text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I can't actually think of one good point in this film. The story is absolutely terrible. THe acting is as blunt as a carrot, and the script is so bad it makes you want to kill yourself. OK fine if you love (and you have to love it to understand) snowboarding you might enjoy it microscopically better, as it has large mountains and some cool moves but apart from that it is terrible. It has some absolutely stupid ideas and it is racist with both black and white people insulting each others races. The only time you will laugh is when you are laughing at the stupidity or you are feeling embarrassed for the film. I have seen a lot of films and i have to say that this is the worst film i have ever seen. If you have this film i would suggest you take it back to wherever you bought it from and get you money back. | neg |
It's awesome! In Story Mode, your going from punk to pro. You have to complete goals that involve skating, driving, and walking. You create your own skater and give it a name, and you can make it look stupid or realistic. You are with your friend Eric throughout the game until he betrays you and gets you kicked off of the skateboard team(you can pick a team to be on) and you then start your own team! There are many levels like New Jersey, Manhattan, and even School II(not part of story mode though) from Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2. You can unlock secret skaters like Iron Man, Gene Simmons, and another skater. You can create your own goals like SKATE letters, COMBO letters, Tricktris, Gap, and much more. You can create the goal pedestrian and write what they speak. If you get bored of doing that, you can do the premade goals in premade parks. The only thing I didn't like about this game was that sometimes it was hard to drive the cars. 9/10. | pos |
I watched this movie knowing that it would be awful, but damned if it didn't break new and revolutionary ground in the field of making fecal matter acceptable as entertainment. The plot is Deep Rising with cruddy effects and HORRID acting. The lines in this...well...wow there really is no way to put this movie down because i think the words have yet to be created in the English language. The sad part is that the filmmakers thought they were actually making something good. You won't believe your eyes when you see how many movies they ripped off without even trying to hide it. There are scenes/plot devices straight out of Deep Rising, Alien, Jurassic Park, Predator, Jeepers Creepers, and the list could go on forever. However, unlike any of those movies this one just falls short of celluloid stool. The most incredulous thing about this film, aside from the way it tries to be competent but fails, is that Gimli him-freakin'-self is in it. How the hell can they afford John Rhys-Davies but not decent effects, writing, actors, or sets. Really awful...and not the type of bad that's good. | neg |
A female executioner (played by the sexy Jennifer Thomas II) has the fun job of fulfilling all the fantasies of all the men on death row before they meet their maker. And what a way to go. Lucky this film is not real, or we would have a lot more people in this world on death row.<br /><br />It starts out real slow. Low light and bad acting, like most (B) films. It gets better as it moves along. And ends with a bang.<br /><br />I would rate it very high on the low cost, very sexy movies of the 90's. It's a must see once the kids are away or in bed. | pos |
This documentary is such a wonderful example of what an entertaining and amazing experience a documentary can be, if done so well as this. The subject, Mark, is smart, funny and very driven, and this story of his personal fight to live his dreams will be inspiring to anyone who knows what it is like to harbor an "impossible" dream. See this mov | pos |
Actor Herman José plays the role of a football of a soccer entrepreneur that acquires the pass of two African players and tries to sell them for very little money to the rival club of the Benfica (club of its heart),FC Porto, therefore these players did not play well, and it wanted that the FC Port was wronged with this. But what happens is that these two players after all are good and FC Porto sell them for much money to a foreign club, making a good business. The film, for a small country as Portugal, without great antecedents in great films, is a very good and funny comedy, showing all the rivalry that exists between North/South of Portugal (FC Porto/Benfica). Highly recommended | pos |
This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen. What a weak waste of Michael Imperioli's obvious talent. Disgusting film from start to finish. All I can say is, this director is no 'auteur'. You never once get inside the game, the character's head, the amazing talent with numbers the real Stuey had. The coke scene is bad enough to throw your shoe at the set, it might have been a great scene had it been shot for movies and not the stage, with the camera half way across the house hovering over a mirror with drugs on it while the drama is going on far in the background. The scene where he wins the big championship is just laugh out loud ridiculous. This should be screened in Film-making 101 - What Not To Do In Making Pictures. | neg |
Most people will consider that Yul Brynner's greatest performance was as the ruler of Siam in THE KING AND I. Certainly it gave him a wide variety of moods to test his abilities in, from comic, to tragic, from eager to learn to dominating to hateful. It also showed him to advantage as a "talk singer" and a dancer. Finally, as it was also his Tony Award winning performance from Broadway, the film allowed us to capture something of the great Broadway performance as well.<br /><br />But he did other movies that showed his talents as well as THE KING AND I. His comic turn in ONCE MORE WITH FEELING was quite nice. So was his performance as General Bunin in ANASTASIA, or his Ramses in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Yet he came terribly close to being a 1950s successor to Eric Von Stroheim as "the man you love to hate." A certain vulnerability in his acting and roles endeared him to the movie public, even after his best years as a star were behind him - and he retreated more and more to repeating the King of Siam on television and the stage.<br /><br />To me, his finest performance is in this 1959 drama with Deborah Kerr, Jason Robards Jr., Robert Morley, E. G. Marshall, Anne Jackson, and Ronnie Howard. The film is set in pretty modern times - the powder-keg that was Hungary in 1956, when briefly it looked like the Iron Curtain was about to collapse there under the reforms of Hungarian patriot Imre Nagy and his supporters. But the Hungarian Revolution collapsed due to bad timing. The Russians and their Polish and East German allies sent tanks in to crush the revolt (and arrested and executed Nagy and other reformers). The West stood by and let this happen: England and France had gotten caught in the Suez crisis, and the U.S. had berated them and Israel for attacking Egypt. Due to the actions of three close allies of the U.S., the West found it hard to condemn the overkill of the Soviet Union. It was an unfortunate situation, and the Hungarians have never forgotten how they were abandoned in it.<br /><br />In the film Brynner is Major Surov, a Russian intelligence officer who is watching for some of the leaders of the Hungarian revolt, one of whom is Paul Kedes (Jason Robards). Kedes may be getting assistance from some westerners on a bus tour through Hungary, led by Robert Morley (including Marshall, Jackson, and Howard, and Kerr). The latter are being kept in a hotel while their bus is being repaired, and Brynner mingles with them, hoping for a lead to the whereabouts of Robards. But Brynner is human - he tries to be ingratiating with these people (all of whom see him as a monster), and in sequence, when he has drunk a little too much, he confronts them with the questions that has bothered historians since 1945: How is it (even if one notes that Russia had Stalin in charge) that relations between Russia and the West collapsed so quickly? The allies, on the whole, had worked well together from 1941 to 1945, but after Yalta and Potsdam all types of mutual suspicions just erupted. Did they have to? Surov is a good officer, but he is torn in half by loyalty to the Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and in Hungary that he supports, and his growing fondness towards Kerr, who is hiding Robards but is also willing to note the more human side of the Russian major. And as the film reaches it's tragic climax, we watch as Surov has to decide if he will follow his sense of duty, or take pity on Kerr, Robards, and the other westerners who want to leave. It becomes a true struggle for him - and one that he may win far too late. It was a great film about a tragedy of post war Europe, and possibly the most thoughtful role Yul Brynner ever portrayed. | pos |
Andy Goldsworthy is a taoist master of the first order, expressing the Way through his sublime ephemeral art. Indeed, time and change is what his work is fundamentally about. I bought his first book several years ago and my family has marveled at it many times. So it was a treat to get to know the artist personally through this film, he is just as patient and gentle as you would expect, and has some wonderful things to say about the natural world, the deepest of which are expressed in his occasional inability to say it in words at all. He is like most children who play in the great outdoors alone (if they do anymore), creating things from sticks and sand and mud and snow before they outgrow it. Mr. Goldsworthy was given the gift and the mission to extend that sort of play to create profound visions of nature, and to open our often weary eyes to it in brilliant new ways. And always with the utmost respect, gratitude and humor of a wandering, and wondering monk. | pos |
Count Laszlo (Ralph Fiennes) has just been transferred to a hospital in Italy during World War II. He is horrifically burned from an ambush. His nurse Hana (Juliette Binoche) tends to him, body and mind, for she fears, quite rightly, that he may be a very troubled soul. In the course of his care, the Count starts to tell Hana of his recent past. It seems he worked in a government capacity in Africa, where he met a beautiful married lady named Katherine (Kristin Scott Thomas). Although they tried to avoid each other, they fell in love. After a brief affair, Katherine called it quits, leaving the Count desolate. Even so, the two would meet again, under heart-wrenching circumstances. Meanwhile, Hana herself falls for a Sihk man in the British bomb squad. Yet, the war is raging relentlessly. Can love exist when the world is in turmoil? This is a tremendous film, based on an equally fine but complex novel. The plot has many story lines that are woven together beautifully, each of them poignant beyond description. The script itself is elegant and contains many memorable lines. Fiennes is magnificent, both as the burn victim and as the man who thought love was a myth. Scott Thomas is also quite fine as the woman who fights against her passions. As for Binoche, she richly deserved the Oscar that she was presented, as her nurse is a shining example of hope in a hopeless situation. The scenery is utterly gorgeous, as are the costumes, the direction, and the production. If you have missed out on viewing this film, rectify that soon, very soon. The English Patient will remain one of the greatest achievements in film for centuries to come. | pos |
As the '70's drew to a close, rumours began to fly in the entertainment industry about the possible return of Sean Connery to the role he had made famous back in 1962 - James Bond.<br /><br />Cubby Broccoli was asked on location in Brazil during the making of 'Moonraker' by the B.B.C.'s Barry Norman how he viewed the prospect. Understandably, the producer was reluctant to commit himself to an opinion.<br /><br />When 'Moonraker' opened, Bond fans were outraged by what they perceived to be a cheapening of the character, and the jumping onto the 'Star Wars' bandwagon much as 'Live & Let Die' had done with the blaxploitation craze a few years earlier. Many publicly vocalised their hope that Connery would return, if only to show Eon how a real Bond movie should look.<br /><br />Years of legal battles followed. The original script, entitled 'James Bond Of The Secret Service' ( later retitled 'Warhead' ) was written by Kevin McClory, Len Deighton, and Connery, was never filmed, and remains one of the great unmade movie blockbusters.<br /><br />A new script, closer to the 'Thunderball' storyline, was commissioned. It was written by Lorenzo Semple Junior, best known as the man who put the camp into 'Batman'. He had also written 'The Parallax View', one of the decade's finest conspiracy thrillers. Feeling the script needed a British touch, Connery brought in Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, writers of hit British sitcoms 'The Likely Lads' and 'Porridge'. The witty title was suggested by Connery's wife Micheline. <br /><br />'Never Say Never Again' opened just before Christmas 1983 to a shower of critical praise; normally sensible critics were so ecstatic at Connery's return they ignored all other aspects of the film. Many used it to viciously attack the Roger Moore series, particularly that year's 'Octopussy'. In truth, 'Octopussy' is superior in every respect. 'Never' lacks the excitement and spectacle one associates with Bond, at times it looks like a made-for-T.V. movie. The story had been done before and better in 1965's 'Thunderball', hence 'Never' was always going to come off second best. It was also hampered by not being part of the official series, meaning that Monty Norman's 'James Bond Theme' and Maurice Binder's gun-barrel logo could not be used. <br /><br />As Bond, Connery is magnificent, effortlessly stepping back into his most famous role. Playing Bond as an older, wiser agent worked. Barbara Carrera landed her best movie role as villainous 'Fatima Blush', a lady whose love for murder is such she dances after ( so she thinks ) killing Bond. Kim Basinger smolders as 'Domino'. As S.P.E.C.T.R.E. agent 'Maximillian Largo', Klaus Maria Brandauer gives a chilling performance. A major disappointment though is Max Von Sydow as 'Blofeld'. The posters gave the impression he would be a major character, in fact he appears only in a few scenes. With a stronger script, he could have been one of the all-time great Bond villains. <br /><br />'Never' promised to be a throwback to the early Eon Bonds such as 'From Russia With Love', but did not deliver. The gadgets were there, but were used almost apologetically. Bond's rocket-firing motorcycle was a tired gimmick even in the '60's. The film tried to compete with Eon's Bonds in terms of humour. Bond saving himself by throwing his own urine sample into an assassin's face is a farcical a moment as any you will find in 'Moonraker'. But the nadir comes with the introduction of Rowan Atkinson as bumbling Foreign Office official 'Nigel Small-Fawcett'. He gives a performance so staggeringly awful you wonder if he thought he was in a Footlights revue. <br /><br />Michel Legrand's music is horrible, the man seems to never to have seen a Bond film in his life. <br /><br />Though the film was a financial success, viewed years later it stands as the weakest Bond of the '80's. Connery himself was disappointed with it, and not did act in a movie again for some years.<br /><br />1983 was a good year for 007 maniacs, in addition to the Connery and Moore movies, George Lazenby did a delightful cameo in the made-for-T.V. 'Return Of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.: The Fifteen Years Later Affair'. | pos |
As a rule, I try to find as much in films as I possibly can to enjoy them. I made no exceptions with "Tart", doing my very best to appreciate it for what it was. But no effort, no matter how great, could possibly redeem this pitiful excuse for a movie.<br /><br />It failed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the cinematography was directionless and ineffective. Secondly, the script reached depths of 'poor' that took it well and truly beyond the 'so bad it's good' category. Thirdly, the acting left mind-blowing amounts to be desired - it was appalling, it really was. Anyone who saw Mischa Barton (seen here as the remarkably terrible Grace, a character so poorly invented and realised that Ja Ja Binks doesn't seem so bad) as Devon in John Duigan's "Lawn Dogs" will wonder what went wrong between then and now. Perhaps, had she been given a character worth bothering with, and a modicum of direction, she at least might have given this film ONE redeeming feature. Alas, such was not the case. Finally, the film seemed to have no point whatsoever, expressing nothing, achieving nothing. Really, I wonder why Christina Wayne bothered.<br /><br />"Tart" made a feeble attempt to be something, and failed. The result - a film, sadly, so bad that it's just very, very bad. Don't bother - it really isn't worth it. | neg |
This movie seems to send the wrong message. There can be morality without using Christ. Poeple of other religions, I believe, can get into heaven. I am a Catholic who goes to church every week, but I do not agree with such Christian arrogance. This is the worst time travel movie I have ever seen and I've seen Timeline. | neg |
Stephen Sondheim's SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET opened on Broadway on 1 March 1979 with Len Cariou and Angela Lansbury in the leading roles. Although it swept virtually every award imaginable, the box office fell short of expectations and the original production ended its run at 557 performances. Fortunately, however, the play then went on tour--and along the way was captured on film. The result is a remarkable capture of the play featuring George Hern, who replaced Cariou, and Lansbury in a close approximation of the original Broadway staging.<br /><br />There is, however, a flaw. Simply stated: stage plays do not film very well, for a performance that works well on the stage must fill the theatre and is therefore very, very large--and when placed on film such performances often seem slightly static, oppressively aggressive, or both. SWEENEY TODD is no exception. Seen on film, it has a "stand and sing" quality, and while both Hern and Lansbury seem to have modulated their performances for the sake of the camera such is not the case with Betsy Joslyn as Joanna; her larger-than-life performance reads on film as unpleasantly frantic and her extremely operatic voice feels out of place when contrasted with the voices of the overall cast.<br /><br />Taking this stage-play-on-film effect into consideration, however, this really is an exceptional performance of a unique and macabrely comic musical in the operetta style. Lansbury is astonishing, a mixture of silliness, stupidity, and cunning malice, while Hern truly owns the role of the psychotic barber whose clients "go to their graves impeccably shaved." The overall cast is quite fine and although the film does not let us see quite enough of the set, there is enough on display for it to be impressive. And the music! Who can argue with what most consider Sondheim's finest work? The story itself is extremely well-known, particularly in England. In 1846 Thomas Peckett Prest cobbled together several urban myths for a short story he titled A STRING OF PEARLS; within a year or so it was adapted to the stage as SWEENEY TODD, THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET--and, in an era that knew little of copyright law, variations of the play were soon playing all over England. Each one, however, was more or less the same: Sweeney Todd, a barber, kills the men who come to him for a shave; Mrs. Lovett, his associate, bakes them up into pies and feeds them to an unsuspecting public. The Sondheim version is specifically based on a 1973 version by Christopher Bond.<br /><br />The story is very Grand Guignol, with a lot of blood, bodies dropping down chutes, and grotesque humor; at the same time, however, the music, lyrics, and subplot of an innocent in the clutches of evil open out the subject to numerous lyric charms one would not expect. Sondheim's lyrics are often ironic, but never more so than here; he intertwines a great deal of wicked satire re industry and capitalism along the way, and certainly one cannot fault the strange yet Victorian-elegant of his complex music.<br /><br />Like the "concert version" starring Hern and Patti LuPone, this particular film also provides us with several selections that were cut from the 2007 Tim Burton film version, most particularly the opening "Attend the Tale of Sweeney Todd," which runs like a thread throughout the play. It is also, in my opinion, considerably more comic than the film, which tends to underplay comedy in favor of a still greater show of blood. Whatever the case, if you are a fan of the story, this is the legendary Broadway show on tour, and it is a knock-out. Recommended.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer | pos |
Well, i could nt get into the plot, but thats just me maybe. Listless camera-movements at times, nevertheless this movie has got a charming vintage quality.The acting is genuine at times and entertaining with the occasional chase sequence involving scantily clad ladies, which was nice. The climax is confused and disjointed, but still ...err riveting, thanx to Stella Stevens.<br /><br />The stunts are interesting, specially because of the 70's las vegas backdrop. There are a few jerky hand-held camera-movements at the end, which keep me guessing, for a while. But i don't think I ll b chasing the DVD, just yet. | neg |
I just saw this movie for the second time with my 8-year-old daughter and I remembered why we liked it the first time. All these people who say it is bad are too uptight and critical! It is simply an entertaining little movie, it's not supposed to change the world. I thought all the actors did a great job with their characters. (Except for Jeremy Jordan as Guy--he was a maggot who looked seriously in need of soap and shampoo. If HE is supposed to be the hot guy in their school, then they've got slim pickins'.) But I digress--Drew Barrymore was delightful, as usual, and David Arquette was even enjoyable, and I usually can't stomach him, if only because of those STUPID AT&T commercials! Molly Shannon is always entertaining, and Leelee Sobieski did a great job as a tortured brain. Some parts were actually painful to watch, reminding me of high school. Even though I thankfully didn't get made fun of, it made my heart ache for those who do. Movies like this are actually good for children to see--my daughter made several observations about the cruelty of some of the students and how wrong it was. This movie is appropriate for anyone and a good way to while away 2 hours. If there's ever a time you want to see a lighthearted little movie with a happy ending where you don't have to think very much, then this is definitely a consideration. | pos |
Bloody marvelous. Recommended by a friend who knew I liked Thomas Kretschmann in The Pianist and Downfall. I loved the flow of the narrative - how the characters moved from hope and ideals of valour through shock, fear, disintegration, desperation and utter annihilation. A first rate anti-war movie that must have created quite the stir in Germany. Not a proud moment for anyone and the study of a generation lost. This movie was excellent at conveying the remove of the command from the ground troops and in pounding the utter futility of trying to control untamed nature and the Russian psyche. If I didn't know I would have thought it was a Russian movie it was so fatalistic. What an uncompromising ending. A pieta. | pos |
Hello, can anybody hear me? I don't know why you came to this page, but if you're a fellow viewer of this movie: join the fanclub! This movie was so unbelievably bad I couldn't stop laughing when I saw it. I think it's a must see, it's bad in a nice way. Every cliche ever invented for a horror movie can be seen here. I'm afraid it's very hard to get a copy of this movie, but it should be in the top 10 of worst movies ever made. | neg |
A group of people goes deep into the jungle for various reasons, and finally find a lost city (where apparently King Solomon's Diamonds are) and a race of super-gorilla's... Now, you know you're in trouble when you put fine actors like Linney and Curry in one movie that stars... a talking gorilla, and that is just the beginning. Okay, what else...?<br /><br />For an action/adventure movie the film is... well, lacking just that. The first hour (!) of the movie they aren't even in the jungle, just trying to get there, with subplot after subplot (something about a local military regime, whatever), and when they finally do... it's just no fun anymore.<br /><br />The effects of the movie are only so-and-so (and really bad compared to the earlier Jurassic Park movie).<br /><br />Now, the ending... The father not caring for the death of his son, but just interested in the diamonds? Uh-huh... only in the movies folks, only in the movies.<br /><br />A complete waste of talent, this Chricton (Jurassic Park, Twister, ER) adaptation. 2/10. | neg |
I see that C. Thomas Howell has appeared in many movies since his heyday in the 80s as an accomplished young actor.<br /><br />I bought this DVD because it was cheap and in part for the internet-related plot and to see how much older C. Thomas Howell is; I do not recall seeing him in any movies since the 1980s.<br /><br />In just a few words: what a very big disappointment. I give some low budget movies a chance, but this one started out lame. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, this elusive woman is chatting with an Asian guy in a chatroom. They basically stimulate themselves to their own chat, she then insists on meeting the participant in person. She meets him, has sex, ties him up and then murders him in cold blood. The plot then deteriorates further.<br /><br />The plot is thin and flimsy and the acting is very stiff. Do not bother renting it much less purchasing it, even if it is in the $1 DVD bin. I plan to take my copy of the DVD to Goodwill. I am truly amazed that any of the prior reviewers here gave this movie a bad rating. | neg |
I watched the unrated version of this movie and as a person who has studied the life and crimes of Speck closely, I must say this movie is a flawed but ambitious take on the real story. While capturing the true horror of Speck and the murders this film makes the following factual errors. 1. Speck did not inject drugs at the crime scene as depicted in the movie. In fact he was mainly an alcoholic and pill popper who rarely took drugs via syringe. 2. The Asian nurse who survived Speck's massacre did not squirm her way down stairs and under the couch in the living room as depicted in the movie. This would have been impossible. In real life she hid under a bed while Speck methodically eliminated his 8 victims. 3. The movie depicts Speck as being violent and brutal with the women as soon as he meets them. Not true. In reality Speck was at first calm and gentle, reassuring the women he wasn't going to hurt them. This is how he was able to tie each of them up. 4. The real Richard Speck was not the deep thinker the movie depicts him to be. FBI profiler Robert Ressler interviewed Speck in the 80's and said that Speck not only DID'NT know why he committed the murders but that he wasn't interested in learning why nor could he shed any light on why. Speck was known to be of below average intelligence and not the philosopher king who narrates this movie. If the story wasn't so tragic and horrifying, the voice over would be laughable. All in all, Doug Cole's performance is adequately menacing and cold-blooded even though I don't think the real Speck was so forward in his violence. No doubt he was a very violent person when under the influence but he was also known, after all, for being a fairly slick con man who was able to put people at ease before victimizing them. Beverly Ann Sotelo's performance as the surviving nurse is the finest in the film. She is a very good actress. If you are at all squeamish, do not see this film. It's very graphic and disturbing. | neg |
I think the film makes a subtile reference to rouge of Kieslowski, as the whole atmosphere gives me a feeling of red. It seems to be that a lot of the backgrounds contain red, think of the tea-room f.e. I also think this is one of the greatest movies of the last years. | pos |
Ridiculous. This movie is actually a vehicle for the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. If you are wondering who the *bleep* Ramtha is: "Ramtha is a 35,000 year-old spirit-warrior who appeared in J.Z. Knight's kitchen in Tacoma, Washington in 1977. Knight claims that she is Ramtha's channel. She also owns the copyright to Ramtha and conducts sessions in which she pretends to go into a trance and speaks Hollywood's version of Elizabethan English in a guttural, husky voice. She has thousands of followers and has made millions of dollars performing as Ramtha at seminars ($1,000 a crack) and at her Ramtha School of Enlightenment, and from the sales of tapes, books, and accessories (Clark and Gallo 1993). She must have hypnotic powers. Searching for self-fulfillment, otherwise normal people obey her command to spend hours blindfolded in a cold, muddy, doorless maze." John Wheeler, one of America's finest theoretical physicists, would roll his eyes about this movie. He has in the recent past criticized parapsychologists for their misuse and misinterpretations of quantum theory. This movie does the same thing as those fools.<br /><br />There is a great review of this movie at Skeptico. I recommend anyone considering watching this movie read it first before contributing to a cult's coffers.<br /><br />http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html I noticed one reviewer here at IMDb say to take this movie with a grain of salt. It will take enough salt to kill a horse to wade through the garbage-thinking of this movie. | neg |
The late 80's saw an inexplicable rash of supernatural horror films set in gloomy penitentiary settings. Renny Harlin's superbly gritty and moody "Prison" got the whole haunted hoosegow ball rolling; it was immediately followed by the markedly inferior "The Chair," John Saxon's enjoyably trashy "Death House," the passable psycho picture "Destroyer," and this hideously limp'n'lethargic exercise in hopelessly comatose tedium. <br /><br />Your usual annoying collection of horribly unsympathetic college student chowderheads lead by insufferably spineless tormented twerp Alex (the hugely unappealing Nicholas Celozzi) go to Alcatraz Island to investigate the bizarre circumstances surrounding the sudden gruesome death of up-and-coming rock star Sammy Mitchell (blandly played by Toni Basil of "Hey Micky" fame). Alex's brother becomes possessed by the evil demonic spirit of a vicious cannibalistic US Civil War cavalry commandant and goes on the expected killing spree, thus forcing wimpy Alex to overcome his passivity and make a stand against this ghoulish specter.<br /><br />Although slickly photographed by Nicholas Von Sternberg, with a few decent gore set pieces and a fair amount of spooky atmosphere (the film was shot on location in the dismal, rusty, rundown ruins of Alcatraz Island), "Slaughterhouse rock" nonetheless just doesn't cut it as a solid, effective fright feature. This is largely due to the uniformly obnoxious and unlikeable collegiate smartaleck characters, a tiresomely smirky bunch whose inane comic antics prove to be grating rather than amusing. The flat acting from a noticeably disinterested cast hurts matters all the more, with onetime "Playboy" playmate and undeniable blonde cutie pie hottie supreme Hope Marie Carlton doing an especially irritating Linnea Quigley impersonation as the token oversexed nympho bimbo. Dimitri Logothetis' direction displays a modicum of flashy visual style, but the tone is unevenly pitched between grim seriousness and goofy, horrendously sophomoric silliness, and, most damagingly, Ted Landon's sloppy, inconsistent, overly complicated and finally quite confusing script miserably fails to develop the necessary internal logic to make the far-fetched story even remotely plausible. In other words, this stinker sadly succeeds in making a scant 90 minutes seem like an excruciatingly drawn-out cinematic jail sentence. | neg |
I agree with the majority of the comments I have seen written. I grew up watching Seseme Street before a lot of the people who have written comments were even born. I was born in 1964, so I was 5-yrs-old when Seseme Street was introduced to television. The show taught me my numbers (The Count), spelling (the Muppet), and about life. I liked all the old characters (Big Bird, Oscar, Grover, and Cookie Monster) and don't quite understand why they had to change. I understand that everything has to change in some way, but to make Cookie Monster into a "veggie monster" to promote healthy eating. The show has introduced new characters and monsters since it's inception, why not make a separate "veggie monster" that talks/discusses the benefits of eating a varied diet with Cookie Monster. But, back to my point. I grew up watching the very beginning of Seseme Street, my now 20 yr-old daughter grew up watching SS with me along side her, and we discussed Mr. Hooper dying, although he had died prior to her being born, as well as other topics on the show. I saw the episode as a older child, and still remember how well they portrayed the event, much like real life. And I'm sure it hit the cast extremely hard as all deaths and losses effect families. You saw this on the show and it allowed parents and children to discuss very difficult events. The show has talked about traditional families, adoptive families and combined families. It's one of the few shows that actually discusses these scenarios. I now have a 5 yr-old daughter who really doesn't watch SS. I've tried to watch the show a couple of times, but, it really is not what it used to be. The Elmo 1/2 hr with Mr. Noodle is absolutely ridiculous. Like many people have said, it doesn't teach anything. It's geared for the less than 18 month old (maybe), and isn't even funny. I always prided myself on watching SS as a child, teen, and adult with my own child. Now on my second go-round, I really have a hard time watching SS. The topics that were discussed: death, marriage, non-traditional families, new to neighborhoods, moving away were related to children and adults in a manner easy for 2-99 year old to understand and relate to. Now, there are NO concepts taught, minimal counting, only the occasional mention of the alphabet. It is NOT the same SS, from an original watcher of the show. PLEASE if any producers from the show read these comments, return the show to its foundation. New concepts have never been a problem with SS, they just used to have a better way to incorporate them into the show. | neg |
It is rare that one comes across a movie as flawless as this. It's truly one of the best acted, most tightly structured films I've ever seen. Every line of dialogue can be interpreted in several ways, relating to each of the three main characters differently. The film weaves an intrinsic web of motivations and double crosses that snare you and refuse to let go. Add to this that the slow-burning romance between Kevin and Faye is as moving as anything that's ever been committed to celluloid and you have the ingredients for a perfect film. It exposes the romance of movies such as "Titanic" as the trite cliches they are. If you're looking for a movie to watch while you fold laundry, this isn't it. You have to commit yourself to this film. You can't have a conversation while running in and out of the room. This movie demands your attention. Treat it with the respect you deserve and you'll get a lot out of it. Unless you think "Titanic" is the greatest film ever. | pos |
Yes, this bizarre feature was written by John Sayles. Shot in Toronto, it's yet another '80s era feature about the dangers of the urban jungle, where the police fear to go and the homeless and the criminal classes are the only inhabitants. Into this mix comes the myth of Wild Thing, a feral young man raised by a bag lady after his parents were murdered by a dirty cop on the take (Maury Chaykin) and Chopper, the local crime lord (Robert Davi). Stir in the local do-gooders (priest Sean Hewitt and clueless social worker Kathleen Quinlan), and you have a recipe for some rather unexciting action sequences. Davi is the standout amongst the cast, and cinematographer Rene Verzier does a pretty good job. Otherwise this is a rather lumpen action pic that won't satisfy action fans and will leaves Sayles' admirers slack-jawed. | neg |
I think this movie is my favorite movie. I am not sure why, but it is. Julia Duffy has been my favorite actress for awhile, and when I saw this, I went crazy. It's sort of romantic, and I definitely recommend this movie. | pos |
One of the best documentaries released in recent years. Some points...<br /><br />1. Hugo Chavez was elected Venezuela's president in 1998, his support largely coming from the poorer regions of Venezuela.<br /><br />2. In 2002, a coup briefly deposed Chavez. At the time, Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were in Caracas, shooting a documentary about Chavez for British television. Their film deconstructs the coup and its aftermath, and electrifyingly records history unfolding on-the-spot, outside and inside the presidential palace.<br /><br />3. Chavez aimed to free Venezuela from the free-market policies imposed on it by the US. Though Venezuela's oil was already state-owned, it was run for private benefit by executives who Chavez wished to replace.<br /><br />4. Despite being the world's fourth largest oil supplier, Venezuela remains swamped by poverty, its resources literally sucked away by foreign multinational corporations.<br /><br />5. The documentary begins by portraying Chavez's first years as president before the coup. It focuses on his popularity with the poor, and his various policies which proved popular with working class locals (educational plans, distribution of the oil revenue, grass-root democracy etc).<br /><br />6. Chavez was a huge proponent of education, and printed thousands of copies of the Venezuelan constitution, encouraging children and adults to study and understand it.<br /><br />7. When Chavez came to power, he immediately pledged to redistribute oil profits. This, understandably, made the oil companies nervous.<br /><br />8. A media-war broke out. The six private TV stations promptly began opposing the state-run TV station. They questioned Chavez's motives, sanity and sexual orientation.<br /><br />9. Without media support, the coup would not have been successful. The film makes it clear that coups rely heavily on the media to disseminate information and that news can be easily fabricated.<br /><br />10. Under the guise of "re-establishing democracy", the opposition silenced the state-run TV station, dissolved the National Electoral Board, Supreme Court, National Assembly and took control of the military.<br /><br />11. Moneyed interests, backed by the military elite (encouraged by the US and CIA), organised a citizens' march on the presidential palace to effect the coup. Snipers shot at Chávez supporters, but the private media stations edited footage so it appeared that return fire was aimed at the opposition march that in fact had been safely diverted.<br /><br />12. Police went on a shooting rampage against Chavez supporters, further bloodying the streets.<br /><br />13. Chavez, held captive, refused to resign. Of course the media/government then lied, saying he had resigned, but Chavez's cabinet members communicated the truth to the international community, which eventually got the message back to Venezuela by cable TV.<br /><br />14. The people rose up, pressuring the return of the president they had elected, whom only a referendum could constitutionally replace.<br /><br />8.9/10 - At a little over an hour long, this doc is far too short. Nevertheless, its an engrossing piece of journalism and deals with a form of "media warfare" which rarely gets touched upon. Makes a great companion piece to "The Battle of Algiers".<br /><br />Worth one viewing. | pos |
In theory, films should be a form of entertainment. While this excludes documentaries and other experimental forms of film-making; most movies, specially genre films, must not only tell it's story or message, they must entertain their target audience in some way. All this just to say that in my opinion a bad movie is not a movie with low production values or low-budget, a bad movie is one that is boring.<br /><br />"Hellborn" or "Asylum of the Damned" as is known in the U.S., is a bad movie simply because it is just not involving, and irremediably boring and tiresome. While it has a very good premise, it is just poorly developed and the mediocre acting doesn't make things better. On another hands the film probably could had been a fine or even classic B-movie, but here it is just a bad attempt at film-making.<br /><br />Director Philip J. Jones tells the tale of James Bishop (Matt Stasi), a young psychiatry resident, who just got his dream job at St. Andrew Mental Hospital; but the old asylum seems to hide a secret. After the mysterious death of some patients and the constant rumors of satanic practices, James decides to find out what is going on; only to find the incredulity of his boss, Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne), who believes that Bishop is going as insane as his patients.<br /><br />While the premise is quite interesting, the execution of the film leaves a lot to be desired. In an attempt of making a supernatural psychological thriller, Jones goes for the easy way out and makes a movie filled with every cliché of the genre. Of course, there are lots of great movies that are also filled with clichés; but in "Hellborn" every single one is wasted and turned into a cheap jump scare to keep things moving, resulting in a boring and predictable storyline.<br /><br />The acting is quite mediocre for the most part, with one big exception: Bruce Payne gives a top-notch performance that makes the movie look unworthy of such good acting. Matt Stasi is very weak as the lead character and the rest of the cast make forgettable performances.<br /><br />Despite all this flaws, one thing has to be written about "Hellborn"; it has a visual look very good for the budget and very similar to modern day big-budget Hollywod "horror" productions. Also, the make-up and prosthetics are done very nicely and the designs for the main antagonist are quite good. Sadly, the rest of the Special Effects are awful and outdated, making a huge contrast with the make-up & prosthetics.<br /><br />"Hellborn" is a movie with a few good things outnumbered by its serious flaws with terrible results. Hardcore horror or b-movie fans may be interested by its premise but it is a boring and tiresome experience. 3/10 | neg |
First, I realize that a "1" rating is supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst. This movie gets that from me because, as one reviewer points out, it's not bad in a self-aware, over-the-top sort of way that might allow it to have some comic or cult value. It simply misses its mark on every count. **Contains possible spoilers** The dialog is completely disingenuous. The continuity is so deliberate it's painful. Daniel just finishes speaking of his lost love, and with his final word the flamenco dancers start. The mock-shock of what's her name (see? I don't even remember her character's name, let alone the name of the forgettable actress) when her husband (the Baldwin) first tells her that her friend is the bad guy. The car and the motorcycle chases did all the right things. Vegetable carts gone flying. Cars crashing into each other. Motorcycles going down the stairs. People nearly being hit, but remarkably, no one is. Oh, that's right... except for the one guy who has been stabbed several times, is obviously stumbling along the curb with knife wounds, and an approaching car apparently didn't notice him there. Hmmm. <br /><br />It's becoming more and more remarkable to me that movies like this can be made. There is so much pressure in the film industry to make money, you'd think that someone in Hollywood would think of making good films worth seeing. Now there's a novel idea. <br /><br />My suggestion: don't see this film. Don't rent the DVD. Don't watch it on cable. There are lots of other things you could be doing that will leave you feeling more satisfied. | neg |
Robert Altman's "Quintet" is a dreary, gloomy, hard to follow thriller where you finally give up after awhile because it's so complicated.<br /><br />I remember seeing this at my local twin on opening weekend with a full house. By the time the picture ended it was less than a quarter full. Never have I witnessed such a mass exodus without there being an emergency to drive people out. That should tell you how bad it is. I believe it to be the worst film ever made involving such major talent in front of and behind the camera. | neg |
I really liked this movie, it totally reminds me of my high school days. The soundtrack is awesome. I am a huge nic cage fan and this is my favorite movie that he is in. I love the storyline, it is a total love story, against the odds kind of thing. I think anyone who graduated in the early eighties (1980-1984) should see the movie. It totally brought back memories of high school for me. | pos |
I first saw a poster advertising this film on a street in Helsinki, Finland in June of 2000. What caught my attention was the proud proclamation advising all readers that the movie, although itself French, had been "Banned in France". Upon returning home to New York, I discovered that one of the "Art House" movie theaters in the City was screening the film, and so (with my Finnish fiancee) decided to see what all the fuss was about. Boy, did we ever.<br /><br />From the comments read here, and the reviews I knew the movie was violent and sexually explicit. Not necessarily offended by either of these two conditions, I went with an open mind to see what had perturbed the sensibilities of our Gallic cousins. Presumably, as anyone who is reading this will know, the story involves two women who embark on a crime and murder spree in France (the movie has English subtitles). The resemblance to "Thelma and Louise" however, ends with that; the sex is unusually graphic (and in copious supply) as is the violence (a lot of stomping to death, and a lot of blood and other organic matter splattering after bullet impact).<br /><br />On an intellectual level, one could make the case that the film's very essence is the relationship of sex and violence (as manifested by the only sex these women know: one is a small-time prostitute, and the other has earned money from time to time by performing in pornographic films. When they, during their descent into crime and murder, have the upper hand over their sexual situations, they react only with the same violence and brutality that they themselves know and understand. It is important to note, however, that the victims of their rampage are not only creepy men interested in creepy sex, (of which there are several)but innocent passersby, a woman at an ATM, for example, as well.<br /><br />I myself do not really understand why the repeated "porn-movie" shots were all that necessary, (except to depict the physical contact as cruel, unpassionate and debased) and the unrelenting gore did get rather tedious after the first few violent spasms.<br /><br />It is a coarse and crude movie, but in fairness, it is dealing with coarse and crude people and equally unpleasant circumstances. From one point of view, the lives of the French underclasses is explored, and it's pretty grim; a travelogue for France it definitely is not- perhaps that's why the French banned it.<br /><br /> | neg |
Boasting the title for the sickest film ever made, PINK FLAMINGOS is an undisputed classic. Sure, the camerawork is shaky and off-center, the story is muddled and slow-paced, and every single character in the movie is repugnant and despicable, but PINK FLAMINGOS has a certain playful charm and brilliant satiric wit that no other movie can match.<br /><br />While this film is indeed an offensive one, reading descriptions of what goes on in the movie is much worse than actually seeing it. Only John Waters can succeed in making rape, murder, sadism, cannibalism, coprophagia, and just about every other form of human debauchery known to man seem absolutely hilarious. This movie must be seen to be believed. | pos |
Out to Sea was a great movie. I expected comedy and from about 10 minutes into the film to the end, there was comedy, and laughing points. Jack and Walter are great together, and the addition of Rue McClanahan made it a wonderful movie, that should be seen over and over again. | pos |
I enjoyed the Mr. Magoo cartoons I saw while growing up. And I enjoy Leslie Nielson's comic skills. So, I thought, this marriage must produce a funny child.<br /><br />I couldn't have been more wrong.<br /><br />This movie was just awful. I don't recall a single funny moment. This is one of the two or three times (in hundreds of films over the years) I've wanted my money back. You will leave this film dejected because you won't ever have that time back to use in a better way. In a comedy, the plot must draw in the viewer and serve as a framework for gags. This plot does neither. It just kinda lies there, gasping like a beached fish. | neg |
As someone who has never condescended Adam Sandler in terms of talent, as is done to him and many comic actors like him, I walked in to Reign Over Me expecting a great film, not simply because of his presence in the movie but because I thought that it looked very good overall. Even someone who already thought that Sandler could deliver an effective dramatic performance is writing here that I was surprised at how fantastic he is in it. He will make you weep, especially in his purposefully sudden and unexpected monologue. What's amazing about his role is that it's a character it's hard to say we've seen before. We've seen many emotionally scarred characters, many mentally retarded people, many loners, many passionate self-centered artists, but Sandler's Charlie Fineman is none of these. He may have a taste of each of them in some ways, but his character is truly unpredictable and completely individual. It's a joy for the audience to be drawn in emotionally by him and be tugged every which way by someone whose problems, mindset, and provocations are completely different from most characters like him.<br /><br />Don Cheadle delivers an interesting performance on a completely different level. He is every man. He is the most normal possible person in the world, so much so that you will hardly find many characters like his either, or at least any that are played the way he plays Alan Johnson, whose name is even found on the assembly line. Cheadle is brilliant in that he is funny, jolting, smart, and stupid the way so many normal people are.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is populated by actors and actresses who've hardly done anything in awhile in smaller but quite colorful roles. Jada Pinkett-Smith is the overly refined upper middle class wife, Donald Sutherland is the impatient but surprising judge, Robert Klein is Sandler's desensitized father-in-law.<br /><br />Mike Binder's script is quite brilliant because it says something quite profound about the wonders of communication in all of its guises. It's much more subtle than, say, Babel, and has a much more close-to-home ideal.<br /><br />The camera is only interested in the reality of its images as opposed to the mere style. This film struck me as sort of a sendback to the kitchen-sink style of the 1970s. Cinematography was grainy and unfastened, but that was its charm. It wasn't about attracting us to the camera itself and the gloss that would've diluted its stories with such.<br /><br />The music, which plays a major role in the film, and its title, is very powerful. Near the beginning, you feel like you're in for another About Schmidt or Little Miss Sunshine sort of soundtrack, but you soon realize you're in for more than that. In fact, the film is packed with lots of music that stimulates a lot of the most emotional scenes.<br /><br />Reign Over Me is a major statement not only for society but also for film itself. It goes to show that even the director of Blankman is capable of wonders. | pos |
This is one of those rare comedies where try as you might, you can't help but giggle, chortle, guffaw and yes, even laugh out loud. The lead actor's performance as Hyde is pure manic genius. See if you can keep a straight face when he does his transformation. Good luck. :) On the downside there are times when the movie does bog down. It seemed longer than its 90 minutes. | pos |
This was a crappy movie, with a whole lotta non-sense and too many loose-ends to count. I only watched this movie because one of my favorite actors (Ron Livingston) made a cameo in it, and I continued watching it because as a girl, I love any movie that includes male nudity for a change. Later, I found myself wondering just how much more ridiculous the storyline could get, and each time it got...more... ridiculous.<br /><br />Sean Crawley (good-looking Chris L. McKenna, whom I've never seen before - but LOVED his little nude scene)is making ends meet as a painter, when he meets electrician Duke Wayne (George Wendt from "Cheers"). Thinking he's getting more work from Duke, Sean agrees to meet contractor Ray Matthews (Daniel Baldwin, playing a stereotypically evil guy). Ray is being investigated by a City Hall accountant (Ron Livingston in a cameo, who I've been in love with from "Office Space" up to "Sex & the City"). Ray end up offering the apparently desperate-for- cash Sean $13k to kill the accountant, and Sean accepts the job. Sean stalks out the accountant, whose wife (Kari Wuhrer) he finds himself attracted to, completes the hit, and leaves - taking the file of information against Ray with him. Sean quickly learns he was being used, that Ray never intended to pay him, and Sean uses the file as leverage to get his money.<br /><br />Up to this point, it's a descent flick...generally worth watching. But as soon as Ray, Duke and their crew kidnap Sean to muscle the information about the file out of him, it just got dumber and dumber (and still DUMBER...), until finally it seemed like the film's writer, Charlie Higson, had snapped out of a 10-day writing hangover and realized he needed to desperately figure out how to wrap up the series of implausible messes he created before a deadline or something. Without simply detailing the movie, let's just say that in every-single-scene you watch after the kidnapping, you find yourself gasping "what the f**K!," baffled by the ongoing nonsense as Sean follows a fairly graphic and gross path towards redemption. In the end, so many loose-ends are left in the movie, that you begin to regret that you even watched it.<br /><br />This is a movie that you should only watch after it hits cable, and you should have enough beer and friends around to mock the film to it's full value. It's supposed to be a psychological thriller, and McKenna is a decent actor, but it's hard to give yourself to the movie when you have "Norm" from "Cheers" and a Baldwin brother doing the dirty work, and a kidnapping strategy that really makes no damned sense. Guys will love the violence, blood and guts scenes, and the absolutely unnecessary sex scenes and boob shots. Girls will enjoy handsome Sean's gratuitous crotch shot in a mainstream movie, when its almost always the girls that get stripped down in a movie. Personally, I hate that the only actor worth watching for more than his looks (Ron Livingston) is only in the first one-third of the movie. | neg |
When people ask me whats the worst movie I've ever seen its this one. Its not even close to MST3k level riffing, or midnight viewing at a theatre, or even as Disney channel late night filler. The only time I've ever wanted to jump off a ride at Disney World (or Disney/MGM Studios in this case) was to grab Dick Tracey's jacket off the mannequin, rip it to shreds, and ram it down the tour guides throat saying "Eat this! Eat this unholy coat of darkness!!!" I've never been so mad at a movie, not even "Nutty Professor II: The Klumps" or "Flash Gordon". You want pretty colors and cinematography? Ain't here babe. Reviewers keep saying "oh, but its too look like a comic book", well, to me, its the color of a Gordito after several weeks in the sun. About as enjoyable too. Beatty wanders around this landscape jumping around and talking to his watch, himself, and occasional at the other actors, hoping someone will tell him what time the sequel will begin shooting. To be fair, I have only seen this movie once, but my pain threshold is that of a man, not a God. | neg |
This is not a bad film. It is not wildly funny, but it is interesting and<br /><br />entertaining. It has a few funny moments. Cher gives a good<br /><br />performance in a role that is very opposite her real-life self. Her<br /><br />performance alone is worth the watch. If this movie had come out<br /><br />today it would not have been nominated, but by '80s standards it<br /><br />was excellent. | pos |
Put the film down and back slowly away. The acting rivals a highschool play, the plot is treadworn, and the production values are slightly higher than community theater. The goofs are so plentiful that it becomes a laugher. Rooms are switched around, the dead move, dogs are used for wolves, men shot point blank with .45 caliber pistols are able to walk and ride snowmobiles, blouses button and unbutton without human touch... this is a baaaaaaaaaddddddd movie. I nearly passed out when I saw the average rating. There is no accounting for taste. BTW, there is no nudity. | neg |
<br /><br />Whether any indictment was intended must be taken into consideration. If in the year 2000 there were still rifts of feeling between Caucasian and Afro-Americans in Georgia, such as shown in this film, obviously there remains a somewhat backward mentality among a lot of people out there. It is rather hypocritical, to say the least, if everyone adores Halle Berry, Whoopie Goldberg, Beyoncé, Noemi Campbell, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, et. al., whilst out in the backs there persist manifest racial divides.<br /><br />White grandmother suddenly gets black grand-daughter thrust upon her, only to meet up with black grandfather in a very white social backwater. The story is sweet, not lacking tragic overtones, and eminently predictable as in most of these kinds of TV films, though the final scene has you guessing............ will he? won't he.......?<br /><br />Gena Rowlands in her typical style offers a sincere rendering, and Louis Gossett is a good match for her; the little Penny Bae fortunately does not steal the show.<br /><br />A `nice' way of relaxing after Sunday lunch without having to force your mind too much, though you might just find yourself having a little siesta in the middle of it. | neg |
Jack Frost 2 was a horrible, terrible, sadly pathetic excuse for a sequal to a great movie. The original, was a low budget comedy horror film about a murdered who was turned into a snowman after an accident with some toxic waste. And the snowman went around murdering people, and avoiding blow dryers like the plague. This, however, was a far cry from the quality of the original. It seems like this even had a lower-budget because for some reason, after an hour into this film, I still hadn't seen the snowman. Some revenge he's getting if he's always in the form of Ice cubes with a cheesy voice-over and a little shake of the cooler he rests in to give animation to the character. Disappointing to no belief, even for a fan of bad cinema. | neg |
First of all there wasn't really anything in this movie that grabbed me really. It wasn't a bad movie, just another movie where I said "Well, that wasn't anything special" after I'd seen it. There was probably drama and stuff, but it simply didn't grab me, but more seamed semi-dull. As I said in the headline it seamed very cheap in a way. The quality of the film itself (the images) seamed like a low quality and reminded me more of some cheap made for TV-movie than a well respected English film-maker. The camera angles and shots were very amateur like in my opinion. Didn't really have any close up shots or similar effects to produce interesting scenes. I haven't seen many English films and the ones I've seen didn't really impress me more than this and they seamed kind of similar done with the camera work, colors and such. "Game" tried to be more cool, hip & smart (see my review of "Lola Rennt" about this if you wish), but didn't succeed for me either. Overall just a little indifferent movie that wasn't anything special (at best, I'm afraid) and basically unfortunately over two hours wasted. | neg |
Altioklar's populist approach manifests itself in all his titles, from the worst to the best. He doesn't care (or has no clue) about art, all he cares is to make people think they've got a kick in the groin by watching his movies. The problem is, the effort is way too evident, and as events unfold with all the senseless exaggeration kneaded into them, the effort fails badly.<br /><br />On this "Turkish" movie (who knows where the original or originals were made, since it felt extremely Hollywoodish to me), Altioklar is trying to be some sort of Tarantino. (Mr. Tarantino, if you're reading this, please watch the movie for the best comedy of your life!) He doesn't use subtle moves to do that, all he does is to use extreme stuff, and it gets unbearably absurd and laughable.<br /><br />Levent Üzümcü as the forensic guy with the cow-licked hair is just hilarious. I'm hoping to meet him in person and ask how he felt about this movie himself. Because I really found the role insulting for him. Demet Evgar groping her genitalia was also uncalled for, and did nothing other than making everything look fake. Another specifically idiotic aspect of this movie was the 100% faulty pace setting. When things need to be taken slowly, scenes flow abruptly. And at other times, it makes you sleepy to watch the slow ridicule going on.<br /><br />If Altioklar is so deeply in love with lame Hollywood superficiality, he should use Michael Sixarrows as his name instead. Even such a move wouldn't be half as ludicrous as what he has done on this movie. He should first learn not to imitate directors whose levels he'll never approach, then realize he's not in Hollywood, and then take private lessons from Zeki Demirkubuz or Reha Erdem on how to lay the flow of ideas out in the plot. This useless movie couldn't be saved even by those, but perhaps he can make watchable movies in the future by taking these steps.<br /><br />By the way I've seen some infamous failures such as Propaganda and Otostop, and I still can't divert from saying this one was the worst Turkish movie ever. | neg |
Terry and June was one of the classic British sitcoms in my opinion. You knew what to expect - and ain't that just so typical! :) Unlike modern sitcoms with utterly contrived plots, this show is still a breath of fresh air. How lovely not see or hear remarks about bodily functions or not to see a family PERPETUALLY late for breakfast or a family with impossible teenagers. And therein is the secret: Terry & June was based on a middle class couple living in relative harmony in stead of today's strained plots with the 'de rigueur' dysfunctional family (made to look hip).<br /><br />Personally, I vote the "Bridge to far" episode as one of the best. In a way, Terry's antics reminds me of Basil Fawlty - both sometimes getting almost impossibly embarrassing!<br /><br />Terry & June comes highly recommended. Have your tea and biscuits ready! | pos |
I don't know if this is one of the SyFy Channel original movies, but that's exactly what it feels like. A cheap, low budget action movie that was probably made very quickly, it contains laughable effects, lame dialog, and one vaguely faded star to give some name brand recognition to it (funny how many of the kids from 90210 are doing cheap TV movies now).<br /><br />Ian Ziering plays Cortes, who we know from history as the explorer who wiped out entire populations of native people while conquering parts of North America. Here, he is not played as a hero or even sympathetic, but as a slimy opportunist; his character would probably be killed off if this weren't loosely based on a historical figure. In this story, Cortes is on a brief surveying mission, trying to find something of value to prove he deserves financing to further explore America. He and his men find a small tribe of Aztecs plagued by dinosaurs.<br /><br />The actual hero of the story turns out to be Lt. Rios, who proves to be honorable, resourceful, and wise. He knows the right thing to do in every situation, which puts him at opposition with Cortes, as well as with the young, ambitious Aztec shaman. Of course, the native girl who is supposed to marry the headstrong, scheming shaman falls for Rios, furthering his anger towards the Spanish outsiders. So it's all pretty cliché. The dinosaurs are dispatched with relative ease. Despite taking place in an area that seems wide open, the story pretty much takes place in either the woods, or the Aztec village for 95% of the time, so it isn't visually exciting either.<br /><br />I didn't even recognize Ian Ziering. They gave him a ridiculous wig and an unconvincing accent, and somehow he disappeared into it. He doesn't look or sound Spanish for a second, however, making the casting choice wrong in every way. If this movie had been released theatrically, he would have been singled out for a Razzie, no question.<br /><br />Overall, forgettable. | neg |
The British claymation series putting "witty" conversations taped from "average" people in the mouths of "cute" fanciful creatures at least had the advantage for non-British viewers of seeming droll and the kind of rarefied cultured humor you couldn't get on U.S. television. Someone made the mistake of PUTTING it on U.S. television.<br /><br />Sort of like the sadly miscast American version of the sublime Brit-com COUPLING which died in a month on NBC when the same basic scripts didn't "translate" from British English to American English, what seemed droll and cultured (and just a BIT dull) in England, comes across in CREATURE COMFORTS, the American Version, as simply boredom with puppets. There's no through plot-line, no characters and after one and a half episodes watched (of the three ultimately aired), no reason to suffer through more.<br /><br />The only positive thing to be said about the new summer series and the mercifully brief run it had is that the claymation is at least professionally done and coming as a set-up for the single worst show on the CBS schedule, The New Adventures of Old Christine (or "how to be a HORRIBLE mother - or person - in one interminable, unfunny lesson"), kids who wanted to stay up past their bedtime happily ran to bed rather than sit through this show, and the adults could wait to tune in until 9pm when "Two and A Half Men" (guilty pleasure) and "How I Met Your Mother" (actual quality writing) come on. | neg |
I think that can sum up this show about as well as anything. Batman TAS may be the worst thing to ever happen to cartoons based on comic books because everything that comes after will be compared to it and nothing has measured up yet. It's just too damn good. Was Batman Beyond good? "Yeah, but it was no TAS." Is Justice League good? "It's not too bad, but it's no TAS."<br /><br />The Batman is certainly no TAS, either, but I won't hold that against it. It would be unfair and besides, it has plenty of other problems with it.<br /><br />The concept of a younger, less experienced Batman fighting crime is a fine one, and at times the art is very nice. But all of the rest of the time, the art is worthless Americanime, and this betrays a lot of the flaws of the show itself. It is paced, written, and designed like an Americanime. If I wanted to watch Jackie Chan Adventures, I'd watch Jackie Chan Adventures. Or I could just bang my head into a wall any time and get the same effect. The Joker is a homicidal, mentally unstable clown in a suit who uses his wits, unpredictability, and clever gadgets to fight Batman. When he is forced to fight hand to hand, he will either resort to something cheap or be totally outmatched. He is not meant to be a monkey with dreadlocks who knows kung-fu and can leap into twenty feet into the air, accompanied by speed lines. If they had wanted to do that with a villain, there were other less important characters they could have used or *gasp* they could have created a new one entirely. And it's not that re-imaginings are a bad thing, don't get me wrong. TAS (there I go again) took Mr. Freeze from your standard icegun-wielding B villain and made him into a memorable and morally complex character. Of course Freeze wasn't exactly a classic villain at the time and they performed an upgrade, but the point stands. What The Batman does is it takes everything you liked about Batman comics and lore and takes a large, smelly dump on them. Guess what? They were eating corn.<br /><br />It's obvious this show can't stand against TAS but stand it on its own legs and it still doesn't work for me. The plots aren't good and they don't develop any better. They've been written for the demographic of children under twelve. Should children be able to enjoy a show? Of course they should. This shouldn't be an adult show with swearing, nudity, and gratuitous violence. But the mark of a truly good show is that it can be enjoyed on different levels by all ages. This show misses that mark.<br /><br />Is this show a TAS? No, of course not. The problem is it's not even a JLU. | neg |
I love Movies that take you into them. A movie that actually leaves you feeling weak when its over and this kind of movie is rare.<br /><br />Damian is so talented and versatile in so many ways of writing and portraying different Characters on screen. This movie has a cutting edge to it. A main stream cast for such a low budget. Why is it that a Man with this much talent and Charisma , ( not to Mention sex appeal in ways beyond most other actors ) can do this with so little money to work with????? These Actors really believe in his script and Raw talent as a Director, writer and Actor. I am so pleased to know such a modern day genius is out there , letting is passion for Art drive him and taking us as an audience with him. Damian I have heard of you through so many different circles and do not let the Jealous people of this world get to you. Martin gets this , Fellini got it and you will always get it. The fire and passion in you is what we love to watch on Screen. Thankyou for being different and having the guts to write like you do. You are a one of a kind Director, do not listen to the empty vessels. | pos |
A desperate attempt to make a "film-noir" sci-fi thriller, but the movie falls short. It has no believable plot, some of the key actors were a joke (NOT Lars Bom, he is cool!). I did like the "access restriction by bandwith maximizing" though. I finished it on principle, but went home with the feeling of having lost two hours of my life... | neg |
Bathebo, you big dope.<br /><br />This is the WORST piece of crap I've seen in a long time. I have just stumbled onto it on late night TV and it is painful to watch. Really painful. How does something like this get made?? Horrible, horrible, horrible! OOOOOO ..... The toilet is flushing by itself again! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! 1992 doesn't seem like that long ago to me, but watching this makes it seem like 1952. I mean its horrible. Please don't waste your time on the drivel!<br /><br />Scary old black man telling them not to build the pool in the yard. Scary! Scary! How does this stuff get MADE??? | neg |
I loved this film. It was so intelligent but it also had some great action sequences, without basing the movie solely around them. Quinn, Sutherland and Kingsley all put in fantastic performances and there are enough twists to keep anyone interested. The ending was great as well. | pos |
Look as being Anglo-Irish I assure you this reviewer is anything but Bias. But I assure you this is very much an Irish Film - and not English as the last comment seems to have suggested. This film was written by Neil Jorden and Conor McPherson and directed by Conor McPherson too - both Irish. The Cast is almost entirely Irish - it was shot in Ireland with an Irish crew. Even Michael Gambon was born in Ireland - I remember him joking about it in an interview about this film.<br /><br />Michael Cane was evidently brought in to boost Box office takings abroad.<br /><br />Loved the film, I just wanted to correct a totally uninformed comment!<br /><br />Now on with the review - I loved Dylan Moran, have always been a fan of his, himself and Michael Cane formed a surprisingly good double act. It was great to see Morans range as an actor as he plays several different made up characters during the film. I would recommend this film to anyone with an interest in comedy - as it represents a fresh, quirky and inventive turn in Irish feature length chuckle films. I laughed a lot. what more could you ask for? | pos |
She may have an Oscar and a Golden Globe, but this film shows why she also is a perennial Razzie nominee. To do a film that is so bad must be an indication that she needs money. She could do ads on why you shouldn't talk on a cell phone while driving, especially at night on the way to a crowded mall.<br /><br />Susan Montford should stick to producing (Shoot 'Em Up ) as she is not very good as a writer/director.<br /><br />She is accosted by four thugs in the mall parking lot, and the first thing they do is tell her they have a gun. What does she do? She starts pushing and cursing them like she knows martial arts or something. She manages to get away, but gets lost in the forest after crashing. Why didn't she run to someones house? We get four thugs with guns chasing a lady with a toolbox. Of course, their guns are no match for her wrench. Ha! Of course, she also has a tire iron and a screwdriver. Those poor thugs.<br /><br />Now, she's home for Christmas - and she brought a gun! | neg |
If this movie was made two years earlier it could have been a lot better. But unfortunately, it was made in the decade that had no idea about how a horror movie was supposed to look or act. When I first heard about this movie, people on IMDb were classifying it as the sequel to Cheerleader Camp. Oh how wrong they were. Yes, Betsy Russell was in it but Uma Thurman sure wasn't. I'd really like to find the person who started that whole sequel rumor. I'm sure a lot of us would though. I'm not gonna give anything away because frankly I don't remember how this movie even ends! I'm just gonna tell you to watch a real camp horror movie... The Burning starring Jason Alexander, Fisher Stevens, Holly Hunter & the geek from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. A word to the wise - Just because a horror movie has the word camp in the title, doesn't mean its gonna be worth watching. Oh, and another thing, ANY HORROR FLICK MADE IN THE EARLY TO MID 90's WAS EVER CONSIDERED EVEN REMOTELY GOOD! | neg |
Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais have a solid hit rate as far as their TV work is concerned. However, their film work has been much more chequered (2008's The Bank Job was fine, the previous year's Across The Universe decidedly weak, for instance).<br /><br />Still Crazy, fortunately, is a solid success. It has a great story, excellent performances, a lot of humour, fabulous music and, above everything else, real heart.<br /><br />I savour "moments", and this film has one of them - just when everything is going pear-shaped at the festival reunion performance...<br /><br />Hugely enjoyable. | pos |
Sorry for all you guys that are not family with the Lynches.<br /><br />My sister in law asked me how you can make just a disturbing movie. I told her that if the daughter and her father would not do these movie, they would have instead to go around and kill and cut people in pieces.<br /><br />After every Lnych movie I tell myself, again one and a half hour lost of my life. But next time I will check the director's or producers name.<br /><br />So, you don't want to be angry at yourself and loose time, don't watch it. But if you think that you need to kill someone, watch it, this is probably a better medicine than to spend your whole life in a prison for mentally insane. | neg |
I had high hopes for this production, being one of my favourite works.<br /><br />Indeed, a lot of it is reasonable: Helen Baxendale is not a bad Lady Macbeth, but lacks the devilry which the original character is infused with. Many of the minor characters do well, and the Scottish settings are superb.<br /><br />The big disappointment to me is Jason Connery in the title role: he seems to be reading his lines off a cue card with the wrong glasses - surely for the first time, as well. He can do so much better. Any production when compared to the sublime Ian McKellen (Macbeth 1979)who to my mind gave the gold standard performance, is going to struggle to be appreciated, but I actually fell asleep and had to rewind this one before I could get through it - hardly a great sign.<br /><br />Honestly, one to Avoid. | neg |
OK. So it can be done! We have here the perfect vampire movie. Gothic, beautiful. With all the ingredients. A realistic vampire. A wonderful story. Take note - I am from Transylvania and I assure you, this movie respects the vampire lore! It's exactly like the tales I heard in my childhood. For a transylvanian, it is quite... believable. You must see it, if you are interested by real vampires, as they were depicted in medieval chronicles and not how are they done in recent Hollywood movies (as far as I can guess, the Hollywood problem is they mix vampires with the incubus - which is pretty hilarious for me. Vampires are never good-looking or attractive, they can inspire only horror and repulsion. The incubus - called in my country The Night Flier, is the one beautiful demon which kills his victims by loving them.) I strongly recommend this for any Gothic person out there! See also the sequels, they are all 4 very good! And of course, don't miss DArk shadows! Something similar is Nosferatu In Venice with Klaus Kinski. I recommend that one to. | pos |
There are very few performers today who can keep me captivated throughout an entire film just by their presence. One of those few is Judy Davis, who has built a successful career out of creating characters that are headstrong in attitude but very vulnerable at heart. She takes roles that most other performers would treat melodramatically and adds a fiery, deeply emotional intensity that pulls attention away from everything else on the screen.<br /><br />Her skills are well displayed in "High Tide," a film that matches her up a second time with director Gillian Armstrong, who gave Davis her first major success with "My Brilliant Career." In that film, Davis played a young woman who was determined to make it in the world, despite the suffocation she felt from her community and upbringing. In "High Tide," however, Davis' character, Lillie, is roughly the opposite: she gave up on any hope for her future when she was young, and, after giving birth to a child, runs from her responsibilities and takes up a life without direction or meaning. When she finally meets up with her daughter years later, the thought of taking care of her child is petrifying; she knows this is her chance to atone for her failures, but how can she be honest with her daughter and still gain her respect?<br /><br />Gillian Armstrong's films usually relate stories about characters who desperately want to communicate with each other, but face obstacles set up by their own personal habits and addictions. "Oscar and Lucinda," for instance, was about a man and a woman who desperately needed each other's love but were always blindsided by their craving for chance, represented by their gambling addictions. Here, we are immersed in the world of a family torn apart by the mother's inability to commit to a settled life and her struggles to redeem herself despite being fully convinced that it's too late to change for the better. This is not simply a film with a great performance at its center, but also a rare achievement: a fully convincing story of redemption. | pos |
After watching Avalon (which was decent only because of the very nice digital fx), and several anime films written by Oshii, including Jin-Roh (which is fantastic) I decided I should check out the Oshii cinema trilogy box set. Being that the Red Spectacles and Stray Dog are related, I will comment here on both. And let me tell you, it was one of the biggest wastes of money I have spent in a while. I first watched Stray Dogs and then The Red Spectacles. I am sad to say that these films are quite possibly the most boring two movies I have ever seen. For only about 10 minutes in each film do you get to see some action between the the characters, who are only dressed in the "Panzer Cop" outfits for a few fleeting scenes. The rest of the time you will see some very drawn out scenes filled with boring dialogue in some less than impressive locations. I really don't understand the motivation behind these two films at all. I love the Wolf Brigade outfits and the idea behind the plot, but the films themselves leave much to be desired. I would suggest NOT watching these films, and certainly do not buy the box set like I did, unless you enjoy wasting money. Oh, and if you are wondering what I think about the 3rd movie in the set, Talking Head, I couldn't even bring myself to watch it before I purged the box set from my DVD collection via eBay at a $20 loss. If you want cool Japanese live action, check out Returner, or Ichii the Killer or the Zeiram series. | neg |
SPOILER AHEAD! The mummy (Lon Chaney Jr.) is on the loose in a New England college town searching for a college student (Ramsey Ames) who is the reincarnation of his beloved Princess Ananka. Dull, slow (even at 65 minutes--it moves slower than the mummy!), indifferently acted, but the ending is worth waiting for. The mummy gets the girl (!!!!!) and she ages rapidly as the both slowly sink in a swamp. This is (I believe) the only time in a Universal monster movie that the monster got the girl! That aside, this is stricly amateur night. Probably the worst of the mummy sequels--and that's saying something! | neg |
After apprehending the man responsible for the murder of his boss, Deputy Sheriff Thomas Jefferson Geronimo, III, is assigned the task of taking the killer back to Italy. On the way, however, the plane is diverted to Malta. Not long after landing, the killer escapes. Now, and with little help from the Maltese police, Deputy Sheriff Geronimo is out to recapture a murderer. But will his "shoot first, take names later" brand of Texas justice work in a foreign country? <br /><br />Let me get this out right up front, I've seen Final Justice both with and without the Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary. I've seen the scenes that were cut that help make the movie a more coherent whole. And I've seen the cut-up TV version that was used for MST3K. Having said that, I've got to admit that I much prefer the MST3K version. Why? Because Final Justice is one lousy movie. The MST3K commentary helps make it much more palatable. On its own, it's a real snoozer of an action movie with corny dialogue (often delivered with such thick Italian accents that it's impossible to understand), bad acting, weak direction, gigantic plot holes, and most everything else you'll find in a bad movie. And if most of Final Justice wasn't "so bad, it's good", it would be one terribly dull movie on top of everything else. So, yes, I enjoy the often very funny MST3K commentary over the bad movie on its own.<br /><br />My main sticking points with the MST3K commentary and with most of the reviews I've read on Final Justice, however, involve the criticisms of Joe Don Baker. The main weaknesses in Baker's performance actually have nothing to do with his size or the wardrobe choices of his character or any of the other jokes flung in his direction. Instead, I think much of it is has to do with the poor decision to cast him in the lead in the first place. Joe Don Baker has always struck me as a decent enough actor, but he's not the kind of guy I would call an "action hero" by any stretch of the imagination. He's more of a sidekick as he demonstrated with solid performances in a couple of James Bond movies. Or if you really want to blame someone for the problems with Final Justice, point your finger at director Greydon Clark. Clark's resume can't begin to compare with Baker's. So I say, "Lay off Joe Don Baker!" | neg |
A really cool flick. A must for any music snob. You don't really have to know about the bands to enjoy the movie. Before the movie, I only heard only two songs from the Dandy Warhols. The only thing is required is an open mind. <br /><br />The movie centers around the Brian Jonestown Massacre. The Dandy Warhols have a role in the film, as the 'rival band,' but they are second fiddle to the BJM. The Dandy Warhols don't play as big of a role in the film as I originally guessed, but then again, they didn't have the element of excitement and unpredictability of the BJM.You can't help but be fascinated by the band and its very charismatic front man, Anton Newcombe. By itself, it's an insightful film and study on the music industry. Just watch this film and enjoy. | pos |
I speak badly of G.I.J.:T.M. mostly because I think it lacked something that G.I. Joe had. Yes It had something that G.I. Joe didn't have like celebrity cameos by Don Johnson, and Burgess Meredith but I think G.I. Joe: The Movie lacked the passion for the characters that the G.I. Joe TV series had. Most of the voice over artists really sounded like they were dead pan and they were going to die at anytime now. It's a good movie but I wouldn't say that it was the greatest movie in the world I.M.H.O. :)<br /><br />Although violence is what G.I. Joe was built on I'd say that Serpentor striking Duke in his chest wasn't the very best way for Charlie Adler's character to go out. Neither was seeing Golobulus remind Cobra Commander why he was chosen to lead the Cobra forces and then being horribly mutated after he failed to deliver what Cobra-La felt was rightfully theirs.<br /><br />It wasn't the best way for the G.I. Joe series to go out but it's better than nothing. :) | neg |
Now I myself am a lover of the B movie genre but this piece of trash insults me to no end. First of all the movie is starring Lizzy McGuire's brother as the annoying little kid that goes looking for his lost 3 legged dog. Now please what kind of dumb ass mistakes a three-legged dog for a god damn mutated crocodile please I ask you? And heres another point for pondering, why do they show the Dinocroc on the back of the movie box being enormous and actually in the water? I believe if memory serves the thing spent about 2.6 minutes in the water and was just shy of 6 feet tall, that was a heart breaker. But redeeming qualities to this movie were that it was so bad that i almost died laughing because believe me the bad acting made me wish for death. But the fact remains that once again this thing is created by another military testing site to train super crocodiles for military combat or something like that from the source of all things evil E.V.I.L Corporation. And let's not forget the characters let's see we have jerk off #1 as the male lead and half way decent chick (who doesn't know how to act) as the female lead to that I say WOW! The only thing worse then the acting was the end of course the heroes spend about what seems like 2 hours talking and planning some long elaborate way of killing the dinocroc only to have it fail and kill it in an ordinary way that could have taken about 15 seconds to come up with. All in all this movie was beyond gay with its random opera music in the background and the fact that it was probably the gayest of all CGI monsters ever made along with the fact it of course was impervious to bullets and bombs (otherwise it wouldn't have been made for the military DUH!). By far the best scene was when Lizzy McGuire's brother runs into the shack and the dinocroc eats him causing his head to pop clean off with a popping noise i might add. I believe that you would be better off shooting yourself between the eyes then to watch Dinocroc. And as for the director I believe that we should get a bunch of people to hang him by a noose and all take turns kicking him in the crotch for wasting an hour and a half of our lives until he finally dies and then I can go on living. | neg |
With a relatively small budget for an animated film of only $60 million the people at Fox Animation and Blue Sky Studios have done an incredible job.<br /><br />They have combined state-of-the-art digital animation, the perfectly cast voice talents of Ray Romano, John Leguizamo and Dennis Leary (among many others) to create a highly entertaining, family film with a strong message about cooperation, friendship and caring for your fellow herd members. And how sometimes it takes many different creatures to make up a herd.<br /><br />While watching this film I got a strong political message about getting along with the people that share your space -- maybe it should be required viewing for all world leaders!<br /><br />David Newman -- yet another member of the Newman family of Hollywood composers -- provides a superb score that is not intrusive yet serves to move the action along and, at times, is positively toe tapping.<br /><br />The overall look of the film is incredible; an intensely coloured, strangely believable fantasyland of snow, geysers, mud, rocks and ice. The individual characters were delightfully believable too, with the facial expressions of Ray Romano's Manfred' being a particular treat.<br /><br />The entire sequence with the DoDos will leave no doubt as to where the expression `Dumb as a DoDo comes from.'<br /><br />This is a good family film that keeps the things that could alarm or frighten children pretty much sanitized -- but real nonetheless.<br /><br />It would be a great movie to see in the theater and to buy for home. | pos |
This is a good episode, but it's not my favorite. A lot of people love it and on a creative level it's brilliant. Most of the episode has no dialog, which is such a cool idea and "Hush" handles the silence really well. Plus, this episode introduces Tara, who I like a lot. But, I don't like Riely or the Initative or Maggie Walsh and they seem to get a lot of screen time in "Hush." Plus, I don't think the Gentlemen are that scary and I get tired of watching the float around Sunnydale. I know that I'm in the minority, but I tend to fast-forward parts of "Hush." Of course, there are other parts of the episode that I think are great, so if you're watching on DVD, I recommend seeing this episode. It really is a classic.<br /><br />"Hush" revolves around the entire town losing their voices. Skelatal looking demon-guys called the Gentlemen arrive to gather seven hearts from human victims, but if they hear a human scream they die. So they steal the voices of everyone in town. Buffy and the Scoobies try to figure out what's going on, while the Initative also start investigating. Meanwhile, Xander comes to realize how much Anya means to him and Willow meets a fellow witch named Tara. Buffy and Riely finally come face to face while fighting the Gentlemen. They are both stunned about what they learn... He's a commando and she's the Slayer. In the end Buffy saves the day, but she now has to deal with her new knowledge of Riely's secret life.<br /><br />Really, the creativity of "Hush" can't be seen in a basic outline of its plot. It's the overwhelming silence of the episode, that makes it so great. The characters try to communicate in different ways, (White-out boards, pantomime, obscene finger gestures, etc...) and it all just works really well. After a while you forget that there's no dialog because they're all so good at expressing themselves. During the "talking" parts of the episode, there are a lot of references to the importance of really "hearing" each other. Anya claims that Xander won't really talk to her. Giles ignores Spike and Xander's protests and insists that Spike move into Xander's apartment. Buffy quickly substitutes the word "petroleum" for "patrolling" when she talks to Riely so she won't have to explain her calling. And then at the end, when Buffy and Riely really do learn the truth about each other, they sit there with nothing to say. It's all pretty cool.<br /><br />There are a lot of good parts to this episode. I love that people keep forgetting that they can't talk. Buffy and Xander both try to use the phone. Riley can't use the voice recognition thing in the Initatives' elevator. People try to scream. It's basically what everyone would really do if they suddenly had no speech. And I think it's hilarious that Spike has to move in with Xander. (They'll also share an apartment for a little while in season seven.) Xander and Spike have a fun bickering childishness that's just hilarious. Also I like the beginning of Tara and Willow's relationship. Tara plays an important role for the rest of the show and she and Willow are pretty cute together. It's nice to see them just starting out.<br /><br />On the downside, I don't understand how the Gentlemen are choosing their victims. They just seem to float around dorms and pick random people. Also, I don't like Riely. I've never liked him, but from "Hush" on I'm pretty much just waiting for Angel to come back to town and beat him up. Finally, what happens to Olivia after this? It seems like we just met her, she and Giles have a relationship, everything's going fine... and then she's suddenly dropped. I don't get it.<br /><br />My favorite part of the episode: Giles' "Who are the Gentlemen?" lecture to the Scoobies. The whole scene is wonderful and his over-heads are just hilarious. He makes some similar looking flashcards in season seven's "First Date." Pretty much anytime Giles starts drawing monsters, it's just gonna be fun. | pos |
When I started watching the show I said "Oh, no! It's as corny as Elfen Lied and not even that bloody!". And indeed, the setup is almost identical, with the single young boy living in a big house all by himself, then suddenly getting involved into a fantastic adventure while sexy young girls come live with him.<br /><br />But this is where the resemblance stops. The love story is almost as subtle and intense as the one in Inuiyasha, while the childish remarks and behaviors are very few. The magical setup is a bit corny, because it's about seven people, with seven servants, fighting for the Holy Grail, all servants being someone famous, half of all masters being from the same school, rules of engagement, etc. However, this soon dims and fades from the beauty of the drawing and of the script.<br /><br />I actually watched all 24 episodes in one day and, without comparing it with animes that I liked more, but were from other genres, I have to say that I was very pleased. | pos |
Michigan, Edgar Allen Poe, a toaster, and a frying pan . . . If you don't mind the psycho-thriller or horror film genre, and you have a special place in your heart for the twisted, this is the movie for you. An amazingly well developed first film, "Hatred of a Minute" has all the draw of mainstream hits like "Silence of the Lambs" and of cult classics like "Army of Darkness." The editing and effects are well done, better than many films in the genre. Kallio weaves an intricate tale of torment drawing on both the Bible and Poe's writings. At a time when big budget, big name films lack much in the way of substance, the independent film has resurrected this dying trait. If you love Michigan, a good story, or a decent thriller go check out "Hatred of a Minute." | pos |
From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate! | neg |
Lackawanna Blues is a very moving film depicting an era filled with varying emotions and characters as seen through the eyes of a young boy. The film clearly supports "it takes a village to raise a child" and reminds of an important time in black history and culture. I gained an incredible amount of respect for Macy Gray as an actress. Her character was a little crazy, yet lovable; clearly we all have known someone like Macy's character. S. Epatha Merkerson is absolutely fantastic as Nanny. I never realized that Epatha was such a great actress. Law & Order never showcased the depth of Epatha's acting abilities like Lackawanna Blues. I was pleasantly surprised and amazed! The music and the characters reminded me of my own childhood...it was a sweet nostalgic walk down memory lane. I truly enjoyed the film and eagerly await the DVD release to add to my collection. | pos |
At the name of Pinter, every knee shall bow - especially after his Nobel Literature Prize acceptance speech which did little more than regurgitate canned, by-the-numbers, sixth-form anti-Americanism. But this is even worse; not only is it a tour-de-force of talentlessness, a superb example of how to get away with coasting on your decades-old reputation, but it also represents the butchery of a superb piece. The original Sleuth was a masterpiece of its kind. Yes, it was a theatrical confection, and it is easy to see how it's central plot device would work better on the stage than the screen, but it still worked terrifically well. This is a Michael Caine vanity piece, but let's face it, Caine is no Olivier. Not only can he not fill Larry's shoes, he couldn't even fill his bathroom slippers. The appropriately-named Caine is, after all, a distinctly average actor, whose only real recommendation, like so many British actors, is their longevity in the business. He was a good Harry Palmer, excellent in Get Carter, but that's yer lot, mate! Give this a very wide berth and stick to the superb original. This is more of a half-pinter. | neg |
Susan Slept Here turned out to be Dick Powell's swan song as a performer on the big screen. Of course he directed some more films and appeared frequently on television until he died. It's a pity he didn't go out with his performance in The Bad and the Beautiful.<br /><br />Frank Tashlin has done so many better films, I'm still not sure whatever possessed him to do this one. The premise is absolutely laughable. <br /><br />Dick Powell is a screenwriter who's looking to do more serious stuff than the fluff he's been writing. He had an idea for a film on juvenile delinquency so two friendly cops in Herb Vigran and Horace McMahon deposit 17 year old Debbie Reynolds on his doorstep. She's not a really bad kid and they don't want to put her in the system. So they give her to Dick Powell at Christmas time.<br /><br />I mean is there anyone out there who doesn't see a problem? The term jailbait comes immediately to mind. Additionally Powell has a girlfriend, the young and sexy Anne Francis. Why Debbie Reynolds is any competition here is beyond me.<br /><br />Susan Slept Here got one Oscar nomination. The song Hold My Hand, sung by Don Cornell in the background, was nominated for best song, but lost to Secret Love. <br /><br />Powell and Reynolds do have some funny moments together and Alvy Moore as Powell's factotum and Les Tremayne as his lawyer also get a few laughs. <br /><br />But it's not enough. | neg |
This this coming of age dramedy set in Chicago in the early 60's, we follow a group of highschool friends as they navigate through the ups and downs of their lives. The two central characters are Leroy "Preach" Jackson (Turman) and his best friend Richard "Cochise" Morris (Hilton-Jacobs.) Both of these boys have promising futures. Preach is a great writer but a lazy student, and Cochise has just received a college scholarship for basketball. When they're not hanging out at the local diner shooting craps with their friends, or hanging out at a friends house or chasing girls, they're skipping school, riding the trains through Chicago or going to quarter parties on the weekends.<br /><br />Things go wrong when Preach and Cochise make the mistake of getting involved with two hoods and go joyriding in a stolen car. The police pursue them and they are arrested. But thanks to the efforts of a concerned teacher (SNL's Garrett Morris) they are released. But the two hoods are not, and vow to get revenge on Preach and Cochise, thinking they blamed the whole thing on them.<br /><br />This movie is very episodic, but it still works because thats what life is, a series of episodes. Some funny, some sad, some romantic, some bizarre. The film never gets boring because all the characters are so well played and realistic, and the situations are all believable and relatable. Like Preach romantically pursuing a beautiful girl, or a party turning violent when some asshole decides to start a fight, or dealing with a bratty younger sibling. But even when a situation isn't personally relatable, like the guys pretending to be undercover cops to con a hooker out of some money so they could get all their friends into a movie, the sequence is still hilarious.<br /><br />'Cooley High' was the basis for the classic 70's sitcom 'What's Happenin!' which aired on ABC from 1976-1979. Even though the show is most famous for the character Rerun, he is not in this film, nor is there any character remotely like him. The humor of that show was very broad, but still funny. The humor of 'Cooley High' is truer to life, and thus more entertaining.<br /><br />Additionally, the soundtrack is wonderful. Classic songs from that period by Diana Ross & The Supremes, The Temptations, Martha & the Vandellas, and Smokey Robinson play throughout the film, adding to the fun, youthful, exuberant tone of the film. | pos |
(BIG SPOILERS) I've seen one other Takashi Miike film, and that was the very disturbing and brutal 'Audition', which was an examination of the Japanese ideals of femininity! In 'Visitor Q'- which I think means 'Visitor Question'- he examines, in a very disturbingly gross way, the family unit. Miike's surreal vision of a dysfunctional family almost tries to be Lynchian in terms of confusion and film-making, but ultimately lacks the style and intrigue. We, the audience, are introduced to a bizarre array of scenarios from the opening scene with the father figure (Kenichi Endo- who was actually quite good) paying for sex with his displaced daughter (Fujiko). Then, as the father returns home, he is struck on the head by "the visitor" (Kazushi Watanabe) wielding a fairly sizeable rock, and for some reason, they both end up back at the family home. The mother (Shungiku Uchida) is beaten and bullied by her son (Jun Muto) who is also beaten and bullied by his school peers. When the visitor enters the home, he somewhat menacingly establishes himself as part of the unit. Eventually, the family begin to improve their relationship, with assistance from the visitor, through milking breasts, murder and retaining a sense of family pride.<br /><br />And there are other crazy scenes that somehow bring the family closer together. It's has uncomfortable humour, but is equally frustratingly silly, and over-the-top in its weirdness. There is a necrophiliac scene that is utterly disgusting, but ends up being ridiculously funny as the scene progresses. Partly because of the situation itself, and partly because you can't believe the filmmakers and the actors are actually doing this! The style of the film is poor to say the least, and the plot is stupid and unbelievably weak. The characters themselves are all over the place, and while I understand this is not meant to be realistic, there is hardly any interest in these confronting characters and situations as all of them border on the absurd! The camera-work is sloppy, and doesn't have that cinematic feel that Lynch's work entails. It's hard to take this film seriously on a surrealist level, or on an interpretation of examining the family unit in Japan. It just seems that Miike was out to shock, and the film seems self-aware that it's "trying" to be shocking, and it becomes almost comical to be taken seriously. All in all, I would say that this film is a bizarrely dark comedy, but it looks and feels amateurish, and seems to unnecessarily want to shock. Miike's previous film, Audition, was finely balanced between disgusting horror, character development and technique- which established more intrigue in the way the film was crafted to allow the viewer to become engrossed with the plot. 'Visitor Q' is a step down as it tries too hard to be outlandishly bizarre and intentionally confronting, without really having much to say in the process! <br /><br />** out of *****! | neg |
HUSBANDS BEWARE is a remake of the Shemp classic BRIDELESS GROOM. The film's new cooking scene at the beginning of the film is great. The stooges are always funny when they cook. However after the first few minutes of cooking footage, we cut to original footage of BRIDELESS GROOM. One thing I noticed about these 1953 to 1956 remakes are that they do fit with the new story. They do an insert shot if the old story line doesn't match.<br /><br />HUSBANDS BEWARE does have a new ending, but I won't give it away to those who want to be surprised.<br /><br /> **** out of 4 stars. | pos |
Presenting Lily Mars is a real pleasant little film which showcases the comedy skills of actress Judy Garland, along with her standard singing moments. The plot consists of Lily Mars tagging along after producer John Thornway for her big break. I think the comedy is light and nothing too heavy here. I really recommend this film for everyone. Judy is breathtaking in this role! | pos |
Complete drivel. An unfortunate manifestation of the hypocritical, toxic culture of a decade ago. In this movie, pedestrian regrets for slavery go hand in hand with colonialist subtexts (the annoying redhead feeding Shaka rice?). Forget historical reality too. Didn't most western slaves comes from West Africa? An American slaver easily capturing Shaka with a handful of men?. Finally, David Hasslehoff could not have been any more obnoxious. One can only ponder, how would he have fared in the miniseries? (Promptly impaled most likely). The miniseries was superb, and it is unfortunate that DH should have gotten his hands on something unique, and made it mundane. (I tend to think that he had hand in creating this fiasco). | neg |
just saw this film at resfest and was floored. i've never been a huge fan of scratching, but this film had me hooked from the getgo. it's listed as a documentary, but never really felt like one. (can't remember the last time i had so much fun watching a documentary). it has a style and an energy that is refreshing, insightful, and never too preachy. the production values were up there too. (shot on film with cool cuts and an amazing soundtrack). overall a smart, entertaining, and enlightening piece. | pos |
I have to agree with the other two comments. I waited over a month to see this great new show A&E had been hyping. What a disappointment!!! The show is pretty much all about Ryan Buell. His voice-overs are campy, not creepy. It sounds as if he is talking into a can. As of the second episode, which is roughly 30 minutes or so (if you take out the commercials) he is being chased or followed by something that he knows is demonic. He can't say the name, anytime someone needs to convey that name, they write it on a piece of paper and hand it to someone else. Not particularly informative or entertaining or believable for the rest of us. Why can't he say the name?...supposedly it would give the demon more power. Funny, I always thought demons wanted to hide their true identities. If you know the exact name of the demon, doesn't it make it easier for you to cast them out. Now the next episode, which airs in just a little while is titled "exorcism". So is Ryan in need of an exorcism already? Not to say that it couldn't happen but the show so far has not given any evidence or proof of anything. I can tell Ryan that if I were a small child, hell if I was an adult, and someone gave me a little bottle of holy water to chase away something that was terrifying me, I would look elsewhere for help!!! Besides which, if you don't use holy water & blessings, etc. in the right way don't you risk just further infuriating whatever is already mad at you? I will probably watch tonight but if these episodes are as ridiculous as the first, it will probably be the last time I watch it! | neg |
Even if Voskhozhdeniye was your favorite film it would only be possible to watch it, at most, every ten years. Its just too emotionally strenuous.Widely regarded as Shepitko's finest film, THE ASCENT is the story of partisans operating in the Byelorussian forest in the dead of winter in German occupied Soviet Union.<br /><br />While assaulting the audience with the sheer physicality of the wartime experience, particularly the privations of cold and snow, the actual struggle for survival against both nature and the fascists, there is always a subtle, barely inferred sub-text of moral judgment and the question about whether a man can be moral or immoral in one context but otherwise in another.<br /><br />A partisan group hiding in the woods is attacked by a German patrol and loses their food supplies. Two men, Rybak, who knows the area, and Sotnikov, a Jewish schoolteacher, are assigned the task of going to a small village for food. They find the village burnt to the ground with nothing edible and nothing more than charred timbers and foundations in which in one cubby hole there's a children's mirror hidden. The overwhelming feeling is that whoever brings the brutality of war to a land and a people become truly cursed. I thought of the war that the Americans and British brought to Iraq and about how bringing the horrors of war to people is the act of a degenerate nation.<br /><br />The two move on to a nearby larger village where they obtain, under duress, a lamb from the collaborator headman. The German's arrive and the two partisans escape under fire. Sotnikov is hit in his foot and holds off the German's as Rybak gets away with the lamb. Sotnikov becomes so desperate that prepared not to be taken alive he removes his boot in order to put a bullet into his head. Just then Rybak returns and drags Sotnikov out of the line of fire.<br /><br />Rybak drags Sotnikov through the forest, bloody meter by meter all done in one long take. Each meter is an agony and yet he still pulls him through deep snow, up ridges, across depressions, over black bush stumps which crack as they snap under the weight of the men. There are several similarities to the cinematic vocabulary of Tarkowsky here - the long takes documenting a process, the effect of using repetition, and the resulting emotional stress which builds the longer the shot goes on. In the background, unnoticed because of the action, there hangs a question- did Rybak commit an immoral act by going back for Sotnikov? Whether under the moral standards of Marxist-Leninism or merely the common imperative of the survival of the group, wasn't his duty to get the food back to his starving band and leave Sotnikov to cover his escape? To sacrifice one man in order for the group to survive? Which leads to the question - Can a man who is immoral under one philosophical system be expected to be moral under a different moral system? The partisans come as if another curse of war to a farm house containing a woman with three small children. She is embittered by the scourge of war and barely hanging on with her three children. They are barely rested when more Germans show up. They make their way to leave and are directed to the loft to hide.<br /><br />Sotnikov's cough gives them away. When a German pops his head in to have a look and no one responds he threatens to fire across the loft and Rybak's nerves break and they are captured. Now who has the moral responsibility here? Sotnikov for coughing or Rybek for cracking? The two partisans and the mother are trussed up and taken to a nearby town passing ominously under a wrought iron arch at the entrance. They find the headman and a small girl already in custody. They are interrogated by a turncoat Byelorussian played by Tarkowsky favorite Anatoli Solonitsyn. Sotnikov keeps his head during interrogation and torture and only asks what the interrogator's prewar profession was? He doesn't answer but from his ease standing behind a desk the likely answer was 'schoolteacher'.<br /><br />Rybak on the other hand begs for his life and even offers to join the police. The previously unnoticed character defect, making a 'wrong' moral decision, the ambiguity (sentimentality) of which disguised it from judgment, now becomes obvious, unsettling and very ugly.<br /><br />The five sit in a dark cell. They are all scheduled to die the next day. From here the elements of a Christian parable become stronger. Genuine Rembrandt lighting and compositions are used as other Old Master poses of Christ are represented. He decides he can save everyone if he takes on the guilt for everyone. He must be kept alive until morning so he can save everyone. He asks the mother for forgiveness and the headman knowing what is taking place doesn't feel such despair at dying uselessly as he did before.<br /><br />Morning comes. The Germans don't care if Sotnikov takes on all of the sins of his companions or not. They will all be hung. They trudge up a steeply inclined street which is a virtual Via Dolorosa. A bench is taken up to the site of execution which is the gateway to the town. Five ropes hang from it. The bench only stands three, so Sotnikov stands on a tree stump which Rybak kicks out from under him. They all are hung.<br /><br />As Rybak descend the road with the Germans, someone in the crowd calls him a Judas, an unnecessary allusion, Shepitko's only misstep. Rybak imagines several times being shot in the back trying to escape, dying an honorable death and tries, unsuccessfully, to hang himself in the shithouse, but leaves with the Germans as the beaten dog he is. However if Rybak was morally right to go back and save Sotnikov's life, is he wrong to try to save his own life? | pos |
This is not a good movie at all. I cannot believe that after fifty years, this movie gets the National Award when there have been such gems from Marathi cinema that have been so systematically ignored. This is a very overrated movie that got very, very lucky. It was given the National Award, harvested the popular opinion and now is going to represent India before the international audience. Anyone with even a marginal understanding of good, quality cinema will know very well that this will not even be nominated at the Oscars.<br /><br />I cannot understand where to start. There are just so many things that are wrong and lacking in this movie that it amazing it even got considered for the National Award. That this movie is awarded as the best movie to come out this year goes to show the biased judgment of people who hold the reins of Indian cinema and the diminutive understanding of the people who blindly appreciate this movie.<br /><br />The topic chosen is great. It is important that such movies be made but only by people who are able to handle them. Sandeep Sawant does not measure up to the task not even close. His direction is jumpy, confused. There is no clear thought process. He tries, but is not able to explore the depth of the characters, especially the grandfather. He is not able to show the initial horror, anxiety and then hopeless detachment and yet the insurmountable courage of the grandfather. He wastes our time in the hospital when we should have been shown the time pair spend together. He is trying to cram in everything without any priorities. He does not understand his subject properly and that really counts against him.<br /><br />However, the cast does not help Sawant either. Worst job Amruta Shubash. She is a terrible actor and a terrible choice for this or any sensible acting job. How did she get 'Tee Phulrani'? Extremely lucky and/or extremely influential and/or extremely pitiful casting. Having said that, she goes out of her way to do an even terrible job in this movie. Her act of the MSW should have gone to the more responsible actor Sonali Kulkarni. Amruta Subhash did not understand it. MSW's work under constant emotional stress and yet it is important for them to project a calm, strong exterior, as this is reassuring to the patients. Amruta Subhash's Asawari seems even more scared and in need of support than the people she is working for.<br /><br />Second worst Arun Nalawade. I have never seen a more wooden face in Marathi film industry (it is abound and everywhere in today's Hindi cinema though). He is the producer and so he chose himself; no second thought, no consideration. Any good actor would have jumped to play this role even if he had to pay the producer's to do it, but Arun Nalawade would not let anyone else do it. Over ambitious and obtuse, he contributes to bring down the movie more than everyone else combined. His acting lacks research and even the basic acting skills. My choice for this role would be Vikram Gokhale.<br /><br />The music is uninspired. The movie is technically lacking. It could well have been an FTII project job.<br /><br />On the up side; brilliant performance by Ashwin Chitale. It is amazing that such a young boy could give such a respectable performance. He put many of today's actors to shame. Unintentionally maybe, but he brought his own innocence to his character and that made it a memorable performance. Also, Sandeep Kulkarni really gave a very believable performance. Really put in all his efforts and it shows. The script too is well written.<br /><br />'Shoestring budget' cannot be a valid argument to praise this movie. Lack of funds dogs all of the Marathi movies. Cricket and Hindi movies sponge all the money and the rest are left to fight for the scraps. It is a sorry state of affairs but yet not reason enough to praise any immature movie that comes out. 'Doghi' was brilliant movie and it too was made on a shoestring budget. 'Doghi' also lacked technically but it was well researched and well made. It was abound in details and supported by wonderful performances by everyone and that made it rich cinema. Why did it not receive the accolades it so very deserved? only proves my point of biased judgment.<br /><br />Lack of research and not of funds, is what makes 'Shwaas' such a bad movie. | neg |
great historical movie, will not allow a viewer to leave once you begin to watch. View is presented differently than displayed by most school books on this subject. My only fault for this movie is it was photographed in black and white; wished it had been in color ... wow ! | pos |
I thought that this movie was incredible. I absolutely loved it, even though my brothers didn't that much. The special effects were outstanding, and this movie is about my favorite sport; golf. The only thing that was disappointing about this amazing movie is that it is hard to watch two times or more in a row. This movie just absolutely tops everything else I have ever seen. It was everything I would expect out of a movie. I just loved it. Also, it was pretty kid-friendly. This movie helped me realize that when you put your mind to it, anything is possible. I would give it a pure 10/10! It was better than The Legend of Baggar Vants, and the two Pirates of the Caribbean movies combined. Absolutely amazing. Loved it. | pos |
It used to be that video distributors like Sub Rosa and Brain Damage Films would release low-budget, shot-on-video horror films to a select market of gorehounds that ate them up with glee. That's acceptable to me, because you could see these movies from a mile away with their shoddy box art and cheesy titles.<br /><br />Now we have Lions Gate getting into the mix, only they have decided that it'd be better to sucker in poor saps by putting a "professional" looking cover on it and charge the same price as one of their higher-budget, professionally made features. Do not be suckered in by this! Granted, if you've seen Dark Harvest 1 or 2 than you already know what to expect with 3 but there is a place for movies like this and it is not on a video store shelf beside professionally-made features.<br /><br />I am a fan of independent cinema and have watched several low budget, shot-on-video productions that were still a worthy rental but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The "acting" (if you can call it that) was abysmal. It was amusing to laugh at the horrible line reading for a minute or two, but eventually it was too much to take and became unbearable. The story is bad, the dialogue is worse, the acting somehow manages to be even worse. The only possible saving grace to this would be one disemboweling scene that still manages to be awful but is an award winning effect when compared to the blood splatters after a girl is slapped or the mannequin decapitation.<br /><br />It took me three tries to make it through this entire movie and I only did so because I paid good money to rent it and felt like I should at least finish it all the way through. Stay away - stay far, far away from this one. | neg |
This film has the look and feel of a Student film project. Yeah, there are some interesting (albeit gimmicky) edits and shots, but the end result was juvenile.<br /><br />The director didn't seem to be saying "Look at this film." It seemed as if he were saying, "Look at ME! I'm a DIRECTOR!"<br /><br />Thumbs down. | neg |
"Beyond the Clouds" is an over-the-top artsy group of four vignettes each a offering a glimpse into a man-woman relationship from the tenuous to the turbulent. Although the film offers superb cinematography, some exquisite visual beauty, and a cast of fine performers, there's little meat on the bones of this fragmented work. A taste of a relationship cannot impart the fullness of it and synergism suggests that much more can be accomplished with one story in 2 hours than with four. Nonetheless, "Beyond the Clouds" will be fodder for dilettantes and a visual feast for the all albeit superficial, stilted, and lacking in substance. | pos |
Although a film with Bruce Willis is always worth watching, you better skip this one. I watched this one on television, so I didn't have to plunk down cash for it. Lucky me.<br /><br />The plot develops slowly, very slowly. Although the first 30 minutes or so are quite believable, it gets more and more unbelievable towards the end. It is highly questionable, if a seasoned soldier like Lt. Waters would disobey direct orders. And even if he would, if the rest of his platoon would. They know he puts them in direct danger, and they know they will certainly die if they follow him, but what the heck, he is our Lt. so let's do what he says (despite the direct orders, remember).<br /><br />Still, there are some nice scenes in this movie. They somewhat save a village, where the total population is being massacred by the rebels. Well, they save a dozen villagers or so, the rest was already killed. The strange part of it, that they did take the trucks which the rebels left behind. They rather go on foot. Maybe because the roads are unsafe, but there was no explanation for it. Anyway. I think this was what earned the movie the one point I gave it.<br /><br />What made this movie an insult to the brain and hence completely unbelievable is that a group of 7 soldiers can kill of so many rebels without being hurt or killed themselves. Only near the end they loose a few comrades. And that is only because they have to fight of an army of nearly 500 or more. Can you believe that?<br /><br />They fight of an army of so many, kill hundreds of them, and only loose a few of themselves. And they have rounds and round of ammo. Never run out of it. Grenades and claymore mines, an M60 machine gun and even an RPG. Where do they get this stuff. Carrying it around or what? They even got a laptop which shows them the activity of enemy rebels. And this laptop has a battery which goes on for days. Really? Who think up this crap.<br /><br />I guess if you turn off your brain completely and accept that the rebels are a bunch of idiots, you give this movie a high rating. If not, skip this one. It saves you time. | neg |
Wow. Uhm...well...wow! I guess I'll start with the plot. A betrothed woman (Lucy) arrives at the family home of her would be husband (Mathurin) in France, where they are awaiting the arrival of the Bishop or Cardinal or someone in the Catholic Church to marry them (to satisfy a will.) While waiting, young Lucy learns about a legend of a Beast who roamed the grounds centuries before. In bed that night, she begins fantasizing about the Beast and his rape-turned-consensual tryst with the former lady of the house. That's where it gets interesting! The plot is really pretty thin (and it seems to drag on for quite a while in the middle of the flick), but the filmmaker rewards (?) those who stick it out with a shocking and hilarious finale.<br /><br />This movie isn't for everyone. If you're looking for great cinema, look elsewhere. If you're looking for a far-out movie about bestiality (that almost casts a sympathetic glance over the subject) this movie is for you! (If you have a weak stomach, don't be afraid of this one. Outside of some horse-on-horse action at the beginning, the 'deeds' are pretty cartoonish, IMO) | pos |
The year 2000 had been a bad year for indian films due to lack of quality and imagination from film directors. Other than Mohabbatein and Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai nothing stood out. CCCC had lot of contraversy due to the financing of the film and this with not really knowing what the film is about has generated good publicity and advanced ticket sales for the film around India and Abroad. The only information given was that it was a suspense thriller. The film is now been released in 2001 and the film was surprisingly quite good. The main plot is to do with surrogacy and is well handled. Salman And Preiti give a good performance where Salman doesn't actually take is shirt off at all..must be special effects!! Rani plays Salmans wife but it is slightly a less demanding role compared with Preiti who plays Prostitute who eventually becomes the surrogate mother. The three main leads confirm, after Har Di Jo Pyar Karega, they have a solid on screen and off screen chemistry(apparently). Salman Khan who is excellent plays a serious role in the film as a successful business man and is a pity is being exploited as a wannabe comedian in his other films as he is quite underrated in the Mumbai film industry partly due to the films he chooses. Rani's Character does not know Preiti is a prostitute until the end...this kept from her and the rest of the family...the rest you should find out as it will ruin the film if i told you. The songs are all picturised well especially dekhne walon and the main title song. The other supporting actors do a minimal but fine effort as Salmans loving family. Abbas Mastan has produced a hit and handled the film subject tactfully..I say go and watch it or rent it whatever you prefer! | pos |
Produced at a point in his career, where he had the juice to do whatever he wanted, Eddie Murphy took on the task of producing, directing, co-writing and starring in HARLEM NIGHTS, an expensive-looking but ultimately empty gangster saga about a group of black nightclub owners/gangsters running a ritzy club during the 1930's, headed by a wisecracking hot shot (Eddie Murphy)and his adopted father (Richard Pryor) and their attempts to avoid being overrun by white gangsters who think they are taking over turf that, it seems, they think is rightfully theirs, simply by virtue of their color. This was an idea that probably looked great on paper but it definitely lost something in the translation. This was a vanity piece for Eddie and I think he spreads himself a little too thin here trying to be the whole show here. Admittedly, it was a pleasure seeing Murphy and Pryor together on screen, but the rest of the large supporting cast, including Arsenio Hall, Redd Foxx, Della Reese, Michael Lerner, Danny Aiello, Jasmine Guy, Thomas Mikal Ford, Stan Shaw, and Eddie's brother, are really given precious little to do (though I will admit Murphy's fight scene with Della Reese is hysterically funny and probably, the movie's best scene). Murphy clearly poured a lot of money into this film and a good deal of it shows on screen. The art and set direction are impressive and the breathtaking costumes should have won an Oscar, but this one was a big miss for Eddie as he definitely tried to wear too many hats. | neg |
ok. for starters, taxi driver is amazing. this, this is not taxi driver or amazing. what it is is bad. but i thought it was bad funny, which means that it did have some redeeming qualities. like the dialogue...wow. there was more or less no plot, the characters were all stupid, and the movie was preachy. there were some places were i thought the movie would dive into taxi driver type violence, which would have hit the message at the end of the movie on the head much harder. i can't even believe that there are like 20 other people who have seen this movie. yeah, it's worth watching if you are real bored and you want to reaffirm the fact that anyone can make a movie, or at least can try to. | neg |
By 1950, John Ford had already fully-developed the ideas and motifs that would form the core of his most successful Westerns. Always present, for example, is a strong sense of community, most poignantly captured in the Joad family of Steinbeck's 'The Grapes of Wrath (1940).' Within these communities, even amid Ford's loftier themes of racism and the pioneer spirit, there's always room for the smaller human interactions, the minor friendships and romances that make life worth living. 'Wagon Master (1950)' came after Ford had released the first two films in his "cavalry" trilogy 'Fort Apache (1948)' and 'She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)' and it covers similar territory, only without the military perspective and, more damningly, the strong lead of John Wayne. Ben Johnson and Harry Cary, Jr. are fine actors, but they feel as though they should be playing second-fiddle to somebody, and Ward Bond's cursing Mormon elder, while potentially a candidate for such a role, isn't given quite enough focus to satisfactorily fit the bill.<br /><br />In 'Wagon Master,' Ford seems so comfortable with his tried-and-tested Western formula that any character development is largely glossed over. Ben Johnson's romance with Joanne Dru is treated as an obligation more than anything else, and Harry Cary Jr's charming of a Mormon girl is so perfunctory as to be almost nonexistent in the final film, leaving one to ponder the survival of deleted scenes. Only in Charles Kemper's charismatic and shamelessly-villainous Uncle Shiloh does Ford try some different, and it works, even with his being surrounded by a troop of insufferably hammy slack-jawed yokels. Where Ford does succeed is in orchestrating the conglomeration of three distinct races of Americans the values-orientated Mormoms, the easygoing horse-traders, the eccentric travelling showmen into a cohesive community of pioneers looking towards a bright future. This apparent harmony is thrown into disarray by the arrival of Uncle Shiloh's gun-toting outlaws, who exploit the lawlessness of the Western frontier but ultimately lose out to the noble cowboys who "only ever drew on snakes."<br /><br />Ford reportedly considered Wagon Master among the favourite of his films, and perhaps this has something to do with the absence of big names like John Wayne or Henry Fonda. Armed only with his stock selection of usual players, Ford is able to generate a sense of community by avoiding placing focus on any one character, though most of the Mormom travellers still remain completely anonymous. Despite being undoubtedly well-made, I can't help feeling that this film only does well what other Ford pictures did even better: the terrific majesty of the the Western frontier was presented more beautifully in 'She Wore a Yellow Ribbon'; the romances and friendly squabbles among community members took greater prominence in 'Fort Apache'; the early relations with Native Americans, only hinted at here, were more thoroughly examined in 'The Searchers (1956)'; the bold pioneering spirit of the early settlers was explored more movingly (albeit by Henry Hathaway and George Marshall) in 'How the West Was Won (1962).' 'Wagon Master' is pure John Ford, but it isn't a landmark. | pos |
The End Of Suburbia (TEOS) is a very useful film. It's also important and provocative. There seems to be no middle ground with either the film or its main source of entertainment, the anti-sprawl Meister, James Howard Kunstler. <br /><br />While I am not a big fan of the New Urbanism, my criticism of it is because of its small vision. In the case of New Urbanist Peter Calthorpe - another talking head - you finally hear what's somewhat obvious in and amongst the special added TEOS out-takes... Calthorpe just doesn't understand peak oil. <br /><br />I've used this as a teaching tool in economics classes to get at the importance of land as a factor of production - a fact long diminished by Neoclassical Economics - and also as a vehicle for educating about: peak oil, our wastrel land use, global warming, our threatened food production, public transit our compromised future<br /><br />Move over South Park! .... Made by Canadians from Toronto for $25,000 and released in May 2004, this video sold over 24,000 copies by October 2005. One major DVD rental vendor recently ordered almost 400 more copies.<br /><br />The End Of Suburbia sales were actually climbing 1 1/2 years after its release and it has also been available on one of the major online video services since September 2005.<br /><br />A sequel, Escape From Suburbia, is in the works with a possible release by August 2006. | pos |
I watched about an hour of this movie (against my will) and couldn't finish it. I'd rate it as a 0. The writing was bad, the plot predictable and one that's been done far too many times. The most annoying part of this movie was the acting done by Melody Thomas Scott. This part did not call for someone appearing snobbish, but she managed in every single scene I saw to look like a (sour) snob or someone who was about to spout something extremely sarcastic or cruel. <br /><br />The two romances which seemed to develop into something serious almost upon the couples meeting was a bit too much. <br /><br />I should know better than to watch made for TV movies. If there is absolutely nothing on the telly and this is the only choice, read a book. | neg |
THE RIDDLE was written and directed by Brendan Foley in what appears to be an attempt to pull the mysteries of the Charles Dickens' novels into a contemporary story, but that attempt is thwarted by electing to use the two periods of time format in which the 'riddle' is unraveled. Despite a cast of well-known actors, trying their best to pull off this direct to DVD movie, the end product is a long, tedious, amateurish mess that can only be considered as entertainment if viewers are fans of the cast as remembered from other films. <br /><br />Mike Sullivan (Vinnie Jones) is a journalist confined to reporting on dog racing events while he dreams of important reporting assignments. A series of similar murders happens to include an old friend of Mike's - Sadie (Vera Day) who runs a pub on the banks of the Thames, having just discovered an old valuable unpublished manuscript by Charles Dickens, and has a heart of gold, giving sandwiches away to such pathetic creatures as an old tramp beachcomber (Derek Jacobi). Sadie's murder attracts Mike to the role of detective journalism and with the help of policewoman Kate (Julie Cox) he begins to tie the investigation to clues he finds in reading the Dickens manuscript. Disrupting the flow of this rather simplistic story is the use of flashbacks to Dickens' time as Dickens (again Derek Jacobi) narrates a rather personal story of peculiar murders. The parallel between stories and the cross casting among actors may have worked in another's hands, but the finessing of this kind of venture escapes writer/director Brendan Foley. He draws his story to a close (at long last) with a tired Hollywoodesque ending. <br /><br />In addition to Jones, Jacobi, Cox, and Day, the film somehow attracted the attention of Vanessa Redgrave, Jason Flemyng, PH Moriarty and Mel Smith: their contributions are minimal but happily distracting. This is a flimsy bit of treacle leaving the viewer wondering how films of this quality ever find funding. Grady Harp | neg |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.