text
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Our imp of the perverse did good his first time out, thats for sure. The music is the best you may ever hear by any human, but you already know that, unless you have no taste or have a brain that is too small to understand greatness. A poor script that doesn't flesh out much of a story, but at least it has its moments. the breathtaking concert stuff is worth seeing it. He deserved an Oscar for this s**t, even though he was at times an ego driven twit, with his towering bodyguard Chick Huntsbery always in front. A movie that made non-fans fans, Take it or leave it. Prince does need to stay clear of acting in the future though. He takes himself way to serious. He is a genius musician, but pleaseee..Just enjoy the ride, my purple maestro..Peace. | pos |
This is a Very Very VERY bad movie !<br /><br />The plot is weak the acting is bad and the science is worse.<br /><br />The special effects are unconvincing. The dramatic scenes are a joke. Every step of the way you can see coming a mile away. The end is disappointing and there is no suspense. The best aspect of the film is the soundtrack.<br /><br />The only reason not to give this a lower vote is because it is a TV movie and i believe the budget was low to start of with.<br /><br />I do believe that the young female fans of Luke Parry will still see this movie however he has done better work. Again this is Terrible. Very very very terrible. If you have a choice, look at something else. | neg |
A CRY IN THE DARK <br /><br />A CRY IN THE DARK was a film that I anticipated would offer a phenomenal performance from Meryl Streep and a solid, if unremarkable film. This assumption came from the fact that aside from Streep's Best Actress nomination, the movie received little attention from major awards groups.<br /><br />Little did I anticipate that A CRY IN THE DARK would be such a riveting drama, well-constructed on every level. If you ask me, this is an under-appreciatted classic.<br /><br />The film opens rather slowly, letting the audience settle into the Chamberlain's at a relaxed pace and really notice that, at the core, they are an incredibly loving, simple family. Fred Schepisi (the director) selects random moments to capture of a family on vacation that give a looming sense of the oncoming tragedy, while also showing the attentive bliss with which Lindy (Streep) and Michael (Sam Neill) Chamberlain care for their children.<br /><br />While the famous line "A Dingo Took My Baby!" has become somewhat of a punchline these days, the movie never even comes close to laughable. The actual death of Azaria is horrifyingly captured. It is subtle and realistic, leaving the audience horrified and asking questions.<br /><br />The majority of the film takes place in courtrooms and focuses on the Chamberlain's continuous fight to prove their innocence to the press and the court, which suspects Lindy of murder.<br /><br />The fact that it is clear to us from the beginning that they are innocent makes the tense trials all the more gripping. As an audience member, I was fully invested in the Chamberlain's plight... and was genuinely angered and hurt and saddened when they were made to look so terrible by the media. But at the same, the media/public opinion is understandable. I loved the way the media was by no means made to be sympathetic, but they always had valid reasons to hold their views.<br /><br />The final line of the film is very profound and captures perfectly the central element that makes this film so much different from other courtroom dramas.<br /><br />In terms of performances, the only ones that really matter in this film are those of Streep and Neill... and they deliver in every way. For me, this ranks as one of (if not #1) Meryl Streep's best performances. For all her mastery of different accents (which of course are very impressive in their own right), Streep never loses the central heart and soul of her characters. I find this to be one of Streep's more subtle performances, and she hits it out of the park. And Neill, an actor who has never impressed me beyond being charismatic and appealing in JURASSIC PARK, is a perfect counterpoint to Streep's performance. From what I've seen, this is undoubtedly Neill's finest work to date. It's a shame he wasn't recognized by the Academy with a Leading Actor nomination to match Streep's... b/c the two of them play of each other brilliantly.<br /><br />More emotionally gripping than most films, and also incredibly suspenseful... A CRY IN THE DARK far exceeded my expectations. I highly recommend that people who only know of the movie as the flick where Meryl screams "The dingo took my baby!" watch the film and see just how much more there is to A CRY IN THE DARK then that one line.<br /><br />... A ... | pos |
Apparently, a massive head wound is the cure for homicidal tendencies, turning a murderous sociopath into a lovable and oafish dog catcher. Also (this ones for the ladies), it seems that the front gate of a psychiatric hospital is an overlooked hot spot for meeting potential mates. Those are just two of the approximately 23 absurdities we're supposed to accept for this movie to have any meaning. I love movies and I believed, as I'm assuming many Americans do (forgive me if I'm wrong), that Hollywood turned out the best product. I've come to learn how sadly naive and brainwashed I was and 2) how much more sophisticated European/Asian Cinema is in comparison to its American counterpart.<br /><br />I watched this allegedly disturbing psychological "thriller" the night following a viewing of a Japanese movie called Suicide Club. As the camera faded on Walter Sparrow's happy little family enjoying some quality time around a prison visiting room table (not to mention the patronizing voice-over extolling the virtue of "doing the right thing"), I suddenly had an epiphany. I had just finished watching a movie that left me feeling as though I'd just had a glass of water when I really wanted a beer. My thirst was sated, but it was strictly utilitarian. The premise was mildly interesting, but the story itself, with its innumerable "coincidences" (How do we explain her finding the book? We'll just say something like,"...Or did the book find her?." They'll buy that), gaping plot holes (why did wifey take the skeleton?), predictability, and obligatory happy ending, turned out to be just another Hollywood hack job. Additionally, the casting of Jim Carrey was just
wrong. At any moment, I felt he was capable of breaking into some shtick from one of his stupid comedies or In Living Color. Jim Carrey as a tattooed hard-boiled police detective who enjoys bondage and rough sex? Didn't buy it for a second.<br /><br />You want disturbing? Deeply disturbing? Watch Suicide Club. The story surrounds the mysterious mass suicide of 54 school girls. The film opens with a group of giggling high schoolers mulling about on a subway train platform. We then watch in horror as they line up, hold hands, and happily throw themselves in front of a fast moving commuter train. Needless to say, much chaos ensues. That's as far as I'm going to go with the story line because I encourage the reader to see the film. In fact, I'm not sure if I could outline the plot even if I wanted to. What begins as a straightforward mystery quickly descends into a madhouse of grotesque imagery. Did I understand the movie? No
not initially
like many of the foreign films my girlfriend has introduced me to. So naturally, I thought it was "bad." But this one lingered in my mind. I went to bed thinking on the film and awoke the next morning and looked it up on IMDb. I read some of the viewer comments and was astonished at 1) the insights others had derived from the film and 2) the fact that I had so thoroughly missed the whole point of the movie. I realized that I was so used to being spoon fed the "message" from Hollywood, that when confronted with a film that actually required the viewer to participate
to actually think for themselves, I was totally unequipped. It's as if I had been conditioned to "check my brain at the door" of the theater.<br /><br />Am I saying that Suicide Club is the greatest movie ever made? Of course not. It has its flaws, many of which were reported adroitly by the IMDb reviewers. Am I saying that all American movies are bad and all foreign movies are good? Again
of course not. My point is that there's a whole world of film-making outside of Hollywood
a body of work that engages the viewer; forces them to think and question
movies that don't telegraph plot twists, follow a strict linear sequence, and above all, don't insult the intelligence of the person watching. I look forward to expanding my mind while exploring this new world of film that doesn't "do the thinking for me." | neg |
I watched a movie called Dark Talon, dated 1974. The credits to this movie are exactly the same as Dark Star, so I'm going to presume it was an alternate title. Dark Talon was nowhere near as funny as everyone else here states. The acting was lame, the editing slipshod, and overall stupid. At the beginning there's an annoying 1970's trucking song called "Benson, Arizona" that has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Basically the plot revolves around a small crew of an interstellar bomber that goes around bombing places that are unstable. The bombs are sentient and respond to people. The obligatory disaster disrupts communication between the bombs and the crew. One of the crewmen goes out and has an absurdly idiotic existential conversation with the bomb that made no sense whatsoever. The movie I saw was done in under an hour and a half, with commercials thrown in, so I suspect that Dark Talon is an overedited version of Dark Star.<br /><br />The alien is an inflatable red beach ball spray painted with a pair of monster hands that it walks on. It was silly and unconvincing as an alien.<br /><br />It's hard to believe that John Carpenter had a hand in this. His other movies were so much better. | neg |
I saw Wicked Little Things as part of the "8 Films To Die For" Horrorfest, and this was the only film that disappointed me. To wit, a mom, her little girl and her teenage daughter settle down in an abandoned house in the Pennsylvania mountains. Every night, however, the vengeful spirits of children killed in a coal mine run about and slaughter anyone they find.<br /><br />I guess the director was banking on his viewers being repulsed that children would be capable of pickaxe murders and eating human flesh (of which there are lavish close-ups, as a nice homage to George Romero) because the film just isn't scary otherwise. Simply put, there are far too many establishing shots of the evil kids jogging to their next murder site. If someone's gonna get it in the barn, there will be a shot of the kids ARRIVING at the barn (oh the suspense) and then moving in for the kill.<br /><br />Come to think of it, why do the kids suddenly walk SO SLOWLY when they corner their prey? And not that I have any experience in this, but I think a shotgun blast will throw a child A LOT FARTHER than this film implies...? Nor does it help that the mom is one of the worst parents I've ever seen in any film. "The lock on the front door is busted"? You have an EIGHT-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER in the WOODS with BEARS and MOUNTAIN LIONS! FIX IT, you MORON!!! Plus, Mom and her oldest daughter look waaaay too close together in age- even for a teen pregnancy, and there's a pretty unbelievable death which involves sneaking up on somebody trying to push a car out of the mud with their butt.<br /><br />I'm giving this a 3 because it tried. As a splatter film it's not bad. But for good scares, go elsewhere. | neg |
American expatriate Jules Dassin makes an award-winning French gangster film. The plot involves Tony the Stephanois, a hoodlum just out of prison, who takes his band of thieves on a $240 million jewel heist. Unfortunately, his ex-wife's relationship with a notorious gangster named Grutter, an Italian safe-cracker named Cesar with a weakness for women, and the missteps of his own friend Jo cause the successful heist to turn into a bloody race against time as Grutter holds Jo's son hostage for the cash in typical "crime never pays" tragedy fashion.<br /><br />The "rififi" in the title is explained in a song to mean slang for basically violence and sex, and the full title, "Du rififi chez les hommes" means roughly "Some naughty in the house of men", which is pretty much where the fatal flaw of the characters take place. Leave it to a gangster film to place most of the emphasis on the missteps on the women, but this time Jo's wife gets the last laugh (if you could call it a laugh) when she predicts "All of you are just going to kill each other." The characters aren't the most sympathetic and the women are mostly weak, but Dassin still builds an extremely well-crafted suspense film out of them as they pull off a heist that requires the utmost quiet, hide the goods, and then attempt to survive what basically becomes a cross-country cat and mouse game. In the mix are some very amazing photography and a fine attention to detail in editing, leading to a pacing and visual experience that well overstates the otherwise generic plot. It's not only easy to see why this is held as a classic, it's also easy to see why it's among the top 250 on the IMDb: it's suspenseful, visually magnificent, full of sex and violence, and maintains that classy gangster attitude we film buffs like so much. | pos |
Everywhere I hear that people are calling this show bad because its premise is too far fetched....well maybe a do-good cab driver in Philly is pushing it a little (at least the cab drivers ive met), but that's what makes the show great.<br /><br />The fact that this show is a little off the reality track is an issue but its still enjoyable and fun. Its highly watchable and even though u know Mike wins out in the end he never wins in life. David Morse is a great actor and does a great job in the title role. His supporting cast is great and i must say the location of the show is especially great!<br /><br />All in all I watch this show not because im looking for a good dose of reality or a show with lots of action, I watch this show because its got great acting, a good premise, and a great story-line every week. It's also a plus when i can pick out the landmarks he drives by, or know what intersection he's at. I Love this show and I love Philly!! Give this show a shot! | pos |
If you want your vision of Chaplin limited to a lovable tramp and you get your belly laughs from pathos, watch something else. If, however, you love slapstick comedy as performed by one of the best, do watch this one.<br /><br />The image is of the tramp who really cannot get the girl. He spots another couple kissing on a park bench, and he has a blast ruining their fun.<br /><br />This is one of Chaplin's "park comedies," filmed in Mack Sennett's park, with pickpockets and cops and couples. These shorts work, as the format allows Chaplin to shine as he weaves through predicaments.<br /><br />I checked the box, as this could be considered a spoiler, though it's not if you've seen these films. Everyone ends up in the pond except Chaplin. He gets the girl, who in this case was played by Minta Durfee, a.k.a. Mrs. Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle. | pos |
This has got to be the cheesiest, stupidest, most retarded monster film of all time. It's a complete joke that this even surfaced into theaters. This is sort of like watching the Loch Ness monster in rural America. This movie deserves to be thrown in a toilet and completely forgotten. John Carradine, shame on you. The people involved in this moronic pile of trash need to be lobotomized. Wait! Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. I'm sure they were lobotomized before the filming. How else can one explain the utter and sheer stupidity that this bucket of crap contains. Don't waste a minute of your life watching this. Don't even waste your time sending a review. | neg |
I saw this in the market place at the Cannes Film Festival. <br /><br />It's a real cheapo prod - nothing wrong with that but you have to make up for it with a bit of sex or gore or both. <br /><br />Think Larry Cohen. <br /><br />Sean Young is an interesting actor - well done to the producers for hooking her I guess.<br /><br />The opening scene in the space-ship coming down is hilarious - you could picture all the crew hands shaking it around! <br /><br />Ha ha - but I wish the people who made this well - at least it's not pretentious. | neg |
Acclaimed Argentine horror director Emilio Vierya directs a script from Jack Curtis and Antonio Ross. Cheesy and ridiculous are in the mix for the method to the madness. A doctor's son is nearing his early death, until his desperate father transplants an ape's heart into his chest. As expected, things are going to get weird; when this young man turns into a mask wearing monster and roams the beaches scouting out nice looking party girls to make his slaves. When heroin is injected, his beauties become zombies. The monster summons his dazed minions with strange organ music. So bad...well...it's just bad. In the cast: Jose E. Moreno, Alberto Caneau, Mauricio De Ferraris, Gloria Prat and Gina Moret. | neg |
This is shallow hedonism and/or social commentary wrapped in a tragic tale about a jealous young woman's scheme to drive apart her father and his fiancée. Is it incest or just a view through the eyes of a daughter with an Electra complex? Who cares? All of the characters, except for Anne (Deborah Kerr) are vacuous and vile. Seberg is poor (I agree with the "boys with breasts" comment of an earlier review). The plot plodded. This predictable material was sufficient for about 30 minutes of film that unfortunately was stretched over an hour and a half! If you want to see great gowns and jewels on the Riviera, I recommend "To Catch a Thief" - in which you will get the added bonuses of an entertaining story and likable characters. <br /><br />I like for films to entertain me. I personally don't really care where a film is set. Whatever the time or place, I want a good story - comedy or drama. I also want to see some enjoyable characters. It doesn't hurt if I can relate to them. Poor Deborah Kerr gives a typically good performance, and so does David Niven in a despicable role.<br /><br />The "2" rating is solely for Kerr and Niven, and for the cinematography - the rich color scenes and the murky, foreboding black and white scenes. Unfortunately, all the great cinematography in the world cannot salvage a poor story with un-enjoyable characters. A sow's ear is still a sow's ear. Consequently watching this mess was a serious waste of my time. | neg |
Wow, this was a very bad movie... as read in other comments this movie has no plot, no character development, they possibly had some kind of script but it's difficult to tell based on the actual end result.<br /><br />The editing of this movie was really non-existent, it tends to jump from scene to scene without any connection or anything to assist the viewer in determining what is actually happening.<br /><br />All in all this is simply a low budget zombie flick that was not thought out at all, has bad acting, bad dialogue, bad everything.<br /><br />The only thing that saves this movie from a 1 or 2 is the gore factor, I think this must be where they spent whatever money they had to try to justify making this.<br /><br />Unless you are (like me) dedicated to finding and watching all the zombie flicks you can find, do not watch this. Period. | neg |
....but at the same time part of you is thinking "Am I ready for what I am about to see?" <br /><br />In the end, you are happy you saw it. I was, at least. Jackass Number Two has twice the laughs and twice the action. Some stunts will leave you breathless. Besides Little Miss Sunshine, I think it was the best movie I saw this summer. Maybe even this year. <br /><br />The entire cast returns, besides a few such as Chris Raab and Rake Yohn. I don't think any of the cast members had a dull moment. Each and every stunt was either funny or dangerous or a combination of both; stupid. The beginning was just as funny as the first one, and the ending was interestingly hilarious; the cast performing a musical number. <br /><br />Jackass Number Two is the perfect movie to see with your friends. Stay during the credits, there are some pretty funny moments. One involves Luke Wilson. | pos |
I had seen The Cure when I was a kid and I loved it then. Now, years later, I got a hold of a copy almost by accident, and watched it again. Being a kid, you don't really have the ability to procure things for yourself that you want, that is usually a prerogative of your parents - but when I watched it again now I felt sorry that I did not do more to get a copy of this movie back then, and consequently almost forgot about it until today.<br /><br />This really is a beautiful movie. It tells the story of the unlikely friendship between a hard-edged, misfit kid - who takes his cues from his horrible, abusive mother - and his neighbor, a slightly younger boy who has AIDS.<br /><br />Right, you say. Another one of "those". A tear jerker. A bucket movie. A morality tail. Yeah, I know, I hate those too. Only this one isn't. It is one of the very few movies among those many I have seen that pulls off a very rare trick: it conveys a truly sad story (and yes, a morality tale) but without a single moment where it feels cheesy, forced or in any other way "hollywoody". It shows a REAL relationship between two REAL boys, who interact as REAL kids do. And through that interaction the good-natured, loving character of the older boy, Eric, starts to shine through his "tough-guy" persona, as he takes on a kind of big-brotherly care for Dexter, his HIV-positive younger neighbor. Together, they embark on an adventure to find a cure - which to Erik seems to be just around the corner - so that all this silly AIDS thing will go away and they can be friends forever.<br /><br />The production is top notch. But, of course, what really carries this movie, is the performances of the two leads - Brad Renfro and Joseph Mazzello. Especially Mazzello, who is simply stunning - he does convey a sense of frailty needed for an ailing boy, but at the same time he manages to make Dexter a truly energetic and determined character. He shines at the scene where the boys confront Pony: his impulse to protect his older friend lunges him forth, drives him to say what he says - and only afterwards, the horror is depicted on his face, as he realizes that what he himself said is true: his blood is poison... Renfro also has his moments, in particular the scenes with his mother: he depicts perfectly how this macho, street-wise kid is left completely frozen and numb when faced with his abusive, storming mother, and can't get a word in to contradict her as she forbids his relationship with the ailing boy out of her fear and ignorance. Annabella Sciorra also gives a memorable performance as Dexter's mother, who ultimately becomes, in a sense, a mother figure to Erik as well.<br /><br />I've first seen this film when I was at school back in America, and loved it - not at all a given concerning movies of this sort. But the behavior of the kids in this movie was so real, I could easily relate to them. Ironically enough, the teacher who had shown us this movie (a wonderful woman, I'm still in touch with her) got in trouble for it, as some uptight parent complained about it having the scene when the two boys are looking at a Playboy... Pathetic. Seriously, will Americans ever get over this ridiculous phobia, I do not know. There was a hardly-distinguishable shot of a playboy cover in the movie and thus it is not shown in schools... how sad. Kids need to see this movie. It is more inspiring and educational than all the "official" after-school specials put together.<br /><br />Oh, and one more thing. I know I'm rambling, but nevertheless... The score. It's great. I am a musician, and as such I know Dave Grusin from his records: he is a well known Jazz pianist and record producer. Up until this movie I really did not know that he did movie scores as well, even though when I later checked I found out that I had unknowingly watched several movies he worked on. Really, a wonderful job there.<br /><br />All in all, a solid Ten. I'd recommend this movie to anyone. And I'm definitely going to see it with my younger siblings - they can use watching a film like this among all the standard special-effect hysteria they usually see. | pos |
This movie was definitely scripted with FF VII fans ONLY in mind. I am someone who has never played the original game and watched it with a friend who was a series fan. From a visual and technical standpoint this movie is just as good as "The Spirits Within", if not better, but from a story standpoint, I was pretty lost. One major plot weakness that stood out to me was the scene where "all" of the children dying of geostigma were brought to the healing "reunion" by the three Jenovites. All told there were about 15 kids in all... Hmmmm... I thought that this Geostigma was an illness of pandemic proportions... I understand why they did it that way (time, budget,CPU), but it just seemed cheesy after all the explanation about how the bad guys needed to collect all of those who had Jenova cells so that Jenova could be reincarnated. The subtitle version that we had (some fan sub from the internet) was a pretty direct translation and therefore probably added to my confusion.<br /><br />It did prick my interest in FF VII however, and I spent a few hours on the FF VII wiki reading about the main characters and the plot. Once I read the Advent Children wiki, things made a lot more sense. If you are a video game or Sci-Fi fan this movie is a pretty good flick, but like a previous review said, it comes off like a 90 minute fight scene. You never really get to know any of the characters, and the story does just seem to jump from scene to scene without much explanation, even though some explanation just might be required. Thank goodness for wikpedia. | pos |
I admit the problem I have with the much-celebrated Ealing films I've seen so far could be mine. To my taste, either they are black and rippingly funny, or so light in tone to be unsatisfying as comedies or stories. That's a self-important way of saying I wanted to like "The Man In The White Suit" but found myself struggling to sit through its short run time.<br /><br />Textile worker Sidney Stratton (Alec Guinness) may be meek in manner, but he is doggedly committed to progress in the form of his attempts to invent a strand of fabric that can't be broken or made dirty. Using a factory lab for his latest experiment, he toils against limitations both material and human - the latter being the benighted mill bosses who don't understand what he is up to, then figure it out and become even more committed to stopping him.<br /><br />"It's small minds like yours that stand in the way of progress," Sidney complains, practicing in the mirror what he struggles to say to the Man.<br /><br />One problem with "Man In The White Suit" is that Sidney's vision of progress is awfully small-minded, too, more so even than that of the bosses or the laborers who also resent his work. My problem is more elemental: For a comedy, "White Suit" is not funny. It's a rather earnest script which too often tries to mine its feeble attempts at humor from spit-takes, double-takes, triple-takes, and dizzy takes.<br /><br />The best joke is the sound of the machine Sidney toils at, going "Bleep-Blop-Bleep-Bop" endlessly and fetching queer looks from every visitor until Sidney either extracts his miracle from it or blows it up trying. Like every other bit of stray humor that functions decently in this film, it's leaned on too long.<br /><br />I've never seen Guinness less affecting in a movie, even though he looks impossibly young and earnest (though actually in his mid-30s). He seems so bloodless, even more so than the wax-faced general he played in "Doctor Zhivago" He's the same cold fish whether he's ignoring the sad affections of the affecting mill girl who offers to give him her life savings when he loses his job (pan-faced Vida Hope as Bertha) or the more sultry charms of young Daphne Birnley (Joan Greenwood), his one real ally in his fight against "shabbiness and dirt", as she puts it, making those words sound as impossibly sexy as only Greenwood could.<br /><br />Supporting players make "White Suit" work as well as it does. Ernest Thesinger of "Bride Of Frankenstein" fame plays a singularly nasty captain of industry who looks like Nosferatu and makes a laugh like a death rattle. Howard Marion-Crawford as another factory leader is as memorable here as he was playing a blinkered medical officer in "Lawrence Of Arabia". Then there's the undeniable charm of Mandy Miller as a little girl who steals her few moments on camera right from under everyone else.<br /><br />But most of the scenes are played so straight that one wouldn't think director Alexander Mackendrick had ever worked on a comedy before (his previous Ealing comedy "Whisky Galore" doesn't reverse that impression, alas). Roger MacDougall's play posits the notion of scientific progress as potential disaster, but fails to present dull Sidney in anything other than the most blandly pleasant of lights.<br /><br />Ealing comedies are remembered for capturing the human side of comedy. Yet the Ealings I've seen never seem to do this, working only when they play aggressively against our own sympathies. "Kind Hearts And Coronets" and "The Ladykillers" (Mackendrick again, go figure) are classics this way. "White Suit", on the other hand, is a pointless ramble that falls apart when it should cohere, just like that unfortunate suit. | neg |
What kind of a documentary about a musician fails to include a single track by the artist himself?! Unlike "Ray" or countless other films about music artists, half the fun in the theater (or on the couch) is reliving the great songs themselves. Here, all the tracks are covers put on by uninteresting characters, and these renditions fail to capture Cohen's slow, jazzy style. More often, the covers are badly sung folk versions. Yuck.<br /><br />The interviews are as much or more with other musicians and figures rather than with Cohen himself. Only rarely does the film feature Cohen reading his own work (never singing)-- like letters, poems, etc. The movie really didn't capture much about the artist's life story, either, or about his development through the years. A huge disappointment for a big Cohen fan. | neg |
Hilarious show with so many great stories, that it reflects the world today as we know it, in such a funny way it literally stole my laughters for other shows. I laughed so hard that I just found any other comedy shows unfunny. The unique confessions of each characters is a great original technique that just makes the show funny and very humorous. You may think that this is an average comedy show about hard life with a family. That's what I thought at first but I found out that it holds new and unique techniques that completely sets it apart from any other average comedy show. Michael Rapaport is a star. I sure wish that this show wasn't canceled. | pos |
First off, I just watched a movie on SHOWTIME called Survival Island. It says it was a 2006 movie with Billy Zane and since I like him and couldn't sleep I thought I would check it out. Looked interesting. Watched it, and decided to look up on the IMDb who was this new face Juan Pablo Di Pace and OMG I could not believe it, this movie has been renamed THREE and will be a new movie?? It is playing again in 1 hr and 30 mins on Showtime Channel again and this date is May 28 and EDT or Florida time. You can check your showtime listings by title and see it. I wont get into details so you can see the movie but at one point there is a lady in a white bikini that goes into the water taking it all off, you see her naked body.... when she runs back out of the water you see her bottoms on. Funny, there are a lot of other mess ups too. I can't believe by coincidence I decided to look up this movie... Go figure! Wonder if the people renaming it sold it to some movie studio to put out but it is already playing on Showtime, ha ha. Good laugh. I give it 1-1/2 stars. C-, D+ movie. | neg |
This film is about a woman falling in love with a friend of her boyfriend. From then on, she has to divide her time for the two boyfriends: Jack during the day and Joseph during the night.<br /><br />This film feels like as if it was made with minimum budget. The majority of the film is set in a flat with minimal furniture. There are only three main actors, all the other actors listed in the credits make only momentary appearances. The wardrobe designer doesn't seem to have much to do, as the actors wear very down to earth clothes, and actually most of the time they are naked anyway.<br /><br />The film is very dialog heavy, which should have made up for the shortcomings described above. However, the dialogs sound too composed and awkward. In the beginning of the film, most of the dialog is a person saying a very long sentence, and then the person says 'Me too'. After the frenzy of agreement, the dialog descends into a mess of disjointed and confused word salad.<br /><br />The only merit of this film I can think of is that it serves as a feminist outlet which conveys that it is not just men who can be unfaithful.<br /><br />This film is a great disappointment. | neg |
I'm serious as well, I mean don't get me wrong, if you haven't got a bent for this type of Z grade, creaky creature feature {why would you be watching is my first thought?} then it's a rating of about 3 to 4 out of 10 tops, but to me it's a special kind of nonsense that takes me back to a nice time in my childhood. You know the kind, the memories that never leave you. Eagerly taking it all in with youthful wonderment as Doug McClure and Peter Cushing tunnel beneath the mantle to do battle with a host of creatures and sub-human species'. And guys,! now we are all grown up we can admire most seriously at the wonder of Caroline Munro and her heaving cleavage. No wonder my older brother was keen to take me to the cinema to see this one!.<br /><br />Yes the effects are bad, men in suits, strings pinging parrot monsters around and exploding rubber frog like thingies amuse us greatly. And yes, Cushing and a surprisingly pudgy McClure act as if they have truly been mesmerised by the evil Meyhas at the "core" of our film. But it matters not, zany and clunky and awash in glorious colour, At The Earth's Core is a throwback to a special pre-ILM time when kids like me queued around the block to see such joyous nonsense. 8/10 | pos |
So you've got a number of models on an island, and one by one they're picked off Agatha Christie-style. We get somebody lost at sea, pushed off a cliff, poisoned by a solvent, driven off a cliff, blown up, etc. Nothing terribly graphic.<br /><br />Before any of that starts, one woman inexplicably has a dream of a killer in a weird human face mask.<br /><br />The owner of the magazine is a sleaze who had an affair, and somebody had photos taken of her before she was of age.<br /><br />In the end, it's all about business, or something,<br /><br />There's an 80s style montage of a photo shoot, most of the bathing suits being one-pieces, surprisingly. A couple are fairly translucent. There's camera clicks during the montage where the frame of the camera appears as a white square or rectangle within the picture. The photographer is rather bad at framing! | neg |
Who wrote the script for this movie, the staff at Disney Studios?! This is the most inacurrate adaptation of any story ever! I wanted to laugh at a few scenes and cry at others, and that was only because of how pitiful it was. I'll have to hand it credit, it did have a few funny scenes, but I could've spent better time with my evening. Very seldom do I turn off a movie after only a quarter of the way through. | neg |
Sex, drugs, racism and of course you ABC's. What more could you want in a kid's show!<br /><br />------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------<br /><br />"User Comment Guidelines <br /><br />Please note there is a 1,000 word limit on comments. The recommended length is 200 to 500 words. The minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Comments which are too short or have been padded with junk text will be discarded. You may only post a single comment per title. <br /><br />What to include: Your comments should focus on the title's content and context. The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a movie or TV-series, but also why. Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them. Comments that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site. Please write in English only and note that we do not support HTML mark-up within the comments" | pos |
To quote Flik, that was my reaction exactly: Wow...you're perfect! This is the best movie! I think I can even say it's become my favorite movie ever, even. Wow. I tell you what, wow. | pos |
Funny, sexy, hot!!! There is no real plot but you needn't anyone...<br /><br />so the naked or almost naked girls and the typical fights between college-cliques need no development!<br /><br />All in all the whole seems to be known from simply every film in this category but the reissuer reached the goal that this film can be recognized out of thousand others.<br /><br />Last thing I've got to say. Unbelievable funny!<br /><br />You've got to see it!!! <br /><br />And if you are young and you want know more about the female body you've got to see it twice | pos |
This is a good movie, but it is not recommended if you don't like intelligent movies. It's about two guys that wish that the world would go away,and that's exactly what they get. The acting is great, the ending was not predictable,and it actually had a good story unlike most movies these days. People complain about the movie being too simple or too boring. I think they should just stick to movies like The Toxic Avenger (I actually like B movies) or The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. One note: If you notice this, this has exactly the same actors from Cube except four actors. Make it two notes: Wait after the credits (Trust me on this one). Enjoy the movie. | pos |
The appeal of this film has to be the artsy Euro style, because there's absolutely no substance. A bunch of stuff happens that seems to be going somewhere... but it never gets there.<br /><br />It's difficult to come up with a full 10 lines of commentary, because this film is such a totally empty experience. There's lots of nice photography of a cemetery, some really lame zombie effects, some flashes of what might pass for surrealist humor, and a feeble, existentialist ending. These elements undermine each other. Just when you might be enjoying the creepy mood, there's some silliness with bouncing heads or zombie sex. To keep from screaming with boredom, you clutch at the minimal story line - and it disintegrates into ridiculous illogic. It's like someone took several half-baked B movies and tossed them in a blender.<br /><br />What comes out is mostly a film *about* meaninglessness - and *not* a good one. Clearly, it will impress that category of art-house fan who sees emptiness as indistinguishable from depth. Everyone else should stay well clear of this dreary mess. | neg |
Dr. Markoff is a mad scientist who is experimenting , trying to find a cure for a viral cause of acromegaly. When he attends a piano concert, he is stricken by the beautiful daughter of the pianist and sets out to woo her. But when she wants nothing to do with him, he infects her father with the acromegaly virus in an attempt to extort money and his daughter in exchange for a cure.<br /><br />That is the basic premise for this B-grade low budget thriller. I have to say I was underwhelmed by this movie. Not that it was terrible-it wasn't, but there was nothing particularly noteworthy about it either. It was entertaining enough for a viewing but is not one that will stay in my memory.<br /><br />The dialog is a bit corny at times and the acting is just mediocre. The story is fairly predictable and doesn't really give us anything new. Of course, I can't complain too much about a movie that has a guy in a gorilla suit who serves almost no real purpose and a doctor with a Svengali-like stare that fails to mesmerize his victims.<br /><br />It may be worth a watch if you like this sort of movie, but don't go into it with too many expectations. | neg |
This is a stupid movie. When I saw it in a movie theater more than half the audience left before it was half over. I stayed to the bitter end. To show fortitude? I caught it again on television and it was much funnier. Still by no means a classic, or even consistently hilarious but the family kinda grew on me. I love Jessica Lundy anyway. If you've nothing better to do and it's free on t.v. you could do worse. | neg |
I attended a screening of this movie. It was wrought with clichés and very unfunny jokes and set ups. I think the other comments were by people who must've worked on the movie or been family members of the cast. I'm amazed this movie cost $3-$4 million without any real stars. Where did the budget go? It obviously didn't go to writers for re-writes. Nice thought to bank on the success of Big Fat Greek Wedding, but a major miss. There was little or any spark between the main characters and the inciting incident was a bit flimsy at best. The direction was uninspired and looked like a student film.<br /><br />I don't even know what it means Everybody Wants to Italian. Is that a real saying. I've never heard it. | neg |
I question its importance to Queer Cinema as it seems to be more about having a homosexual encounter via violent behavior than making any clear statements regarding homosexuality and violence.<br /><br />Three tales are tangled together in a rather sloppy manner. I found myself trying to untangle the messy narrative in the first 15 minutes, that alone didn't sit well with me. Weak plot points were endlessly repeated as though we might not have gotten it the first 10 times.<br /><br />There was a feeling of padded dialog throughout the film. More like a 45 minute Boy's Brief short rather than a fleshed out full-length film. It had a certain erotic flair, male nudity and sex appeal but overall the sum did not equal its parts.<br /><br />The 1st part: Boxer/Stalker storyline was the strongest and yet it too felt like it had been pulled thin. Bob has been following Tim for four years and only now is he confronting him? I felt as though their cat-mouse game was not developed enough to merit its conclusion. We needed more information about them and less Parking Lot/Locker scenes with Tim relentlessly saying "What do you want?" <br /><br />The 2nd part: Danny wants his buddy, Tony, to beat him up while he jacks-off. Tony doesn't seem to mind, but he doesn't even appear interested in exploring the implications of his homo erotic hobby -- not even after they do it in the nude. This tale lacks the all-important transition from "I'm a straight boy smacking my guy friend around for fun" to "I think I might be gay and hitting him because I'd like to spread his ass and do him S/M style." A very important thing to leave out.<br /><br />Clearly these stories each could have conveyed their points in half the time. The 3rd part with the man and woman slapping each other around adds to that thought. Furthermore, it was unnecessary and added nothing to the film. Yes, the actors did a fine job under the circumstances and the four male leads were very sexy. The make-up (bruises and cuts) however was on par with a grammar school talent show.<br /><br />There wasn't enough meat to this story to have any impact on the gay politic. The film made no statement, squandered time, and is not engaging or worthy enough for thoughtful investment. Its fatal flaw is its amateurish approach, that makes it ultimately impossible to take seriously. | neg |
Jäniksen vuosi is one of Jarva's most political movies. It takes stance strongly against modern day society's authority status in the life of the common man, and how it has estranged men from the nature completely. It challenges the whole concept of freedom and wealth in our welfare society.<br /><br />Vatanen (Antti Litja) - smothered buy the concrete jungle with all its rules and regulations - tries to rattle the chains of the society by escaping it all in to the wilderness of northern Finland - only to realize that the concept of a 'free country' isn't all that unambiguous, in other words, the society has the common man by the balls.<br /><br />Still the thing that makes Jäniksen vuosi so exceptional - besides the visual and humouristic brilliance - is how it seems to illustrate the whole political atmosphere in Finland in the 70's, as well as the whole identity of Finland as a nation. Vatanen is like an archetype of a classical finn in his solitudeness and social distantness. Since nature has always played such an important role in the national identity of us Finns, the whole idea of that being slowly taken away by the modern society makes Jäniksen vuosi emotionally exceptionally moving. | pos |
The movie has a distinct (albeit brutish and rough) humanity for all its borderline depravity - the zippy/lyrical score points up the comic side of their misadventures, and even when they're at their most thuggish (like terrorizing the woman on the train), a semi-pitiful vulnerability lurks never far away (Dewaere sucks on her breasts like a baby). Blier cuts away from the scene where Depardieu may be about to rape Dewaere, so we're never sure how explicitly to read the manifestly homoerotic aspect of their relationship - either way, that incident is the start of their relative humanization (so the movie could certainly be read as pro-gay, although it could likely be read as pro-anything you want). The movie has many objectionable scenes and points of sexual politics and is probably best taken as a general cartoon on the foibles of both sexes, making a mockery of the whole notion of sensitivity and honesty, and hitting numerous points of possible profundity on the basis that if you fire off enough shots, some of them are bound to hit. | pos |
Gerald (Richard Carlson) and Kitty (Veronica Hurst) have just finished celebrating their engagement announcement in France with family and friends, when he receives a letter asking him to visit an ancestral castle located in Scotland. Gerald's uncle reportedly has fallen ill and has requested Gerald, the sole heir, be present. Gerald goes off to Scotland, leaving his future bride behind. A few weeks pass and he doesn't come back. Concerned, Kitty sends out telegrams but doesn't hear back from her fiancé. Four more weeks pass and Kitty finally receives a weird response from Gerald, calling off the engagement and telling her to move on with her life. Not ready to give up on her relationship and looking for answers, Kitty hops on a plane and decides to pay Gerald a visit. Accompanying her on the trip is her level-headed aunt Edith (Katherine Emery, best known for her starring role in the classic chiller ISLE OF THE DEAD). When Kitty and Edith arrive at the MacTeam estate they immediately suspect something strange is afoot. For starters Gerald seems to have aged twenty-years in a matter of weeks. Secondly, this once nice and charming guy has turned into a complete jerk who repeatedly demands they leave the castle and never come back. When Edith comes down with a mild cold, Kitty uses it as an excuse to stay there to try to get to the bottom of things.<br /><br />Why is Gerald being so cold and cruel to the woman he was just about to marry? Why is Gerald so opposed to having company? Why do the house rules state that guests must be locked inside their bedrooms at night? Why are guests forbidden to enter certain areas of the estate, such as Gerald's bedroom and a large hedge maze out back? And what's making those strange dragging noises every night? These are just some of the questions THE MAZE poses. The movie actually does a fine job building up mystery and intrigue. You genuinely become interested in what's going on and patiently await the resolution to explain the weird events that are taking place. And then IT happens... I definitely don't want to ruin the finale of this film because you're better off not knowing, but it takes one of the most unbelievable and jaw-droppingly strange turns I've seen in any movie. It's wonderfully ludicrous in a way, but it also takes a pretty solid little b/w mystery and sends it straight into Z-Grade schlock territory. And yet, this ending seems so out of place, you're not likely to forget it once you see it.<br /><br />Despite the ending (or maybe even partially because of the ending), I really enjoyed this odd bird. It's extremely talky and slow moving for the duration of the run time, but it managed to keep my interest throughout. Director William Cameron Menzies (who made the much more famous INVADERS FROM MARS the same year) is best known as a two-time Oscar-winning art director and his set designs here are also really interesting. There's almost a silent movie feel at times, with model work for some of the exteriors, some painted backdrops and sparsely decorated interiors with very high ceilings. As with any good castle set there are also secret passageways and long staircases. This one also throws in a few rubber-bats-on-strings for good measure.<br /><br />A few of the actors are a little stiff and awkward, but I liked most of the cast. Hurst is one of those obscure and mostly unknown actresses who unfortunately never seemed to catch on despite being both beautiful and talented. Emery, who also gets to play narrator in framing shots at the beginning and end of the film, is decent enough as the overly mannered and cautious aunt. My favorite however was Michael Pate as the silver-haired sinister servant who does this hilariously upright zombie walk every time he ascends the stairs. Also on board in smaller roles are Hillary Brooke (who played the title role in the Sherlock Holmes mystery THE WOMAN IN GREEN) and Lilian Bond (Whale's THE OLD DARK HOUSE). Of course Carlson also starred in IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and some other horror flicks, so you've got yourself a pretty decent cast for genre fans right there. I say check it out! | pos |
The acting is awkward and creepy, and not in a good way...at all. The writing, the dialogue, and the chemistry between the actors is horrible. Nothing makes sense and every close-up of an actor's expression or reaction lasts 3 or 4 seconds too long, making it seem like a Mexican Soap Opera (telenovela). Everything about the writing is unrealistic, and all of the actors involved make it that much worse with their campy interpretations of the script. Am I the only one who sees this??? To use the word cheesy to describe this Canadian disaster would be the understatement of the century. Did the director even watch the final cut before it was put on the air??? | neg |
The 221 episodes of "The Lone Ranger" were originally broadcast on ABC from 1949 to 1957; and then for many years they played in local syndication. For most of the original broadcast years the series was ABC's most watched piece of programming. <br /><br />The new DVD set from Pop Flix contains the first 16 episodes (15 Sept-29 Dec 1949) and for some reason unknown to me episode 22 from the fifth season, for a total of 17 episodes (the same 17 available on last year's Mill Creek Entertainment release so these are probably in the public domain). These sets pretty much render "The Legend of the Lone Ranger" movie superfluous as all three episodes that were combined in 1952 to form the movie are included in these releases. <br /><br />The early episodes hark back to radio as there is considerably more voice-over narration used as an introduction and to introduce key plot moments. <br /><br />The series itself was pure kiddie western with clear-cut good and evil distinctions and no romance. The title character (played by Clayton Moore) started out Texas Ranger John Reid. The first three episodes provide the background for his transformation to Lone Ranger status, his partnering with the Indian Tonto (Jay Silverheels), and the taming of his horse "Silver". <br /><br />There is an unambiguous code of positive morality infusing each episode. The Lone Ranger is totally good but he adopts the guise of evil. While a masked man in the west was normally feared by the good citizens and an Indian was distrusted, the Lone Ranger is feared by those who would do evil. One persistent theme is that when the Lone Ranger and Tonto first encounter an average citizen they are greeted with suspicion, and by the end of the episode the citizen has been convinced of their value. The trademark ending was a secondary character asking the question: "who was that masked man?". <br /><br />To really enjoy the series you must accept it for the simplistic morality tale it was intended to be. If you don't take it seriously and keep wishing for some self-reflexive campy parody elements you will only get frustrated. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. | pos |
Entertainment Tonight has been going down hill for the last few years, but as of last night (Aug 17th 2006) they reached a new low.<br /><br />In an effort to try to hype up their broadcast, they decided to post actual photos of JonBenet Ramsey's body in their teasers last night ...saying "Pictures from the case you have never seen before". The two photos were graphic and very disturbing. One was of the side of her face and head/neck and you could clearly see the cord that was used to strangle her around her neck, and bruising on her face. This was so hideously awful, I could not believe it. How has this got to do with ANYTHING remotely related to Hollywood Entertainment?? Nothing!! They have dropped their level of dignity and values to a new low....and it shows. This used to be THE premiere show to watch...and it's just garbage now.<br /><br />I will watch Access Hollywood from now on. | neg |
I love Henry James books and Washington Square was no exception. I was very excited to see a new movie coming out, based on the book of that title. Jennifer Jason Lee is an exceptional actress and Ben Chaplin good enough to play the lead roles. Albert Finney is miscast and doesn't carry the role well. I wanted to shoot Maggie Smith....or rather her silly, insipid role. The real problem and what's lacking in this latest version is a good script, music, and direction.<br /><br />I fell asleep in the theater watching this long, drawn out and exceptionally boring movie. There are more pauses in the dialog than a Pinter Play. In the book I felt a deep caring for Catherine Sloper and her life. The movie had just the opposite effect. I also disliked the twist where her aunt has a sexual attraction to Morris. Eeeeeeeek. YUK.<br /><br />Watch it if you can't sleep, it's a definite snoozer. Don't watch it if you're depressed. You'll need Zoloft after this.<br /><br />Sure, "The Heiress" was exceptional with Olivia Haviland and Montgomery Clift in the title roles. The actor who played her father was on the mark as the uncaring, cold father....still grieving for his dead wife and hating Catherine for it. The movie was not faithful to the book but neither is this one.<br /><br />This movie was a box office flop. I have no doubts as to why. | neg |
Greetings again from the darkness. What a relief ... a thriller that actually is thrilling! New "IT" girl Rachel McAdams ("Wedding Crashers" and "The Notebook") dominates screen time in this nice little classic suspense thriller from famed horror film director Wes Craven ("Scream" movies and "A Nightmare on Elm Street"). Craven even has a cameo as one of the passengers on the plane.<br /><br />What makes this one work, is the realism of the first 15-20 minutes as we see McAdams interact with 4 or 5 people either in person or on the phone. She is a natural. When she meets Cillian Murphy (the Scarecrow in "Batman Begins") in what appears to be happenstance, the film really takes flight. Watching the two yuppie-types flirt while the audience knows something evil is brewing, is bewitching film-making! The plane boarding sequence is mesmerizing and the 30 plus minutes onboard is excruciatingly claustrophobic. Craven keeps us guessing as to the involvement of others and if anyone will come to her rescue.<br /><br />As with many thrillers, the only letdown occurs during the climax when the lamb turns into a superhero. An interesting plot device leads us to believe little Rachel has the necessary pent up frustration to see this through, but we can't help but cringe a bit. The most overdone scenes involve irate hotel guests, an annoying airline passenger, Cillian's injury and the FX at the hotel. The strength of the film is in the character development and psychological games between the leads. Sadly the fine screen veteran Brian Cox is under-utilized, but overall this is an above-average suspense thriller worth seeing for all but the finale. | pos |
This is a collection of documentaries that last 11 minutes 9 seconds and 1 frame from artists all over the world. The documentaries are varied and deal with all sorts of concepts, the only thing being shared is 9/11 as a theme (very minor in some cases). Some of the segements are weak while others are very strong; some are political, some are not; some are solely about 9/11, some simply use 9/11 as a theme to touch on human feelings, emotions and tragedies that are universal; some are mainstream while others are abstract and artistic). This film has not been censored in any fashion by anyone so the thoughts that you see are very raw and powerful.<br /><br />This is a very controversial film, especially for conservative Americans. I think two segments might really tick off the right wingers (one from Egypt where a dead American soldier and a dead Palestinian bomber come back as spirits; another from UK which recounts the US-backed overthrow of Chile on Sept 11, 1973, which resulted in 50,000 deaths and horrible atrocities). The segment from Mexico was the most powerful, recounting the fall of the towers and the resulting death in vivid fashion (you have to see it to believe it).<br /><br />Even though the final product is uneven, with some segments being almost "pointless", I still recommend this. It's very difficult to rank this film because the segments vary all over the place (some weak, some very powerful; ). I'm giving this a rating of 9 out of 10 simply because some segments were excellent and covered issues that usually get censored (Mexico segment, UK segment, Japan segment, Egypt segment). | pos |
Cheap and mind-blisteringly dull story and acting. Not a single good line, not even a line bad enough to be good, and no memorable delivery. Even the blooper reel included with the DVD showed how inept the actors were and how little fun any of them were having. The esoteric and occult basis was apathetically inauthentic, and the antagonists failed to be creepy or believable. The 'homoerotic' overtones were pointlessly tame and dissatisfying, and were limited to young boys caressing their chests while flaccid in their boxers. I'm not gay enough to appreciate it, but a little action might have at least kept me and my girlfriend awake. | neg |
This is another of John Travolta's "come back" movies, and if he continues on with characters and movies like this one, his come back will take hold.<br /><br />This is so sweet...sickeningly so if you're not into the romance comedy scene. If you are, this is one innovative RomCom. Every performance (including that of Skippy the Dog) was beautiful, without much more than a trace of the irreverence found in "Dogma." (Although, as movies go, I loved Dogma!)<br /><br />Travolta is not nearly as brash in his performance as the previews would lead you to believe. He is an angel and if you consider yourself to be well read, then you understand that angels were far from perfect. You will not, therefore, be insulted by this film. Even those who are overly sensitive to such things shouldn't be insulted by this work, as Nora went to great lengths to see to it that it was the least abrasive as possible, given the subject matter.<br /><br />I love this, and love it more each time I watch it. It's beautiful and sweet, engaging, and endearing.<br /><br />It rates a 7.3/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | pos |
We also found this movie on the discount rack and made the mistake of purchasing it because Sandra Bullock was featured on the cover. The cinematography was terrible and the back of the DVD box told more about the plot than the movie itself. Oh and I love the Uzi cam....NOT.<br /><br /> | neg |
This is a worthless sequel to a great action movie. Cheap looking, and worst of all, BORING ACTION SCENES! The only decent thing about the movie is the last fight sequence. Only 82 minutes, but it feels like it goes on forever! Even die-hard Van Damme fans(like myself) should avoid this one! | neg |
Allegedly the "true story" of Juana de Castilla, the eldest daughter of the Catholic Queen Isabella (yes, the same who funded Columbus's expedition), the film charts the progress and degeneration of her morbid obsession with her husband, the Archduke Philip of Austria, known as "The Handsome" (and played in a rather unispired manner by Italian hunk Daniele Liotti, at his most buttery and beefy here). This is a groan-inducingly familiar story of late 15th c., early 16th c. intrigue, betrayal and bodice-ripping. It drips destructive lust from start to finish. But while La Reine Margot succeeds in making cruel sensuality and ruthless, cut-throat intrigue entertaining to watch, Juana La Loca just doesn't pull off. It just ends up feeling like a big-budgeted soap opera, with below-average, lazy or over-keen acting. Liotti looks positively bored and Pilar López de Ayala in the title role though to be fair she may mature into a proper talent just seems to be trying too hard, switching back and fourth from two-dimensional horny-looking to spoilt teenage hysterics all the way through. Some of the supporting cast are OK, with the exception of Manuela Arcuri, another Italian pin-up, voluptuous and beautiful but really no "actress" to speak of. I couldn't in fact bring myself to feel any concern towards any character, nor for that matter did I feel strongly in a negative way against any of the supposed villains. What a waste of a substantial film budget! This one, sadly, is just so rhetorical and deja-vu, nodding to other films in the genre rather than to its source material - history - for inspiration. It seems to me that such a fascinating and complex historic era deserved a far superior film-maker to evoke it. | neg |
Cheesy 80's horror co-starring genre favs Ken Foree and Rosalind Cash along with Brenda Bakke are some of the featured players in this tale about a haunted health club. Goofy dialogue and some nasty gore effects make this movie watchable. Not bad but no great shakes either.<br /><br />Recommended for the bad dialogue and acting. B-movie fans only.<br /><br />B | neg |
Don't be fooled by the nostalgic aura that surrounds "Mon oncle Antoine," because like the best of Canadian films darkness lurks just below the surface. <br /><br />Set presumably in 1940s rural Quebec, the story explores the developing consciousness of young Benoit as he learns to deal with both sexuality and death. <br /><br />The look of the film is astonishing, especially seeing as a high proportion of criticism towards Canadian cinema by the general public surrounds aesthetics. Beyond this, the unassuming Benoit is a seductive protagonist for the audience, looking at his corrupting community with fresh an innocent eyes. <br /><br />I recommend reading Jim Leach's critical essay on the film in Canada's Best Features for anyone looking to place the film into a historical context while also dissecting the form of the film. Definitely check this one out. | pos |
Here is one the entire family will enjoy... even those who consider themselves too old for fairy tales. Shelley Duvall outdid herself with this unique, imaginative take on nearly all of the popular fairy tales of childhood. The scripts offer new twists on the age-old fables we grew up on and they feature a handful of stars in each episode. "Cinderella" is no exception to Duvall's standard and in my opinion it's one of the top five of the series, highlighted by Jennifer Beals (remember her from "Flashdance"--and she's still in Hollywood today making a movie here and there) in the title role, Jean Stapleton as the fairy godmother with a southern accent and Eve Arden as the embodiment of wicked stepmotherhood. Edie McClurg ("Ferris Bueller's Day Off") and Jane Alden make for a hilarious duo as the stepsisters. Matthew Broderick is an affable Prince Henry. You'll all keep coming back for this one! | pos |
The two leads, an Englishman and an Aussie filming an American Civil War story in Romania, have not the slightest spark between them, are utterly unbelievable as lovers, and wholly unsympathetic. There is no story, no characterization, virtually nothing to keep the eyelids separated during this interminable bore fest. Renee Zelwegger, also hopelessly miscast, practically chews the fence posts, but at least watching her embarrass herself provides some comic relief. Nicole Kidman is a decade too old for the role and has not the slightest idea what's going on. Jude Law's moron role could have been played equally as well by any of the Romanian extras. The only requirement is to wander about the forest looking stupid while watching a parade of guest stars steal the show. Not that it mattered, because all of the guest star roles were completely unnecessary as they did not advance the so-called plot by one iota. And as if all that wasn't enough, the auteur felt it necessary to throw in some spinning, whirling, kung fu jumping off horses. What was that about? | neg |
Not the film to see if you want to be intellectually stimulated. If you want to have a lot of fun a the theater, however, this is the one. Lots of snappy banter(and some really cheesy banter, too). Mos Def and Seth Green are very funny as the comic relief. Exciting and creative heists and chase scenes. Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron(sexy)are appealing leads. And Donald Sutherland! | pos |
The title is the sound that one of the characters makes as he drives his imaginary trolley across the garbage dump where the characters live. The film is based on a series of stories by Shugoro Yamamoto and tells the story of a group of people who effectively live in ramshackle homes on the edge of the dump. It's a mix of laughter and sadness.<br /><br />First color film made by Akria Kurasowa has been something I've wanted to see for a long time. Weirdly it was often listed as being only available in a shortened version from a three or four hour original due to an error in the run time in some promotional material. I was holding out for the full version, waiting to see what Kurasowa wanted us to see, only to find out on the recent release by Criterion that the 140 minute version is the full version.<br /><br />Finally sitting down to see the film last night I'm of mixed emotions about the film. First and foremost its visually linked to every film that followed. You can see every other of Kurasowals remaining six films reflected in this movie, down to the painted sunsets. Its a striking film in its use of color and you can understand why it took him so long to a film stock he would he happy with (of course there are failed projects as well). The film is a visual work of art.(Though be warned if you're going to see this on your widescreen TV this was shot 1.33 so will appear in normal TV ratio.) The rest of the film is a mixed bag. Part of the problem is that the lives of all of these people don't quite come together. As separate tales they all work well but as a filmic whole they don't hang as one. I don't blame Kurasowa since one can't always hit things out of the box, especially when some one like Robert Altman who specialized in multi-character films of this sort occasionally bombed himself.<br /><br />This isn't to say that there aren't reasons to see the film. As will all Kurasowa films there are always reasons to see his films, whether they work or not. The first trip of the "trolley" is one of the best things Kurasowa ever did and is worth the price of a rental. Its one of the most magical moments in film history as the trolley is inspected and taken out. The father and son living in the car is touching (though ultimately very sad) and there are other bits and pieces that shine (like the cast which is across the board great) and one should at least try the film as something different from a man we usually associated with samurai films or crime dramas.<br /><br />Its an intriguing misfire from a master filmmaker which means in this case means its better than most other filmmakers successes.<br /><br />Between 6 and 7 as a whole, much higher in pieces. | pos |
I saw the film at the Nashville Film Festival. It was beautifully done, from cinematography to the acting. It's the story of a father and son, and how they come to appreciate each other during a family crisis. Beautifully written with dialog that never rings false, the film showcases the acting talents of Paul Reiser and Peter Falk, among others in this outstanding cast. The film begins with the aging father (Peter Falk)is trying to figure out why his wife (Olympia Dukakis) has left him. The father presents himself, unannounced, on the doorstep of his son and daughter-in-law. The father and son take off the next day to look at some property and end up taking a classic road trip. They fish, play pool, watch a baseball game, get drunk, get involved in a barroom brawl, and dance with strange women. But more important, they each confront the unspoken tensions that can affect any family. It's the kind of film that touches the heart and makes one appreciate those who are closest to them. | pos |
Eddie Murphy is one of the funniest comedians ever - probably THE funniest. Delirious is the best stand-up comedy I've ever seen and it is a must-have for anyone who loves a good laugh!! I've watched this movie hundreds of times and every time I see it - I still have side-splitting fun. This is definitely one for your video library. I guarantee that you will have to watch it several times in order to hear all the jokes because you will be laughing so much - that you will miss half of them! Delirious is hilarious!<br /><br />Although there are a lot of funny comedians out there - after watching this stand-up comedy, most of them will seem like second-class citizens. If you have never seen it - get it, watch it - and you will love it!! It will make you holler!!! :-) | pos |
In 1943, a group of RAF Officers, including Eric Wiiliams, decide to escape from a POW camp using a Gymnastic Vaulting Horse in the courtyard. In 1950, it was decided to film his account, and it kick-started a peculiar British Film Genre- the Military Prison Camp story that reached its apogee in Danger Within (1959).<br /><br />The Wooden Horse is one of the quietest films I have ever watched. There are no great dramatic moments, but a steady storyline eventually builds to a climax that has more tension because the story doesn't give way for unlikely drama, jump cuts or jacked up (somethings about to happen!) music. It is utterly of its time and works beautifully.<br /><br />Leo Glenn, Anthony Steel and David Tomlinson lead a curiously low key cast of extras and (I suspect) non-actors. Without exception, all are constantly mono-tonal and quiet. They keep emotion out of their roles. As so many were, until recently, ex-service, I suspect they recreated their war time roles as 'Officers and Gentlemen'.<br /><br />This unemotional approach does not detract from any dramatic tension. On the contrary, unlike most Wartime Escape Films, the story doesn't end at the barbed wire: and that fact alone keeps me glued to the end. | pos |
A group of adventurers travel to the 'dark continent' to try and locate a lost heiress named Diana, who disappeared years before in a plane crash, and who is now believed to be living with a savage tribe that consider her to be their goddess.<br /><br />Once again, my search for sleazy, European cannibal movies has taken me deep into Jess Franco territorya seemingly endless cinematic wilderness swarming with sub-par scriptwriting, crawling with crap camera-work, and abundant with awful acting (Franco regular Lina Romay taking the prize this time for her pitiful performance as an ailing, elderly woman). It is here, in this hellish place, that I finally stumbled upon Diamonds of Kilimanjaro, an abysmal jungle-based exploitationer so stupefyingly bad that it took me three successive evenings to finish watching it.<br /><br />Tawdry and unrelentingly dull, even by Franco's standards, this wearisome piece of trash fails on almost every level: the story is a dreadfully dull derivative of Edgar Rice Burrough's Tarzan, albeit with a feminine twist; the film appears to have been filmed in the local botanical gardens, although grainy stock footage is poorly integrated into the film in a pointless effort to convince viewers that the action is really taking place in Africa; and the death scenes are virtually bloodless (Franco can usually be relied upon for some splatter, but despite initial appearances, this isn't a cannibal movie and it isn't that gory).<br /><br />Where the director does succeed, however, is in his casting of sexy young Katja Bienert as jungle jail-bait Diana. Running and leaping through the undergrowth in nothing but a skimpy loin-cloth, her curvaceous bod belying the fact that she was only sixteen at the time, this nubile beauty makes quite an impression. Franco also throws in some further nudity courtesy of Mari Carmen Nieto as treacherous traveller Lita (who gives us a glimpse of her untamed regions), and Aline Mess as topless warrior woman Noba, thus narrowly avoiding getting yet another rating of 1/10 from me (although I'm sure he'll be receiving plenty more in the futureI have loads of his films yet to see). | neg |
Something I really love about this woman's short films was the elusiveness of theme -- especially in "Living with Happiness." This film has some nice beginnings -- unusual location and the potential for a strange cinematic treatment, but fails to succeed with clunky expositional dialogue, patchy performances and very television coverage.<br /><br />It's once again charming television and very ordinary cinema. The ideas are so fleshed out that they almost feel pat like a television commercial. But the sentiment is good so we can't complain too much.<br /><br />I really would love to see this director make a full length animation and try and work with a producer who doesn't demand so much boring clarity. | neg |
I can just picture how this movie came to be:<br /><br />"So how else can we screw up our careers?" <br /><br />"I know! Let's take a film that was wildly successful and make a sequel out of it!<br /><br />"Perfect! We'll get B-grade actors who have half the charisma and want only 10% of Carrey's original salary. We'll save millions and rake in a massive profit, never mind the fact nobody wants to see a second rate sequel with none of the original actors that made it popular in the first place! We as executives still honestly believe a movie was popular based on the name and story, not the actors who made it so in the first place!" <br /><br />"Brilliant! Let's put a massive budget and get the cheapest actors we can find!" <br /><br />And really, that's what Son Of The Mask can be described as. Just a simple B-grade movie that attempts to suck the life out of it's original classic.<br /><br />Nevertheless, if the movie didn't contain the words the mask, or anything to do with the mask, it would be a nice kids movie. For all it's massive flaws and horrible acting, this really will appeal to kids. It's a good natured flick that really wants to scream out "like me!" but only those 8 and younger will truly enjoy it.<br /><br />Jamie Kennedy is the only worthwhile mention in this movie. He clearly is trying to make the material work, playing the desperate dad but the script is so poor, the only thing that spews out that is worthwhile was my drink after seeing this. The character of Loki also deserves a mention, as he was the most enjoyable character and really one of the only reasons for older adults to see this film. It's too bad the character is wasted on this film, I would have really liked to have seen the character take on the true mask. Instead, we are reduced to fart jokes and toilet humor near the end.<br /><br />The plot is so much by the books, I won't bother to mention it here. It's all so clearly obvious that even a Disney exec would be green with envy.<br /><br />Save your money, this one is heading to DVD in three months from the looks of it. Shame on the studios for once again smearing a decent film with a horrible sequel. Didn't dumb and dumberer teach them anything? | neg |
I can't remember many films where a bumbling idiot of a hero was so funny throughout. Leslie Cheung is such the antithesis of a hero that he's too dense to be seduced by a gorgeous vampire... I had the good luck to see it on a big screen, and to find a video to watch again and again. 9/10 | pos |
Let me just start out by saying that Tourist Trap is a better movie then 99.9% of the horror films that have come out of Hollywood lately. If you don't believe me see Darkness Falls or They. And it is certainly better than any of those crappy direct to video releases like Stab, Bleed, The Pool, and so on. One of the big problems with the film Tourist Trap is that is never really found an audience. When the film opened in 1979 it was given a PG rating by the MPAA. Anyone that knows horror films knows that a PG on a horror film is usually the kiss of death for the film. (Director David Schmoeller talks about this problem on the DVD's commentary track.) There are exceptions though like Poltergeist, which had also received a PG rating. However, there are big differences between Tourist Trap and Poltergeist. Tourist Trap was not a big budget Hollywood film like Poltergeist nor was it produced by Steven Spielberg. That alone was enough to guarantee Poltergeist success. (Still for those of you that have seen Tourist Trap, you will even scratch your head as to why the MPAA rated this film PG. The 'heart burst' scene alone should be enough for the film to be slapped with and R rating. Or how about the pipe in the back with the blood running out of it.) I have to admit though that when I was young I looked at a copy of Poltergeist in the video store shelf, picked it up, saw that it was rated PG and put it back on the shelf in favor of an R rated film instead. Years later, I finally saw Poltergeist and realized what a great film I missed out on for not renting a PG horror film. From then on I would never judge a film based on it's rating again. This is most likely what happened to Tourist Trap. People, like me with Poltergeist, will probably overlook it in favor of the R rated film. Most likely it would be a teenager too, which most of these types of films are targeted at. Friday the 13th was no masterpiece either but did extremely well at the box office due to the fact it was rated R and was heavily advertised by Paramount at the time. It found its audience and made enough money to spawn several sequels. When you look at it folks, Tourist Trap is just as good as Friday The 13th. The same thing could've happened to Tourist Trap. We could have seen Tourist Trap 2, 3, 4, and so on. As far as the film goes, Tourist Trap is an entertaining horror film made on an extremely small budget, but it is well acted, well directed and well made on many levels. Chuck Connors is a riot as Mr. Slausen and gives the best performance in the film. Special credit must be give to composer Pino Donaggio, whose score for this film really is what sets it apart from others and gives it its creepiness. The music in the scenes involving the mannequins is especially creepy. Donaggio worked on the horror film Carrie and many other film scores since Tourist Trap. He has done exceptionally good work in film and continues to score films to this day. The weakness with Tourist Trap is that there really is never any explanation of Davey's powers. Maybe that is how it's supposed to be. He just has them, and we should accept that in order for the movie to work. We do accept it to a point, but then the screenplay has incidents like how Davey makes the phone ring in the store while he's in the basement of the house. In that case, is Davey limited in using his powers? Can he make a phone ring in Houston, Detroit, Los Angeles? What is his range? Those are things that people that didn't care for this movie would most likely to point out as flaws. Others would accept it as a mistake. I accept it. There is not enough of those type of questions generated by this film to make me hate it. This is a horror film. We should not be required to read too much into it. Many people have called this the 'killer mannequin' movie. I assure you that no mannequin kills anyone in this film. The mannequins are controlled by the power of Davey who uses them as a weapon. This is a common misconception about this film. Some people have a problem with the mannequins and some have even said they are just downright silly. I think they add to the overall creepiness of the film. Overall Tourist Trap is a good fun rental.***(out of 5) | pos |
"Semana Santa" or "Angel Of Death" is a very weak movie. Mira Sorvino plays a detective who is trying to find a killer who shoots arrows in people. Mira has an Italian accent which falters from time to time. Couldn't she just speak English? All the other characters have a forced Mexican\English accent which is distracting. The dialogue is very bad and the delivery of it is wooden. The cinematography looks nice, but that's not enough to save this tripe. THIS NEXT PART OF THIS REVIEW DOES CONTAIN SPOILERS!!!! <br /><br />During the climax it looks like the villain is going to get away, but then he comes back down stairs to get shot and do a cool stunt down the railing. That just shows this script has no originality whatsoever. AVOID! | neg |
I've seen my fair share of badly thought-out endings and final twists to films, but I don't recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did.<br /><br />The film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would 'surprise' us all.... and it did, but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. I was left feeling surprised that Connery, Harris, Fishburn and Capshaw had anything to do with this turkey, individually or collectively.<br /><br />The film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and I like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. But once the twist was revealed, the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable, the underlying motive for revenge was ill-conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for Bobby Earl was ridiculously far-fetched. What's worse is that, once the twist was revealed, the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable.<br /><br />Harris gave a terrific performance and Connery is like Morgan Freeman in that he never gives a bad performance, even if the movie ain't that great! So all in all, it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. The last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema. | neg |
This film is the proof that a good actor is nothing without a good direction. Ed Harris is awful. How could you cast an actor built like Rambo to play the "Maestro"? He shows no credibility at all and overplays Beethoven. Most of all, long hairs doesn't look good at all on his head. The main actress is missing all the subtleties needed for its character. The camera shots are cheesy and too conventional. The lights are to close of the characters feelings. Bad casting and cheap direction. Too bad! The only scene that worth the movie is when Beeth (I hope you don't care that I call him trough his nickname?) is turning the girl's song to a joke. Any way, I hope that Harris could find his way back to true movie where he can really shows his hairless talent. | neg |
Okay. So I just got back. Before I start my review, let me tell you one thing: I wanted to like this movie. I know I've been negative in the past, but I was hoping to be surprised and actually come out liking the film. I didn't.<br /><br />It's not just the fact that every horror cliché imaginable is in this. And it's not just the fact that they make every little thing into a jump scare (walking into a baseball bat left on the floor? Are you kidding me?). It just wasn't scary. One thing I was surprised about: there was more blood than I thought there was going to be.. which isn't saying much.<br /><br />The film starts off with Donna being dropped off by Lisa's mom at her house. She comes in.. goes upstairs. Camera pans to her father dead on the couch. Spooky. She goes upstairs, where the aforementioned baseball bat scene happens. Finds her brother on his bed, apparently dead (how could she tell? He didn't have a spot of blood on him). Killer comes in, Donna hides under bed, mom dies. She runs outside screaming for help. Killer behind her: "I did it for us." Cut to therapy session. This confused a lot of people- everyone was asking whether or not her family actually died or if she imagined it- and she mentions how the nightmares have started coming back. Filler dialogue ensues.<br /><br />THey cut to the chase pretty quick. Few scenes at the salon, they go to the hotel. Of course the killer is already there (for some reason, he escaped 3 days ago but the police/family weren't informed until he's already there). More filler ensues.<br /><br />I'm not going to go on about what happens in the film, because I don't want to spoil it too much. If you want to know who dies, Horror_Fan made a post about it already. But on the subjects of deaths: they weren't that exciting. People in the theatre actually laughed out loud (an experience I've never had before in a horror movie, not even in When A Stranger Calls) during several of them. One in particular: the bus boy guy who gives the most hilarious 'scared' face I've ever seen. The only death involving any blood was Lisa's, and that was pretty scarce. Her throat is slashed, blood (if you can even call it that- it was practically black) splatters on the curtain-thing. The only other blood was on Claire when we see her body. Apparently, Fenton decided to stab her a few times after he choked her to death. Um, okay? The movie was one of the most clichéd I've ever seen. Let's see here.. obligatory close-mirror-curtain-BOOM! scene. Check. Twice, actually (you could tell they were struggling). Mandatory backing-up-into-killer. Check. There's also the backing-up-into-lamp scene, but you've all seen that. Oh, you say you want a birds-flying-away scare? Well, you got it! (Yes, they managed to incorporate one of those in here). And, of course, the we-have-security-on-all-exits-but-he-still-escaped scene. Shall I go on? I could.<br /><br />For anyone saying the characters weren't stupid, are you kidding me? "Oh, even though the massive alarm is ringing, literally saying PLEASE VACATE THE BUILDING, and 3 of my friends are missing, I'm going to go upstairs to get my wrap." These characters were some of the most flawed and stupid characters ever. The only likable character - Lisa - made one of the most stupid moves in the movie. "Oh, I just realized the psycho-teacher is here! I must leave my strong boyfriend behind to run off by myself to warn her! Oh, shoot, the elevator is being to slow? Guess I'll take the stairs and run off into the construction site!" Ugh. By the end of the film, they all deserved to die. The only death anyone felt any remorse for was Donna's boyfriend (I can't even remember his name- is that bad?), and by that time, the audience was completely drained out of this scareless, clichéd film.<br /><br />There were SOME positives- the acting was decent for the most part, and it was well-shot. But that's about it.<br /><br />I'd give it a 1/5, and that's being generous. Just for the laughs (and believe me, the audience had a few), and Brittany Snow.<br /><br />Oh, and the reaction was bad. Very bad. People were boo-ing after the movie ended and buzz afterwards was very negative. Expect bad legs for this one. | neg |
This is a very entertaining film which follows the rehearsal process of a NY production of Macbeth. Although it has a lot to say about power, jealousy and ambition (the themes of Macbeth) in our modern world, the film works best when it is not taking itself too seriously. Recognizable actors such as John Glover, Gloria Reubens and David Lansbury do nice jobs in the main roles, but the highlight for me was the hilarious scene where the "murder" of Banquo (John Elsen) is rehearsed. Probably a more entertaining film for those involved in theatre, but anyone who enjoys Shakespeare should enjoy this film. | pos |
Since this cartoon was made in the old days, Felix talks using cartoon bubbles and the animation style is very crude when compared to today. However, compared to its contemporaries, it's a pretty good cartoon and still holds up well. That's because despite its age, the cartoon is very creative and funny.<br /><br />Felix meets a guy whose shoe business is folding because he can't sell any shoes. Well, Felix needs money so he can go to Hollywood, so he tells the guy at the shop he'll get every shoe sold. Felix spreads chewing gum all over town and soon people are stuck and leave their shoes--rushing to buy new ones from the shoe store. In gratitude, the guy gives Felix $500! However, Felix's owner wants to take the money and go alone, so Felix figures out a way to sneak along.<br /><br />Once there, Felix barges into a studio and makes a bit of a nuisance of himself. Along the way, he meets cartoon versions of comics Ben Turpin and Charlie Chaplin. In the end, though, through luck, Felix is discovered and offered a movie contract. Hurray! | pos |
Quite simply this shouldn't have been made. It's predictable and clichéd. The on screen chemistry which made the first "My Girl" so captivating is nowhere to be found here, and the acting as a whole is stilted and forced. The writing also leaves much to be desired, some of the 'memorable' lines such as "earpeircing a barbaric custom" are just shocking. Where "My Girl" provoked a genuine feelings of sadness and some genuinely funny moments, like so many sequels "My Girl 2" tries to recreate these emotions generated by the audience, and fails miserably. Maybe i'm being hard on this film because of how great the first one was, but quite honestly it insults the quality of the original with the sort of drivel this installment serves up. Surely this has to come close to "Son of the mask" as being one of the worst sequels of all time. In both cases, the old saying rings true; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". | neg |
I was lucky enough to grow up surfing in San Diego (not the biggest waves in the world but it was a hell of childhood, I'll tell you that) and I have seen A LOT of so-called surfer flicks in my life. After watching NORTH SHORE for the first time just now, all I can say is THANK GOD I never saw this as a kid. If I had seen this and mistakenly thought that this was a realistic portrayal of the surf scene, I would sold my board and totally gotten into, I don't know, accounting or something.<br /><br />Seriously, this movie has a as much in common with real surfing as TOP GUN has was real military life. The acting is terrible, the music is worse, the cinematography is iffy at best and OH MY GOD what was Laird Hanilton thinking?! WOW!!! DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!!! IT SUCKS!!! If you want a REAL surf flick, see RIDING GIANTS. Hell, watch SURF'S UP instead of this. Seriously. Sucks. Sucks bad. Sucks REAL bad. Brah. ;)<br /><br />PS: Had to change my summery from "WTF?!" to wtf because, apparently, we are supposed to whisper on this site. NO YELLING!!! (shhhhhh!) ;D | neg |
<br /><br />This film is a summary of Visconti's obssessions: the decadence of nobility, death, aesthetic search, homosexuality...All mingled with melancholic mastery. Slow-paced just to make you abler to contemplate all its beauty (which is in the music and the images as well as in the story)this is the type of film we are not allowed to enjoy anymore, brave, deeply personal and intelligent. The genuine fruit of a genius like Visconti. | pos |
How, in the name of all that's holy, did this film ever get distribution? It looks as if it has been shot on someone's mobile phone and takes the screaming girl victim scenario to whole new depths. They literally scream for the full 90 minutes of the movie. And that's all they do. There is no plot, no tension, no characters, and not a lot of acting. Just screaming and more screaming.<br /><br />I gave up after fifteen minutes and fast-wound through it to see if anything happened. It doesn't - except for screaming, of course. Odlly enough, the act of going through it on fast forward highlights another problem - there is no camera-work to speak of. Every shot looks like every other shot - middle distance, one angle, dull, dull, DULL.<br /><br />It's not so bad it's good. It's just plain bad. | neg |
An idiotic dentist finds out that his wife has been unfaithful. So, no new story lines here. However, the authors managed to create a stupid, disgusting film. If you enjoy watching kids vomiting, or seeing a dentist imagining that he is pulling all his wife's teeth out in a bloody horror-type, go see (or rent) the film. If not, move on to something else (MY FAIR LADY, anyone?) | neg |
It saddens me to rate a movie with a lot of my favorite actors, locations and genres, i.e. Douglas, Sutherland, Washington, D.C. and political thriller, but 'The Sentinel' really hits a low. It's like they had a great idea up front, signed the right cast and had some great city shots and then took a holiday letting the remaining crew improvise the rest. And I wish I could blame it on yet another bland performance from Basinger (not only do I feel she's one of the worst actors in Hollywood, but I'm still steaming more than a decade later that she was the only one, and definitely the only bad actor in the film, to win an acting Oscar for 'L.A. Confidential.') But she wasn't the only problem. Sutherland, who I love as Jack Bauer on '24' once again plays
Jack. I miss his old 'A Time to Kill' or 'A Few Good Men' days. Douglas certainly took a hiatus from acting and phoned this one in. Plot: Someone, some Secret Service traitor, wants the President dead and Douglas is (haphazardly) being framed. Will someone believe him? Actually, no spoiler here: as quickly as they came up with that subplot half-way through, it's over before you know it. And why did someone(s) want the President dead? Is that to be revealed in the sequel? Too many plot holes, too many doors opened and never closed and too predictable 'The Sentinel' is. If you only see one movie a year, you may not know who the mole is, but anyone who's familiar with these types of movies or even just seen one 'Law & Order' episode you'll know in the first few frames. Was it terrible? Not really, the cinematography was good, and despite Sutherland playing Jack again, he's still got it. | neg |
Hooper is Not Funny, Not Fasted paced, Not romantic and Non informative. There is no real drama. You would think that a movie about the world's greatest stuntman would have some drama, there was an attempt but it didn't seem real. No Character study, no lessons learned, it did not even look like the actors were having any real fun, they were just trying to act like they were having fun. There is no reason to watch unless you like to look at Burt and want get an occasional glimpse of Sally. Prancer the horse was beautiful and did what he was supposed to do. In fact Prancer was the best actor in this movie. Smoky and the Bandit was such a fun movie that I was ready to like Hooper. This movie turned out to be a real disappointment and waste of time | neg |
This is the second Hitchcock film to appear on the list and the second Hitchcock film I've seen in full, the first was Rope, which I really enjoyed. With Saboteur Hitchcock was more room to roam free, whereas Rope took place all in one room. I didn't enjoy this one as much as Rope but that's not saying this is a bad film, it just seems like an average flick that could have been something more.<br /><br />It seems like a film Hitchcock would make as a break in between his more serious ones. As a thriller, I feel it fails to really get my on the edge of my seat or engaged with the lead character who is running around the States. The climax of the film feels like a miss opportunity to really amp up the tension. The sound design is almost non existent. You can hear their dialogue and a bit of the environment around them, but the important things are missing, the stitches ripping apart from the sleeve, the need of music to amp of the tension, all missing. Intentional no doubt, yet it lacks the emotional punch one would want from such a scene. Then it ends abruptly leaving you empty inside.<br /><br />The film doesn't feel like it should either, they are almost globe trotting from place to place, yet it feels more confined. The script itself is very average and seems to go about the more obtuse ways to get the plot moving.<br /><br />The performances are there, but nothing amazing. Everyone plays their parts to scripted words on the page. The relationship between the two leads is weak and needed more work. The one stand out is Otto Kruger, who has that rich, ego, evil persona down pat.<br /><br />In the end, I wanted more from this one. I understand it's one of Hitchcock's least exciting films, but I did have a good time watching it. I can recommend it, just not enthusiastically. | pos |
Yeah, I'm sure it really could be a nation . . . if four of them all stood at the four corners of the world and the other two cloned themselves a few billion times. Man, I am REALLY glad that I saw this movie on FEAR.net instead of renting it. I'm a big fan of the George Romero movies and I'm pretty sure that if he saw this movie, he'd probably throw up while laughing too hard. I mean, what was with the raccoon girls posing as zombies and walking around like Charlie's Devils? It really helped too that the music composer chose the crappy fashion show music for when the zombies walked up to their killer, especially the part where they go into the warehouse posing as the furniture shop/police station/apartment/flat/whatever room it was with the gong in the background, and the live woman was arguing about the closed furniture shop. I couldn't even tell what nationality the killer was, and the fact that his accent indicated some multiple nations didn't help either. Oh well, what can I expect from a movie where they throw in a random fight scene for no good reason in a warehouse where they apparently ship boxes of air around the world. So, for all of those who worship Mystery Science Theater 3000 or if you just like reaming on bad C movies (C for Craptastic), then this is the movie for you . . . or not. | neg |
Final Draft - A screenwriter (James Van Der Beek) locks himself into his apartment and succumbs to psychosis in an attempt to write a horror script. Not a terrible premise, but the execution is awful. This feels like a first year direction and writing job, and probably is. The director jump cuts the hell out of everything. It's meant to be disorienting. What it IS is annoying. So much so that small chunks of film are incoherent. The writing is predictable, and doesn't use follow through on most of the ideas it offers (bag of oranges). It's like they ran out of time and slap-dashed it together for the Toronto Film Festival.<br /><br />This film is not jaw-droppingly "oh my god it's so bad it's good" bad. It's boring bad, and irritates you for a long time afterward. James Van Der Beek is not a terrible actor, and keeps the ship barely above water. But he's too normal for the kind of psychosis the film tries to offer. He is merely a withdrawn guy who one day sees people and hallucinates things, then decides to act mildly deranged. Cause follows effect. Maybe there's something in the water. Now Darryn Lucio, who plays his "friend", is a terrible actor. He shares the likeness of Chris O'Donald and is even more annoying, a superhuman achievement.<br /><br />The atmosphere the film provides is good (dull gray and somber), but as it's the only thing the film achieves it means nothing. This film wants to be Jacob's Ladder or The Machinist. It isn't even Secret Window. It's the preppy girl in class deciding to turn goth.<br /><br />Not irksomely terrible, but the sheer stupidity of it will ebb at you. I've already put more thought into this critique than the filmmakers did for this.<br /><br />D | neg |
I would probably say this was on a par with films like "Devil's Rain" and that sort of film, although this is probably a bit better made. I love 70's horror and this has most of the elements that make up other movies I like so it was pretty easy to enjoy. A family on their vacation stumble across a small town where the people seem to be gripped by some sort of hysteria. Seems like the children have been disappearing. After an initial attempt to flee this place, the family is somehow stopped on the edge of town and find their way back, but not without first finding a house where the kids are gone and mommy and daddy are dead. Seems like we have a different kind of twist on a senior citizen community center in this town, they're all Satan worshipers and they need the kids to renew their lives so they can continue on in their service, I guess. Not that anyone seems too keen on giving up their kids for this enterprise. This is fairly classy considering that it's scary and creepy without buckets of gore or the loud startling events that try to make people jump in films today, which seem to have replaced actual scares. We have Hank Kimball (Alvy Moore) from "Green Acres" as Tobey, a sheriff's deputy that reads UFO magazines, and LQ Jones as the sheriff, and a very familiar character actor as the dad of the stranded family. And Strother Martin plays the doctor who seems to be doing double duty unbeknown to his fellow townsfolk. This is pretty good stuff but a tad on the confusing side sometimes, but overall works pretty well & is recommended for fans of 70's horror. 8 out of 10. | pos |
In this film we have the fabulous opportunity to see what happened to Timon and Pumbaa in the film when they are not shown - which is a lot! This film even goes back to before Simba and (presumbably) just after the birth of Kiara. <br /><br />Quite true to the first film, "Lion King 1/2 (or Lion King 3 in other places)" is a funny, entertaining, exciting and surprising film (or sequel if that's what you want to call it). A bundle of surprises and hilarity await for you!<br /><br />While Timon and Pumbaa are watching a film at the cinema (with a remote control), Timon and Pumbaa have an argument of what point of "The Lion King" they are going to start watching, as Timon wants to go to the part when he and Pumbaa come in and Pumbaa wants to go back to the beginning. They have a very fair compromise of watching the film of their own story, which is what awaits... It starts with Timon's first home...<br /><br />For anyone with a good sense of humour who liked the first films of just about any age, enjoy "Lion King 1/2"! :-) | pos |
Once again, there's dastardly government agencies stopping at nothing to prevent public knowledge of some momentous events. In this case, the discovery of a new underwater species that could threaten the planet's ecology. Although the creature is no E.T. he does seem to befriend one youngster, who protects it at all costs, not realising it is but an infant of the species and is going to get a lot bigger and badder This 2005 series had a lot going for it. It is family drama, sci-fi, thriller with more than a few comedic moments. The characters are believable, well acted and well photographed. The show holds the attention. Of course, as with any sci-fi show, suspension of disbelief has to be achieved. And I think it is here. Alas, the series crashed after season one, so we never get a resolution. Infuriating.. There is a general comment I feel worth making here. Many TV networks and/or film distribution companies cancel, quite arbitrarily, seemingly excellent TV series particularly intelligent sci-fi ones. Now there may be some very good reasons for this, although the audiences are treated with utmost disdain and rarely told the reasons. This in itself is annoying. What really gets my goat is that, having cancelled the series, they then issue the thing as far as it's got, on DVD, in an obvious attempt to milk the cash cow as far as possible. For previous viewers of the series that's OK, they know what they're in for but
many of these unfinished series end on a cliffhanger. Two that come to mind immediately are "Surface", and "Odyssey 5". If you've heard good things about the series and not seen it you go and buy the blasted DVD and end up with an unresolved plot issue it makes me very angry!! I enjoyed "Surface" immensely and didn't realise the poor characters would end up in a situation that looked totally untenable and we'll never know what happened next. I believe that there should be a prominent notice on all such DVD issues, to the effect that the story is unfinished. Nowadays I check on TV series purchases (IMDB is an obvious excellent starting point) to find out whether a 'complete' series is really complete or not. Buyer beware. | pos |
In the 50's, a gay photographer called Bob Mizer (Daniel MacIvor) founded an agency of male models, releasing a muscle magazine called "Physique Pictorial" and movie of men, and many of the models became prostitutes. "Beefcake" shows the rise and fall of this pervert.<br /><br />Alternating footages from the 50's, testimony of many models and Bob Mizer himself in the present days, the director Thom Fitzgerald used this subterfuge to show naked men and lots of penis along 93 minutes running time, in a complete bad taste and very silly crap. I have never heard anything about this morally corrupt Bob Mizer and I do not know what AMG is. In my opinion, only gay and very specific audiences might like the theme of this boring and pretentious movie. My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Carne Fresca" ("Fresh Meat") | neg |
This video has audio that is meant for someone to hear during their sleep. And the same can be said for the video.<br /><br />Morgan and his wife pretending to rough it at minimum wage jobs? With a camera rolling? And his little wifey-poo complaining? Give me a break. They are both rich. They are sitting in their fake $350/month apartment filming this with their $1,000/month each video crew of 12.<br /><br />I used to respect Morgan, but now his "30 days" experience is nothing more than trying to fool any volunteer viewers who are willing to be fooled.<br /><br />C'mon Morgan, you are being filmed doing a $6.00 an hour job and you are being paid by naive employers who don't see those big cameras filming the whole thing?? And we aren't to think they aren't paying you under the table? | neg |
This film is great with some of the best songs preformed by Bon Jovi and kiss.The film is about a man named Chris(Mark Wahlberg)Who is the biggest fan of a band named Steel Dragon.And then when he gets the gig for lead singer his world changes upside down.With great acting by Jennifer Aniston this film is a must see for rock lovers!!<br /><br />4/5 stars | pos |
Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams star in this action/thriller written and directed by the master of suspense, Wes Craven, himself. The whole movie starts with some trouble at The Lux Atlantic, a hotel in Miami. The problem is all fixed by Lisa Reisert, the manager of the hotel. Then she goes to the airport, and that's where all of the trouble begins. She meets Jackson Rippner, who doesn't like to be called Jack because of the name Jack the Ripper, if you know you him and I mean. Then they board the plane, and crazy enough, Rippner and Reisert sit next to each other. For the next half-hour, Lisa is terrorized, tormented, and terrified by Rippner. I won't give anything away. Then we move on to where Jack is chasing Lisa in the airport. Then Lisa goes to her house to see if her father is okay, and crazily enough, Rippner is already there. There is nearly twelve minutes of violence and strong intensity throughout that entire scene. In total, about 25 minutes of intense action comes at the end.<br /><br />Not only was the movie intense but it had a great plot to it. Like I said, I will not give anything away because it's so shocking and thrilling and somewhat disturbing/frightening. And the acting from every single character in the movie, even the ones with no lines at all, were all pitch perfect. It was incredible. Everything was awesome in this movie! The acting, the music, the effects, the make-up, the directing, the editing, the writing, everything was wonderful! Wes Craven is definitely The Master of Suspense. Red Eye is definitely a must-see and is definitely worth spending your money on. You could watch this movie over and over and over again and it would never ever get boring.<br /><br />Red Eye I have to say is better than 10 out of 10 stars.<br /><br />Original MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language<br /><br />My MPAA rating: PG-13: Some Very Intense Sequences of Violence, and Language<br /><br />My Canadian Rating: 14A: Violence, Frightening Scenes, Disturbing Content | pos |
I love oddball animation, I love a lot of Asian films, but I didn't love this particular product of Japan. The Fuccons are supposedly an American family (they're all mannequins) who have moved to Japan, and they're somewhat a 50's sitcom type family, with slightly more modern sensibilities at times. The DVD features several very short episodes (like less than 5 minutes each?) and I did not find it to be either funny or entertaining, not even in a weird way. I'm not sure what the appeal is of this. I did pick up on some satire here and there, gosh, who wouldn't, but satire is usually somewhat humorous, isn't it? And nothing I saw or heard rated even a little smirk. I picked this up used and it certainly SOUNDED appealing, but I guess either I'm missing the point or it's just plain LAME. The box even says it's Fuccon hilarious, right there on the front, but I beg to differ. 2 out of 10. | neg |
I've noticed over the years that when a rock star makes his final album before his death, that album, if it's not his best, is usually prolific in some way and worthy of a listen at least. The album is usually good enough to cement a legacy. However, when it comes to comedians, especially mainstream comics who star in their own vehicles, their final movie is usually God awful. John Belushi had "Neighbors", John Candy had "Wagon's East", Chris Farley had "Almost Heroes", Phil Hartman had "Small Soldiers", and Rodney Dangerfield had this movie.<br /><br />"Back By Midnight", although it may not have been Dangerfield's very last film, is weak in every sense of the word. It wrapped filming in 2002 according to this website, and it's safe to say that it would have stayed on the shelves if Dangerfield was still alive. I have been a big fan of Dangerfield's since I was in my early teens, and it pains me to see how rotten this film was.<br /><br />What amazes me the most is that a number of other talented people took part in a movie with a very weak premise to begin with. Dangerfield, a great comedian who usually played his comic persona on film, is a prison warden who houses a close knit group of inmates. When the owner of the prison, Colonel-Tom-Parker-meets-Sam-Walton billionaire Eli Rockwood (Randy Quaid), cuts funding for the prison, the warden sends a group of inmates to break out of prison, rob Rockwood's eponymous convenience stores of consumer goods, and break back into prison with the loot. By taking what's in the convenience stores, they are (I guess) taking what they believe Rockwood owes them.<br /><br />With this flimsy premise, the movie sputters and stalls frequently. On top of that, the jokes that you think would be this movie's salvation are not even close to funny, not even from Mr. No Respect himself. That is incredibly disappointing too, because you'd expect a movie with Oscar-nominated (!!!) Randy Quaid, Kirstie Alley, Gilbert Gottfried, Ed Begley Jr., Yeardley Smith, and others to be at least a little bit funny. Instead, Quaid plays a character we've seen before in countless other comedies, Alley plays a British heiress with an awful British accent (could this movie not afford an actual British person!?!), and every joke was poorly set up and poorly timed by virtually every member of this ensemble. It was just not a good comedy in any sense of the word.<br /><br />"Back By Midnight" was rated R mainly for language (and one scene of nudity). The irony in this fact is that many of the jokes are so audience insulting that even kids (if you edit out the language) would walk out of this film. The physical gags are also incredibly predictable, especially when Alley's pet monkey torments Quaid's character. When the monkey grabs a pair of scissors and jumps on Quaid's couch, who wouldn't know where that gag was going?<br /><br />Being a direct-to-video comedy, of course I didn't expect any Oscar-winning material on here. The truth is, though, Dangerfield has made some great, timeless comedies before. "Easy Money" and "Back To School" are hilarious still, and were definitely not Oscar-worthy in the slightest. However, there's a difference between making a dumb comedy that's funny, and making a dumb comedy. With the latter kind of comedy, it seems like the filmmakers don't even try, which is precisely the case with this lame excuse for a wasted 90 minutes. Rest in Peace, Rodney, but add this film to your batch of forgettable comedies like "Meet Wally Sparks" (1997) and "The Godson" (1999). This film, dare I say it, is not even worth seeing. | neg |
Writers and directors, by the nature of their craft, stand back a frame from the action in their work to show insights about characters and situations. Here, Huston and Joyce have stepped back a bigger frame yet to show us the ultimate view of what it means to be human. Until it's very end the movie appears to be about nothing much, the kind of typical circumstances that fill every day life. It is not until the end of the very final scene that we realize that it is in fact about everything.<br /><br />It is not possible to watch this final scene without simultaneously feeling pity, and also deep affection, for oneself and the rest of fellow beings. | pos |
There have been many movies featuring Bigfoot, the majority of which are not good but most at least have a goofy charm to them. Sasquatch Hunters doesn't even have that going for it. It's just a crashing bore.<br /><br />Sasquatch Hunters is about a group of paleontologists, primatologists, and forest rangers that venture off into a remote part of a Pacific Northwest forest. Bones belonging to some sort of abnormally large primate have been discovered in this region and since apes aren't natural to North America to begin with this leads to a scientific expedition. Sure enough, they soon discover a whole burial ground full of the skeletal remains of these enormous ape-like creatures. I think we all know what happens to people that disturb ancient burial grounds in the movies.<br /><br />The first half of the movie consists of uninteresting, interchangeable characters assembling their gear, hiking through the woods, stopping to rest, hiking through the woods some more, pausing long enough to investigate and discuss a few findings along the way, yet more hiking through the woods, looking for a group member that has vanished, even more hiking through the woods, digging through dirt, random theorizing, and gathering around a campfire to discuss what little they've done that day. When Sasquatch finally shows up it just turns into people stumbling around in the dark while being picked off one at a time (done in a blink and you missed it fashion and the actual killing occurs off-camera). All of this is excruciatingly boring.<br /><br />The movie wants to be taken seriously and the director is clearly trying to build suspense but there is none to be found, thus we are left with dull, drawn out scenes of people wandering around the woods just to get somewhere and wander around the woods at night trying to act scared. I'd be lying if I said I didn't make liberal use of the fast forward button to speed these scenes up.<br /><br />As for Sasquatch himself, much like every other character else in the movie, it doesn't have much to do and lacks a distinct personality. It looks like a shaggier version of King Kong, which isn't all that bad except in the scenes where they used CGI instead of a man in a Bigfoot costume, which is painfully obvious during the daylight monster scenes. A part of me can't help but feel that even using computer effects to bring Bigfoot to life is a tad sacrilegious. If there is any single movie monster that I believe should only be brought to life through situation, it's Bigfoot.<br /><br />This is one of those movies that doesn't so much have a plot as it does a premise. That's all it really is, a premise, which the people involved stretched out to make a feature length motion picture without bothering to add all the ingredients to make a worthwhile movie. | neg |
Those reviewers who have complained that this movie lacks plausibility or has problems of construction are missing the point. This is a wonderfully camp romance, with plenty of Play, gypsies! Dance, gypsies! music, that both sends up exotic love stories and celebrates them. Buttoned-up Ray Milland makes an amusing foil for a Dietrich with black hair, tattered scarves, and tons of jewelry. The character's eagerness to feed Milland and look after him more closely resembles the good German hausfrau Dietrich was off the set than her mannered vamp roles. Censorship being in force, it's made clear that they share a caravan on platonic terms only, with Milland fighting off Dietrich's advances with a determination remarkable for a heterosexual bachelor who might be killed any day. His only excuse is that she smells, so perhaps a stuffy, fastidious Englishman might indeed be put off.<br /><br />In the small role of Milland's young companion on his secret mission, Bruce Lester adds a note of camp of a different kind. We are told at the beginning that he hero-worships Milland, and indeed he rather fawns on him. When, after they are separated, he meets Milland, now transformed into a brown-skinned gypsy with a shirt open to the waist, his glowing appreciation of the disguise even further suggests that not only Dietrich is romantically infatuated with Milland.<br /><br />Despite the wonderfully improbable characters and sequence of events, the growing love of Milland for Dietrich and his acceptance of the non-rational aspects of life is rather touching. And when, on their last night alone before he escapes, he says that each of them now contain half of the other, the two have become one, and then darkness falls, I think we can assume that the censor decided to give them a break! One goof--at the beginning, Milland, who is supposed to be English, refers to a lieutenant, using the American pronunciation. (The English say "leftenant.") Since Milland was British, he must have been saying it that way because the American movie-makers feared that American audiences would be distracted and confused by the British style. | pos |
The movie gets a score of 3 because it dared to be so very different. It features a cast acting while you can hear their thoughts and desires! This is truly a weird film and an experience I won't forget. The only problem is that the experiment, though in some ways interesting, is generally quite dull and unengaging. In fact, it's amazing that a Norma Shearer and Clark Gable film could be THIS dull! The film is based on a Eugene O'Neill play and it really does seem quite stagy. In fact, it would have been best just to keep it as a stage production--it just didn't translate at all to the big screen.<br /><br />So this movie is only recommended to die-hard cinemaniacs and those who love Gable films so much they just have to see all his films! | neg |
Did Uwe Boll seriously just rip off the basic idea and dialogue from Se7en?! Why is it so fekking difficult for this douchebag to be original?! He even mentioned in an interview with Gametrailers that he chooses stuff like games to make into movies because the characters, plots, backstories and so on are already there and ready for him to screw with.<br /><br />Guess it isn't too much of a stretch for him to rip off another movie entirely...<br /><br />I mean, seriously, what the hell...? Here's something I made in Uwe's 'honor'...<br /><br />http://zuucka.deviantart.com/art/Uwe-Boll-is-a-Douchebag-70369862 | neg |
i am surprised so few have good words for this movie. For its time (the 80's) it was a very entertaining and engaging story. Casting was good. Story was good. Special effects were remarkable for the time period. Deserving of an 8/10. | pos |
Famed filmmaker Werner Herzog's "Fata Morgana" is breathtakingly unorthodox. Although characters appear in the film from time to time, there is no actual story. The film is also not an educational or historical documentary. It's a film without an accompanying screenplay.<br /><br />The film consists of curious background music and a somewhat illogical narrative VO, the combination of which overlays a long string of images from mostly, though not exclusively, the Sahara Desert. Some of the images are wonderfully odd, and out of the ordinary. The camera captures ghostly images, or mirages, optical illusions that tantalize and mesmerize.<br /><br />This general cinematic trend is punctuated by occasional observational asides on serendipitous topics. For example, in one sequence a man wearing goggles gives us a mini-tutorial on lizards. And in what for me was the most captivating and bizarre sequence, a small inset room contains a man with dark goggles who sings in a voice that is totally distorted by the microphone he's using, accompanied by an old lady who plays a punchy tune on an old piano. Neither the man nor the old lady seems to enjoy what they're doing. How baroque.<br /><br />"Fata Morgana" does have an underlying concept, one that unites the wide assortment of strange images and eclectic sounds. But that concept is so subtle, so opaque that you'll never figure it out without help. From this subtle theme the film does indeed make sense. Without that point of reference, however, the film can seem tedious and unending, a pointless parade of random earthy images and esoteric narrative gibberish.<br /><br />Unapologetically redundant, thematically baffling, and cinematically heretical, "Fata Morgana" will likely either make you swoon with delight, or cause you to throw up. You'll either latch on to the film's Zen-like qualities or be tempted to smash the DVD into a thousand pieces. One thing that most viewers will agree on: "Fata Morgana" is ... different. | pos |
I've read through a lot of the comments here about how this movie sticks to the book.. I don't think any of them have actually read it. Edgar Rice wrote about a dangerous African Jungle and Apes were killers and hunters. We know differently now and this movie portrays Apes in a more modern view. I've never seen a Tarzan movie that even comes close to Edgar's vision. Maybe one day Hollywood with trust talented and respected authors to tell the story. So, if you've never read the book and enjoy a good story about feelings and a fluffy bunny view of wild animals, maybe a good cry, see the movie. I hope John Carter of Mars get's more respect than Tarzan has. We miss ya, Edgar! | neg |
Kurt Thomas in one of the series of gymnast olympic stars turned movie stars movies that mercifully only includes one other..Mitch Gaylord in American Anthem...at least that one had Janet Jones..this one has...um... a gymnast using his martial arts and his gymnastic skills to save a european country from dictatorship..sure it could happen.. on a scale of one to ten.. a 0 | neg |
80 minutes, and it felt twice that long! Brief Crossing is not brief enough. Indeed, the first 50 minutes or so consist almost entirely of a dialogue (more of a monologue, really) of a woman approaching middle age, tediously droning about "men," disappointment, sex, aging, and her recent breakup, to a French teenager she met in the ship's cafeteria.<br /><br />The tedious monologue continues as they go to duty-free shop, and to a bar, where finally her self-involved rant pushes him away. The "story" can't end there, of course, so she persuades him to listen to her drone on more as she brings him to her cabin.<br /><br />What little romance, sex, or for that matter, anything at all this film has besides bitter rantings is hardly enough to justify the price of a rental unless you are one of those who love dramas where nothing interesting happens at all. Yes, the ending is very nicely done, but it is scant reward to subject yourself to what amounts to a turning your living room into a virtual therapy session with a narcissistic whiner.<br /><br />Of course, some people like it. I could be wrong. | neg |
This movie captures the essence of growing up in smalltown America for a young girl on her own. The realism and subtle nuances, offered to Ashley Judd's character, Ruby, by the storyline, capture what can only be described as a true to life setting in the panhandle of Florida. From the slam of a screen door, to the lack of work, the echoes of what life is really like on the "red-neck riviera" provide rough choices for the young girl. Paradise did not come easy. But she slowly overcomes obstacles and deceit, and learns to be her own woman, with a strength that flows from within. Ashley Judd's winning smile, and infectious gait exude warmth and command respect and admiration. The careful pace of the character development resembles that of "Ulee's Gold" in 1997, starring Peter Fonda, and also directed by Victor Nunez. | pos |
i saw switching goals ..twice....and always the same feeling...you see the Olsen twins make same movie....they like play different sports and then fall in love to boys..OK now about the movie....first off all such little boys and girls don't play on such big goals...2.football does not play on time outs...3.if the game is at its end the referee gives some overtime (a minute or more)...and the finish is so foreseen....i think that this movie is bad because of the lack of football knowledgement....if it were done by European producers it would be better..and also the mane actors aren't the wright choice...they suffer from lack of authentic..OK they played some seasons in full house but that doesn't make them big stars....you have got to show your talent....and that is what is missing in the Olsen twins | neg |
There is a version of "Nevsky" that is shown with a live symphony orchestra, chorus, soloist and the movie. If it's EVER performed within a day's travel of you see "Nevsky" done that way. The Oklahoma City Philharmonic did it with the OKC Canterbury Choir (one of the finest anywhere) a couple of years ago. I think I cried through the whole thing, it was one of the most emotionally powerful movie experiences of my life. I'm listening to "Nevsky" on the radio right now and it still tears me up. There are movies that I love, and classical music pieces I love, but there is no combination I can think of that comes close to the impact of "Nevsky" performed in real time. | pos |
Subsets and Splits