no budget, guerilla style (i.e. "punk rock style" as each person helps define).<br /><br />This is a great documentary made with passion and guts and all the venom you'll need to break through to the other side of whatever industry b.s. and doublespeak you're dealing with (take note authors, painters, musicians and fellow filmmakers). It hearkens back to the credibility of the first wave of American hardcore music when the term "D.I.Y." was the standard, a period where courage, passion and commitment mattered way more than technique, style or precious calculations. Not that there isn't plenty of technique or style to this...the tone of the documentary is quite refreshing. The editing cuts provide as much drama as the dialog therein.<br /><br />The idea of creating a documentary out of the sad demise of the cast, crew and director's initial intent is brilliant, totally Texas and absolutely punk rock. In the truest sense of the term. | pos |
This early Anime movie was a rather good film that I caught once on the Science Fiction channel when Anime was actually popular here in America and not the ratings disaster that adult swim claims it is on the cartoon network. I quite frankly think it has less to do with it being less popular and more with the fact people would rather now buy dvds are watch the episodes uncut on the internet. This film though probably did not have all that many cuts and the voice work was okay for a dubbed movie, though I would rather watch the original Japanese version. Americans tend to use some rather annoying voices for children in anything dubbed. This film features a young boy who boards a train called the Galaxy Express in the hopes that he can make it to a planet that has the technology to turn him into a robot. He wishes to become a robot to avenge his mother, who was brutally murdered at the hands of a robot who hunts humans for fun. During the course of his adventures he becomes friends with the various workers aboard the train as well as a woman that resembles his deceased mother, a beautiful woman named Matel, who as with most woman in Anime movies has a secret that could either be really good for our young hero, or really bad. He goes from planet to planet too as the train makes various stops and he runs into a space pirate named Captain Harlock who apparently starred in his own animated cartoon series, so basically the Galaxy Express takes place in that universe. All in all a very good ride with a rather strange and unexpected ending. There would be a sequel to this one, but it was not quite as good as this one, however the ending was a bit more final than it was here. | pos |
Ten out of the 11 short films in this movie are masterpieces (I found only the Egyptian one disappointing). Stragely, all but the Mexican director chose to portray the problems of individuals or groups in connection with 9-11: the Afghan refugees, deaf people, Palestinians, the widows of Srebrenica, AIDS and poverty and corruption in Africa, Pinochets coup and ensuing bloodbath, suicide bombings in Israel, paranoia-hit and state-persecuted Muslim Americans in the USA, old people living alone, and the aftermath of WWII in the hearts of Asian soldiers. This might say something sad about the limits of empathy, in both ways: the directors might feel that Americans ignore the pains of the rest of the world and only care about their own tragedies, while they effectively do the same with their short films.<br /><br />Surprising myself, I found Sean Penn's piece one of the very best in the collection, and ***SPOILER AHEAD*** I also guess his portrayal of Ernest Borgnine as a half-crazy old man vegetating in a New York flat experiencing his widow life's happiest moment when the Sun shines through his window after the WTC "collapsed out of light's way", I guess this might also be one of the most offending as the general American audience would see it. | pos |
Debbie Vickers (Nell Schofield) and Sue Knight (Jad Capelja) want to become one of the cool girls in their high school. Uncool and ugly girls had two options, be a mole or a prude! Debbie and Sue imitate them by using their cheating practices in an exam. Two of the cool boys, Garry (Goeff Rhoe) and Danny (Tony Hughes) ask them for their answers and they all get busted. After a bawling out from the headmaster (Bud Tingwell) the cool girls meet them outside in the playground and confronted them about whether they "dobbed" on them all. As Debbie and Sue hadn't the cool girls invited them to the "dunnies" for a smoke. They then start to hang with them on weekends at the beach, watching all the boys surf. Sue ends up going out with Danny and Debbie with Garry. A lot of usual teenage action takes place including sex, drugs and rock and roll. Garry has an eventual overdose of heroin which makes Debbie face the inequalities of life and she decides to learn to surf instead of just watching the boys. They are not happy but watch her, calling names, and eventually Debbie masters the board. A cool early 80s Aussie film. | pos |
I saw this film first in the Soviet Union and many erotic scenes were simply edited out by the censorship committee. But then, in Poland in 2000, I watched it in a complete form. And so what? The plot is incredibly unwise - 2 men survive the genetic catastrophe and find themselves on the planet full of feminist strong, straight and fundamentally severe ladies. The men now try to fight it and then the whole bunch of extremely silly clichés follow - sex-drive, constant masculine desire for sex, feminists who are shown like complete idiots (you may agree with them or not, but idiots certainly they are not), and so on. The performance even of the stellar Jerzy Stuhr is here wooden and strangely bad - he just pulls unfunny faces and repeats on saying phrases like "I am in the elevator with a nude chick and I haven't done anything to her!". This was intended to be a comedy, instead, it turned out to be a vapid farce, full of predictable jokes and below-the-waist innuendos. Do not waste your time on it - this is just bad. | neg |
was sort of enjoying this movie until the issues of Ed Norton's facial hair. Without revealing any plot details--on one afternoon he was sporting a light beard but by the same evening the beard was gone and a very luxuriant moustache was in place. It was much fuller than the moustache that went with the beard. Later on, in the course of a dark night in the open the moustache was gone and he appeared cleans haven. This was on an occasion where stopping to shave wouldn't be an option. These continuity discrepancies totally distracted me from the rest of the movie and ruined any credibility it had previously had. Also, I found the lengthy scene of the cowboy alone in his bedroom was way too reminiscent of De Niro in Taxi Driver. Even if it was meant to be an homage it was laid on too thickly for this viewer. | neg |
By the acting in this movie, it is sometimes hard NOT to imagine that the cast are who they portray themselves to be. Unbridled passion and acting at times make this a very enjoyable and engaging movie. Wouldn't even have known about it except for HBO late night. And the biggest reason I like UK films much better than American ones are that the actors aren't afraid to act out what is needed. | pos |
"The Saint Takes Over" stars George Sanders as Simon Templar, aka "The Saint" in this 1940 entry into the series. It also stars Wendy Barrie, Jonathan Hale and Paul Guilfoyle. On board ship en route to the U.S., The Saint meets and tries to make time with a woman (Wendy Barrie) who gives him the brushoff. Simon is coming to New York to help Inspector Fernack, now thoroughly discredited due to a gangster frame-up; $50,000 was found in his home. The gangster, Rocky (Roland Drew), of course, was found not guilty at trial, and he and his fellow mobsters pay the bill for the frame and attorney representation - $90,000 in total. Today you need that to defend yourself against a parking ticket. This was a murder rap.<br /><br />Rocky sends his bodyguard, Pearly Gates (Guilfoyle) to the lawyer's house to steal the $90,000 from the safe. The attorney catches him red-handed and sends him back to his boss with a message. Seconds later, he's dead. Rocky meets a similar fate. And on and on - who's killing this group of gangsters? The Saint has to get one of them to talk so that Fernack can be cleared - can he get to anyone before they're murdered? The woman he met on board ship reappears and figures prominently in the case.<br /><br />Few actors have a way with a line like George Sanders, and his dry wit, good looks, smooth voice and depth as an actor suit Simon Templar perfectly. Paul Guilfoyle provides some humor as the nervous, milk drinking Pearly Gates, and Jonathan Hale is great as the sometimes exasperated but worried sick Inspector Fernack. Wendy Barrie, who appeared in many Saint episodes, is very good as the woman who captures Simon's heart.<br /><br />Very enjoyable. | pos |
This is easily the most disappointing, least gratifying movie of the entire so-called blacksploitation genre, which, by the way, are films we generally enjoy a great deal in our home. Rather than being "exploitation" or demeaning, these films actually provide a priceless insight into an era. Well, not Bucktown.<br /><br />In this story, Duke returns to Bucktown to operate the night club left to him by his recently deceased brother. He quickly learns that the city is entirely controlled by a corrupt police force, bleeding protection money out of all the local businesses. Duke resists, and determines that he will rescue the city from the corrupt police. Unfortunately, he does so by calling in a posse of his friends (these people are vaguely explained as some former black-militants who have worked with Duke on "jobs" in the past) and they simply murder the entire police department in cold blood. And literally in the presence of hundreds of witnesses who do nothing to stop it. Ignorance is not a justification for murder, and it would have been much more entertaining to see the Cracker Police suffer for their actions as opposed to merely getting whacked in the street. While revenge is a ubiquitous and generally satisfying theme in films of this genre, it is a far cry from seeing Pam Grier track down the thugs who off'ed her family, cuss them out, give them a jujitsu ass-kickin' and set their 'fro on fire. That has art (and a reason for existing) and merits a level of respect that is quite undeserved by simply shooting someone in the back. Of course, in this bizarre tale, she is playing a woman completely under The Man's thumb, afraid of the Crackers who run her town and oppress her people. Indeed, her advice to Duke is, "Run, man, they gonna kill you!"<br /><br />Following the sickening and gratuitous violence, we are expected to believe that the town's mayor wholeheartedly condones the actions of Duke and his friends, congratulating them and offering to throw a parade in their honor, as opposed to, say, calling the district attorney to press capital murder charges against them and have them taken into custody. Duke's posse declines the parade and instead opts to fill the numerous vacancies on the police force created by their recent killing spree. They immediately prove to be even more corrupt than their Cracker Police predecessors (to quote the mayor, "They are ten times worse than what we had before!"). Now Duke finds he must again rescue the citizens of Bucktown from corrupt, protection-racket law enforcement officials and again make it safe for decent folk to operate a prostitution business in the streets. Unfortunately, Duke has already lost all moral high ground and sympathy due a hero, as he was a willing participant in the murder of the original police force. I wouldn't have cared one way or the other if he had rescued Bucktown or gotten plugged himself at this point. I suppose we are to be entertained by the clever way Duke has to outsmart the new Police Goons, but in reality the film has now just become an opera of gratuitous violence, Duke murders all of his former friends and allies in cold blood with the same absence of compassion he had when gunning down the Cracker Police. Duke is a pig.<br /><br />Finally, when everyone in town but Duke, Aretha, and the employees of the local brothel are dead and bleedin' in the street, our hero and heroine walk off into the night as though they had some admirable qualities or redeeming values; they don't. Duke is merely a murderous thug and Aretha his enabling misogynist accomplice. If you are interested in this genre of film, by all means, I highly recommend them, see Coffy, Foxy Brown, Truck Turner, Blacula, Sheba Baby
but if in the process you should run across this DVD, throw it as far away as you possibly can! Drop it like it's hot! It should be treated as one would treat a glowing puddle of nuclear waste! There is no single film in the entire Blacksploitation era that is not dramatically more entertaining, satisfying and populated with more sympathetic and admirable characters than this piece of slime, obviously written by and targeted at some hormonally imbalanced high school sophomores. | neg |
I am very impressed by the reviews I've read of this film - generally well-read, thoughtful and informed - obviously by people who like and think hard about films. I couldn't add a thing to the excellent reviewing job that IMDb members have already done. If I may, I'd like to correct a small but widespread misunderstanding that appears in many of the reviews: Mr Baseball was American and behaved in an ugly fashion but he was NOT an Ugly American. The original Ugly American was Homer Atkins, one of the heroes of the eponymous 1958 novel by Burdick and Lederer, and the exact opposite of Mr Baseball. Homer was an archetypal American, and an archetypal engineer - he went to Vietnam to work with people, he respected and liked the people he met, he used appropriate, sustainable technology in cooperation with his hosts, and he was liked and respected by them precisely because he exemplified democratic values and American virtues. His ugliness was purely facial, merely skin-deep; his personality and his humanity were deep and genuine.<br /><br />Mr Baseball exemplifies all the crass, ignorant, insecure boorishness that we Europeans and Americans so often inflict on other cultures; Homer Atkins, the Ugly American, was the other side of our coin, representing our humanity and decency. I believe that the Ugly Americans still far outnumber the Mr Baseballs; they are still our last, best hope. | pos |
Less than 10 minutes into this film I wanted it to end as it was painful. All this "horror" movie was about was a group of whiny bitches doing stupid things for 90 minutes, arguing, crying and screaming. Do not let the positive reviews fool you as this really is a terrible movie and you really shouldn't watch it.<br /><br />The movies plot had potential to be something great, but it just doesn't happen. A group of five "teenage" girls are driving home one night when they find themselves being pursued by a crazed female driver who wants to kill them. Two minutes into the movie, and the characters are already arguing and this doesn't stop. All we have for 90 minutes is a bunch of girls whining, crying, screaming, "acting" and arguing. None of the dialogue is even remotely interesting too, so you don't get to really know these characters or enjoy them.<br /><br />The acting was terrible and I was shocked to find out that these characters were meant to be teenagers. None of these women looked a day under 20, and one of them easily looked like she was nearly 30 years old. At least get people who look the age. None of them gave even remotely decent performances, and just seemed like they were picked off the street or were friends of the director with no acting abilities. The "actress" who played the killer overdone it, but she at least showed something that the other girls didn't - a little bit of talent.<br /><br />The characters don't help things because these girls are a bunch of whiny, stupid bitches. That is all I can really say about them, and it did not help that they ALL survived. If I have to go into detail, in one scene the girls are being chased by the killer and having their car knocked a lot. One girl injures herself and is whining about it...four of them aren't wearing seat-belts...what do you expect? One of your friends is being brutally attacked by the killer...and you all just happen to be conveniently "too hurt" to help? Whatever.<br /><br />The filming of the movie is absolutely terrible. I don't care if this movie had a budget the size of a peanut, the filming was terrible and it was like watching a pirated version of a movie. The cameraman was clearly in the car with the girls, pushed up against a window somewhere and the amount of times the camera blurred out, shook and brushed up against an "actress" was horrendous. It was also grainy, and at times you couldn't hear what characters were saying (not that it was anything worth listening to).<br /><br />Supposedly the killers car in the movie (that supposedly got hit, even though we only heard the accident) is actually the directors car in real life. No wonder they didn't show the car getting hit! This movie is so cheap, they can't even show a car getting a little scratched up. Oh, gotta mention the soundtrack also...if that's what it was. It was horrid...sad one second, then hard rock the next. <br /><br />At the end of the day, Five Across The Eyes just feels like a terrible home-movie filmed in the middle of the road at night with a bunch of stupid girls screaming and arguing for 90 minutes. It doesn't help when the script is terrible, the scares/tension/suspense and (hardly even any gore to make up for it) are absent, the acting is terrible and the picture quality and filming are horrendous.<br /><br />This was a horrible low-budget movie. Avoid it at all costs.<br /><br />1/10 | neg |
What a waste of time and money! My hubby and I saw this movie - after seeing the previews and thinking it "might be funny". WRONG! This movie is about 90 minutes too long. The actors are trapped in a poorly written script and can't get out. The jokes are weak and tired, and not even seeing Wilson's naked behind can redeem any part of this film. The special effects.....aren't. I half expected to see the harness and wires holding up Uma in her flying scenes. And when the effects people apparently could not master the superhero's faster-than-a-speeding-bullet flying or fight scenes, they covered over everything with a swirling vortex of blurred screen - which hid the awful effects quite nicely. Wilson's sidekick was a lame excuse for a man and Wilson had no chemistry with either Uma or his office co-worker. The sex scenes weren't sexy and the funny scenes weren't funny. I guess I just expected too much from these actors. None of the characters were really sympathetic, so I ended up not caring a flying fig about any of them. The only memorable performances were the kids who played Bedlam and G-Girl as teenagers - at least THEY had some chemistry. Overall, a super stinko movie - I wouldn't even recommend it as a rental - it would still be a waste of money! | neg |
We really liked this movie. It wasn't trying to be outrageous, controversial, clever or profound. It was just entertaining and was what it said on the box a charming romantic comedy. Every other Brit film maker seems to want to change the world, nice to see one that just concentrates on telling a good yarn with elegant style. | pos |
Let's face it, this is a pretty bad film.However if you go in ready to make fun of it you can survive the experience.Okay, you'll scream in agony a lot.African jungle fun in a dopey kind of way.<br /><br />Tom Conway (who spends most of the film wearing a funky chapeau) is using the local witch doctor and mad science to create a "perfect" being.It looks like a varmint that has been on a six week drunk and is in a sack dress.Ugly is being kind.But it won't kill for him because he's using a good girl as his subject.He needs a bad bad girl.<br /><br />Marla English and Lance Fuller are two petty crooks in search of African gold.Acting lessons for Ms English should have been at the top of the search list.She's a bad girl and lets everybody know it in a performance worthy of a junior high school play.Mike "Touch" Connors is the white guide English & Fuller con into leading the expedition.<br /><br />English & Conway finally meet and it is a match made in hell.She is the perfect subject to become his voodoo creature because she'll do anything (stress anything) to get what she wants.You will do anything to stop the agony of this movie at this point.<br /><br />What made this movie interesting for me was Conway wearing that funky tribal hat/headdress/floral piece!Still trying to figure out what kind of dead animal it was.Guess he thought if he pulled it down low enough over his eyes nobody would recognize him.<br /><br />Truly bad cinema. | neg |
Too many sources routinely lump this thought-provoking period drama in part based on historical fact together with the superficially similar "nunsploitation" which was a mainstay in '70s Euro trash cinema, overlooking the righteous anger that drives the whole endeavor. Perhaps coincidentally it was also director Gianfranco Mingozzi's singular attempt at narrative film-making outside of many well-received documentaries.<br /><br />Safely set within a historical context, FLAVIA charts the growing rebellion of an early 15th century Italian nun (Florinda Bolkan's career performance, even surpassing her sterling work in Lucio Fulci's devastating DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING), locked away in convent by her not so nobleman father in a desperate attempt to curb the girl's budding sensuous nature. Wondering why women are relegated to secondary roles at best in life as in holy scripture, she is confronted by ways in which male domination can rupture female lives, inspiring revolt fueled by the ranting of semi-crazed older Sister Agatha (indelibly portrayed by veteran actress Maria Casarès from Marcel Carné's LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS) and - more constructively - by a Muslim invasion. Joining the oppressors and perhaps unwittingly manipulating them to do her bidding, Flavia truly becomes the outcast she already felt herself to be, with expected tragic results.<br /><br />With its breathtaking widescreen compositions by Alfio Contini, who shot Michelangelo Antonioni's ZABRISKIE POINT, this is an uncompromising and austere account of one woman's fierce yet ultimately futile fight against patriarchal society which allotted her no rights beyond childbearing or whoring as Sister Agatha wryly remarks. A lengthy drug-induced fantasy sequence clearly modeled on Ken Russell's otherwise far more flamboyant DEVILS notwithstanding, the movie turns out relatively stingy in the skin department, making something of a mockery out of its semi-porn reputation. This is a serious work deserving rediscovery and restoration of its unjustly tarnished reputation. | pos |
Corey Haim is never going to be known as one of the great actors of his time, but at least in movies like "Licensed To Drive", he was more in his element... lowbrow humor.<br /><br />Dean Koontz's book "Watchers" was one of his earlier works, and still probably his finest to date. Sadly, this magnificent tale of a brilliant dog, a deranged mutant and a genetic experiment gone wrong is butchered horribly. The acting is so lifeless, you might think you're watching a zombie movie. Only the dog gives a respectable performance, and if you want to see a decent movie about a dog, you'd be better of watching "The Incredible Journey", "Cujo" or even "C.H.O.M.P.S."...okay, maybe not "C.H.O.M.P.S."<br /><br />If you've read the book, avoid this movie at all costs. If you haven't read the book, read it and avoid this movie. You'll thank me later.<br /><br />A somewhat better translation of a Dean Koontz book is the capable thriller, "Phantoms". | neg |
<br /><br />In the process of boring you with the wordy, rambling storyline and the complete absence of character development, it manages to enforce a few negative black stereotypes out there. At one point I was wondering if Jesse Helms co-wrote the screenplay. | neg |
I liked this movie.<br /><br />No one I know likes it, but I do.<br /><br />I didn't like it as much as the first one but it was still good. The script and plot may not have changed at all, but the story was better than Caddyshack 1.<br /><br />The only reason I didn't like Caddyshack 2 is...<br /><br />NO RODNEY DANGERFIELD!<br /><br />I think the movie would be better if Rodney Dangerfield had Jackie Mason's part. Although I did like Jackie Mason in the movie, it would be alot better if they kept Rodney Dangerfield.<br /><br />Another flaw in the movie, that I didn't hate as much, was Dan Akroyd. The movie was done 8 years after the first one. Bill Murray, "Carl", could've quit his job as an assistant greenskeeper and joined the military, you know? If Warner Bros. had thought of that, it could've made the movie better, also.<br /><br />This was my comment for Caddyshack II.<br /><br />I give it 8.2 out of 10<br /><br />It could've been better, but good nonetheless.<br /><br />If you've seen Caddyshack 1 and are debating on whether or not to see Caddyshack 2, I say give it a try. | pos |
Although "They Died with their Boots On" is not entirely historically accurate it is a very entertaining western. Not only is Flynn the perfect Custer, the character actors are superb. Besides the action portion of the movie Flynn and DeHavilland's love scenes are very touching and believable.(Flynn and DeHavilland were very fond of each other in real life). Flynn was always so tormented for being not taken seriously if only he knew that there were very few actors who could play the characters he played and play them well! | pos |
Horrible, Horrible, Horrible do not waste your money to rent this movie. Its like a low budget made for TV Canadian movie. Absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen and there have been many others out there. This movie is not worth the time it takes to put it in the DVD player or VCR. :~( . Is it possible to write ten lines? The acting was horrific. It had absolutely no flow. I saw the made for TV movie on the BTK killer and it was much better(in comparison to this one). I am not sure what they were going for in producing this film but if it was to educate us or tell a story about the BTK killer they missed by a mile. It appeared to be more of a infomercial for animal rights. | neg |
This story is a familiar one in the long-running Tom and Jerry cartoons, especially in the 1940s, the only difference being that two cats instead of one are threatened to be evicted if they don't catch the mouse (Jerry). Tom has an unnamed buddy ("Butch?") living in the house with him, so this really upsets "Mammy Two Shoes" who can't believe that they have a mouse despite TWO cats in the house.<br /><br />Anyway, the one who catches Jerry can stay while the other gets the boot, so the competition is on!<br /><br />Even though it's familiar territory I still enjoyed this because the cartoon had enough original sight gags to make entertaining. You not only had the cats competing against each but Jerry in the equation as well, so there were enough good gags to definitely recommend if you are a Tom & Jerry fan. | pos |
Director Kevin Connor and wannabe action-hero / romantic lead Doug McClure, re-team in this ghost story set in Japan. They had been moderately successful together in the 1970's, with the likes of 'The Land that Time Forgot' (1975), 'At the Earth's Core' (1976) etc. Without plastic monsters to carry the narrative along though, the results are shabby and derivative in the most corny way.<br /><br />The film begins with a prologue set in the 19th Century, with a samurai husband killing his wife and her lover before committing suicide. A move forward to the present introduces married couple Ted & Laura, visiting Japan and moving in to the house where the tragedy took place.<br /><br />No surprises as to what happens next, with the spirits of the dead starting to take over the new inhabitants with family friend Alex (McClure) assuming the role of the wife's lover.<br /><br />Everything rumbles clumsily along with the elegance and grace of a charging elephant, to an inevitable ( but surprisingly downbeat ) conclusion. Main points of interest are two feeble decapitations ( 'The Omen' has a lot to answer for in promoting this as a standard horror set-piece ), and the love-making scenes featuring the doe-eyed but extremely kinky Susan George. The first is a long 'Don't Look Now' inspired piece with her hubby, complete with piano music; the second a much shorter (probably at her insistence) entanglement with McClure, both looking pretty uncomfortable. Anyway, every cloud has a silver lining and both scenes show of her fantastic knockers so all is not lost.<br /><br />Overall I can't decide whether 'The House where Evil Dwells' is rubbish, watchable rubbish, or entertaining in a masochistic kind of way. If you're not into the genre there is nothing here at all, but for horror fans there is probably enough to provoke the odd rye smile and appreciative nod of respect for effort.<br /><br />BEST SCENE - in any other film the big, black, tree-climbing, Japanese-muttering mechanical crabs would have stolen the show. They are eclipsed though by the legendary family meal scene, where a ghostly head appears in the daughters soup. On seeing this apparition she asks what kind of soup it is (!!!!), to be told beef and vegetable, before uttering the immortal line "Ugh - there's an awful face in my soup". If this wasn't enough the reply is "C'mon, eat your soup for Daddy." Laurel & Hardy rest in piece. | neg |
I am no Ebert. What I am is a compassionate and I have never felt more compassion for a fictional character than I felt for Leland P. Fitzgerald. Sorry if I do not offer a critique, but I see nothing but perfection in this film. I am sure that many who watch this film will never see the same things I do, but if you look hard enough maybe you will see something you weren't expecting. I've read that the character of Leland was flawed. It seems to me that who wrote this was not able to see past the Question this movie presents. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't see the answers this movie delivers. Open your heart more than your mind and you may be able to let this Leland P. Fitzgerald show you a world that truly has a meaning. Excepcional story with extraordinary acting. Ryan Gosling deserves to be talked about. | pos |
When you're used to Lana Turner in the Postman Always Rings Twice, and compare it to this low budget, low talent, low quality film, well, I was just embarrassed for Ida Lupino's 'singing' (more like talking) and non-piano playing scenes. When the first non-singing scene started and all the people just stared flatly at her, I was positive they were all going to roll their eyes and start leaving or at least talking among themselves (She stinks, c'mon let's get out of here). The actors are flat - emotions are deflated. And Ida is a real spoiled bi-otch throughout - just a 100% turnoff. This was like Betty Boop on conscious sedation meets a gas station attendant in nowhere's ville USA. The story was flat, the music was flat, the acting was flat, her chest was... no never mind. I felt sad for the rest of the actors. Perhaps if the right actress was to have been given the lead role, and the men actors had more emotion, then the film could have had a chance. Sorry for offending those of you who thought it was out of this world. I wouldn't have minded if it stayed out of this world. | neg |
I noticed at once that this movie really wasn't based on Dodie Smith's novel. In any case, it was a nice idea that Pongo and Perdita's son now had his own puppies. The cutest of the Dalmatians was, of course, little Snowball who was completely spotless till the very end of the film. <br /><br />To be honest, I didn't know what to think when Cruella de Vil seemed to have changed completely kind. In fact I have often thought about the possibility that she could become friendly, but now that she so quickly changed into "herself" again and announced that she was Cruella once more, I almost began to be really worried about Chloe's Dalmatians.<br /><br />Actually, the scene in which the puppies watched Lady and the Tramp while Chloe and Kevin had their dinner, was much better than I had expected. I also was fond of the parrot who played to be a dog, and it was incredible that the dogs had learned so many tricks for this movie. <br /><br />Of course I was content that at the end the Dalmatians were saved again, but I would have liked to know what was going to happen to Cruella after she had lost her whole property. And what on earth could the dogs' home do with such a huge sum of money?<br /><br />Finally, it was quite touching that Snowball also had spots at the very end of the film. | pos |
I took my 10-year-old daughter to see Nancy Drew over the weekend and found myself thoroughly entertained. First off, it was clean, and I mean by my standards. The majority of kids' movies today are full of crude toilet humor and gross-out jokes to elicit cheap laughter from the pre-teen crowd. Nancy Drew is smarter than that, however, and the humor is subtle and clever.<br /><br />The title role is played with a refreshing vivaciousness by Emma Roberts, who is perky and polite without ever becoming annoying. Unlike The Brady Bunch Movie, where the anachronistic characters are jeered and ridiculed, Nancy's style is treated with respect and dignity. It's a great moment when the LA "style-conscious" girls with their Paris Hilton streetwalker attire are dismissed by the boutique owner, while Nancy, in her penny loafers and homemade Butterick pattern dress, is embraced. This movie shuns the we-need-to-enlighten-this-wholesome-girl tack so many Hollywood movies take. Nancy remains true to herself and her values throughout.<br /><br />The mystery is just tense enough at times to be engaging. There were several suspenseful moments where my daughter nervously grabbed my arm, but there were no gratuitous shock scenes. It's all based on tension and mood and is a lot of fun. The supporting cast is good, particularly Marshall Bell as the creepy caretaker. There are some great cameos by Eddie Jemison, Chris Kattan and Bruce Willis and many moments that will make adults smile.<br /><br />This film deserves better ratings than some have given it. Not only was I glad not to be dragged to yet another computer animated film where talking animals burp and pass gas all over the place, but I was also very entertained. Had I been there without a child, I still would've enjoyed the movie. This is one DVD that will have my daughter's name on it under the Christmas tree. | pos |
Jimmy Stewart was a real life pilot, WWII flier and a one-star general in the Air Force and therefore a natural for how real pilots react when they fly. When you see the faithful recreation of the actual plane, you begin to understand the real-life bravery and courage of Lucky Lindy when he flew the Atlantic solo in 1927! | pos |
Tourists head to Ireland for a school trip to learn about Druids. What they encounter is a horrific tale of cannibalistic killers.<br /><br />If I had to sum up Evil Breed, it would be a low grade gore fest. The film mixes Dead Alive, Evil Dead, Wrong Turn all in one. It's just too bad that the film has so many inconsistencies to keep track of that it loses any "fun" one would have watching it. The film has lots of random "horror" nudity...although the film also stars four porn stars, yup four, so there could have been plenty more. Breed also showcases a good amount of gore. <br /><br />Evil Breed has a horrible start, with laughable dialogue and horrible acting. That's a given in a straight to video horror film, but this takes the cake. I can't really figure out who the main character is, since the one female who "lives" at the end is not really in the movie all that much. Speaking of the ending, that has to be one of the most random and bogus ending in the history of film. It has no purpose with the rest of the film and totally changes one's view of the film.<br /><br />You have to see this film to believe it, since there are some pretty great death scenes. There are two death scenes that come into my mind, one in which the inbred killer rips the intestines out of a naked woman through her chest....yea her chest, don't ask me. The other id when the guy gets his intestines, yet again, ripped out through his asshole. Does that kill the guy? No, the killer continues to strangle the guy with his own intestines. These scenes remind me so much of Dead-Alive, with the right amount of humour in each. I also got the sense of Evil Dead, with the pointless mentions of horror films and Sam Raimi. Along with Halloween, when the female character is in a closet screaming for her life with the killer trying desperately;y to get in.<br /><br />Although, the gore and nudity are not enough for the poor audio and visual quality of the film. When the teacher wakes up from her bed and walks down the stairs, her footsteps are so loud and hard that it seems like she was wearing boots. Distracting indeed. As well as the continuity in the film, with only one inbred killer? As well as which character dies at which moment. I couldn't tell if the breast implant chick was Jenny or Gary's sister/cousin...I can't remember. As well as the random naked chick with a dead baby hanging out of her body, still attached with the umbilical cord.<br /><br />The horrible editing is distracting as well, the opening credits are too fast and disorienting. It did have a bad start and got better, but the ending just brings the film back down to a horrible level. If maybe there were better production values and more faith put into this film, then it wouldn't have been horribly butchered to death. Stay away from this film, unless you are happy with the below budget horrible bad film with decent gore. | neg |
When I saw this movie I think I was a freshman in high school and I still feel like charging Master P for the hour & 20 mins or so that he took from my life that I'll never get back.<br /><br />The guy who already posted is completely right. Master P is a wannabe mobster. He, like all the other rappers in this country made his millions off of selling rap cds to young impressionable white kids in this country. It's widely known that the mob was not a black thing and blacks were not allowed to be part of it. Unfair as that might be rappers can't deal with. This movie paints Master P as a mobster named Nino? The script is terrible with the acting to match. Completely unbelievable. While searching I came up with a link or something that said he was planning on making another movie called "The Black Sopranos"!!!!<br /><br />Please spare us that and stick to Nickalodeon. You are not a white mobster, your not even a good actor Master P, please stick to your music for the sake of whoever listens to it these days... | neg |
It felt like I watched this movie thousand times before.It was absolutely predictable.Every time the story tried to get a bit twisted,every time I awaited something interesting to happen, I saw nothing but what I expected. Like "The bread factory opened up another facility,because there was not enough bread". In two words:Flat story,that has become a cliché,bad acting,bad special effects...Only the dumb Russian cop,Vlad, was a bit funny while punishing around the bad guys.The pile of muscles was so incredibly STUPID,that it made me laugh at him for a moment. I wonder why i waste my time spitting on that shame-of-a-movie... It won't get worse (because it is not possible) :D | neg |
Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.<br /><br />I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question. | neg |
STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? "The phone rang. The phone rang again." How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.<br /><br />The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.<br /><br />Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.<br /><br />NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, "It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK." An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.<br /><br />My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.<br /><br />I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now. | neg |
It's 2 stars only because they put a lot of work in making this game look good. I played plenty of good and bad games and I think this game has the dullest story I was ever forced to listen. The best thing they could have done is to let you skip the conversations (but no, you must listen to them talking for 10 minutes) and just continue doing the same things over and over again. Climb the building, save the citizen, go kill some dude. IT'S ALL THE SAME! Ubisoft should really hire someone with some imagination.<br /><br />I'm a huge fan of Prince of Persia series (first 3). The story was good and you wanted to know what happens next all the time. I don't even hate Prince of Persia 4. But I think anyone who was in charge of developing the story for Assassin's Creed should be banned to write another thing for the rest of his life.<br /><br />Boring story and same missions over and over again! If just one of these two things was good the game would be worth playing. | neg |
With an opening segment that imitates the music and cinematography of Todd Haynes's Safe (1995), David Lynch uses dream, myth and warped notions of reality to tell the fractured story of a failed bit-part Hollywood actress/waitress, Diane Selwyn, let down by fame and her own demons and obsessed with Camilla Rhodes, who is engaged to hotshot director Adam Kesher.<br /><br />The film effectively takes place in Diane's drug-fueled head; we are witness to her crazy distortions, her wish-fulfillments, regrets, obsessions and fears. Using the dream narrative as a way of presenting two notions of reality in conflict, Lynch does not simplify the opposition between reality and fantasy but actively entangles them. The last 45 minutes are as dream-like as what came before; and the troublesome air of detached, otherworldly ambiguity still pervades, fracturing the seemingly secure distinction between reality and dream we expect to see in films about nightmares and dreams.<br /><br />Lynch's film borrows from many films, old and new, but ultimately is a film unlike any other with the exception of the director's own Lost Highway and Blue Velvet. It constantly challenges the viewer to interpret what is seen, not only intuitively but intellectually. Yet it is not as pretentious as one would have imagined because Lynch makes us sympathize with the protagonist despite her murderous deeds - an element that was missing in all of his other films except the Straight Story. He does this by presenting Diane's dream alter-ego, Betty, as a wholesome Canadian farm girl destined for fame. Lynch also presents us with an intriguing story that affirms and negates in equal measure. Are Camilla and Diane really lovers or just friends? Who is the blue-lady? What does she signify? Who is the bum behind Winkies? What is the significance of the rotting corpse at Sierra Bonita? Does Aunt Ruth really exist? Is silencio an abstraction of hell or perhaps a self-referential take on the film's status as fiction? Lynch isn't prepared to answer any question he poses, choosing instead to present his "love story in the city of dreams" as a set of interconnected abstractions and motifs.<br /><br />The acting is top rate, especially Naomi Watts as Diane Selwyn/Betty, who is yet to eclipse this performance. Laura Harring has the requisite Hayworthesque allure as Camilla/Rita, while Adam Theroux as Adam brings an freewheeling arrogance and sublimated paranoid aggression to his role. It was staggering and a grave injustice that not one of them was even nominated for an Academy Award.<br /><br />This is a film that demands to be seen and analyzed closely. The mystery at the heart of the film remains in Lynch's hands but half the fun is finding consistent ideas from the maze of seeming incongruities that he presents. Upon closer inspection there is a definite sense of a puzzle, perhaps an incomplete jigsaw that teases us with closure but denies the imaginary plenitude of narrative coherence. Ultimately, this is Lynch's key film. | pos |
There seems to have been some money behind this film, but it would be impossible to imagine a film this badly planned and executed if I hadn't actually started watching it.<br /><br />To begin with, once we are in the cavern with the characters (the usual young adult stereotypes we've been meeting in horror films since the early '80s), the film is shot almost entirely in close-up. Since the actors are wearing helmet lights, this means all we see are glaring lights alternating with utter darkness - we never get to see what the characters see; so when they shout out "Look there!" we are left to beg "What?! Where?!". Ultimately the film has a nauseating, confusing strobe-light effect, with no sense to it until we get to the end.<br /><br />And I won't tell you what 'the end' means - but you will recognize it if you've ever seen the old early '60s Arch Hall laugh fest"Eegah!" with Richard Kiel.<br /><br />But what crazy person would ever want to make a variation on a theme like "Eegah!"'s, long remembered as one of the worst films ever made?! But that's what we have here, folks. Except that, unlike "Eegah!", "The Cavern" is not anyone's idea of goofy fun. It is unwatchable. (I ran it at x2 the normal speed, just to get it over with, hoping I would actually be able to see something by the end of the film; but when I did, it was just stupid.) This film did provide me with one satisfying moment, though; since it only cost a couple bucks, after I got it out of the DVD player, I was able to smash it with my own hands - what a relief! | neg |
I generally love SRK as a villain (how can you not?) and I believe that SRK and Juhi are a perfect match on screen as they both are actually more nice than pretty.<br /><br />This movie is great to watch, although it has some major flaws: <br /><br />1) the good guy (Sunny) - not only he's so much less attractive than Shahrukh(what in my opinion is soooooo important in Bollyfilms) but his role lacks character - it would be much better if there was a conflict between two strong personalities, instead we have a conflict between a personality and an average soldier <br /><br />2) Kiran's and Sunil's reactions for Rahul's actions are unbelievably silly and naive even for a Bollywood production <br /><br />But all this is not that important in comparison with the wonderful melodramatic atmosphere, great songs (really truly great)and (let's say it again) Shahrukh as a villain, I just love him when he's so pagal<br /><br />A must-see (along with Anjaam, Baazigar and Duplicate) | pos |
I don't think this movie was rated correctly. I took my copy and blacked out the PG rating and wrote down R. I would NOT recommend this for anyone under 17 or 18, whatever the R limit is.<br /><br />Why? It contains a scene in the jungle with several topless Indian women. I don't know about you, but that's not something for little children to be watching. True, it might be the traditional "clothing style" of the African (?) Indians, but... I think partial nudity should give a movie an R rating.<br /><br />I haven't seen the movie recently, but I guess otherwise, it was alright. | neg |
one may ask why? the characters snarl, yell, and chew the scenery without any perceptible reason except someone wanted to make a movie in barcelona. billie baldwin, is that the right one?, is forgettable in the cop/estranged-husband/loving-father-of-cute-little-blond-girl role. the story seems to have been cut and pasted from the scenes thrown away from adventure films in the last three years. ellen pompeo's lack of charisma is a black hole that seems to suck the energy out of every scene she is in. her true acting range is displayed when she takes her blouse off as the movies careens from one limp chase scene to another. unfortunately, the directing rarely goes bad enough to be camp or a parody. it is all just cliché, familiar in every respect. the director cast his own daughter as the precocious brat probably because no respectable agent would have permitted a client to ruin a career by being in such a lame, contrived and uninteresting movie. the only heist here is the theft of the investor's money and the viewer's time. | neg |
I stopped five minutes in when Beowulf was given a double-shot, automatic crossbow with sights on it. Not only do crossbows not have telescoping sights, but Beowulf beat Grendel in hand-to-hand combat. The terrible, wooden acting and eternal darkness that plagues all Sci-Fi Original Movies didn't help either. Having only gotten a few minutes in before I felt my bile rise and decided to watch I Love Lucy reruns instead, that's really about all I have to say. But, you might as well just realize that it's a made-for-TV movie and skip it right there.<br /><br />A travesty. | neg |
I think 'Blackadder the Third' is the best one of the series.<br /><br />Actuelly all the episodes are funny, personally i really like the episode with the 'French invasion', but the one with the superstitious actors, in 'MACBETH' is also really funny, the way Rowan keeps playing on with them is really (English) Humor at the highest level.<br /><br />Actors: 'Never say that again, always call it the Scottish Play; Blackadder: Oh, So you want me to say the Scottish Play? Actors: YES Blackadder: Rather than MACBETH...!<br /><br />I am a big fan of Rowan and i have the majority of his work, but i think he did the series of Blackadder especially good.<br /><br />I Hope Rowan is going to continue his great style, but i think we can count on him, because he is already working on a Bean 2 Movie, that will be out this year, i can't wait...<br /><br />I Give this 3rd Blackadder a 9 out of 10 Rating. | pos |
I love this freekin movie! Walsh is a true master of the cinematic form, his film have been sometimes in my opinion, overlooked. But this film is a favourite of mine because it really gives you the feel of the time the film was set in.\<br /><br />All the wonderful characters that existed, the lifestyle, the mode of dress, the way they spoke, OK they might be exaggerated, but it is good to know that there were occasion when two men tried to outdo each other with insane stunts.<br /><br />I just felt it was apiece of history thats should be wathced by many people and appreciated because of that fact.<br /><br />Can I get it somewhere on DVD? I have only seen it on TV. But for anyone wanting a slice of life movie about that period of time this is the perfect one. | pos |
This movie is just plain bad. Weak story , weak directing and below average acting. The thing that really irritated me was the blatant advertising - constantly - for a well known internet provider. It is obvious some scenes are written to do just that , advertising. This movie is a slap in the face to anyone who payed money for this.<br /><br />Do not watch this, it not worth your time. | neg |
This was one of the best shows ever made for TV. Full of mystery and intrigue and twists and turns. Compulsive viewing. I was lucky I saw this in the UK. They might have got the episode order wrong, I can't remember, but it at least was on at a regular time every week. My girlfriend and I got hooked from the trailer in, and neither of us is a big fan of American series normally.<br /><br />After the pilot, we knew this was something special. We missed a couple of episodes, and it made you sad and mad for a week missing those ones lol.<br /><br />Great casting, superb acting. Gary Cole was absolutely brilliant, better even than his role as Custer. Lucas Black turned in an amazing performance for a kid, and Paige Turco was at her best too since Party of Five. And Nick Searcy of course, as the Sheriff's long suffering sidekick.<br /><br />Yes, there were some confusing and perplexing bits, which I presume would have been explained later, and no doubt would have been in a later series. That made the ending weak, and you could tell they'd killed it. Made us go WHAT? Why did they do that with one of the best shows ever? Shoot the exec. | pos |
I can't believe this movie is getting the rating that it is here on IMDb. Of course, I've come to conclude that IMDb is somewhat worthless for actually finding out if a movie is good or not as 99% of films are rated from 6 to 7. It's the conclusion and failure of crowd-sourcing on the internet. For this purpose an average is taken of most people, and unfortunately, most people are simple minded easily entertained fast food lifestyle morons. But I digress. The movie. I really don't want to waste my time writing about it. Let's just say I found it to be tailor made for seemingly two groups of people, young teens, at the age where violent action movies of any sort just hit the spot, and goth types that just love to choke down whatever Gothic vampire fantasy they can get their hands on. If you aren't in one of those categories, you will find this movie absurd. I did enjoy the first Underworld. It was fresh at the time and held a sort of edgy quality. The second was a bit trying in plot, but I did enjoy the direction and cinematography at times. But this whole movie felt like a sci-fi channel production or even a TV series. I found the actors to be over-directed. Their body language stiffened into un-natural idealistic poses that seemed contrived. Lines were spit out like young actors would spit out lines of Shakespeare, reveling in their own egoistic glory at being in such a role, but in doing so, crudely bludgeoning the role. The plot was dry and predictable right from the start. I found myself wishing things to just "move along" as it was so easy to tell what was going to happen. I tried to care at first, but my brain was forced to shut off. By the end climax, I actually caught myself falling asleep. There were so many parts that were inconsistent and didn't make sense that it's not even worth listing them all. If you're a pimple faced teen or a chronic goth, sure, have at it. For the rest of us, forget it, like I'm about to do right now. | neg |
I've seen this film so many times, It's that good. Maybe because I can relate to Tittas way of life is the reason why. Not everyone would find it to their taste. Also, my Italien is improving after each viewing. Am I a sad case? Thankyou Mr Sorrentino. I look forward to your next film. Although I did not see the film at a cinema, I have the DVD and would encourage anyone to buy it. The Special feature extras alone is worth the price. The amount of time a director spends on the making of a film is very seldom appreciated, the extras on the DVD gives an excellent insight to the making of a film. As for the story of the film, I'm bias.I happen to rave about it to all my friends, but as I said before, I relate very much to the main character who is a loner in a situation not of his own choosing. The Mafia in Sicily use Titta to launder their money in a Swiss bank. He owes them for costing them Millions of dollars years ago in stock market deal that went wrong.Love kills. | pos |
An EXTREMELY fast paced,exhilarating, interesting, detail rich book. Its a huge shame that the film had none of these qualities. not only was Tom Hanks' mild mannered portrayal or Robert Langdon Laughable, but the name changes to key characters, huge deviances from the original story line, and poor Irish/Italian accent from Carmalengo Played by Ewan Mcgregor, made for the worst book to film EVER.<br /><br />As a huge fan of A&D the book, i had high hopes for a more lavish, true to book detailed movie, where it would start and finish just as the book did - leaving me wanting more.<br /><br />All the film really did was depress me within the 1st 10 minutes.<br /><br />what was impressive was how the... sorry! i couldn't even finish that sentence without laughing.<br /><br />in short - Vittoria was the token hottie, a very second to Audrey Tatou and there were some very nice Alfa Romeos.<br /><br />i would recommend reading the book to understand that, if Ron Howard must insist on making ANOTHER book to film, i would be happy saving my £6.40 for a KFC zinger meal and some chicken wings - far more entertaining and deeply more satisfying! | neg |
with this film being directed by Roger Avery and Quentin Tarantino doing the screenplay i was sure this was going to be a gem. i was wrong. i don't hate this film but in no ways do i like it.<br /><br />i love Roger Avery because of his amazing direction in rules of attraction and his screenplays to pulp fiction and silent hill but he made a mistake making this. do i really need to comment on Tarantino, we all know hes a genius.<br /><br />this movie is just set around a gang robbing a bank but fails due to silly people participating in the robbery<br /><br />i'm disappointed in Tarantino and Avery for doing this film but doesn't change my mind on how amazing they both are. everyone makes mistakes......... 3/10...........j.d Seaton | neg |
Not all, but most of this story is Buster being mistaken for "Dead Shot Dan," a notorious criminal. <br /><br />There really is no story, just a series of adventures to show off Buster's physical talents, which are amazing, and his comedic timing. The 27-minute film is basically one adventure after the other mostly involving someone chasing our hero.<br /><br />Earlier, it's a couple of policemen on their beats racing through the streets after Keaton and later it's "Big Joe" Roberts, a rotund cop - and father a girl Buster is interested in - who chases him. Those latter scenes were the best I thought, with a lot of clever gags involving the hotel elevator where Big Joe and his daughter live. That was Keaton at his best.<br /><br />It's just a madcap half hour that makes little sense, but cares? It's Buster at his slapstick best, or near it, and so it serves its purpose: to entertain us. Just think: 85 years after this film was made there are people (like me) still discovering and enjoying these silent comedy classics! Cool! | pos |
This movie really left me thinking ... but not about the plot, the direction, the characters, an underlying message, or a clever script. Far from it. I was left wondering what in Sam Hill went wrong behind the scenes. Clearly, something was badly amiss from the beginning.<br /><br />I'm amazed at the positive comments for the movie and for Jodie Foster's performance. From the get-go it was clear that Foster had phoned this one in. One earlier comment even made a favorable mention of her facial expressions. I must have been watching a different movie since Ms Foster (usually a personal favorite) seemed to be totally disinterested.<br /><br />In one of his first scenes with Foster, Fred Ward looks as though he, also, is distracted by her lack of energy and he struggles to deliver his own lines with any enthusiasm. By the time he's called upon to take part in a supposedly desperate search for runaway Foster, Ward also seems to have become embarrassingly half-hearted about the project.<br /><br />In my opinion, Dennis Hopper has always been a uni-dimensional performer, so I wasn't expecting much from him ... and he delivered.<br /><br />Yes, this one left me thinking long after it ended. The fact that Joe Pesci and Charlie Sheen refused to have their names attached to the project suggests that this was a real stinker for everyone involved. But to then learn that the Director preferred to hide behind a pseudonym speaks volumes.<br /><br />But why listen to me? I always think Foster looks ridiculous in a dress, yet she's sensational in lacy underwear. | neg |
Sorry, folks, but all of you that say this is a great documentary... and that award it won at Sundance... well, you've all been duped. I've heard for a few years how I had to see this documentary and I finally watched it. Maybe in 1999, when it came out, and reality TV didn't have such a dominant presence in the industry, this movie would have seemed entertaining. But Mike and Mark are so obviously playing themselves, Mike and Mark. At times they are funny and some of the lines seem off the cuff, but mostly they do not ring true. They are the reality version of Jay and Silent Bob. Yes the people are real, they are not actors, but it's put on, it's exaggeration of themselves, and it's so obvious that it's hard to believe so many people think it's the real deal. I wasn't fooled so it was actually a tad boring. Mildly amusing, but not missing much if you miss it. | neg |
Begotten is, no doubt, someone's attempt at originality, but, what we have here is art in its most morbid, grotesque form, so, for that, Begotten has my respect, but, to be realistic, it makes no difference what this abomination is about, but for the record...<br /><br />In the ultimate in incoherent horror, we begin in an unknown time, in an unknown place. Right off the bat, we are plunged into the psychotic nightmare that is Begotten, a god is, seemingly depressed, mutilating himself with a razor, I mean, really trying like hell to end it all, it takes a while (why wouldn't it?) After this ultra-morbid introduction, something is happening, something is rising from the corpse, say hello to Mother Earth. What does she do? Well, she gives birth to a thing. The thing would have probably preferred to stay in the womb, but that's life. The psychotic nightmare realm of Begotten welcomes the thing the only way it knows how. The thing, along with Mother Earth is mutilated by unknown, hooded, assailants, with evil intentions being the only clarity available. From this point on, things drag as they've never dragged before. Interesting, grim images, with a totally decent soundtrack, is the high points of the remainder. Not to give the impression that I don't recommend this evilness, because I do, but only once, and only for people with an appreciation for the dark side.<br /><br />From my description, it may appear that I don't "get" Begotten. Trust me, I get it, and yes, Begotten is art if I've ever seen it. Everything in this film, regardless of how unrelated it may seem, is significant. That, perhaps, is the only thing that makes Begotten art. With that said, most of us require some form of entertainment value, and this is coming from someone who enjoyed The Chooper. Probably the most intriguing first five minutes, I've seen in a film, but let's be realistic, the next 7 hours and 55 minutes would put one in a coma, that is, unless it's just meant for some kind of psychedelic purposes, in that case, never mind. But, how would one rate such a uniquely boring masterpiece? Depending on how much your attention span can take, It should be either 1 or 10, any other number just wouldn't make a statement. It hurts to do this, but as far as entertainment value goes, Begotten just ain't it. 1/1 | neg |
This is a film that on the surface would seem to be all about J.Edgar Hoover giving himself a a big pat on the back for fighting Klansmen,going after Indian killers, hunting the famous gangsters of the 1930's, fighting Nazi's in the US and South America during world war 2 and Commies in New York during the early 1950's. Of course in 1959 we did not know about Mr. Hoover's obsession for keeping secret files on honest Americans, bugging people like the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, but worst of all,his secret love affair with his deputy director,Clyde Tolson( If you want to know more about that subject, I suggest seeing the film Citizen Cohn). Hoover aside, This story of a life in the FBI as told by Jimmy Stewart makes for a decent, but dated film. Vera Miles as his devoted wife is also good. But Jimmy is the movie. As much as Hoover controlled production and always made sure the FBI was seen without fault, Jimmy Stewart gave the film a human side,quite an achievement considering Hoover was always looking over his shoulder. The background score is also pleasant. I have read recent online articles suggesting that this is a forgotten film. Jimmy Stewart was one of the greatest film stars of all time and none of his films should be forgotten. TCM was the last network to show it a long time ago and I hope they show it again. | pos |
I was never in the past interested in this play although love Shakespeare and have seen most of his plays now and enthusiastically studied some at school. Something about this story and all the fuss about it seemed to put me off. I never bothered to try to see Hamlet until fairly recently deciding I should at least try to watch it and I borrowed the Olivier version from the library. Well, I struggled with it. Olivier seemed far too old, not only in his looks but in his acting of the part. The play had been enormously cut to fit a more conventional movie length and I think must have missed out too much as I found it difficult to concentrate on it, soon became bored and annoyed by it. I still think Olivier's Henry V is the best version I've seen of that rousing play - tho' admit I haven't rewatched the Beeb version yet and can't recall how it was when first shown.<br /><br />I heard of the Branagh full length version of Hamlet. Although I enjoyed his Much Ado, I think the Beeb version is far better and I wasn't entirely impressed by his Henry V. But I was off Branagh a bit after seeing his disappointing effort at a musical of Love's Labour's Lost which is a play I like and was so well made by the Beeb. <br /><br />Finally acquiring the complete Beeb Shakespeare on DVD recently, I soon rewatched one of my most favourite Shakespeare plays, Richard II, and was simply enthralled by Jacobi in the part so was immediately persuaded to watch his Hamlet next. What a revelation this play now is for me! Yes, it is splendid, but I feel it needs an actor you can emphathise with to play Hamlet and this for me is Jacobi. Amazing. Intriguing to note that although he is older than I understand the character Hamlet was, it doesn't show whilst in Olivier it did. Now I note he's also in the Branagh version and had much to do with training Branagh, so I shall have to watch that to see what Jocobi does with Claudius! I'm interested to discover Jacobi has trained Branagh as yes, you can certainly see the influence.<br /><br />And now I'm going to watch it all over again.... | pos |
Before viewing, please make sure you have seen Night of the Living Dead... This might well be THE best 7 minute parody I have ever seen! Absurd, crappy 'special effects' (the rope, the rope!!!), and maneating slices of bread... what more do you need???<br /><br />(Do not watch this movie while eating bread... you might get scared!) | pos |
I thought this was very "different" compared to most modern interpretations of Shakespeare and enjoyed it thoroughly. It would not be useful for those studying it at school etc. as it does not show the traditional Shakespeare character interpretations (i.e- Miranda is portrayed quite punky compared to your traditional Shakespeare lady) but for understanding of the play and for the basis of the story it is a very strong piece and fantastic to watch. It does not include also the correct format, as in the layout of acts and scenes as I am currently playing Miranda in a production and most of her lines had been cut and some scenes split and mixed around but it is very useful and I would definitely recommend it as a must-see even if just to say you've seen it! Shakespeare fans would love this! | pos |
Even though the story is light, the movie flows so beautifully and its visual so tranquil and poetic that it could almost carry the whole movie.<br /><br />The film consists of four interconnected stories, all about different aspect of attraction between man and/or woman and how it frequently is ethereal. Their true desire seems to be always something that they cannot hold onto, it will flow out like a handful of sand.<br /><br />I thought the most intriguing story was the last one where the more unattainable the woman was, the more the man desires her. It parallels her deep love for god, who is infinitely out of reach, but never closer to her heart.<br /><br />A very good movie. 7/10 | pos |
I saw this cinematic wretchedness in a dollar theater with a friend in 1979 (back when the tickets actually sold for $1). This is the only film I have ever walked out on (with my friend, while the idiocy that is the "Laser Bra 2000" sketch was on screen). Evidently, my and my friend's reaction to the film was a common one. It is not that I found the film offensive (either as an 18-year-old or now), but rather that it is mind-numbingly stupid and patently unfunny, devoid even of the unintended humor that makes a Ed Wood film watchable. This is the real reason why NBC refused to air it, rather than a failure to comprehend Mr. Mike's "vision" (unless, of course, his vision was to drive the film's backers into bankruptcy).<br /><br />I remained surprised to this day that this film does not seem to have made any published "10 worst films of all time" list. It certainly makes mine. You have been warned. | neg |
Well, I've read the book first and thought: wow would this be cool to see in a movie, than I started searching and found there was already a movie made of it... I bought the movie a week ago on DVD and watched it.. they did it awfully wrong! at first this kid Hapi,who isn't any character in the book, then the mix between the two books ('the river god' and 'the seventh scroll') than Nicolas needing funds while in the book he himself is actually the funder, the whole thing about the Hyksos is wrong also.. Taila is supposed to have invented the lightweight-chariot.. the whole thing about the tomb is also very wrong.. there is supposed to be a channel that has some kind of vacuum-suction around it.. the tomb itself was made in a maze with only a possibility to pass if one knows the rules of the ancient boa-game. There was nothing in the movie about Nicolas being English and Royan was a Coptic-Christian in the book, not a Muslim..This list is endless.. There were only a few things good about the movie, the actors which played Royan, Nahood, Taita, Boris, Mick and Tessay were well-chosen, the rest were just parodies of the characters in the book, Rasfer was the worst, it didn't get even close to the character that was in my head while I wrote the book.. It is such a shame that such a great book is mutilated in such a bad reproduction... I wonder why Wilbur Smith ever gave his permission for this.. | neg |
This is a very dark movie, somewhat better than the average Asylum film. It was a lot better than I thought it would be, is a combination of a psychological thriller and a horror film. <br /><br />The voice on the telephone is really creepy - this voice without a face, this unknown and threatening voice works really well in the film, since we never see the killer face is left to the imagination of the spectator.<br /><br />The action and suspense never decay and after the first half of the film, it becomes vertiginous; there is not much gore in this film, just enough to serve the story and also the director does a good job at holding your attention. <br /><br />I gave this movie a 8/10 because some clichés. | pos |
At times I really wonder
when I look at the comments here it seems as if most people have seen a completely different film than I have. I've just seen it... and liked it. Not in the way, that it made me happy, but in the way of having seen a good film!<br /><br />The film needs some patience, yes. And yes, the main character is REALLY annoying, but that I'm sure is by intention.<br /><br />Maybe it really makes a difference if you watch this film in a cinema or at home. Most people watch films at home like they are listening to elevator music. This movie definitely doesn't fit as background noise.<br /><br />And no. Good directing doesn't mean having five laughs or explosions a second. Good directing means following your subject and keeping the story and actors together. And while that doesn't work out perfectly, at least I think it works quite good.<br /><br />I liked the photography and sets, even if they brink on the surreal at times. The opening scene is really special.<br /><br />I also liked the acting Guillaume Depardieu is NOT playing Pierre. He is acting the role of a Pierre who is himself playing a role! Pierre is not the romantic hero that he so hard tries to be, he is a presumptuous and self-righteous idiot, a downright weakling who by and by harms all the people he claims to protect. That even his love for truth is simply a pose is beautifully demonstrated by his ongoing lying and not even once asking questions or explaining himself.<br /><br />People are wondering where this or that person came from and other stuff: No character who is seen for more than two scenes is left unexplained, there is enough information scattered throughout the film on everyone.<br /><br />And even the strange building begins to make sense as soon as the target practicing is seen: Remember that Isabelle fled from a war zone - and obviously this is a refuge for fighters in a civil war, most likely Bosnia (which was still going on, when the film was produced). At least that's what is hinted at by the story Isabelle tells Pierre when she first meets him and by the later scene where Pierre shows Isabelle the book with his father on the cover, which is surrounded by books on Bosnia. | pos |
Yes, some people have said that this movie was a waste of money, but i'm the kind of die hard dragon/world-ending/holy crap action movie fan.<br /><br />But if you take it from my stand point this movie had some of the best action sences were pretty dang good. But its that kind of movie that everything just fell tougher at the right time, or just about when evil was trumph something fell in to save them at the right time. Though there were some funny lines and gangs throughout the movie which surprised me.<br /><br />The 3d graphics were pretty damn good. I mean for this kind of movie the 3d effects were GREAT!!!! Big battle that was shown in the trailers live up to whatever hype the movie had. The fight between good and evil at the end was, I have to to say could have been longer and slightly better, it was still pretty good.<br /><br />Now on to the parts that i think could have been better. The beginning was pretty good showing the parts that lead up to the big battles. I mean if you don't really want to go see this movie in theaters then at least this is a DVDer...<br /><br />overall i loved the movie,but the plot just fell into place to fast and fit tougher just to well. | pos |
I managed to see the MTV premiere of this movie last night and I needed to tell everyone that this movie brought the thunder. Obviously this movie will be most enjoyed by fans of the D as it has plenty of in-jokes for those that have seen the HBO series and has more than enough D for newer fans and the mass of soon-to-be converts. The music really shines with the new songs "Kickapoo" (which is much better than it sounds), "Master Exploder" (possibly the 3rd best song in the world) and "Dude (I totally miss you)". There are a load of excellent scenes (the car chase, the rock-off, the meeting) and cameos (including Dave Grohl as Satan!). I really could go on for hours but I don't want to give the movie away. Go see it. You won't be disappointed. | pos |
I am a big fan of this film and found the TV mini series "Children of The Dust", the version fans should look for. At least 20 minutes or more are cut on the DVD version of this film.<br /><br />I would also suggest viewers who enjoyed this film to check out the book there is a more rounded storyline with Corby/Whitewolf and Rachel, more on Black History and Buffalo Solders. There were two many storylines for the series or this film.<br /><br />Sidney Poitier only shows he gets better with age, the talent just keeps growing the chemistry between his character of Gypsy Smith and Regina Taylor were wonderful viewing. I also enjoyed the Billy Wirth/Joanna Going storyline, they seems to play off each other well.<br /><br />Billy Wirth is of course the "Model of Indian Vision". The look, the attitude, the dream of every woman who was wanted to be carried off in one of those romance novels by a native hero. Worked for me also.<br /><br />Much more could have been done with this storyline but it did give the viewer a brief glimpse of racial problems back in the 1880's, white take over of native schooling, lack of Black pioneers to setup towns in the west. Michael Moriarty (Maxwell) as always a great actor comes across as a very caring and confused teacher, not sure if the "whites" should be interfering with native culture.<br /><br />For anyone who enjoys characters and watching them change this film is for you. I thought the chemistry between Poitier's character and that of the orphan Whitewolf very moving and thought Wirth and Poitier worked very well together. Billy Wirth did some of his best scenes when working with Poitier.<br /><br />Going got on my nerves sometimes when you want to just stop and shake her or give her a " wake-up and grown-up" call. But on the whole it was a great evening of entertainment.<br /><br />Look for the two tape version of this mini series if you are a fan you will really see the difference. | pos |
This movie was made for people who found Gremlins too serious and Critters to hardcore. Like many of the critters/trolls/gremlins movies of the 80's this movie is bad. The sad part is that there's no punchline to that comment. It's just bad and not in a funny way.<br /><br />The problem with this miniature monster movie is that it actually tries to be funny and ends up being as successful in doing that as Howie Mandell was in Walk Like A Man. What made the other 80's horror movies into classics was that they were genuinely trying to be scary, but were hilarious because they failed so miserably. Someone must have told Bettina Hirsch (yes THE Bettina Hirsch)she had a knack for comedy before she started directing this movie. Unfortunately they were wrong.<br /><br />Sure seeing a weird little mutated cross between a ferret and a tumor wearing a brown trenchcoat and throwing pool balls at an outcast from the Lost Boys is amusing, but not enough to save the movie.<br /><br />By far the most annoying part of the movie is the Paul character. His Paul Reiser wannabe schtick is enough to make you start fast forwarding from the time of his first scene until the ending credits only stopping once to see a scene where a munchie throws pool balls at a guy...not that I did that.<br /><br />So the bottom line is run, don't walk, to your nearest Blockbuster and shake hands with the manager and thank him for not having the grapes to stock this pile of garbage on the shelves. | neg |
No sense going over the story since enough reviewers have done that. Here's a few different slants on it from one of those "religious nuts," as one bigoted reviewer puts it so tolerantly. <br /><br />1) "Baby Face" (1933) offers perhaps THE classic example ever put on film of how women can manipulate men with sex. There is a lot of truth to what Barbara Stanwyck demonstrates in this film: look cute, bat your eyelashes, offer your body for free.....and men will fall over themselves to help you out with whatever you want.<br /><br />In this case, it was job advancement with the ultimate goal of money.....lots of it. At least four men in this film do provide just that, even if it ruins their lives in the process. <br /><br />2) The ending - which many of the reviewers here seemed to hate - gives another great message: all the money and material goods in the world won't make a person feel fulfilled. A sad comment that so many "critics" here would rather have immoral messages, preferring sleaze over substance. No surprise, I guess.<br /><br />Any way you look at it, the movie is entertaining start-to-finish and Stanwyck has some great lines, particularly in the beginning when she tells off her crude father and his unruly bar customers. At a little over 70 minutes, this film moves at a fast pace and is over before you know it. | pos |
This movie tries its darndest to capture that classic bad canadian movie feel:<br /><br />"quirky" and obnoxious characters (a few); "quirky" town with "quirky" folk; a "quirky" coffee shop or restaurant (coffee shop here); lots of shots of canadian stuff for postcards (ocean stuff here); lots of mention of "gotta get out of this town"; downright booooring.<br /><br />And it succeeds on all counts.<br /><br />Something to note, though. I couldn't figure out whether this movie was just trying to be post-Northern Exposure "quirky" comedy or something surreal like a drug-induced or psychotic hallucination. The editing of this movie jumped around nonsensically from one unrelated thing to another with zero pacing or motivation. Not to mention the fact that half the time we didn't even know where we were jumping. Take for instance, the very opening shots, of yelling teens in a car. Who are they and what the h--- did they have to do with anything? And this sub - uh - plot (use that word plot loosely) concering kids that seem to span generations. I don't think they actually do, but the editing makes it look like they materialize from flashback, all of a sudden, to current time. Huh? What did I miss?<br /><br />Avoid. Unless for laughs. Or you want to try and trip out on the inept editing. | neg |
In fact it was awful. The main chick in it who gets topless was obviously sleeping with the director at the time. It was shot at some warehouse most likely owned by family or friends. Also they chose not to bother coming up with a story. Sure these are ways to cut cost, but are they smart ways of keeping costs down? No they aren't. At the very least they could have found a middle school student in a "creative writing" course. Those kids may have at least had a lesson about story structure. At the very least, they could have read up on 3 act structure but acting obviously wasn't a priority either. Watching these jerks run around in funny clothing that was stupid by 1980's standards was an embarrassment. The fact that none of these actors committed suicide in humiliation is probably a testament to the limited distribution this film received. Had the actors actually seen the final result of their hard work, there would have been a line of people waiting to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge.<br /><br />I'd give this movie 10/10 stars but it only deserves 1 for being released at all. This movie should be shown to film students everywhere. It's better than 90% of student films I've seen and wow is this movie a piece of shiiiit. | neg |
Essentially a undistinguished B-movie that mysteriously is directed by one of the golden era's major talents, Fritz Lang. Even with the stellar names of Lang, Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett and George Sanders, be prepared for a ludicrous storyline, bad acting, patently phony sets and miscasting. For transparency sake, I have to admit I am an ardent non-admirer of Walter Pidgeon, who was lucky to have found a niche at the artificial dream-factory of MGM, and somehow worked in secondary roles, supporting Greer Garson and others. He is wildly miscast, acting in a chipper, '30s-Ray Milland madcap comedy tone, in a role where his life is in danger, and he is in hiding. Joan Bennett's cockney accent is excessive, but her lacquered hair, perfect makeup and classy outfit belies a street-wise Cockney slum-girl. George Sanders is incapable of bad acting, but disappears after the preposterous opening finds Pidgeon somehow pretending to shoot Adolph Hitler. Surprising for Fritz Lang is the unevenness of tone. I found the film wavered uneasily between occasional moments of suspense-thriller surrounded by light-hearted comedic interplay. Hitchcock totally reversed the ratio, using comic relief to occasionally pace the suspense. There is a reason this film is unknown. It didn't serve or propel anybody's career or reputation, and is forgotten because it's a surprisingly bad film from such a pedigreed group. | neg |
Quite a lot has been said about this film and its landmark importance in forming the language of film. If you are interested in film history, to truly understand the innovations Eisenstein brings to the medium you might try viewing Potemkin along side most any film made before it (those of D.W. Griffith offer a good contrast). It should be allowed that Eisenstein was not the only montage theorist and the principles of montage editing would likely have been discovered by another given time. However, even today, few directors have approached the skill with which Eisenstein created meaning through the combination of images at such an early point in the evolution of the medium.<br /><br />If you are not interested in that sort of thing, Potemkin is still one of the most beautiful and moving films ever made. You should see it, buy it, and tatoo it to your chest. | pos |
A recent post here by a woman claiming a military background, contained the comment "A woman's life is no more valuable than a man's".<br /><br />This mantra of the politically correct is not true as history as well as biology show. Societies have managed to recover from heavy losses of their male population, sometimes with astonishing speed. Germany was ready to fight another war in 1939 despite the 1914- 1918 war in which over two million of her men were killed. In South America's War of the Triple Alliance (1865), Paraguay took on three neighboring countries until virtually her entire male population was wiped out but fought to a stalemate in the 1932 Chaco War against much larger Bolivia.<br /><br />No society, however has or ever could survive the loss of its female population. Only when the very life of the nation is at stake are women sent to fight. Israel faced that situation in 1948 but since then has never considered coed combat units for its Defense Forces despite the popular image of the Israeli girl soldier.<br /><br />"G.I. Jane" is Hollywood fluff. | neg |
If Alien, Jurassic Park and countless other sci fi horror movies are your cup of tea, add a lot of sugar and you'll get this one down. The film begins in jolly old England around 1100ad and then jumps to present day California. Our hero Carver (Dean Cain) is the new Security Chief and Military Advisor for a Science Lab 400 feet underground. He arrives (Carver is also a helicopter pilot) with the lead Scientist and we soon find out it's a cloning lab and they have something newly found to clone. Is it a Dinosaur or what? As with the above movies, all hell breaks loose and our characters start getting picked off. The special effects on the Monster are pretty good for a "direct to video" movie and Dean Cain does what he gets paid for. But forget the rest of the group as we find out why we have never seen them before. Again, don't go in with high expectations and you'll be ok. | neg |
This is my third comment here attempting to connect two legendary movie comedy teams: Laurel & Hardy and Abbott & Costello. The connection here is the year 1940. That's the date that the former had their last movie from their longtime home studio of Hal Roach. I'll mention the significance of the latter later on. Besides being the last time Stan and Ollie worked at the Lot of Fun, it's also the final time they would appear with such familiar supporting players like Charlie Hall and James Finlayson who appeared in most of their films. It's also the last time Art Lloyd would serve as their cameraman and Marvin Hatley-who composed their theme song which would be known as "The Cuckoo Song (Dance of the Cuckoos)"-their score. And it would be the very last time Stan Laurel would be allowed to exercise complete creative control over what goes on film. If there is a more gag-laden structure than usual in this L & H film, it's nice to know most of those gags are indeed funny. That includes most of the sound and visual effects, the latter provided by longtime Roach staffer Roy Seawright. In this one, Ollie has "hornophobia" from working at a noisy horn factory so Dr. Finlayson prescribes going out to sea for his rest. Ollie doesn't like to go boating so Stan suggests they just rent one that's docked so they wouldn't have to go anywhere. After they find one they like, we find out that convict Nick Grainger (Richard Cramer) has just escaped...I'll stop there and say this was as good a finale for L & H's longtime home as one could hope for. It's hilarious mostly from beginning to end and knowing this would be their last for the man partly responsible for their teaming is indeed poignant when one thinks of it. Oh, and I have a couple more lasts to mention: it's the final film appearance of both Harry Bernard, who plays a harbor patrolman after years of encountering Stan and Ollie as a policeman, and that of Ben Turpin, the cross-eyed comic who was born in New Orleans which is a couple of hours away from my current hometown of Baton Rouge, whose second L & H appearance this was having previously "married" the boys in Our Wife. The latter performer especially has a genuine comic moment. All right, I mentioned 1940 being the year Stan and Ollie had their last movie released from Hal Roach Studios. It was also the first year that a comedy team, both born in the state of New Jersey, would make their first picture at what would be their home studio, Universal. The director of that movie would be the same one that guided L & H in The Flying Deuces the previous year. His name was A. Edward Sutherland. P.S. It was during this filming that script supervisor Virginia Lucille Jones had an accident involving a rolled-up carpet. That incident caused Oliver "Babe" Hardy to send her roses to her hospital room. They fell in love and married on March 7, 1940. It lasted until Babe's death in 1957. | pos |
Shot entirely on location in Bulgaria, The Man With The Screaming Brain is a hilarious love story between two rich ugly-American types and a murderous hotel maid gypsy. <br /><br />William Cole and his wife Jackie arrive in Bulgaria on a business trip and catch a cab driven by hustler Yegor. Things start to go awry when Tatoya, the maid, murders Yegor and William and a mad scientist implants a piece of Yegor's brain in William's head. Robots eventually become involved, as do gypsies with broken fingers, head injuries, Bruce Campbell riding a pink Vespa with prissy little streamers, and All-Of-Me-style physical comedy by a character at war with a voice in his brain who controls half of his body.<br /><br />The Man With The Screaming Brain is an incredibly funny film. It has the most hilarious tracking shot I have ever seen (when Bruce Campbell's character, fresh from the lab and complete with giant forehead scar and blue hospital pajamas, runs into a square and scares a crowd of people) and a falling-down-the-steps murder scene that had the entire test screening audience screaming laughing. The whole thing is a damn riot from beginning to end and I would recommend it to any fan of physical comedy, Bruce Campbell, or B-movies in general. | pos |
When I first saw it 9 years ago, when I was 9. I thought it stunk. I'm 18 now and I still think it stinks. I mean geez no Special effects or anything, it was boring and kinda anti-climatic. My cousin watched once and George Takai (Sulu) kept talking about how it was supposed to be so much better, but they kept cutting to the budget. It would have been a great episode, but it was a terrible movie. | neg |
Hi all I am a chess enthusiast since the age of about 6. I supposed I am quite obsessed by chess, but hopefully not as much as the central character in this film.<br /><br />In this film, the central character reflects a real chess player called Curt von Bardeleben who committed suicide in 1924. He is famous for a game he played against Steinitz, where a beautiful combination was played by Steinitz. Instead of resigning, he simply walked out of the tournament hall, never to return.<br /><br />The social ineptness of the central character is unfortunately a treat of some of the more serious Grandmasters you sometimes get in chess tournaments. Chess I suppose is a very big sacrifice, and you can sometimes end up imbalanced in other areas of life. A major example of this is the chess legend Bobby Fischer. Although a genius, he was also very disturbed in many ways.<br /><br />In the film, a World championship match is depicted, as between an Italian Grandmaster and Luzhin. The format is a knockout, which actually the world Governing body of Fide has sometimes employed as a format itself - going from 128 players to just 2 in the final. But this was a group knockout - which also depicts a realistic format, where the winners of each group play against each other.<br /><br />The position before adjournment makes for a fascinating chess puzzle in itself. In fact, I have done a youtube video about it, for you to explore the winning combination in detail - enjoy! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XZPtdtPhwdM Best wishes Tryfon | pos |
I completely forgot that I'd seen this within a couple of days, which is pretty revealing in itself. The umpteenth version of Gaston 'Phantom of the Opera' Leroux's locked-door country-house mystery, I had heard that it was an engaging and witty update. So it appeared from the likable title sequence and a few neat touches in the opening scene, but the film very quickly ground to a halt and became vaguely tedious and wholly unsatisfying.<br /><br />As a mystery the major problem is that it is fundamentally unsolvable by the audience: like the worst Agatha Christies, it depends on a character appearing in the final act with a wealth of background information that we have not been privy to. As a film, be it comedy or thriller, the crucial problem is that characterisation is almost non-existent. With the exception of the killer, everyone is a face-value version of the typical suspects in the typical country-house murder story - reporter, endangered heiress, suspicious fiancé, scatterbrained scientist father (a surprisingly poor Michel Lonsdale), etc. There's no depth and little of interest, and the frequently over-ripe or misjudged performances don't help. You frankly don't care about anyone in it, so there's no jeopardy or suspense. Only Claude Rich and, in the last reel, Pierre Arditi get anything to work with, and only in the last reel does the film get close to a sense of resonance that is too fleeting to be really effective.<br /><br />For the rest, we get endless exposition and a couple of ineffective would-be comic set pieces (a promising one with a photographer trapped inside a grandfather clock is just too poorly thought through to pay off), with Dennis Podalydes reduced to Irving the Explainer for the last third of the picture. I'm not fond of country-house movies or Agatha Christie style whodunits, so those who are might cit it a lot more slack, but I found it a poor show. As Rich says when the mystery is revealed, "It's all rather something of a disappointment." | neg |
Once the slow beginning gets underway, the film kicks off and really becomes quite a lot of fun in many unexpected ways. The ensemble cast is really good, with Heather Graham perhaps being the weakest of them. Casey Affleck as her brother is really good and extremely likeable , if you catch my drift.<br /><br />I highly recommend the film if you just want to have to good hours. Teenagers should really enjoy this film - it says a lot about relationships. | pos |
You're using the IMDb.<br /><br />You've given some hefty votes to some of your favourite films.<br /><br />It's something you enjoy doing.<br /><br />And it's all because of this. Fifty seconds. One world ends, another begins.<br /><br />How can it not be given a ten? I wonder at those who give this a seven or an eight... exactly how could THE FIRST FILM EVER MADE be better? For the record, the long, still opening shot is great showmanship, a superb innovation, perfectly suited to the situation. And the dog on the bike is a lovely touch. All this within fifty seconds.<br /><br />The word genius is often overused.<br /><br />THIS is genius. | pos |
A film like Amazing Grace and Chuck is a perfect example of how the left in this country just doesn't get it. They never did. And liberalism continues to slip further and further into political oblivion.<br /><br />This film deals with a little league baseball star who decides to stop playing ball as a protest to the existence of nuclear weapons. The boy is understandably ridiculed until a bevy of professional athletes, led by former NBA star Alex English, join his cause. Not just a few of them join the cause. By the time his movement reaches its zenith, entire leagues of professional and college sports have to cancel their seasons since nobody will play any more. Just to move this review along, I'm prepared to grant them this premise. Even though it would never happen in a million years, I'll just imagine it could, then go from there.<br /><br />I don't quite remember how, but some type of agreement is reached, and the boy decides to go back to the game he loves in an incredibly sappy and ridiculous scene.<br /><br />Before criticizing the message of this film, let me just say that this film is poorly written, acted and directed. Even if one does agree with the boy's stance, it would be impossible to overcome how badly the film was constructed. And that's a shame since there are plenty of good actors that go to waste. (Peck, Curtis, Petersen). Alex English does as well as he could have with his character however, and I wish he would try to act in more films. Alas, it's likely much easier to find work in the coaching world of the NBA. One wishes Mr. English would teach more of these thuggish NBA types of today how to shoot the rock a little better. Alex certainly knew how to put the ball through the hoop.<br /><br />As far as the film's message in concerned, it's just wrong-headed. Plain and simple. All of those nuclear warheads tucked away in those missile silos out west PREVENTED WAR!!!!! It would be one thing for this boy and his flock to protest an actual war or the USE of nuclear weapons. These weapons were in fact never used, and that was the genius behind their existence. Neither side during the cold war was crazy enough to fire a single missile. Without these weapons, who knows what might have happened between the USA and USSR.<br /><br />The makers of this film obviously intended for kids in America to take up their cause and follow in Chuck's footsteps. Kids in America however are more intelligent than the left wing kooks who created this dreck. <br /><br />The film is worth only 2 of 10 stars.<br /><br />If you want to see a great film about the dangers of nuclear war, stick with Dr. Strangelove, instead.<br /><br />Mr. Newell, you are no Frank Capra! | neg |
Michael Kallio gives a strong and convincing performance as Eric Seaver, a troubled young man who was horribly mistreated as a little boy by his monstrous, abusive, alcoholic stepfather Barry (a genuinely frightening portrayal by Gunnar Hansen). Eric has a compassionate fiancé (sweetly played by the lovely Tracee Newberry) and a job transcribing autopsy reports at a local morgue. Haunted by his bleak past, egged on by the bald, beaming Jack the demon (a truly creepy Michael Robert Brandon), and sent over the edge by the recent death of his mother, Eric goes off the deep end and embarks on a brutal killing spree. Capably directed by Kallio (who also wrote the tight, astute script), with uniformly fine acting by a sound no-name cast (Jeff Steiger is especially good as Eric's wannabe helpful guardian angel Michael), rather rough, but overall polished cinematography by George Lieber, believable true-to-life characters, jolting outbursts of raw, shocking and unflinchingly ferocious violence, a moody, spooky score by Dan Kolton, an uncompromisingly downbeat ending, grungy Detroit, Michigan locations, a grimly serious tone, and a taut, gripping narrative that stays on a steady track throughout, this extremely potent and gritty psychological horror thriller makes for often absorbing and disturbing viewing. A real sleeper. | pos |
I really wanted to like this film for all sorts of reasons -- the subject matter is inherently interesting and is probably the major issue facing the world today and has thrown up fascinating works (e.g. Linda Grant's When I lived in modern times)usually from the Israeli side of the fence. Also, a bloke I like told me he thought it was the best film he'd seen all year, so with such a recommendation...<br /><br />HOWEVER I actually found myself nodding off at points! Admittedly i was tired and the cinema seats comfy but I found it too much hard work trying to identify with the characters. Once I'd got my head round the idea that it was a series of vignettes, I went with it, but this made it disappointingly like a sketch show rather than a film. I liked the concept of a restrained, almost silent mise en scene contrasted to these utopian moments - the sexy girl, the red balloon and the ninja Muslim fighter. But personally i think the film has been over hyped. I'm not saying narrative and plot is everything (it's definitely not) but even a little more dialogue would have helped. | neg |
(Some Spoilers) Facing a mid-life crisis and fed up with his marriage to Cindy ,Teddi Siddall, who seemed to have more say in what he did and where he stayed then the Air Force,USAF elite Red Beret Sgt. Major Davis Bay, Gary Cole,decided one morning to just walk away from in all and start a new life as a civilian. <br /><br />David first got this idea when he met at a Halloween party sweet and adoring Alyson, Karen Sillas. Keeping his background secret from her by telling Alyson that he's in a top secret military outfit was the perfect cover for him. Back at Jackson AFB outside of Austin Tex. David starts to review his life's options with Cindy and the USAF and decides to change his identity by running away from it. David then calls Alyson, who only met him once, and makes a date with her. Before you know it David, now using the name Haywood,is engaged to be married to her.<br /><br />Faking his death in a bicycle accident Dave purposely leave his wife and kids out in the cold and deserts his military obligation to his country.It didn't take long for Dave to find out that civilian life just doesn't appeal to him. It's now too late for Dave to go back to his first wife Cindy and his two boys with him facing the brig and a military court-martial if he comes back to the USAF. Dave takes up the only job that he could do to support him and Alyson and their infant son Chris: using his skills he learned in the Red Berets to rob banks.<br /><br />Based on a true story "Lies He Told" has Dave Bay/Haywood living three, not two, different lives. One of a hard working family man one as a ruthless bank robber and yet another one as a dead and highly decorated, by the President of the US and Prime Misnister Of GB, All-American hero. Gary Cole is very effective as both Master Sgt. David Bay&husband David Haywood. Davids actions are, even though unforgivable, understandable in the case of his depression over his marriage to Cindy. The pressure of her nagging him got to the point where he just wanted to get lost and away from her and the kids. But he should have sought professional counseling from the US Air Force, which he would have been gladly provided with, instead of choosing the easy way out. Which in the end lead him straight into Levenworth Ferderal Prison. It may have been that the overly macho Dave thought it would have been a bad mark on his career, as well as his ego, to get help for his problems.<br /><br />Karen Sillas as Alyson is the glue that keeps the film together with her at first going along with her new husbands explanation of his frequent disappearances, some for as much as two weeks, as him doing covert action in keeping the country safe from domestic and foreign terrorists. The real reasons for his long absences were the result of him casing out planing and robbing banks. Which was the only way he knew how to earn a living given from what he learned, in subversive actions, all those years in the elite Red Berets.<br /><br />Alyson tracking down Dave's mom Carolyn Bay(Linda Goranson), who he told her was dead since he was a small boy, in Portland she finds out the truth about the double, or triple, life that he's been leading since he married her. This lead to Alyson finding out about his marriage to Linda and the two sons that he had with her as well as his faked death, and now AWOL, from the USAF. Being that it's a true story the ending was anything that you would have guessed it to be in a standard Hollywood, or made for TV, movie. That's what makes the film "Lies he Told, a lot better then what you would have expected it to be. | pos |
Truly terrible, pretentious, endless film. Director Bellocchio seems to be infatuated with the pretty face and figure of his actress Detmers - and who can blame him? But maybe, just maybe, he should have focused his attention a little more on making a good, engaging film. I hate it when a sex film poses as an "art film" just to become more "respectable". The frequent, occasionally hot sex scenes are the only reason for this movie's existence. Whether or not they are worth sitting through the rest of the picture is strictly a matter of taste. (*) | neg |
In the 1940s, Veronica Lake made a meteoric rise to film stardom, thanks to her sultry beauty and, her highly exploited "peekaboo" hairstyle. She starred opposite big names like Alan Ladd and Fredric March, scoring screen successes in films like "This Gun For Hire" and "I Married A Witch". She held her own with female stars as well, and she surprised even her detractors with her performance as a bitter navy nurse in "So Proudly We Hail". But changing times and her own failings caught up with her, and by the end of the decade, her heyday was over. With two unsuccessful marriages behind her (and two more in her future) Veronica headed for New York City, where she made occasional television and summer stock appearances before dropping completely out of sight. It was briefly big news when she was found working as a barmaid in a second rate hotel in the early sixties. But by now, her longtime alcoholism and years of hard living had robbed her of her looks. Without them, public interest in her soon faded again. She did return to the stage in assorted vehicles, but her success was minimal. Eventually, she relocated to Miami, Florida, where she lived in relative obscurity. In 1966 she went to Canada for a part in an obscure movie called "Footsteps In The Snow" which had no U.S. release. The following year, she was discovered by some industrial filmmakers who had long wanted to produce a commercial feature. They approached her to star in their film "Time Is Terror" and convinced her to invest in the project. As one author put it, "If ever a movie queen suffered a terminal comedown, this was it". Surrounded by amateur performers and pathetic production values, she failed even to rise to a minimal level in this Miami, Florida shot quickie. Looking utterly ordinary in long shots, and luridly aged in close-ups, poor Veronica didn't act so much as walk through her part. As a deranged doctor, who has hit upon a successful youth restoration formula, using flesh-eating maggots!, she looks both bored and confused, her most unintentionally hilarious moment coming when she is forced to ad-lib while she struggles gamefully to don a pair of rubber gloves. The supporting cast is no help at all, merely advancing the plot by talking it to death. Director Brad Grinter apparently only required the actors to move while the camera was pointed at them, no need for anything resembling entertainment (There is, admittedly, one unintentionally hilarious scene involving a Private Detective/Nurse and a corpse in a wheelchair that predates ''Weekend At Bernie's'' by almost 20 years.) According to Veronica herself, the film was shelved for three years because no master shots were filmed. But in 1970, the production company scraped it together, changed the title to "Flesh Feast", and released it to cash in on Lake's just published biography. And, because former leading ladies such as Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Olivia De Havilland had unexpectedly revived their careers in horror movies, this travesty was promoted as Veronica's "comeback film". This seems a strange course of action for the filmmakers to pursue, though, because it's unlikely that the (young) audience for a horror film of this quality either knew or cared who Veronica Lake was. As expected, it did nothing for Veronica's career, and she died in poverty, three years later. A previous reviewer cites a scene in which the female detective working undercover as a nurse in the doctor's laboratory (overseeing the theft of bodies from a nearby morgue) enlists the help of a multi-talented chauffeur to cut up the body parts. "Poor Mrs. Lustig," she sighs, "I hope she doesn't mind leaving her body to science." "Try not to think about it," advises the chauffeur, sawing away. "I guess you are right, Hans." concludes the detective/nurse, "What is done is done." What a sad end to the career of a still fondly remembered star. | neg |
It is often only after years pass that we can look back and see those stars who are truly stars. As that French film critic, whose name escapes me, said: "There is no Garbo. There is no Dietrich. There is only Louise Brooks"; and there is, thank heavens! Louise Brooks! This is the third of her European masterpieces. But it is also an exceptional film for being one, if not the, first French talkie, for following a script written by famed René Clair, for reportedly being finished (the direction, that is) by Georg Pabst, and for incorporating the voice of Edith Piaf before she was well known! So much talent working on and in a film, how couldn't it turn out to be a masterpiece?! And that's what this film is. It's a shame Louise Brooks was blackballed by Hollywood when she came back to the States--so much talent cast so arrogantly by the wayside! In the film, in addition to getting to watch Louise Brooks in action, it's great to see pictures of Paris ca. 1930 and to hear Piaf's young voice. I never get tired of this film! | pos |
Alive<br /><br />Alive is a very entertaining SCI-FI movie from Japan. I have noticed a lot of disappointed film geeks who loved Versus this director's debut film or his third film Azumi. I have heard they are blood drenched films with swords and zombies and all kinds of goodies. Frankly I went to the video store to get Versus but I am just fine with Alive.<br /><br />If you are looking for beginning to end wall to wall action then Alive is not your pick. There is plenty of action however it comes as pay-off for a whole hour of character driven build-up. Personally I think it is well done and worth it.<br /><br />Of course some of the plot is silly as with many SCI-Fi action films and I think the subtitles using the term foreign object could have replaced with parasite for greater effect. This film is brutal when it needs to be so faint of heart need not apply.<br /><br />They kept the budget down by for the most part confining all the action to one underground building(taking a cue from the cube) but the film doesn't suffer for it. Another bonus for this film is intense gothic imagines that are done with great artistic flair during the many Flashbacks and dream sequences. <br /><br />Rent this! | pos |
I was so looking forward to watching the documentary self-immolation of the mastermind behind Boondock Saints, one of the most aggravating and pointless movies I've ever seen. But the makers of "Overnight" - buddies (ex?) of the mastermind in question - also need to learn how to make a movie. Various unsavoury remarks, yelling obscenities into the phone, and enjoying his alcohol do indeed make Mr. Duffy look like a putz. But it doesn't shed any insight into why the guy got a contract in the first place, what his creative process or vision is - what's Boondock Saints even about? How hard is it to meet Patrick Swayze? What are these strange institutional machinations in which our disgusting heroes are caught? Because the film doesn't try to answer these questions in any coherent way, it doesn't end up having dippity-doo to say about Hollywood either. So who cares? | neg |
A great film. The acting - from the doctor to the pavement artist to the head prostitute, with very few exceptions, was wonderful; i thought soni razdan(mrs.noble) and vrajesh hirjee(saurabh) were the best of the lesser known actors. Even Kurush Deboo (Tehmul), who might be accused of overacting, presented quite a believable and familiar character.<br /><br />Another great thing was the camera work - and the way it captured the energy of bombay streets, the tranquility of gustad saying his prayers and life within the tiny apartments.<br /><br />I liked the story of the wall that becomes a shrine and then gets broken down - and the artists philosophical take on it.<br /><br />It's great to see good movies on indian themes. | pos |
This movie was definitely on the boring side. The acting was decent and the film looks pretty nice, the soundtrack is definitely for fans of Kenny G and Michael Bolton. Speaking of the soundtrack, I found it very ironic that a film about telling the truth and not stealing decided to use a song in it's titles that was a BLATANT RIPOFF of Paul Simon's "You Can Call Me Al" - except that they don't acknowledge it at all. Isn't there something a little hypocritical there? The scene that the main kid was in where he was mimicking a game show host was my favorite. 10 lines? I have to write ten lines about this movie to be included? What a ripoff, I don't think it's too fair to FORCE people to write more than they would just to get it included! | neg |
Dolph Lundgren stars as Murray Wilson an alcoholic ex-cop who gets involved with a serial killer who kills during sex, after his brother is murdered, Wilson starts his own investigation and finds out a lot of his brother's secrets in this very dull thriller. Lundgren mails in his performance and the movie is flat and lethargic. Also when has anyone watched a Dolph Lundgren movie for anything but action? | neg |
I was recommended this film as one of the best love stories ever told. And as I am huge fan of love, I bought the tickets and sat myself in the theatre. After 90 minutes I left the theatre with nothing but disappointment and the theme song as the only positive thing of the film. I was appalled at the story itself, that two people can love each other but be so afraid as to never act it. I just couldn't go passed the language barrier and the cultural barrier. The second time I ran into it... I was in a different mood, no longer had any expectation ... and had more patience, more relaxed mind to "see" the film... and as soon as I opened my eyes, I discovered the love... the beauty of the film. I went beyond the language and the love story and saw the acting (not even for a moment did I ever felt like they were acting!) and the cinematography. The first time I heard a definition of what a film is, I was told that it should be a chain of perfectly balanced photographs (shots) and this is the film to match the description. Almost every shot has an idea behind it, and combined with the music... and the light effects... the result is just a masterpiece! And a masterpiece is just something that you must have in your collection of films. | pos |
"Wagons East" was a big disappointment for me. But the saddest thing about this movie is that it turned out to be John Candy's last film role (he died just before shooting was completed on this). There are only a few laughs throughout this western spoof, and for a comedy that doesn't cut it. If you want to see a uproarious spoof of western movies, the answer is obvious. See Mel Brooks' classic "Blazing Saddles". Or if you want to see Candy in much better material, see "Summer Rental", "Spaceballs", or "Uncle Buck" (just to name a few). These three movies (as well as others) shows us what a great comic actor he was. Unfortuneately, "Wagons East" does not. What a shame!<br /><br />* (out of four) | neg |
I very nearly did not see 'Hi-De-Hi!'. I think it must have been the title that put me off. In those days, the Welsh language editions of 'The Radio Times' only used to print titles of certain shows without imparting a scrap of information as to what they were actually about. 'Hi-De-Hi!' suggested to me a bad quiz show hosted by Leslie Crowther or worse an inane U.S. import. But I managed to catch a later episode, and was surprised to find it written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft.<br /><br />As was the case with 'Dad's Army' and 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum', Perry based it on personal experiences, in this case his time at a Butlins' holiday camp. Before cheap air travel came along in the '60's, these camps sprang up along British coastlines, providing entertainment for working class families and earning millions for their owners.<br /><br />( As a matter of interest, I worked in one such camp in the '80's as a chef - Barry Island, South Wales - known to all and sundry as 'Shag Land' for reasons I won't go into! )<br /><br />Set in the late '50's, it began with university academic Jeffrey Fairbrother ( Simon Cadell ) taking over as the entertainments manager of Maplin's, a job he was ill equipped to handle. His staff included resident comic Ted Bovis ( Paul Shane ), his sidekick Spike ( Jeffrey Holland ), miserable Punch and Judy man Mr.Partridge ( Leslie Dwyer ), snobby ballroom dancers Barry ( Barry Howard ) and Yvonne Stuart-Hargreaves ) Diane Holland ), and the unforgettable Gladys Pugh ( Ruth Madoc ), who lusted after Fairbrother at every opportunity. Bubbly Su Pollard stole the show though as cleaner Peggy Ollerenshaw, whose driving ambition was to be a 'Yellowcoat' ( all the important staff members wore them ). A number of sexy girls occupied these coats too, most notably Nikki Kelly's 'Sylvia' and statuesque Rikki Howard's 'Betty'. We never saw Joe Maplin, the owner. He communicated to his staff in the form of ungrammatical missives, which poor Jeffrey was forced to read aloud. "Hi-De-Hi!" was the campers' greeting, usually met with the equally inane 'Ho-De-Ho!. <br /><br />One fan was the late Sir Fred Pontin, who told Perry and Croft that he recognised most of the characters from real life.<br /><br />I always found Bovis the most convincing of these as well as the most tragic, like Archie Rice he was the comedian whose big break never came, reduced to cracking corny gags for the amusement of drunken late-night audiences. He took advantage of his position to indulge in a few perks, and in one memorable episode Fairbrother's patience snapped and he sounded him out: "Lies, Ted! All lies!".<br /><br />As with every other Perry/Croft series, the cast were excellent, particularly Cadell and Shane. Ruth Madoc's prissy 'Gladys' got on my nerves ( no wonder Anne Robinson hates the Welsh! ), but Leslie Dwyer's misanthropic 'Mr.Partridge' and Felix Bowness' jockey 'Fred Qulley' more than compensated. <br /><br />The visual gag everyone remembers is drunken Mr.Partridge spotting a pantomime horse riding a real one along the beach. Looking at the bottle of whiskey in his hand, he decides to stick with it and instead throws away the banana he had been eating! <br /><br />With its frothy blend of '50's nostalgia and saucy gags, 'Hi-De'Hi' was a big hit for B.B.C.-1 in the '80's, resulting in a massive increase in bookings for Butlins and Pontins. It went downhill when Cadell left to return to the theatre though. I never took to his replacement, Squadron Leader Clive Dempster ( David Griffin ). Worse, Leslie Dwyer's death robbed the show of one of its best characters. Kenneth Connor was brought in to replace him as 'Uncle Sammy'.<br /><br />The period setting occasionally caused problems; in one episode, Sylvia and Betty had to dive into the pool to rescue Peggy who for some reason was dressed as a shark. The revealing costumes they wore were wrong for that era. Still they looked great in them so who's complaining? In another, Ted sang the Tom Jones hit 'Delilah' to campers. It was not composed ( by Les Reed and Barry Mason, incidentally ) until 1968.<br /><br />Maplins closed its doors in 1988, and the last shot was that of Peggy ( now a Yellowcoat ) all alone in the camp, jumping into the air and shouting ( what else? ) 'Hi-De-Hi!'. <br /><br />I don't rate it as highly as Perry and Croft's other shows but its popularity is undeniable. It was probably one of the last British sitcoms to generate tremendous public affection, mainly because it featured likable characters in a recognisable setting. Goodnight campers! | pos |
I think that this movie was reasonbaly good. It's kinda weird that now the Olsen twins are 13 and have boyfriends and all. I enjoyed them alot when they were little kids on Full House. Anyway, the casting was good and the movie was somewhat funny. I kind of got mixed up between all the switching places and their names. It's just kind of an older version of It Takes Two. | pos |
... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10 | neg |
Obviously, Ponyo can be seen as just not another stupid animated movie that a studio might put out to simply survive. It is far from it, and it can be easily described as a captivating, beautiful movie experience.<br /><br />Miyazaki has indeed another masterpiece. Now, to many, this has been said to be the least of his achievements in film-making, due to in part of his "certain weirdness factor" not being there. That is true-the morals and insights that are not quite so evident in his previous films are very up front in this picture. Ponyo is not too difficult to understand or comprehend. His idea, I believe, was to make a children's movie that was just as suitable for adults as their kids, and for it not to be too complicated. He accomplished this perfectly, and he also didn't lose any substance along the way, which is the reason it gets a 10.<br /><br />Besides that, the film itself is so engrossing from the start, and the way its presented is so beautiful, it left me in awe at times because I remembered how they were all hand-drawn by Miyazaki himself. I haven't been so enlightened and happy after seeing a film since I saw Once a while back (another film not to be missed). Everything about Ponyo was absolutely stunning and breathtaking; even the music for it was pure perfection. The only bad thing I have to say about it was its English dubbing. Don't get me wrong, they were good, too, but I had seen Ponyo about 2 weeks before it came out nationally, and I believed that, in some parts, I wish it had kept some of its Japanese dialogue (not all of it, though; did enjoy the "English way" too). All in all, everyone should see Ponyo; it's absolutely flawless and in another league of film-making altogether. Finally, and don't hold me to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ponyo got a Best Picture nomination, as there are now 10 films that can be nominated for it. It's just that good. | pos |
There are so many things wrong with this movie I don't even know where to begin. The story is not cohesive AT ALL. I guarantee that five minutes into the movie the average viewer will be scratching his/her head in confusion.<br /><br />Here's what I remember of the movie before I was bored into unconsciousness: A quasi-abusive dad chases some pre-teen sisters through a house but turns out to be not that abusive after all. In the next scene, the girls are about 15. They're driving with their parents and hit a deer. The deer must have been explosive because their car blows up, one sister drags the other from the burning wreckage. Then, the girls are drifting in a boat on a lake and make a huge plan to go to Kentucky (??) and start a new life. In the very next scene, the girls are hitchhiking toward a military base. And what a military base it is. Actually, it's more like a hog farm converted to look like a military base with plenty of confused extras playing "soldiers." The base commander's office is particularly awesome because there are random things like an AK-47 hanging on the wall and a drill sergeant hat mounted to a plaque (????) so the audience is sure to know that this is a military guy's office. Then some random dude pushing a motorcycle shows up and the base commander orders him to go "into town" to buy some porn mags, and to make sure the soldiers don't think that he's on the "pink team." So our character takes a pickup converted to look like an army truck "to town" and loads up a box from a nondescript "book store" with a blowup doll by the front door. The girls hide in the guy's truck when he stops to gas up, and look through the porn stash to find items inside like the "anal invader." I guess that's enough of the plot to scare most people away. Plot aside, the sound quality is terrible and the movie is full of cheesy attempts at symbolism, like a radio preacher talking about forbidden fruit during the scene where the "slutty" sister meets the main character for the first time, or how the camera lingers way too long on certain shots to try to convey a "message".<br /><br />If you ever see this for sale or rent or whatever, stay away. It's not worth the money in either case. | neg |
I just saw the movie, through Netflix. I was intrigued by the way the movie was described, but in the end, it was better. I was moved in many different directions while watching this movie. I was filled with hurt, hate, angry, bitterness,pain and finally relief. To look at the young man accused, would break your heart, and convince you that they had the wrong person. The smugness of the police, makes you cring, because just as the Rodney King Beating brought to light, the brutality of the police, this movie brings forth the total lack of moral fiber in these police. And the fact that they beat this boy, and got away with it, only infuriates you more.<br /><br />But, I have to tell you, I fell in love with the attorney, Mc Guinness. One of my favorite lines, when he was telling us what an a**hole on of the cops was... The cop told him, to go on, keep sucking on that cancer stick. Mc Guinness told the cop... 'I always have a cigarette before sex...' I was letting him know I was going to screw him"<br /><br />I have a new respect for some of the law in this country. | pos |
Subsets and Splits