Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Simply put, there are two parts of this series that made me cry till my eyes fell out. First: The part where he was set to wash the toilet, but ended up drinking the toilet water while imagining it was the hot director giving him a golden shower!!! (I laughed so hard!)<br /><br />Second: The part where he tried to prove worthy of a swimming school instructor. He seemed like a pro diving in, but as expected, he couldn't swim (proper at least^^). However the funny part of this was when he finally reached the end and said "how was that" or something. That was so friggin hilarious, I couldn't stop laughing. <br /><br />If you get the chance to see this anime series, I strongly recommend it. One of the best I've seen. <br /><br />Definitely the funniest! | positive |
This movie is just truly awful, the eye-candy that plays Ben just can make up for everything else that is wrong with this movie.<br /><br />The writer/director/producer/lead actor etc probably had a good idea to create a movie dealing with the important issues of gay marriage, family acceptance, religion, homophobia, hate crimes and just about every other issue effecting a gay man of these times, but trying to ram every issue into such a poorly conceived film does little justice to any of these causes.<br /><br />The script is poor, the casting very ordinary, but the dialogue and acting is just woeful. The homo-hating brother is played by the most camp actor and there is absolutely no chemistry between the two lead actors (I think I've seen more passion in an corn flakes ad). The acting is stiff, and the dialogue forced (a scene where the brother is feeding the detective his lines was the highlight).<br /><br />I'm just pleased to see that the creator of this train wreck has not pushed any other rubbish out in to distribution, and if he is thinking of doing so, I have some advise - JUST DON'T DO IT. | negative |
A brilliant portrait of a traitor (Victor McLaglen in Oscar winning performance) who is hounded by his own conscience. McLaglen plays an IRA rouge who betrays his leader to collect a reward during Ireland's Sinn Fein Rebellion. The scenes showing fights and mob actions are very realistic, focusing on the desperation within individuals. The lack of hope for a better future seems to be a fate worse than death.<br /><br />Director John Ford superbly creates an murky and tense atmosphere, enhanced by the foggy and grimy depiction of the Irish landscape. Max Steiner's dramatic music score adds to the cinematic delight. Oscar Winner also for Best Screenplay, nominated for Best Picture. This is one of Hollywood's Classic. | positive |
Being stuck in bed with the flu and feeling too rough to get up to find the remote, I actually watched this abomination from start to finish (how many people can say that? And for any who can - what's your excuse?). My God, has there ever, EVER been such a total mess released by a major studio? There is not one second of genuine tension in a supposed "thriller"; the script is inept and ludicrous; the sets look like they were leftovers from a low-budget TV movie; and the cast ... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!!! Sally Field gives what is without doubt the worst and most embarrassing performance of any Academy Award winner in history. Her irritating nasal whine and stupidly perky behaviour in what is meant to be a life-threatening situation are truly asinine. It's a wonder she didn't use all her future earnings to buy up and destroy every print of this turkey. Michael Caine, who now pontificates endlessly on the art of screen acting - even running master classes for would-be thespians - should be taken out and shot (preferably by one of Telly Savalas' henchmen). Angela Cartwright, an actress I usually like (and whose name isn't even in the opening credits, poor soul), is ten years too old for her role, and her horrible matronly yellow prom dress must haunt her nightmares to this day. Slumming it are Karl Malden and Shirley Knight - hopefully they collected a big pay packet to assuage their involvement. The whole film is a series of bad scenes, but one that especially sticks in my mind is the explosion which results in the "ceiling" (if an upside-down ship's deck can be termed as such) collapsing and a load of empty cardboard boxes falling through! Ooh, how scary! Really, really, terrible. | negative |
I am a big fan of Fred MacMurray and Carole Lombard. And, in addition to them, Charles Butterworth (a very enjoyable supporting actor) was in this film,...so why didn't I particularly enjoy it?! Well, despite a good cast, this is one of the poorest written and most clichéd "A pictures" I have ever seen. Given the talent and money spent to make this film, it is shocking how slip-shod the writing was. I knew the film would be tedious when time after time early in the film I found myself predicting EXACTLY what would happen next--and I was always right! And this isn't because I am some sort of "movie savant", but was because almost no imagination or effort went into it. In fact, it seemed almost as if the film was just a long string of clichés all strung together! Also, I found it a bit irritating that Fred mistreated Carole so bad throughout the film and yet, true to convention, she came running to him in the end. Uggh! There is MORE suspense in a Lassie film ("will he bring people to rescue Timmy or will the rope he is dangling from break?").<br /><br />Despite the very, very tired and clichéd script, there were a few positives about the film. It was pretty cool seeing Fred look like a broken lush at the end of the film--it was pretty believable and he looked like he hadn't eaten, shaved or slept in days. Also, Charles Butterworth's "prattle" did provide a few mildly humorous moments. But all this just wasn't enough to make this film look any different than a "B movie". It's a shame,...it could have been so much better. | negative |
Angela Lansbury plays Eglantine a middle aged lady in war torn England, during the WWI. She has been studying witchcraft by mail, and has been secretly learning it in her home, she is doing well, until three children who have been separated from their parents from the last air raid, are sent to stay in Angela Lansbury's huge house. She is not happy about having them, because of her secret. They only want to go back home. The oldest boy is very hard to get along with he is a brat. The other two a boy and a girl are just inquisitive about their new place to stay and the lady that is their hostess. The kids find out about her secret and that is when the fun begins. Fun and more of it. Family fun. Laughter, frolic, adventure, something for everyone. The special effects are quite good. This is a musical the tunes are every bit as catchy to sing later as any of the other Disney films. Add this to your Family Video Library. You will not be disappointed. | positive |
SPOILER NOTHING BUT SPOILER<br /><br />I have to add my name to the list of folks who feel that the other viewers just don't get it. But no one has even mentioned the "s" word so far as I have seen.<br /><br />While I agree that the kid died I think we can be more specific: he committed suicide. He races down the slope in an old wagon, shoots off the cliff and..."flies away". Maybe the whole account of the form of death is allegory or maybe he does commit suicide in a wagon as laid out. In either case, he "flies away" (c'mon, not that tough a metaphor).<br /><br />Maybe I just have a thing for Tom Hanks, but I was ok with the narration. Besides he is raising $ for the WW2 memorial and you gotta love him for that.<br /><br />Oh yeah, I loved the movie and found it incredibly moving. | positive |
I loved this movie. It was so well done! Great acting and drama and historically accurate. I love Romy Schneider movies. This one rocks, not as great as Sissi but still rocks! <br /><br />And Scorpiolina,she commented and said french dubbing. Well this is originally a German movie not french. So yea. Second of all there was a plot, maybe your not familiar with history. Oh and her mother played the part of her governess, not her teacher. And the storyline was actually not Cinderella but Queen Victoria, maybe u missed that detail.<br /><br />But anyway.... yea the history in this movie is great, I love historical movies and Queen Victoria is very fascinating! I love all the historical stuff. Like that guy that was trying to manipulate her mom. And when she ran away and met her future husband and he showed her the "new type of dance" waltzing. When waltzing was new it was considered kinda scandalous because the couples dance so close. Yea her governess was like oh my god!<br /><br />And also the clothes, I love the clothes. The styles are great, hoop skirts are awesome. And of course Romy always looks very pretty. | positive |
This is one of the best of the early "Star Trek" episodes, with Kirk and his crew venturing into the unknown to do battle with an enemy known only by name. Imagine their surprise when they find out that the dreaded Romulans are racial offshoots of the Vulcans! Young Mr. Stiles, well-played by Paul Comi, is one of the few truly unlikable characters in the "Star Trek" universe. His barely disguised hatred of Mr. Spock is eerily similar to the post-9/11 hatred and suspicion many Americans have of people of Arab or Middle Eastern origin. The atmosphere of war-time paranoia is all too real. Then there's the Romulans: they're the ultimate Federation nemesis. The Klingons are nasty but basically harmless; more of a nuisance than a serious threat. The Romulans, however, mean business: they're the ancient Romans reborn in the space age; in spite of their Vulcanoid features they're clearly meant to remind us of imperial Rome, with names like Decius and titles like "centurion" and "praetor." The chain-mail armor is really cool. Familiar guest star Mark Lenard, who went on to play Spock's dad Sorek as well as the Klingon commander in "Star Trek: the Motion Picture" is an appropriately grizzled, war-weary commander, a character who bears a striking resemblance to Laurence Olivier's Crassus in "Spartacus." Also, his questioning of the Empire's unquenchable thirst for conquest reminds me of the similar misgivings Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) expressed at the beginning of "Gladiator." A must both for Trekkies and sword-and-sandal epic fans. | positive |
The message of this movie is "personality is more important than beauty". Jeanine Garofalo is supposed to be the "ugly duckling", but the funny thing is that she's not at all ugly (actually she's a lot more attractive than Uma Thurman, the friend who looks like a model).<br /><br />Now, would this movie work if the "ugly duckling" was really unattractive? When will Hollywood stop with this hypocrisy?<br /><br />In my opinion, despite the message that it wants to convey, this movie is simply ridiculous.<br /><br /> | negative |
Chuck Jones's 'Beep Beep' (so called despite the fact that the Road Runner clearly says "Meep Meep") is the second of the exceptionally popular Road Runner series and is a vast improvement on its predecessor, the historically important but lacklustre 'Fast and Furry-ous'. While it features several predictable quickfire gags, 'Beep Beep' also expands on that initial cartoon with more ambitious, longer sequences. Chief among these is a fantastic, extended chase through an old mine in which we see the Coyote and the Road Runner represented by two small lights. There's also a very funny longer gag involving some rocket-powered roller-skates. 'Beep Beep' also sees a great improvement in the representation of Wile E. Coyote. Not only does he look more handsome than his scraggly prototype in 'Fast and Furry-ous' but he also draws the audience into the cartoon more with a greater amount of looks to the camera to indicate the brilliance of his idea or his fear of imminent pain. Although it's a little slow to get going (too many lingering shots of blueprints hinder the pace in some of the early gags), once 'Beep Beep' arrives at the mine shaft sequence it's clear that Jones was beginning to get a real handle on these characters and the greater possibilities of what he could do with them. There are better Road Runner cartoons than 'Beep Beep' but there's a real feeling of triumph about this cartoon, as if it were the confirmation that there was a series to be milked out of this scenario. | positive |
This movie tells an amazing story with history and compassion. From the careful descriptions of the crime scenes to the mental health of the lead investigator, you'll be entranced. It's an absolute must-see for anyone interested in criminology. Interpol relations and how the agencies work together are also great. Not overly done either. I recommend it for anyone interested in Russian history, too. How the police work with the political party being what it was... It is truly fascinating and frustrating. The settings are beautiful. It's been a while since I saw this movie the first time. It doesn't diminish it's impact. Not overly dramatic or graphic, it leaves enough to the imagination, well, you'll see. | positive |
The video box for 'Joyride' says "starring second generation superstars", and one can't help but feel sad. Granted, Melanie Griffith has gone on to bigger and better things...but who cares about the rest of the cast? So with that being the pathetic attention grabber on the box I was foolish enough to purchase the film for a dollar thinking I would be in the land of 'so-bad-they're-good 70's films' Eh, not so much. While so many aimless 70's youth films (or plain ol' 70's films for that matter) tried so hard to say something deep and meaningful, 'Joyride' doesn't even try. It's just aimless. It is devoid of any interest whatsoever. Each character is so poorly conceived that it's no wonder these actors look so listless.<br /><br />In a nutshell the movie is about three 20-somethings who go to Alaska to start a business, but instead get robbed and then have to find work. They get beat up, eat dog food, steal cars, rob banks. It's all very typical but on top of that it's executed in the most mundane way possible. There are no surprises and the flow is so bad, and the actions of the characters so ambiguous that you can miss several scenes and not mind at all.<br /><br />But if you're a fan of Melanie Griffith's breasts - then this is a must-see. That's still not enough to get this above the lowest rating I can give.<br /><br />Best Line: "Jesus, everything is biology with you." * out of **** | negative |
not a Larry Mcmurty masterpiece but it stands on its own as a good western, any of the lonesome doves do. who ever takes on the role of Woodrow call, does a great portrayal in their own style. It's also easy to see that they were looking to use this as a stepping stone to the t.V series (both version of it) and that the writers knew how to keep the flavor alive William Peterson was awesome in this, the geeky C.S.I guy is not the character he plays in this - this guy can do it all it seems<br /><br />it's deserve to be enjoyed by those who enjoy westerns<br /><br />4out5 stars | positive |
I hired out Hybrid on the weekend. What a disappointment! A stupid lame attempt at a tele-movie. The guy they got for the lead was totally weak and when running {he did a lot} looked like he was eating those minty sweets...with his backside! The wolf contacts he wore were great, though I feel the actor relied on them too much, as there was nothing menacing about his acting at all. The wise native American Indian chick has to be one of the most stony hard faced hags ever seen. Talk about a sour cow! She smiled about once for the entire film, and I think that is because she had sex. The sex scene was lame too. They may as well have shown blowing curtains, if you can dig that.<br /><br />Last of all, and this is a big pet hate of mine, on the cover and the DVD menu, the losers digitally drew in cool sharp teeth on the guy. They were nowhere to be seen in the film. :( | negative |
Perhaps the biggest waste of production time, money and the space on the video store shelf. If someone suggests you see this movie, run screaming in the other direction. Unless, of course, you're into self-abuse. | negative |
It's the story of three brothers pulling together in the midst of hardship and loss, and learning that the really important things in life are family, love, trust, and forgiveness. The entire cast manages to pull in a powerful performance despite a few lousy one-liners. A great film for fans of true to life problems befalling believable families. Also worth a look for fans of Dermot Mulroney or Sean Astin. They both do an astounding job, often bringing you to tears. Take my word for it and rent this today! | positive |
Michael Haneke is known for his disturbing movies like "Funny Games". This time he adopted Elfriede Jelineks "Die Klavierspielerin", which is probably her best work so far. Jelinek always writes about abusive behaviour in families, and especially of the suppression of women in a patriarchal society.<br /><br />Erika Kohut (Isabelle Huppert) works as a piano teacher at the Viennese Consevatory. She still lives with her mother (Annie Giradot), they even sleep in the same bed (already a hint of something strange). Erika bullies her students the same way she's bullied by her mother and secretly watches porn movies and plays sadomasochistic games with herself. A student, Walter (Benoit Magimel), falls in love with her, but she refuses to simply sleep with him. She wants to play her games with him, but he's disgusted. He reluctantly follows her rules, which means disaster for both of them.<br /><br />Haneke has a very clear picture language, everything is filmed in a almost spartanic way, so the complex characters and story are enhanced.<br /><br />People who don't know Austria very well may be don't realize how essential the setting is for the story. Jelinek (as well as other great Austrian writers like Thomas Bernhard) suffers from the coldness and casualness in Austrian families and society. Austrians (at least Viennese people) are often unable to articulate their pains, wishes, they suppress their emotions, so there often enough is no real love, affection and nearness in their families. In a society, where it's more important to show a perfect facade to society (even if this means to protect crimes within families as Erika and her mother protect Walters rape of Erika to avoid a scandal) than to deal with your emotional problems it's probably no wonder that Sigmund Freud founded the psychoanalysis in Vienna. Erika has a cold and distant relationship with her mother, they only time they share some emotions is very violent and not at all loving. Erika replaces her hidden emotions with wishes for violence, so that she can finally release some feelings. But she has nobody who really wants to speak about her emotions so in the end she has to stab herself to ease her inner pain.<br /><br />Isabelle Huppert shows her best performance of her career (as well of most other actresses). With a unsmiling face you often see only a hint of emotion in her face, a quick smile, a glance with her eyes. And in the end her pain is masterly displayed without a single tear. <br /><br />Benoit Magimel and Annie Giradot also turn in powerful performances, but the movie belongs to Huppert. | positive |
Spheeris debut must be one of the best music documentaries of all time. And as far as I know it's also the only one that focuses on the L.A. Punk Explosion of the early eighties. It's all there: not just great, great bands like Black Flag, Fear, X, the Germs, whose names may not mean much to you today, but whose influence on today's alternative rock music can not be over-estimated, but also the promoters, the media and first of all the audiences - the punks - all portrayed in a manner that makes you laugh, shudder and gasp with astonishment about the energy, the anger and the fury these youths put into their music. Where is that today? The eighties may have sucked big time when it cames to mainstream music, but the underground was rocking. If you need a proof for that, watch Fear's performance in Decline. Unmatched. Great film! How come this is not available on vid, LD or DVD? P.S. The follow-up Decline Pt. II is hilarious, too | positive |
In this swimming pool, this pond, there are water lilies and there are frogs. Frogs sit on water lilies. The frog and water lily have a parasitic relationship. Marie(Pauline Acquart) is a water lily, a synchronized swimming groupie with a crush on Floraine(Adele Haenel), a frog, the captain of her team. Floraine's teammates shun their leader because the preternaturally curvy and well-proportioned blonde conveys a loose persona that betrays the syncrhronized swimmer's mindset of conformity and discipline. But Floraine has a secret; the bombshell has a bombshell, which "Naissance des pieuvres" reveals to the audience, visually, before she confides in Marie.<br /><br />Floraine has never gone, as they say, all the way, with a boy.<br /><br />At a party, we see a double-image of the burgeoning sex bomb checking her make-up in a bathroom mirror. "Lolita" is a fata morgana. Marie gets to know Floraine's double while her imitation breaks the water lily's heart. While the frog goes through the motions of catching flies for appearance's sake, she gets chummy with the water lily when no one's looking. In the film's most startling scene, the water lily agrees to give the frog a hand in losing her virginity through the mechanical act of oral stimulation. Floraine wants boys to like her, but she doesn't like boys, seemingly, but it's more important to the frog that she's popular. When the water lily finally kisses the frog, the frog remains a frog. The frog can't transform into a water lily, or a princess, because the water lily lost the frog's respect. After their lips unlock, Floraine tells Marie, "See, it's easy," which is the frog's way of equating their kiss with the orgasm that her friend gave her as nothing more than a rite-of-passage without any strings attached. Floraine's beauty is a burden. She carries the weight of meeting boy's expectations. Florence uses Marie to have one final fling before her fata morgana subjugates its imitation into the closet.<br /><br />The other water lily, the other frog, Marie's best friend Anne(Louise Blachere) and Floraine's frustrated boy-toy Francois(Warren Jacobs), just like any water lily and frog, have a parasitic relationship, too. While Floraine uses Marie for love, Francois uses Anne for sex. But that's life; that's the treachery of growing up, in which even a friend will turn on a good friend if the opportunity to move up the food chain presents itself. At a McDonalds, the water lily chastises the other water lily after bathing extensively in the frog's afterglow. Physical beauty is a currency. Marie gets to call the shots because Anne, although far from being ugly, is overweight and has an unflattering hairdo. Anne tries to fight back by using her breasts as ample retaliation(the magnifying glass from her Happy Meal incidentally comments on Marie's flat chest), but the tadpole(Marie thinks she's better than Anne, better than a water lily) points out that her breasts are a byproduct of fat. <br /><br />Teenaged girls can be brutal to each other.<br /><br />Later, in the final shot, "Naissance des pieuvres" suggests that Marie has a double, too, and this symbiosis among water lilies has the potential to turn parasitic in the near-future, if it not already has. Teenaged girls can be brutal to each other in a way that no boy could match. | positive |
On the face of it, this should be a great film, a great cast, a plot with many possibilities and one of Hollywood's finest behind the camera for the first time.<br /><br />However, its clear why it was another 8 years before spacey decided to try directing a movie again. This movie fails on so many levels. In a film where there is not much action and most of the scenes are shot in a couple of locations, it is imperative that suspense and continuity are provided by the director. Not so here, the great cast is horribly under-used, none more so than the great, late John Spencer, the plot is so run of the mill and nothing you haven't seen in a hundred other TV movies. There is so little character development you end up not caring for any of the protagonists. At least we know spacey has a lot of mates and clout in Hollywood studios to get away with a poor flick like this | negative |
A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child<br /><br />This is a bad movie. There's no escaping it. I love the series and I think Freddy is probably the best character ever in horror movies. But even being a fan I can't help but see this movie is mediocre.<br /><br />There's not even an effort to build an interesting story and strong characters. By now they had just given up. They don't even try. They are the production of course, hoping for a few more easy dollars.<br /><br />The story doesn't grab your attention. Its so simple it's almost absent.<br /><br />Alice, a survivor from part 4 is now pregnant. Freddy is coming back through the baby's dreams. At the beginning we learn that to stop him Alice must find his mother. And that's it. <br /><br />The story advances slowly since there's so little plot meaning it turns pretty boring after a few minutes of bad dialogues and awful acting. In fact that's the only scary thing, the acting, since the deaths are not even slightly cool. <br /><br />The characters are so uninteresting we couldn't care less for them.<br /><br />The girls are as unattractive as possible. The whole cast reminded me of a bad amateur theatre group. I've seen better actors in school plays. It's embarrassing really.<br /><br />Lisa Wilcox still manages to bring some class to this. She is beautiful, sexy and has some talent. But the material just didn't let her shine. What a pity.<br /><br />Stephen Hopkins work is nowhere close to Renny Harlin´s brilliant direction in Dream Master. He tries some imaginative shots near the end but that tension Harlin and Craven created so well in the previous movies is no where to be found.<br /><br />The Dream Child is just another unimaginative sequel. It's the kind of movie that give horror series a bad name. <br /><br />The end for the once scary Freddy. It's too sad to see him now. A clown that's not funny. A bad joke. Goodbye Freddy. | negative |
While watching a mundane modern movie (The Runaway Bride) with my granddaughter (age 22) she asked me "Since you've been watching movies since 1938, what is the greatest movie of your lifetime?" Boy! What a choice that is! It took me all summer of thought and relooking a some flicks before I made my decision. It is "THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES". This movie has no flaws. It is one movie in which each one of the minor characters part and dialog is essential to the whole story. There is not a single part in the film which could be left out. The young girl's fixation with her brothers lack of hands, the man coming home to young adult children who have grown up without him and with different ideas, the portrayal of a young man whose only responsiblity was as a soda jerk who became the leader of a group of men, and was awarded medals for his action. A women who must now adjust to the husband who's life has been away from her for years. The realization of the folks who were in the safety of there secure homes of the sacrifices these ordinary men made in their behalf. The look into the life of loving and living with a man without hands. A parents first look and reaction to their son's new deformities. A man used to making life and death decision in a instant, having to return to the way of plodding though a conservative bank's loan structure. This is no sympathetic, tear jerking, heart strumming act. THIS WAS REAL LIFE! It could not have been portrayed any different. This, my friends, is HOW IT WAS!! This could easily be considered a documentary. In this day of color film, please do not be turned off by the black and white because it is one of the finest B/W filming, editing and directing you will ever see. The casting was perfect. If I could, I would make it compulsory for anyone taking history, film making, creative writing, sociology, family counciling or psychology to view and report on this magnificent example of the film makers art. | positive |
OK, let me start off by saying this isn't a horrible movie by any means. It's just not good. I recall one poster saying the acting isn't campy it's just nuanced. No. I've seen nuanced Japanese and Asian acting. I'm sorry, you're wrong. This is camp.<br /><br />The characters are totally unsympathetic, the deaths are totally random and utterly meaningless. The writing is bad. I'm fine with suspending disbelief, I'm fine with not having everything handed to me in terms of plot. But this movie has no plot. One reviewer stated "This movie is set in a small town where people are going nuts over vortexes and spirals." That's not a blurb, that's the entire freaking film. Congratulations, I've just saved you nearly an hour and a half. There is nothing more to it. No character development, no plot development, no explanations, no resolution. And not even the "Acceptable within the realm of J-Horror" lack of resolution. Just nothing.<br /><br />In addition, the musical score is done by someone who obviously wasn't actually watching the movie at the time because it's random enough to cause whiplash. Cognitive dissonance is one thing and done well it can be brilliant (see Dark Water), but here it just seems as if the score was designed to go with another movie all together.<br /><br />The best example I can give is it's as if the Japanese remade Evil Dead without any of the clever bits or good acting. It just falls flat. It's J-horror without the horror. | negative |
It was an excellent piece to the puppet series because this film showed all of the series, from one to seven. And this was about one woman trying to stop the new puppet master because I would have never guessed that the puppets would be in pain. Plus it showed some of the puppet master series that I didn't see and I what to see it so badly like part two. It showed an appearance of Torch which can turn things and humans, which is cool, and showed the return of the puppet master from part one. It also showed little aliens from part 4 that was also cool, it showed other people episodes that might be good to them and it did.So thanks to this Puppet Master is going to be a big hit. | positive |
This scene shows how Wallace's experiment by using his brain manipulation invention goes terribly wrong, creating the "Were Rabbit". His desire as a social entrepreneur is to improve society for the better, therefore, created a "Brain Manipulator" machine. He risked his own life to help solve Tottington's pests' rabbit problem and more importantly to overcome the overcrowding of rabbits being collected and stored in his basement. Though he thought his experiment worked, however, it resulted in placing more pressure on him and Gromit to find a solution before the Annual Vegetable Competition again risking his life. Gromit, who is a silent faithful dog and a loyal helper finds himself continuously thinking of innovative ways to save his master, from his radical crazy inventions going terribly wrong. What is interesting in this movie, is trying to identify: who is more entrepreneurial, Wallace or Gromit? | positive |
In spite of sterling work by the supporting actors, and an intelligent script by Alan Plater, this film suffers from a fatal flaw - the lack of charm of the central character/actor. One of the characters describes Richard E Grant's character as "a whining little turd" and unfortunately this sums him up perfectly. There is nothing about him or his performance to make it credible that his girlfriend and upper-class publisher/friend would spend so much time and emotional effort on him. He is rude, arrogant, selfish, self-destructive and thoroughly annoying. The part called for an actor who can make you love him even when he is being a prate - a Ewan McGregor, for example.<br /><br />All of the witty satire on the class system etc was wasted, thanks to this irritating and thoroughly unlikeable performance. All I wanted to do was shake him and tell him to get over himself. | negative |
Unfortunately this is not as good as any of the other films that Jim Carrey (producing and starring) and Brian Grazer have worked on together, but bits of it are definitely worth a look for laughs. Basically Dick Harper (Carrey) thinks he is being promoted to a better job. That's until the company of Dynocorpe sinks and closes down. Now Dick and his wife Jane (Téa Leoni), and their son of course, are in trouble with money. No matter what they try, they can't raise the kind of money they really want. So they start robbing a few places. And then they decide to rob the guy that set Dick up, his ex-boss Jack McAllister (Alec Baldwin). I think the most laughable bits are when Carrey's in the elevator singing "I Believe I Can Fly" and the bit when he ties up someone in a robbery, and is speaking with a voice changer (he sounds like a crap robot). Okay! | negative |
Well what do you know, I was painting my house today and an Elton john song came on the radio, which immediately took me back to this movie which i saw in 1971. So long ago and so far away. Ten years later i hitched hiked through the country side of France, and i sure would have been keen to see Michelle. The film is probably not very sophisticated by todays standards, more's the pity, but it seemed rather racy back then. A few years later a sequel was made with Michelle living in a high rise in Paris and Paul coming back to meet her, just like life they had moved on, the film was very downbeat. Still the original was fab, and if you can get a copy go rent it, just remember to give it its' due and treat it gently. I note Americans can be rather prudish, so take note, contains scenes and themes possibly upsetting to middle America. | positive |
If I could give this film a real rating, it would likely be in the minus numbers. While I respect the fact that somebody has to keep making these terrible "horror" films, seriously, people, buying a ticket for this film is a waste of money you could be spending on something far more worth your time.<br /><br />Despite it being a horror film, there is nothing scary about it, unless the idea of seeing how many horror cliché's you can fit in one movie scares you. If the rating had been higher, it probably would have made for a better film in the long run.<br /><br />Whoever made this version of "Prom Night", you screwed up. The actors could probably have done a decent job if it weren't for the questionable scripting. This was a terrible waste of a cinema trip. I'd sooner go and see "One Missed Call" again, at least that had some plot. | negative |
This was a very nice concert by the one and only MJ. The choreography was excellent and the costumes were decent. The vocals were okay. i have to admit that his vocals were crap on Human Nature and Billie Jean. You couldn't hear him half the time. The other songs make up for the singing. The Highlights of the show are: Jam Smooth Criminal I Just Can't Stop Loving You She's Out Of My Life Thriller Billie Jean (The Dancing Not The Singing) Black or White Man in the Mirror The concert was almost perfect. If it was anybody but Mj it would have been a 9. It is a must see. I wish I was born then so I could have gotten a ticket to the best concert of 1992. | negative |
What a waste of time and money! My hubby and I saw this movie - after seeing the previews and thinking it "might be funny". WRONG! This movie is about 90 minutes too long. The actors are trapped in a poorly written script and can't get out. The jokes are weak and tired, and not even seeing Wilson's naked behind can redeem any part of this film. The special effects.....aren't. I half expected to see the harness and wires holding up Uma in her flying scenes. And when the effects people apparently could not master the superhero's faster-than-a-speeding-bullet flying or fight scenes, they covered over everything with a swirling vortex of blurred screen - which hid the awful effects quite nicely. Wilson's sidekick was a lame excuse for a man and Wilson had no chemistry with either Uma or his office co-worker. The sex scenes weren't sexy and the funny scenes weren't funny. I guess I just expected too much from these actors. None of the characters were really sympathetic, so I ended up not caring a flying fig about any of them. The only memorable performances were the kids who played Bedlam and G-Girl as teenagers - at least THEY had some chemistry. Overall, a super stinko movie - I wouldn't even recommend it as a rental - it would still be a waste of money! | negative |
Wow...where to begin...picked this up at Big Lots for only $2.99. That's three bucks I'll never see again...ever...and for what? I'll tell ya. An hour and fifteen minutes of boring, boring, boring chat and college angst that seemed more suitable for a Lifetime movie than the horror flick advertised on the box. (May the marketing droids who designed it burn in Hell for all eternity). Follow that up with a little bit of cheap gore (not even good gore mind you...) and a plot twist at the end that comes out of nowhere, and makes no sense. Awful, awful, awful...<br /><br />Was there any redeeming qualities? Well, on the Joe Bob Briggs scale, there WERE six breasts involved, but that's hardly worth my long lost three bucks. Without those, this coulda been on Sci-Fi at, say, two or three in the morning...<br /><br />Bmoviefreak | negative |
This is my kind of film. I am fascinated by strange psychotic nightmares and this movie is just that. But it is also a dark comedy. While I see it mostly as a horror/thriller, there will be others who might see it as a black dramatic comedy.<br /><br />But either way, it is a fascinating descent into madness. The ending caught me off guard, but what an ending! It leaves the viewer a lot to think about.<br /><br />Powerful performances, a complex and detailed plot, a great script filled with dread and dashes of humor, and an eerie atmosphere make this a film worth watching.<br /><br />Personally, I think that I will need to watch this several more times to pick up and understand all the subtleties that are within. But it is such a film that it will be a pleasure and not a chore so to do. | positive |
This frothy romantic comedy is based on the kind of story I loved as a teenager, but now find rather distasteful. In the case of May-September attachments, doubtless what is on the mind of the elder party is either lust, or an inability to face the reality of aging, or both. And the younger is most likely looking for the kind parent that she (or he) lacked as a child. These underlying agendas seem more pathetic than romantic to me now; there is also something rather predatory about them.<br /><br />Dick Powell looked a bit embarrassed--as well he should--at playing the elder lover in this silly story. He was, at fifty, attempting the role of a thirty-eight-year-old man romancing a teen-ager. But young Debbie Reynolds was a knockout--pretty and saucy and full of vinegar--as a misbehaving seventeen-year-old presented as a kind of "gift" to the morally upright and honest screenwriter, as a subject for him to study. Her spirited performance wrung from me a better rating than this film would otherwise deserve. Anne Francis was cast as Powell's beautiful, but brittle fiancée, and handled her small role deftly.<br /><br />Some of the dialogue was quite amusing, too, so it's not a total washout.<br /><br />5/10 | negative |
Reading some of the other reviews of this film, i was reminded of both good and not so good aspects of it. But overall, i have to say it is one of the better films i have seen from any number of genres or countries recently. More than anything else, it avoided many of the typical traps of more recent international cinema, like taking nice pictures of landscapes or being 'hip', 'fun' or imitating American films like pulp fiction. The film is unique in many ways. For one thing, it is a film about relationships in which sex plays no role (unusual, especially for foreign films). It is also a film about two men's relationship to each other (also unusual - not a 'buddy film', no homosexual tension, no ego/phallic competition). It uses little dialogue, but communicates a tremendous amount. It is a simple story, yet full of complex details which are easily understood by any human being and universal in their relevance. I did not find the film dark or depressing (everything would seem this way if you watch Hollywood happy ending films all the time), but rather a true reflection of human emotions. For instance, in the scene where Mahmut realizes his cousin is gone is you see both his feeling of relief, that the cousin is gone and yet regret, that he pushed him away. Who has not felt such ambivalence - when losing a friend or lover, or in some other situation? It's rare to get these kinds of real human emotions displayed on film in a non-cliché way. As far as culture is concerned, or this being a Turkish film, i feel it strikes the very difficult balance between being a 'Turkish' film - about realities which more apply to that place (the greater struggle to make it in a Turkish city versus a European one; the greater contrast between country and city), and a universal, human story which didn't necessarily have to be set in Turkey. In this day and age where people around the world are consuming culture and fetishizing it, this film does not try to entice us as 'Turkish', nor does it try to communicate it as a 'harsh reality', or 'that's how Turkey/Istanbul IS'. And yet the cultural elements are there. I think the comparison to 'lost in translation' that somebody made is quite good. Everyone, at least in the US, was raving about that film. I personally thought it was mediocre at best. It was well put by someone as a vague story which supposedly was supposed to deal with 'disorientation' that happens to people living or traveling overseas. Even if the film was supposed to be humorous, the characters and their motivations or crises were never clear (even for a 'lighter' film or comedy, this is necessary). And i found myself being treated to a typically 'orientalist' story of the alienated Amerian overseas. Going back to 'Distant', as for the idea that this is bad acting, or too slow, or has no plot, I'm sorry but people who say this know nothing about film making and maybe nothing about being human, no offense. You do not have to be a film aficionado or cultural connoisseur to appreciate this film. This film will be two hours of your time well spent! | positive |
excellent drama. very dark. i have never seen california photographed in such a way. bridget fonda as the deaf wife beaten by her husband is superb. the film gripped me from start to finish. very understated performance by sutherland. the direction was very european. amazing to get such a performance from fonda. | positive |
By my "Kool-Aid drinkers" remark, I mean that these are such devoted fans of the man Pavarotti that they make no attempt to objectively rate this film. Giving this a 10 is akin to giving Wally Cox the award for Mr. Universe or putting a velvet Elvis painting in the Louvre!!! When this film debuted, I remember the savage reviews with headlines such as "No, Giorgio" and some said it was among the worst films ever made. This is definitely overstating it as well. While bad and far from a great work of art, there was a lot to like about the film and the movie's biggest deficit was not the acting of Pavarotti nor his girth.<br /><br />Believe it or not, the brunt of the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the writers (who, I believe, were chimps). It is rare to see a movie with such clichéd dialog or goofy scenes like the food fight, but even they aren't the heart of the problem. The problem is that the writers intend for the audience to care about a "romance" that consists of a horny married middle-aged man and a seemingly desperate lady. Perhaps European audiences might be more forgiving of this, but in the United States in 1982 or today, such a romance seems sleazy and selfish--especially when Pavarotti tells Harrold that he loves his wife and "this is just fun". Wow, talk about romantic dialog!! Sadly, if they had just changed the script a little bit and made Pavarotti a widower or perhaps had his wife be like the wife from a couple classic Hollywood films, such as from ALL THIS AND HEAVEN, TOO or THE SUSPECT (where the wife was so vile and unlikable you could forgive the husband having an affair or even killing her). Instead, she's the loving mother of two kids who waits patiently at home while her egotistical hubby beds tarts right and left--as Pavarotti admits to having had many affairs before meeting Harrold.<br /><br />Sadly, even the gorgeous music of Pavarotti couldn't save this film. Towards the end of the film, there are some amazing scenes in New York where the set is just incredible and Pavarotti's singing transcendent. For that reason, I think the movie at least deserves a 3. I really wanted to like the film more, but it was a truly bad film--though not quite as rotten as you might have heard.<br /><br />Sadly, from what I have read, this film might be a case of art imitating life, as Pavarotti's own life later had some parallels to this film, though this isn't exactly the forum to discuss this in detail. | negative |
I was more entertained by watching my wife almost pull her hair out in frustration through most of this movie. I thought something that would tie it all together would be just around the corner of the dairy barn any minute. So I cheated, grabbed the remote, and was relieved to find out it was ending in merely 20 minutes. I should have turned the channel. Cute, it had potential, but yuck! | negative |
I don't think the number of blunders militarily and strategically contained in this turkey can be beaten. Everything in this mess was done on the cheap and made soldiers look really stupid. Examples: at the start the 2-star General is given strategic advice by a Lieutenant and accepts it unquestionably. The map used by the Lt. shows enemy positions but they apparently have only a single narrow valley to use in advancing on the battalion (even though the map showed a dozen more). The rear guard takes up position from which they are clearly spotted by the enemy and exposed. They pound our heroes from high ground but this superior fire power makes little difference. An single enemy tank advances near the end (at the beginning referred to as armored division), proceeded by a solitary infantry point (!) who moves extremely slowly without cover scouting the area, then waives the tank on when he deems it save to proceed - a most bizarre scene. The soldiers take cover in a cave. All around them is ice and deep snow but in the cave not a yard from the entrance is a deep puddle through which they all wade repeatedly - their feet would last mere minutes before they freeze off. Later the survivors wade pathetically slowly and chest high through a river to return to their unit. Remember it is deep winter and the ground is frozen. Yeah right!<br /><br />And on and on it goes. They yell commands to positions on higher ground, they lay mines near their own position and warn each other not to trample on them (!) At the start, credit is given to some soldier who had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Was he blind, or did Director Fuller just ignore him?Truly the most inept soldiers I've ever seen. <br /><br />One of them pokes around in his own wounded leg with a bayonet and eventually pulls out a piece of shrapnel, without a wince or a moan. He announces that that should qualify him as a surgeon. Now that was funny. | negative |
Perhaps many viewers who got frustrated by this film live their lives without ever thinking deeply about life itself. What i want to point out here is that "distant" is not only an art-house film but one of the best art-house films. From all the art-house films I have seen, "distant" is the one that really stands out as a glittering piece of gold. It is even fair to say that this film's cinematography and depiction of human emotion surpass Tarkovsky's Nostalgia. One commentator got it right, that sex, a jaded, common feature among foreign films, is surprisingly lacking in "distant" and in a good way. What is most remarkable about "distant" is that it captures the details of life we usually ignore and the rich essence of our existence that often gets buried under the din and visual extravaganza of our commercialized world. Fortunately "distant" doesn't have that much to spare the audiences and what we see on the screen is a bare portrait of human beings. | positive |
I remember reading the original Balzac story in college French.<br /><br />I remember Ken Nordine of WGN-TV in Chicago reading it as one of his late night shows.<br /><br />Always loved the story but never believe they could or would make a movie of it. To my surprise they did and did it VERY well.<br /><br />Few of any Balzac stories lend themselves to dramatization, which is unfortunate, and -cat lover that I am, I was always hoping it WOULD be filmed without a lot of Hollywood sexing up. This is as close to perfect conversion as could be done.<br /><br />The theater of the mind is always better than what the eye can see, but this is as close as I think it can come to letting the imagination of reading meet the reality of seeing. | positive |
I am an atheist with little love for certain aspects of Christian fundamentalism.<br /><br />That said, this movie is reprehensible, vile and transparent. It only works on the level of the currently fashionable (and tired) hatred motif of white American Christian fundamentalism. Had this movie been made about a fundamentalist Jewish or Muslim family, or even a black Christian family, the outrage would have been palpable, and the movie would have been roundly panned in ALL circles. As it stands, though, it's "OK" and "artful" because white Christian fundamentalists remain one of the last "acceptable" targets for garbage such as this.<br /><br />And garbage it truly is. If you want to see a quality film of a similar bent, find and watch or review "Badlands." Nothing good was done in "The King" that wasn't done better decades ago in that masterful film.<br /><br />As other reviewers note, the characters are almost completely undeveloped in "The King," the lines are a snooze, the cinematography is lackluster. We've seen the tale of the sociopath done better 100 times. This movie doesn't cut it for thoughtful viewers. | negative |
"House of Dracula" is a good sequel to "House of Frankenstein". There isn't as much action but the acting is just as good. Onslow Stevens is the benevolent Doctor who turns bad after receiving blood from Dracula via a transfusion(Dracula was actually receiving the transfusion to overcome his "affliction" but he puts a spell on a hunchback nurse and then transfuses his blood into the Doctor.). It turns out that Dracula really didn't come to seek a cure but instead drain blood from a beautiful nurse. Dracula is destroyed and the Wolf Man is next in line for a cure(which is successful). In the meantime, Frankenstein's monster is discovered and revived briefly before burning to death(don't worry, the same trio came back in "Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein"). John Carradine again plays a sinister Dracula(Baron Latos is his alias at the start of the film and in "House of Frankenstein"). Lon Chaney is the sympathetic Wolf Man and Glenn Strange returns as the Frankenstein monster. Lionel Atwill again plays an inspector, which he often does in the Universal Studios monster films. A keeper for your collection. | positive |
Eyeliner was worn nearly 6000 years ago in Egypt. Really not that much of a stretch for it to be around in the 12th century. I also didn't realize the series flopped. There is a second season airing now isn't there? It is amazing to me when commentaries are made by those who are either ill-informed or don't watch a show at all. It is a waste of space on the boards and of other's time. The first show of the series was maybe a bit painful as the cast began to fall into place, but that is to be expected from any show. The remainder of the first season is excellent. I can hardly wait for the second season to begin in the United States. | positive |
Rachel McAdams. Cillian Murphy. Wes Craven. The Dream Team. This is one of the best thrillers of 2005. A great plot. A great twist. A great eye candy. This is one of Wes Craven's greatest movies apart from "Scream" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street". This could be the best. The plot is one of the best things about the movie and it is very simple. Lisa Reisert (McAdams) a struggling hotel manager, boards a late Red Eye back to LA. Little does she know that she has been followed by Jackson Ripner AKA Jack the Ripper (Murphy). They have a couple of drinks and end up sitting together on the plane. Later he reveals to her that he is an assassin who was sent to kill the Secreteary of Homeland Security who is staying in Lisa's hotel. And what does this have to with Lisa. Well, she would have to move his room to the top suite so they can bomb him, if she doesn't Ripner will murder her father (Brian Cox). The twist and bringing of the story really gives it the extra zing and the side characters and the side jokes really add to it. Overall, definitely one of the best thrillers of 2005. Definitely worth the see.<br /><br />3 1/2 out of 4 stars | positive |
Sadly, 8 Simple Rules, for dating my teenage daughter, was the last sitcom that John Ritter got to work on after his tragic death in 2003. He was one of my all time favourite actors. He had it all, comedy (who can forget him in Three's Company) but he was also an excellent dramatic actor (Unforgivable worth watching TV movie) As much I loved all the other cast members of the show (Katey, Amy, Kaley and Martin) John was THE star, he was much of the reason I was drawn to the show in the first place, and it was his perfect comedic delivery that was able to crack me up each and every time.<br /><br />I loved how the show wasn't all sugary sweet (as much as I loved The Cosby Show, come on, they were too nice to each other lol) they portrayed the typical family dynamics brilliantly. It was realistic enough what with all the sibling rivalry and the squabbles between parents, but they still kept it funny. A lot of American sitcoms try and fill the shows entirely with morals and what not, and this show didn't do that. Yes, there were some, like tackling important issues, such as drugs and bullying, but they didn't try and be anything other than a fun family comedy.<br /><br />The way they wrote John's death in to the show was brilliantly done, I still sob like a baby each time I see it. You could feel how raw the emotions were during those incredibly hard episodes.<br /><br />I'm sad the show was cancelled, I still enjoy watching the reruns, and I never get tired of it.<br /><br />John Ritter, you'll always be remembered for you hilarious depiction of this over protective father, who would rather lock his daughters up in their room than have them date a boy =) You rock Ritter!!! | positive |
As an avid Disney fan, I was not totally impressed by this movie, certainly not motivated enough to catch it in the theaters. I am, however, so glad that I caught it on DVD and watched the special features.<br /><br />You MUST check out the "Moose commentary": the entire movie can be viewed with commentary from Rutt and Tuke, the comic relief moose of the story, who are voiced by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas. Two veterans of the famous Second City comedy troupe ad-lib - in character - for an hour and a half about a movie that they are clearly fond of. I laughed the whole time. The enjoyment I got from this commentary completely made up for the tepid reaction I had to the film itself. Do yourself a favor and listen to it! | negative |
It'll be a blue Christmas indeed if you subject you're family to this. I loved the original movie, and this one was not worthy of being its sequel. Actually, for all intents and purposes, it is not its sequel. Only one character from the original cast returns. Granted, that character happened to be the hilarious cousin Eddie, but he simply is not hilarious being the protagonist of a movie. His niche is that of the wacky relative who performs zany antics--alongside Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase was needed in this film for it to be a success, and he definitely was not there. As far as I am concerned, a movie is not a "Vacation" movie unless good ole' Clark Griswold is at the helm. | negative |
Yes, as the other reviewers have already stated, this may not be vintage L&H but it's far from being their worst work as at 20th Century Stupid...I mean Fox. This film certainly has all of the basic ingredients for things to go wrong for the boys. But it's their serious approach and determination that makes them funny. They don't play it for laughs as other comedians might but they take their work and situation quite seriously and that is the essence of their eternal humor. In this film, they are faced with some basic issues that really might be encountered by any one of us today, namely job related stress. First, we would get checked out by a doctor and he would prescribe some much needed rest and perhaps staying by the sea. That's where the surrealness comes in to all of this. L&H always take a most plausible set of circumstances and exaggerate it but never to the point of being incredible, except maybe once in awhile. This makes us laugh because we can relate to their self caused predicaments and attempts at extrication. That's what makes Stan and Ollie universal in their appeal. In this film all those ingredients are presented in a delightfully artful and gracefully slapstick way. Not their best in comparison to their earlier work probably because this was the actual last film they did for Roach because he wanted to mirror the "big" studios and go into making features exclusively and also wanted to hurry up and finish their contractual obligation. BIG MISTAKE! They should have all stayed together and continued for maybe five more years. What the world may have missed in their not considering this as an option. Watch, laugh, and enjoy this as their last great performance. | positive |
I loved this movie and will watch it again. Original twist to Plot of Man vs Man vs Self. I think this is Kurt Russell's best movie. His eyes conveyed more than most actors words. Perhaps there's hope for Mankind in spite of Government Intervention? | positive |
till HBO began rerunning it this month. I remember laughing out loud in the theater back in 1991, and now again in my living room. If I see that it's on, I have to watch it. There's just no question. This is so much more entertaining to me than other, more popular spoofs like Airplane! (which I really like, BTW). Cathy Moriarty steals the show in my opinion. Quotes like "Sudden speech! The last symptoms of brain fever! She could blow at any moment!" put me over the edge. And Whoopie Goldberg hasn't been this funny since 'Jumpin' Jack Flash'. Kevin Klein, Sally Field, Robert Downey Jr. all turn in superb performances as expected. I started out giving this 9 out of 10 stars, but then I realized that for the type of film it's supposed to be, there isn't one thing I'd change or improve upon. So 10 it is. I have to get this on DVD, that's just all there is to it. | positive |
Partially from the perceived need, one feels, to include a conventional love story in the plot to make the film more marketable to a 1950's movie-going public. <br /><br />The film starts with some wickedly funny characterizations of the upper-class bureaucrats running the Foreign Office --- the British are pilloried in the way that only the British can pillory themselves. But after that, the film loses its way in a conventional farcical plot. Terry-Thomas watchable as always, but the great talent in the cast (Peter Sellers, et al) is largely wasted.<br /><br />A diverting, but not great film. | positive |
I really like this show. It has drama, romance, and comedy all rolled into one. I am 28 and I am a married mother, so I can identify both with Lorelei's and Rory's experiences in the show. I have been watching mostly the repeats on the Family Channel lately, so I am not up-to-date on what is going on now. I think females would like this show more than males, but I know some men out there would enjoy it! I really like that is an hour long and not a half hour, as th hour seems to fly by when I am watching it! Give it a chance if you have never seen the show! I think Lorelei and Luke are my favorite characters on the show though, mainly because of the way they are with one another. How could you not see something was there (or take that long to see it I guess I should say)? <br /><br />Happy viewing! | positive |
Sitting on the front porch of his Burbank home, Ted Mapes told me that he and Reed Hadley wore the exact same size in every item of clothing except hat.<br /><br />Ted, one of the greatest of the stunt men, said that every time Zorro put on his mask, he was the one on the screen.<br /><br />That was a little bit of an exaggeration: There were times that Zorro was obviously Reed Hadley, but in the stunts we can be satisfied it was Ted at work.<br /><br />And what stunts! "Zorro's Fighting Legion" is, as witness the comments here, one of the greatest of serials. It is exciting and generally very well made.<br /><br />Reed Hadley was a fine actor, and, as someone else commented, he made a very good fop.<br /><br />But, admittedly, it is the action that makes this movie so great.<br /><br />And what else could we expect, with direction by that excellent team, Witney and English, with great music from the amazingly prolific William Lava (the listing here says he was uncredited, but that is incorrect; those other composers listed here were indeed uncredited, and I don't know if they did write any of the music -- it sounds like Lava), and with villainy from, among others, the great Charles King, and with dozens of bit parts?<br /><br />Also noteworthy was a villain played by the radio Tarzan, Jim Pierce, who was Edgar Rice Burroughs' son-in-law. (I urge you to read his mini-bio.) <br /><br />There is one chapter that slows things down depressingly, but, heck, it's only a few minutes long (maybe 20) and when you wade through it, well, you're back to the excitement.<br /><br />Turner Classic Movies deserves a great big THANK YOU for presenting this excellent serial, and we should ask TCM to bring us more.<br /><br />And we should thank everyone involved that we get to see it as a chapter-play, or serial, and not as a re-cut feature. | positive |
I saw this last week after picking up the DVD cheap. I had wanted to see it for ages, finding the plot outline very intriguing. So my disappointment was great, to say the least. I thought the lead actor was very flat. This kind of part required a performance like Johny Depp's in The Ninth Gate (of which this is almost a complete rip-off), but I guess TV budgets don't always stretch to this kind of acting ability.<br /><br />I also the thought the direction was confused and dull, serving only to remind me that Carpenter hasn't done a decent movie since In the Mouth of Madness. As for the story - well, I was disappointed there as well! There was no way it could meet my expectation I guess, but I thought the payoff and explanation was poor, and the way he finally got the film anti-climactic to say the least.<br /><br />This was written by one of the main contributors to AICN, and you can tell he does love his cinema, but I would have liked a better result from such a good initial premise.<br /><br />I took the DVD back to the store the same day! | negative |
A family looking for some old roadside attractions to include in the father's coffee-table book come across an ancient, decrepit old freak show run by an eccentric one-eyed man. When their family van breaks down upon leaving the sideshow, they're forced to stay at a nearly abandoned fishing camp that was the site of a prison break decades prior.<br /><br />There have been many films in the 'freak' subgenre of horror, ranging from Tod Browning's beloved 'Freaks' (1932) to Alex Winter's hilarious 'Freaked' (1993). Those are both classics (or soon-to-be with 'Freaked'). 'Side Sho,' however, never will be. And if it ever does reach classic status. . . well, it will be an obvious clue to the sad state of our genre. From the ridiculously bad opening song to the 17-year-old daughter that's obviously older than her natural mother, this film did not have much going for it. The writing was subpar, but not completely awful. . . just boring. The direction was poor, and the rare freak effects were pretty horrendous and unbelievable. The acting was abysmal and the casting was even worse. Anyone who would believe the ages of these two camp-age teenagers must not have met a teenager in a long, long time. There was far from enough gore & violence to make up for the lack of any other quality. . . and when there was a bit of violence, it was not well done at all. And, I can't forget to mention the ending fight scenes which were, with all honesty, some of the worst I've ever, ever seen in a film. Overall, this is an easily forgettable and poorly made horror film that deserves to be left alone at the bottom of the dollar bin.<br /><br />Final verdict: 2.5/10. | negative |
Truly, truly awful. I don't even know where to begin. This is a perfect example of a movie that doesn't know what to do with itself. I'm not sure I could even assign a category myself, except that I'm quite sure it's a slap in the face of everyone, every where. Even the unborn.<br /><br />At times, I thought I was watching a parody, or some kind of farce. At times, just a bad B movie. But I kept holding out for the porno, which, I fear, is almost(but not entirely), non existent.<br /><br />Some one advised skipping to the ending. I would definitely second that emotion. The last five minutes are intense, and certainly contain some of the best film making/cgi you will ever see, ever.<br /><br />Ed Wood would be proud. | negative |
What is happening to ITV Drama. First, "Losing Gemma" quite simply the worst TV drama I have seen in years, and now "Perfect Parents" a complete shambles from start to finish. Whoever is responsible for commissioning this drivel should be receiving there P45 by special delivery.<br /><br />In most Drama/Thrillers, a requirement to suspend certain levels of belief is necessary so that the the plot line can develop, but "Perfect Parents" took this to a new level,I suspended so much belief by the end of this nonsense I felt I had been force fed on a lorry load of "Magic mushrooms", it was like the scriptwriters had decided to try and create a "Drama by numbers" involving some serious issues - Religion, Education,Greed,Fear,Murder,Paedophillia the only trouble was as The great Eric Morecambe once said when playing a piano, "I'm playing all the right Notes, just not necessarily in the correct order". For your next Script guys, I suggest you try reading a few more books on script development than "Script writing For Dummies".<br /><br />Due to the ridiculous Script and the utter lack of Tension in the Direction, the acting was suitably low key, not the fault of the actors as the cast was top notch. But I suggest that all of the actors involved in this sorry piece of drama should instruct their agents the next time the Postman attempts to deliver a script from ITV drama Department, make sure the letterbox is firmly nailed shut!! | negative |
This is just as good as the original 101 if not better. Of course, Cruella steals the show with her outrageous behaviour and outfits, and the movie was probably made because the public wanted to see more of Cruella. We see a lot more of her this time round. I also like Ioan Gruffudd as Kevin, the rather bumbling male lead. To use Paris as the climax of the movie was a clever idea. The movie is well worth watching whatever your age, provided you like animals. | positive |
Probably one of the most boriest slasher movies ever, badly acted and badly written.<br /><br />THE PLOT Five students staying behind during the holidays closing down a dorm, but somebody has designs on them and starts killing them off one by one, the main suspect is the creepy groundskeeper John Hemmitt played by Woody Roll, or could it be one of the five characters.<br /><br />ACTING Not that bad not that great either apart from Daphne Zungia who dies way too quickly and should have been the main heroine, and the rest well quite dull although Laura Lapinski the main heroine sometimes has her charm and you do feel sorry for her in the end.<br /><br />THE KILLS Can't really see why they banned this, the kills look fake mostly, one guy has his hand sliced in half in the beginning which looks really fake, but the others are quite nasty like one girl gets her head run over by a car, one girl gets boiled alive and another gets burned alive.<br /><br />OVERALL Not really a great slasher could have been a lot better | negative |
Let's see... a couple dozen Gary Larson gags, as well as his illustration style, a possibly legally difficult wholesale appropriation of an Aardman character, a more than generous sprinkling of art direction from various Pixar films, positively Lion King-esquire villains living in what amounts to an elephant's graveyard IN THE MIDDLE OF FARM COUNTRY, oh, and a stinking' Riverdance joke ten years after any possible relevance. The kids (three and five) liked it, but boy, it was a haul for dad. Just another weak attempt from Nickelodean Films to hitch on to the animation explosion. I really, really wish they had spent a little more money on character design, on rendering, on a script, on a director. | negative |
Watching this film today I got the feeling this thing was missing about 10 to 15 minutes or so from the beginning of the story. John Wayne rides up on this trading post/saloon out in the middle of nowhere to meet with the owner about some robberies. All he sees is the signs of a massacre, some dead bodies, signs of a fight and no one alive in sight. That's because the owner's daughter is hidden in a secret room, the kind you find in old English murder mysteries.<br /><br />The reason you find those hidden rooms in those kind of stories is that they were formerly priestholes. Catholic families clinging to the old faith in 16th century England built these things to hide those on the run from royal authorities because of their faith. Not something you see in westerns, but a good gimmick.<br /><br />Unfortunately because of bad editing or writing or both we never know exactly what brought Wayne to this place exactly. But this was a B western and not even a good one at that.<br /><br />Gabby Hayes is in this and he's clean shaven and playing a mute part of the time. An unusual circumstance for the garrulous Gabby.<br /><br />If you want to bother and find out what happens and see a whiskerless Gabby Hayes then see this film. | negative |
I didn't like this Bill Murray vehicle when it was originally released in the 80s, so I tried watching it again to see if my distaste for this film was down to my movie-going tastes in the 80s or was it that "Stripes" is simply a bad movie. Well, the verdict is in and "Stripes" is a bad movie.<br /><br />Now, "Stripes" may have been innovative comedy in the early 80s, and it may appeal to people who have gone through basic training or who are Bill Murray fans, but its still a bad movie.<br /><br />Why is it bad? Mostly because "Stripes" is supposed to be a comedy but it's just not that funny. There are some laughs, but they are few and far between. Most of the movie is consumed by the dramatic plot which is incredibly convoluted and not very interesting. This lack of comedy is especially noticeable if you're used to more contemporary comedies such as "Anchorman" which strive for laughs in every part of the movie.<br /><br />"Stripes" further suffers from Bill Murray and Harold Ramis's lack of acting ability. Bill Murray is a great comedian but he was not a very compelling dramatic actor at this point in his career, and Harold Ramis is playing Harold Ramis. These two are just not good enough as actors to carry the dramatic arch of the movie.<br /><br />Lastly, most of the comedy that there is in "Stripes" revolves around Bill Murray's self-centered, smart-alec man-child character so if you don't find that character funny (like I didn't) you're not going to find most of what little comedy there is in "Stripes" funny either.<br /><br />"Stripes" is very much a movie of its era, it hasn't aged well and is not worth watching. If you want to watch an early 80's "buddy" comedy I would recommend "Stir Crazy." Like "Stripes" the humor in "Stir Crazy" is not as fast-paced as in contemporary comedies, but unlike "Stripes" it has aged much better and as a result is still watchable. | negative |
The movie Heart of Darkness is an insult to the book by Joseph Conrad! To be quite honest the movie made me want to fall asleep. On the other hand, the book was definitely extraordinary. I feel that the movie left out several key elements and missed some of the main points from the book. In addition, the actors were boring and lacked originality and enthusiasm.<br /><br />The book, while not an adventure story or easy to understand, is full of hidden meaning and interesting twists in the plot. The book, though very confusing and complex, is astonishing. When you do finally understand it, you feel as if you have actually learned something. The novella, or short story, had several key ideas like futility and craziness, which the movie left out. In addition, several key scenes were changed, which in return affected the entire plot. Many of the scenes seemed to be very "choppy", in the sense that they did not fit together. In summary, the movie seemed to be a bad interpretation of the book. <br /><br />I would only recommend watching this movie if you cannot picture or understand the book, but otherwise I would skip this one. It was dreadful, and in complete disarray. If you have never read the book then, definitely do not watch the movie because you need the basic information from the book to understand the movie. The movie was a horrible spin-off of an outstanding and detailed book. | negative |
The opening 5 minutes gave me hope. Then Meyers proved he only had one good idea for the rest of the movie. Absolute lowest common denominator humor. Painful viewing. A complete chore. Written no doubt in less than a week, just like the first one. Give Meyers the hook and lock him in a cell with Adam Sandler and Will Farrell. And don't let him out until he's developed a decent script for something, anything. He has it in him. These Austin Powers things are just embarrassing. <br /><br />Let Goldmember sink without trace. | negative |
I think the problem with this show not getting the respect it truly deserves is that it comes after Seinfeld,after ELR and after Friends. Those three sitcoms were the star shows of their time.<br /><br />KOQs came at the end of this special time in TV. <br /><br />But don't let that dissuade you.<br /><br />King of Queens is as good if not better than two of the three mentioned.<br /><br />Seinfeld started it all and was and is a timeless classic. I never laughed so hard than I did at Seinfeld. But KOQs comes real close.<br /><br />When it comes to laughing, I have to rate KOQs second only to Seinfeld. ELR has to be second though as the character creation and interaction is more endearing.<br /><br />Either way, KOQs is top ten of the last 20 years.<br /><br />The only other sitcom worth mentioning now is Two and a Half Men which really doesn't hold a candle to the other four but is all we have left. | positive |
I just watched this movie last night. Within 30 minutes of the start, I was hoping it would end.<br /><br />It had a promising beginning; the first 10 minutes. The premise of this movie (friendship that goes nowhere after they've spent days (and Years) together in "Separate" beds in hotel rooms) is just not believable. He does kiss her somewhere along the way, and she feels Ohh, so terrible about it. <br /><br />Very little substance to grab your interest. The acting just does not hold up. He is very passive. Regardless of how much of the movie is shown, the viewer never develops any type of a caring connection with the characters on the screen. You learn that her next utterance will be as boring as her previous one. ("Do you have a cigarette ?", He doesn't smoke, He wants her to stop smoking, Doesn't she know this by now.)<br /><br />She calls him in the middle of the night to visit him after a year's absence, she comes in through the door, they don't even hug or kiss or express any type of emotional connection. He doesn't even lean forward to lift her suitcase to help her in. That is not how real people behave, This is not how best pals behave.<br /><br />When he receives her phone call in the middle of the night (she is in town for one day), he shows little interest to see her face, acts more like she will be a burden for the night. At this point they've known each other for two years and he hasn't seen her for a year. Not Believable, not real. <br /><br />Supposedly, he has written a book on Entropy and Enthalpy, yet we never see him write or read or discuss any of his interests in Physics with her, not that she would be able to handle the discussion. We learn that a watermelon in L.A. costs $50, (It wasn't the Silicon Type mind you) he has no problem affording that Fruit. We also learn that the airport shuts down when a few really really fake snow flakes fall off the sky. I'm Sorry but was that in L.A. too?<br /><br />We never see how these two characters survive, we never see them at work. We never see them struggle, They are always on vacation. They have infinite time, they have no worries whatsoever. <br /><br />Nice life. Unreal life. Unreal Characters. Bad Title. Bad Movie. | negative |
Niagara, Niagara is a stunning and heartbreaking story about the two outsiders Seth and Marcy. Robin Tunney gives a fantastic performance as Marcy suffering from Tourette's Sydrome, getting sicker and sicker as the movie progresses. This movie is not very optimistic and it's very hard emotional, but at the same time very romantic. It's hard to explain, but see it and find out for yourself. It's definitely worth it. | positive |
It Came from Outer Space II is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Brian Kerwin, Elizabeth Peña, Jonathan Carrasco, Adrian Sparks, Bill McKinney, Dean Norris, Dawn Zeek, Lauren Tewes, Mickey Jones, Iilana B'tiste, Jerry Giles, and Howard Morris! The acting by all of these actors is very good. Kerwin and Norris are really excellent in this film. I thought that they performed good. The thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is great by Shirley Walker. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Brian Kerwin, Elizabeth Peña, Jonathan Carrasco, Adrian Sparks, Bill McKinney, Dean Norris, Dawn Zeek, Lauren Tewes, Mickey Jones, the rest of the cast in the film, Mystery, Sci-Fi, Thrillers, Dramas, and interesting Action films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today! <br /><br />Movie Nuttball's NOTE: <br /><br />I noticed this is the second film that Dean Norris and Mickey Jones were in a movie together. The other being the classic violent epic Total Recall! Funny seeing them in another alien flick! <br /><br />If you like alien movies and/or the subject of aliens I also recommend the following films: The Thing from another World, The Day the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds (1953 & 2005), Horror Express, The UFO Incident, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, John Carpenter's The Thing, Krull, The Return of the Aliens: The Deadly Spawn, Time Walker, My Science Project, Howard the Duck, John, Carpenter's Starman, John Carpenter's They Live, Mac and Me, Explorers, Invaders from Mars, Alien Seed, The Abyss, Communion, Suburban Commando, Fire in the Sky, The Arrival, Mars Attacks! Contact, Men in Black I & 2, Stephen King's Dreamcatcher, Xtro 3: Watch the Skies, Battlefield Earth: A Saga for the year 3000, Stargate, The Puppet Masters, John Carpenter's Village of the Damned, Independence Day, Life Form, Contact, The X-Files: Fight the Future, Roswell: The Aliens Attack, The Faculty, Mission to Mars, Pitch Black, Evolution, K-Pax, Signs, Silent Warnings, The Forgotten, Alien Hunter, Spaceballs, Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Predator & Predator 2, AVP: Alien Vs. Predator, The entire Star Wars saga (A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, The Return of the Jedi (Original and Special Editions!), The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, & Revenge of the Sith), the entire Star Trek movie saga (Star Trek: The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, The Voyage Home, The Final Frontier, The Undiscovered Country, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, & Nemesis) and Stephen King's IT! | positive |
You might be a bit confused if you watch this silly made-for from the beginning, since the credits list Susan Dey as "Special Guest Star." Um, why would a one-off MOW like this have a guest star? Well, if you stick with it, you'll find yourself paying attention to little else but Ms. Dey's butt, wiggling in a flowered bikini as the "Partridge Family" house babe frolics on the beach to which that imaginative title alludes. Susan's derrière is especially compelling when she shakes it at the camera while teasing and tickling her pseudo-disaffected brother in one mildly incestuous scene. Sadly, Susie and her tush fight a losing battle: the jiggle-TV craze that might have put that bottom over the top was three years off, so that sweet booty just gets a supporting role. In 1976 Fat Freddy Silverman would have put that behind right out front and used this flick as Susan's audition tape for "Charlie's Angels." As is, our Susan was denied cheesecake immortality and had to settle for a very commendable career playing somber, neurotic women.<br /><br />The view beyond Susan's heinie, it must be said, is not very compelling. The scenery is nice, and photographed in a bizarre, hazy way that briefly fools you into thinking there might be some quirky creative intelligence at work behind the camera. Nope. It's just a typically suspense-challenged 70's made-for-TV thriller that allowed weekly series stars to make some extra cash(and collect some cable residuals, though they obviously didn't know that at the time) and show off their "range." Here we're treated to a TV-scale nuclear family, squaring off against TV-scale thugs who can't decide whether they're a motorcycle gang or a hippie cult (thus the filmmakers split the difference by putting them in dune buggies) and have never learned one of the primary lessons of 1970s television: don't mess with Dennis Weaver (see "McCloud" and "Duel"). The only potential for depth in this movie is in the aforementioned teenage-son character of Steve, played by the long-forgotten (if ever-remembered) Kristoffer Tabori, who is supposed to be rebellious and troubled and might feel some sympathy for and attraction to the lawless mob that is (supposedly) menacing his family. But Steve, as played by Tabori (gosh, why didn't we see more from this wunderkind?), is actually just grumpy and moody and isn't one bit conflicted when big D gets serious and draws a line in the proverbial (and literal) sand. For the sleep-deprived and Susan Deyniacs (there must be some of you out there) only. | negative |
i love this show. i hate when it goes to season finale because it feels like forever until the season starts again!! i have followed this show since its pilot then all the way threw from where rusty starts college and see's Casey his sister to now where he's dating Dana.. love this show cant wait until Monday night!! Also i am so glad that cappie and Casey finally got back together that was driving me crazy!!! As for Evan and rebecca i hope they get back together which it just feels like they will by the finale. i just looked it up about the main part of the cast and i am so SHOCKED that Casey Cartwright(Spencer Grammar)is Kelsey Grammar's daughter!!! that just surprises me so much and the other thing that's a huge SHOCKER is that she was born the same year as me and that she was born on my baby brother birth date with my year and i had been watching her the whole entire time and had no clue!! | positive |
This reminded me SOO much of Michael Winner's crappy 'Dirty Weekend' with it's awful English low budget feel.<br /><br />Firstly I must say I am a fan of both exploitation and serious film. I appreciate, say, 'Demented' for it's ineptitude and 'Last House on the Left' for it's sheer unashamed brutality. And any number of inventive and increasingly brutal Italian spin offs.<br /><br />This was just pointless though. Kind of like a British budget director thought 'let's remake "I Spit on your Grave" without making it too harrowing now that horror is back in fashion with Hostel.<br /><br />The whole thing just doesn't hang together or have a point. What's with the rapists's daughter? Why bother having the man be an expert in security cameras? Crappy. | negative |
Chris Kattan is a great sketch actor on Saturday Night Live...but he should probably leave the movie industry alone unless he gets some sort of creative control. He plays an annoyingly peppy character who basically comes off as mildly retarded and on speed. Wanna know the only funny parts? The stuff they showed in the previews. Yes, his rendition of take on me is funny. Nothing else is. ESPECIALLY when you can tell he's trying very hard to be a physical comedian, which he shouldn't have to try at because he is one. And yet, his 'demolishing the vet's office' bit comes off as cringingly bad. This movie made me develop an eye twitch. Avoid it at all costs, and keep watching SNL. | negative |
I recently caught up with this little gem of a film on cable. It took me by surprise, even though, I should have expected it from the team involved with this movie. <br /><br />Henry Bromwell directed this film with a sure hand, and it shows. One always wonders about the secret life of hit killers. One doesn't have to go too far to realize they probably are one's own neighbors, or social acquaintances, or even friends; they're no different from us, at least on the surface.<br /><br />In this story, the grandfather, is a despicable character who does not hesitate in eliminating anyone for the right price. He has no scruples in teaching the ropes to his own son, and even to the grandson!<br /><br />Alex, is a man living in turmoil. He knows what he has done in the past and suddenly is coming to realize the consequence of his actions. He has to see someone to help him find peace with himself. In going to Dr. Parks, he is trying to find absolution, although, he doesn't find it there. On the contrary, there is a dramatic twist when Alex learns about who is supposed to kill next.<br /><br />Alex, brilliantly portrayed by William H. Macy, mesmerizes us. Not only is he a fantastic actor, but he makes us believe he is that man. One of the best things in the movie is the late John Ritter. He is equally convincing as Dr. Parks, the man who unravels the mystery.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland, as the grandfather is perfect. He is a natural actor in everything he does. Neve Campbell surprised in her pivotal role of Sarah. She shows a capability and range that are incredible. Tracey Ullman is Martha, the suffering wife, and she doesn't get to do much. Also Barbara Bain, in a rare appearance, is the grandmother from hell. David Dorfman, is a delight in the film. He shows a maturity beyond his years.<br /><br /> | positive |
How can a movie that features the singing of Curtis Mayfield be bad? It can't! The Groove Tube is a series of scatological black-out sketches that makes fun of anything from 2001 to the olympics. The highs, (Koko the clown, the easy lube recipe) outnumber the lows (an all too long "The Dealers"), but even the lows are funny. Best of all is Ken Shapiro's manic dance down a busy Manhattan sidewalk.(That is Shapiro, not Nat King Cole singing Just You, Just Me). Definitely dated now, but at the time The Groove Tube was irreverent, bold, shameless and hysterically funny. Ken Shapiro made this minor cult hit, then 7 years later made the Christmas day opening bomb, Modern Problems (though I enjoyed it} and since then, unfortunately, nothing.(He could possibly be playing drums in a jazz group) The Groove Tube remains to me an unending burst of positive energy, a movie that 26 years after my initial viewing, still brings me real joy! | positive |
I enjoyed this movie as a kid when it came out, and to this day still do. A simple story involving the search for a kidnapped girl and an adventurer literally straight out of paperback lore. It has actors that were more recognizable back in the day. This shouldn't keep the viewer from giving it a whirl. Wayne Crawford stars as the main character Jake Speed. Sure, it might bite from certain elements of Romancing the Stone, and Indiana Jones. But this movie is done well enough to keep it out of the cellar. I am surprised not too many people know about it. It must have been overshadowed by other movies in the theaters back in '86. I watched it back then on cable TV. It might be hard to find since it's out of print on both VHS and DVD. I managed to get a DVD from ebay at less than 8 bucks! Cool flick. | positive |
"The Piano Teacher" is all about Huppert's character; a middle-aged classical piano instructor with a stoic facade behind which lurks a powerfully compelling aberrant personality. Unsatisfying as a story but intriguing as a character study, the film follows the Huppert character through the term of her anguished relationship with a pupil delivering superb performances in the process. Not for everyone, "The Piano Teacher" will play best with those into foreign films and character-driven dramas dealing with dark issues. (A-) | positive |
What distinguishes some of the 'Lone Star' films (and many others in western and adventure films of the early thirties) was their lack of what we recognize as formulaic story telling. To be sure they had good vs. evil (the basic element of any Western), boy meets girl and some stock characters, such as the old rancher and his beautiful daughter or grand daughter, and sometimes the evil banker or other businessman, but the way the action played out was often different from film to film.<br /><br />'The Lawless Frontier' features Earl Dwire in his big star turn (not) as (for some inexplicable reason) Pandro Zanti, a 'half Apache, half American posing as a Mexican who speaks the language fluently.' His biggest posing as a Mexican seemed to be his outrageous mariachi clothes. The only plot seems to be that he wants to steal Ruby, the granddaughter of "Old Dusty" (Gabby Hayes). When meeting her for the first time, Dwire gives her a long once over look that puts him in the big leagues with sexual predators. You'd think that because the opening scene shows Zanti killing John (Wayne) Tobin's father off camera, it would play a bigger part in the film. It doesn't. Too much chasing back and forth between heroes and villains.<br /><br />We get many good stunts, though, from Yakima Canutt, including pulling Ruby up on his horse when he rides by, jumping on 'renegades' and knocking them off their horses, a horse leap off a cliff into a lake, and even the same slide down the sluice sequence that was in "The Lucky Texan" (1934), although this time the Mighty Yak uses a body surfing log instead of straddling a tree bough, and its inclusion is just as illogical this time too, since they are in a desert.<br /><br />The high point is clearly John Wayne's measured and methodical well photographed walk across the desert after the fleeing and stumbling Zanti with those fantastic basalt cliffs of Red Rock Canyon (seen in countless serials, westerns and science fiction 'moon' movies) framed behind him. No final gun duel at fifty paces with the heroine running from the wooden steps of the bar to embrace and kiss the conquering hero in this movie! When John Wayne finally catches up with him, Zanti drinks poisoned water from a waterhole and dies.<br /><br />After a couple too many chase sequences, Zantai's gang is finally captured in Dusty's cabin, emerging one by one from behind a swivel cabinet that apparently leads to a canyon, now blocked off by having been dynamited. No riding off into the sunset or obligatorily kissing the girl: The final shot is Ruby, now Mrs. John Tobin, on the telephone to the now Sheriff John Tobin, "What would Sheriff Tobin like for dinner?" The film also has poor lighting and editing at the beginning, the pacing is slow, some parts with the sheriff cause it to drag, and the horse chases fill up the film. So despite the different and unusual elements, it comes off as one of the weaker Lone Stars. | negative |
I can't say if "The Cavern" is a ripoff of "The Cave" because I haven't seen that. I've seen "The Descent" and that's not terrible but it is very hard to watch and so is this one. Hard to watch, as in, there's very little light and lots of fast motion so you're hard pressed to say what you're looking at. There are times when I guess, you're supposed to be scared, judging from the music, but scared of what? Bad camera work? Poor lighting? If that's the case than this should be the scariest movie made. The story is that a bunch of cave explorers go to a cave in Kazakhstan (home of Borat) and make their descent, but something is (of course) in there with them. And what is it? One guy says it's a wolf/bear hybrid, that is, just before he gets ripped apart, but whatever it is, you can't see it. And just when you think (or hope) the film is ending, since the screen goes dark for a bit, you see the two remaining cavers (the two women) wake up somewhere in Betty and Wilma attire and start trying to find their way out of wherever they are. They do drink some water and start eating SOMETHING until they figure out what it is and start puking....and then the mystery of what's in the cave appears, and you'll just be astounded. Maybe, maybe not. Dumb dumb dumb....I think I'm pretty well done with cave movies at this point, 2 out of 10. | negative |
I'm a fan of Get Shorty. This is the sequel for the movie that needed no sequel.<br /><br />Chili is back but Rene Russo is gone without a peep. Unfortunately Chili's game was played out in the first movie and rather than find an interesting personal arc for him, they just have him stand around repeating lines from the first movie. It's pretty tepid. Travolta looks old here. It's like they move people around him because his bones are getting creaky. His pink lip gloss and the blue eye contacts are very weird. The 2nd bad role is Edie (played by Uma Thurman). She's a music producer, a role that requires her only to be the female Reuben Kincaid. ("Hey these kids have a great new sound.") In any scene she strikes the wrong pitch motivationally or emotionally or both. It's painful to watch. Despite it's plentiful problems, Be Cool gets better after a very unpromising start.<br /><br />I certainly got my laughs out of it (Vince Vaughan running around on fire, Cedric the Entertainer, Ludicrous, the Rock, a t-shirt that says "widow" on it), but it offers no great memories after it's over. It's a helium-light love fest from the first frame. There's no one as pricelessly idiotic as Gene Hackman in the first movie. It's just about doing good in the world, for a couple of kids who deserve a chance (Beyonce & the Rock). Ho-hum. The first one wasn't preachy.<br /><br />Working in (repeatedly) gags & lines from the first movie is annoying as is the dumb concession to the Rock's wrestling fans (he raises his eyebrow twice) as are the droll inside jokes: Steven Tyler saying "I'm not the kind of singer that make appearances in movies" ar ar.<br /><br />The all-star spectacular line-up is part of the problem. The first movie wasn't burdened by "stars."<br /><br />For a buck rental let's call it even. | negative |
I rarely write reviews but this film simply demands more attention than it gets as it contains the most hysterical kidnapping gone comically wrong sequence ever filmed.<br /><br />I have only seen this once and found it to be the funniest film I had ever had the privilege to watch. I laughed from beginning to end. It is such a shame it is not out on DVD or video.<br /><br />You can only compare its cinematography with that of It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World or Promise her Anything. Only this storyline isn't nearly as complex as Mad World.<br /><br />I hope in the near future this film is released as it would be a shame to lose such a comedy gem amongst the dregs we have nowadays. | positive |
As far as I know I've seen most of Lucio Fulci's films, with the exception of some later ones that are popping up on DVD now, and I would have to say this was his best "pre-zombie" offering. In fact it beats out his later movies hands-down. This is a tale of superstition and suspicion in a small Italian town out in the middle of nowhere, where young boys are dying mysteriously. It's no mystery how they died, I guess, it's more who's doing it. Is it a woman that the townspeople have always considered a witch? Is it a young woman that lives in a fancy modern house on the outskirts of town, who used to do a lot of drugs? Is it the village idiot, who gets nabbed early on because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time? You'll only know if you watch, and watch you should, for this is a top-notch mystery thriller, or should I say, a "giallo". I've seen this before but it's been a long time and upon a second viewing it was still as powerful as the first time. For those of you that only know Lucio Fulci for his zombie flicks, well, open your minds to this because it's well worth seeing and while the "monsters" in this are human, they're as nasty as anything dredged up in his later films. 9 out of 10 stars, see it! Please.... | positive |
You can call it a mystery, perhaps a small thriller, or an intelligent film.<br /><br />The story takes you through the life of one person who has lost his life and is looking to regain it.<br /><br />I have to say I was quite surprised that I truly did enjoy this film. It is not usually the genre I care for however the characters quickly became people to me and I wanted to know what they were about and what was going to happen to them.<br /><br />Just like many french films over English made, we are able to learn much more about the character and the affect of their surroundings on their person. This film is character driven and will not disappoint! | positive |
The things that I find irritating on screen, the things I nitpick about and annoy the people who try to watch movies with me are those moment where the writer, director, set-designer, on screen caterer, or whoever, doesn't think it through to the end and, by a single act of omission - or commission - undoes all the other work done by everyone else who has worked on the movie. That moment of "Wait a bloody minute.... What just happened?" that stops the narrative dead in its tracks. (Not that this film's narrative needed a lot of stopping, because anyone who has ever seen it will know that Quintet's narrative drive has pretty well frozen solid before the end of the opening shot.) There are several of those moments in this movie. And you get so long to think about them too. The film is two hours long and the scripted dialogue probably ran to five pages. There's a lot of time to ponder its deficiencies.<br /><br />The movie is set in a frozen Earth. Another ice age has set in and the whole world is dying. It's cold. Very cold. It's actually very cold on the screen. The movie was shot in Canada in winter and there are icicles and real snow and people's breath misting from their mouths in every scene. Time and again we are reminded how fecking cold it is. People wear big hats and layers and layers of clothes and waddle around like over-dressed Weeble people. Must have been a horrible shoot. My nitpick comes in a sequence when our hero checks into a room of a hotel. Woken up in the middle of the night by voices coming from the room next door, he overhears a conversation of vital importance to the meagre plot through an large grill in the wall dividing the two rooms. I'm not questioning why there is a convenient grill in the wall between the two rooms. What got me annoyed was the fact that the grill had not been blocked up by the long term tenant with the noisy visitor. If you are trying to keep warm the last thing you need is a huge gaping draughty hole in your wall that leads into an unoccupied unheated room. Trust me. I live like this, I watched this film sat on my living-room sofa under a duvet with a hot water bottle. My breath was misting as much as the actors'. If that whacking great hole was in my wall I'd block it up with something. Maybe not the best choice of movie to watch in an unheated room in midwinter but boy did it make me notice the lousy insulation in the film. | negative |
Needless remake, and it can't come close to capturing the charm of the original. The extreme length causes more than a few yawn inducing parts. This version is ridiculously politically correct. The film lacks style, and mostly it lacks talent, not just with the acting, but the direction, sets, costumes etc. are all below par. It has a blatant disregard for period detail. Vanessa Williams is the only cast member that shows any flair, Tyne Daly isn't too bad. They should have left well enough alone. The singing ranges good (Vanessa Williams) to poor (everyone else). Watch the original 1963 version and skip this one. There is not much here to recommend. | negative |
There are so many more complexities to the plot of this wonderful thought provoking movie than just infidelity and cover-up of responsibility for the accident. I was struck by the initial seeming goodness of husband Wilkinson who wanted the driver, when he thought it was Everett, disclosed to the police, and the change of heart (and morals) when he learned it was his wife. As well, was he indeed good, and/or was he attempting to redeem self by allowing her to go with Rupert. Then, things switchedand SHE decided the right ting to do was admit that she hit him. Most importantly the theme of redemption (for the accident - for the infidelity - in her own odd, flawed way)is strongest in Watson's sickbed care for Everett. I believe that is why she undertook that effort.<br /><br />This seems to be a common theme in modern British novels: Brideshead Revisited, The End of the Affair come to mind. Love it. | positive |
This was a nice attempt at something but it is too pretentious and boring to rise above it's low budget trappings. The use of virtual sets almost works but at some points it fails miserably. They made good use of the small budget I guess. I just wish the story and most of the acting was better. There are a lot of parts where you see what they were aiming for and it would of been great if they actually hit those marks but they don't. Confusing and unbelievable story. Bad DVD transfer too. It doesn't take much for me to watch a movie in one sitting. This I had to shut off. It was too boring. I can do slow movies. But just make them appealing in some aspect. Visually, story-wise, acting, etc. This was lacking in all departments so it never added up to an engrossing experience. Maybe the film maker's next attempt will be better. | negative |
What a waste of time. I got about five minutes into it and became *very* antsy, and was soon fast-forwarding a bit, and pretty soon the desire to take my thumb OFF the fast-forward button was nonexistent. Actors Mark Redfield and Barry Murphy did very capable jobs, I thought, but no one else I saw gave anything like a good performance. Again, take this review with a large grain of salt because the movie was just so unbearable I couldn't make it to the end. Heck, I couldn't make it to the MIDDLE !!<br /><br />I find myself unable to submit this review because it isn't long enough. Maybe this last sentence will put it over the top. | negative |
The effect achieved in this story about a psychiatrist who becomes involved with con artists is so mannered that I have to assume that that was the desired intent. The sets are artificial and at no time did I not feel that I was watching a movie. It seemed like the actors were just reading their lines, rather than responding to one another. While the film has elements of early film noir (except that it is in color) the approach is so exaggerated that I almost have to conclude that it is a parody of the genre.<br /><br />Given that the presentation had no appeal to me, I was at least expecting an engaging story. Usually I am pretty slow on the uptake when it comes to stories with plot twists, but you could see what was coming here within the first fifteen minutes. By the time of the, "Gee, I forgot the $80,000," moment, I thought to myself that this thing is truly ridiculous. For a psychiatrist with stated experience in gambling addictions to behave so stupidly is beyond belief. If at any stage she had behaved like a normal intelligent person, the whole story would have fallen apart.<br /><br />This wooden production left me cold. | negative |
Straight from the brilliant mind of animation pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz, "Fétiche", or "The Mascot" as it is known nowadays, stands as a masterpiece of stop-motion animation that sadly, has been almost forgotten by now. Nevertheless, the work of this man deserves to be seen, and in fact, must be seen to be believed because the outstanding way the animation flows is simply unbelievable.<br /><br />Decades before "Toy Story", Starewicz conceived the idea of moving toys, in "Fétiche", he tells the story of a small stuffed dog that gets makes friends with the sick daughter of his maker. One day, his maker takes him away to sell him, and the adventure begins as he tries to find his way back home. In his Odyssey, he'll travel from Paris to Hell, and will find the other toys that were supposed to be sold with him.<br /><br />It is a surreal experience to watch this movie, as Starewicz makes every imaginable creature come alive with grace and beauty. The other toys include a beautiful ballerina, who loves a thief, but she also is secretly loved by a clown, forming a love triangle; an old woman, a stuffed cat and a stuffed ape complete the group. every toy is so detailed and very expressive that without words one can understand their motives.<br /><br />Truly, the surreal atmosphere the whole animation has it is remarkable. It is hard to believe that a work of this magnitude was done in 1934 since it looks even better than most of the current day animation. The influence it has in modern day animator such as Tim Burton and Henry Selick is very significant.<br /><br />This short is a masterpiece of animation and the outstanding work of one genius who done everything by himself and that has influenced animators for decades. Starewicz's work is an immortal piece of art that should be seen by everyone. This work is not only for kids, adults as well will enjoy it and probably catch most of the subtext hidden in the movie.<br /><br />It is possible to find it in the "Vampyr" DVD as a bonus feature. Anyone with the slightest interest in animation should give it a look. | positive |
Once again, like Charlie's Angels, Inspector Gadget and Thunderbirds, a TV series is turned into a full length film and gets ruined for all the hundreds of people that watched. Basically the Duke cousins, Luke (Johnny Knoxville) and Bo (Seann William Scott) in Hazzard County, spend a lot of time driving very fast in "The General Lee". But they need to get their act together and stop their family farm being destroyed along with almost the whole town by nasty Jefferson Davis 'Boss' Hogg (Razzie nominated Burt Reynolds) to make way for a huge coal mine. They get help along the way from their sexy cousin Daisy (Razzie nominated Jessica Simpson) and Uncle Jesse (Willie Nelson), while being chased by equally mean Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane (Lost's M.C. Gainey) and the police. Also starring Joe Don Baker as Governor Jim Applewhite, Jack Polick as Deputy Cletus Hogg, David Koechner as Cooter Davenport, Michael Weston as Deputy Enos Strate and Lynda Carter as Pauline. I think the only reason I give the film an extra star is because of a couple of impressive car stunts, and of course the gorgeous body of Simpson (I'll admit her legs aren't quite Catherine Bach, but still!), but besides that it is pretty boring. It was nominated the Razzies for Worst Picture, Worst Director for Jay Chandrasekhar, Worst Remake or Sequel, Worst Screen Couple for Simpson & Her "Daisy Dukes" and Worst Screenplay. Pretty poor! | negative |
I wasted 5 dollars renting this complete piece of crap. Dr. Zack is the most unlovable lead character i have ever seen. The movie was full of EVERY cliche you could ever think of and contained not a single OUNCE of originality. There was the typical sexism portrayed by rugged foreigners, all the guys had those 'too-proud to take advice' attitudes that are as stale as grandma's christmas fruitcake. The concept and deaths were really cool, but they lose all novelty once the monster is revealed. (read the SPOILER at the end) Nothing else is really revealed though, the ending is the biggest cop-out you've ever seen. I predicted everything before it happened, including who would die and how. The dialogue is lacking, and that's an understatement by far. There's mostly just random yelling, thoughtful staring, and chunky sentences. The actors are just GOD AWFUL! I don't want to talk about this movie anymore, it's making me angry. I just wonder if the director even watched it when it was done.<br /><br />(SPOILER ALERT!!!! SAVE 5 DOLLARS!) the monster is just a bunch of ants that "evolved" so now they need bones so they can move around, (nevermind the fact that this serves no evolutionary advantage whatsoever, and that the ants just killed whoever was available, though the movie acts like they kill out of necessity. This movie made me dumber.) The end consists of the lead idiot killing the mother ant (a big blob thing) which destroys all the other ants. Pretty cliche eh? He almost wusses out at the end because of a sudden emotional attachment to the mother-thing that overcomes him. Give me a break. | negative |
Here goes the perfect example of what not to do when you have a great idea. That is the problem isn't? The concept is fresh and full of potential, but the script and the execution of it lacks any real substance. It should grab you from the start and then pull a little on your emotions, get you interested and invested in the characters. This movie doesn't have what it takes to take off and sustain flight, and here is why. First you don't really care about the characters because they are not presented in a way that people can relate to, I mean this is not Superman or Mission Impossible here, it's suppose to be about normal people put in a stressful situation. They are not believable in the way they act and interact. Example : Jeffrey Combs as a cop over chewing is gum, frowning and looking intense all the time isn't the way to go here. I mean what is that?, he looks like he's on the toilet or something. I loved him in re-animator and the way he was playing the intense/neurotic, unappreciated medical genius was right on the money. But not for this, he tries too hard to over compensate by looking so intense and on edge but in a still mild neurotic manner, it's not natural, I'm surprised he didn't dislocate his jaw during filming. The movie is basically on life support, it barely has a pulse and it kept me waiting for something that would never come. | negative |
Bone Eater is set in a small desert town in Alabama where property developer Dick Krantz (Jim Storm) is financing the building of a huge resort. Late one night three of his workers Riley (Timothy Starks), Hansen (Adrian Alvarado) & Miller (Paul Rae) are digging foundations in the desert when they unearth what looks like a tomahawk axe, unfortunately for them an ancient Native American demon called the bone eater comes along & kills them. Local Sheriff Steve Evans (Bruce Boxleitner) soon has Krantz breathing down his neck as the construction of his resort grinds to a halt, Sheriff Evans also has to deal with the bone eater demon as it kills anyone it comes across...<br /><br />You know I consider myself a fairly big fan of the horror & sci-fi genre, I certainly don't think my opinion is worth more than anyone else's (unlike many here on the IMDb...) but please believe me when I say that Bone Eater is the worst Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' I have ever seen & it's up against some damned strong competition. As a horror & sci-fi fan there are two names that when involved with a film send shudders down my spine in anticipation of how bad it will turn out, those names are Jesus 'I have no talent' Franco who had nothing to do with Bone Eater & Jim Wynorski who directed the absolute disaster that is Bone Eater. In fact Bone Eater is so bad Wynorski hid under the pseudonym Bob Robertson, when a director as bad as Wynorski hides under a pseudonym you know the film must be bad. Where do I even start? Bone Eater is quite simply the worst film I have seen this year & is so bad it's untrue, the story is awful, the script is sloppy (at one point Sheriff Evans tells Kia to meet him at the hospital but when they meet there later he acts surprised & says 'what are you doing here?', at one point Sheriff Evans triumphantly claims that we are in the twentieth century & that ancient Native American demons are nonsense although actually we are in the twenty first century now, there's a part when a woman tells in flashback the story where three men awaken the Bone Eater & it kills them but since it killed all three of them how did anyone else know about it for it to be passed down in legend?) & at times it gets more than a little bit embarrassing. The character's are horrible clichés, the small town Sheriff who saves the day, his daughter becomes involved which adds some personal motivation & as for the Native Americans there's an old wise man, a young hot head who hates 'white man' & a young woman who is the voice of reason between the two who have names like Storm Cloud & Black Hawk. The film is as boring as hell, nothing happens, the story is awful, it's full of plot holes & lapses in any sort of logic, the set-pieces are terrible, there's no horror or gore or suspense or mystery & Bone Eater is just the sort of film that makes you lose the will to live.<br /><br />Bone Eater has some of the worst CGI computer effects I've seen in a while, from the daft looking stiff moving bone eater creature itself which is just a selection of bones magically held together to a motorbike jumping a large gap to an awful CGI truck crashing over the edge of a cliff to a van being tossed to one side by the bone eater. Whenever the bone eater needs to get some speed up he causes a large horse to form from the sand & dust & rides it! In principal this is actually quite a neat idea but it looks awful & the scenes even have cheesy cowboy music on the soundtrack! There is one pointless scene at the end when Sheriff Evans cuts his own arm (why?) & it bleeds but apart from that there isn't a single drop of blood in the thing, whenever the bone eater kills someone they usually just disappear in a cloud of dust, boring. The hilariously goofy climatic showdown between Sheriff Evans & the bone eater has to be seen to be believed, Sheriff Evans goes native on horseback complete with tribal war paint on his face while the bone eater also rides his dust horse & they have a sort of jousting contest which is just to bad to describe properly.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $700,000 Bone Eater is filmed in a very bland, forgettable & flat way, there's no sense of style here at all. The majority of the film takes place in bright sunlight & if you watch it on a decent telly then the desert scenery is quite nice on occasion. There are several veteran 'known' actors really slumming it here, Boxleitner plays exactly the same role as in the similarly themed but much better 'Creature Feature' Snakehead Terror (2004), William Katt will obviously put his name to any crap as long as he gets paid while ex Star Trek man Walter Koenig must be really desperate to agree to appear in this.<br /><br />Bone Eater is a truly atrocious 'Creature Feature', there's really not much more you can say about it other than to steer well clear of it. The worst film ever to appear on the Sci-Fi Channel & that's saying something, isn't it? | negative |
The fact that this film was put out on DVD still formatted-to TV and with a fuzzy picture really annoyed a lot of film purists......and rightly so. This deserves a lot better treatment.<br /><br />The story is about a street performer who needs a son to pass on his craft (the rules of the day) and winds up with a little girl instead (not the conventional way) ....and the problems that ensue afterward. The old man had bought the kid at a slave auction and soon discovers the kid is not a boy, which he obviously thought was the case.<br /><br />The old man "Bianlian Wang (Xu Zhu)is kind of funny-looking with a missing front tooth and an infectious grin. The little girl "Doggie" (Zhou Renying) is a cutie. The rest of the story is how the two manage after that. I usually like a nice sentimental ending but this gets a bit carried away in the final 15 minutes.<br /><br />Overall, it's involving story complete with drama, suspense, humor and sadness. Just don't expect a good quality picture for the money you are spending on the DVD. Until it comes out on widescreen, rent it. | positive |
Why this is called "Mistresses" is a puzzle, because it's about four women, three of whom aren't mistresses
Except, wait. Ah, I see. It's a salacious title and we all have to merchandise I suppose. The series itself? Delicious. Most of the characters are hell bent on cutting metaphorical chunks off themselves. Great fun. Reminds me of LWT's 1976 miniseries "Bouquet of Barbed Wire", where every character and their dads wielded the machete.<br /><br />Siobhan (Orla Brady) is the only actual mistress and she's getting herself in proper trouble. Husband is infertile. So no chance of a baby there then. But at work, there's Dominic, played by uber-sexy Adam Rayner, who looks so good that there's no surprise when heavy lust breaks out. Dominic, it turns out, has no fertility problems. I expect his sperms do swashbuckling - probably each carries a little sword - and now Siobhan is inevitably pregnant that way instead. What Siobhan should do is to shut up good and tight, and go with - it's a miracle. What she actually does of course is say to her friends "I have to tell my husband". No you don't. Really, you don't. Stop. Stop!<br /><br />Katie (Sarah Parish) was a mistress once, for we learn that she'd had an affair with a married man before the series started. Unwisely, she's now taken up with his son. The father died of cancer and Katie, who is a doctor, helped him on his journey. So, she's an euthanasiarist, has had affairs with two of her patients and is sleeping with the son of the father in carelessly ignoring the incestuous undertones. It's not going to end well for Katie.<br /><br />Jessica is an experimental lesbian. She arranges events and she's busy doing a lesbian marriage as the series gets underway. She quickly gets into steamy eye exchanges with one of the brides Alex, played by Anna Torv, and the script hurries along to a lesbonk with great haste. However, it can't think of a good way of putting the two women in bed together, so it invents a very lame "You're not having a hen night?! Well I can't let you get away with that. I'll organise one and the guests shall be .. Me!", which achieves the result but isn't exactly Winterson. I thought script writers were supposed to earn their living. Lazy. Torv's interpretation of her character is good. Alex treats Jessica as possibly unsavoury and Alex's body language always points backwards when she's moving forward. Mind, once she's over the wall, in she happily goes, and unsurprisingly, for Shelley Conn is so mouth-watering that so would a good percentage of the human race given the chance.<br /><br />Which brings us to Trudi, who's a widow. Of course there should be plain people in a community but, if you're going to have a plain character, then you have to invent something to admire in them. It's quite possible to be a lump and engaging. However, Small's Trudi looks like one of those characters that Casting put prominently in a medieval crowd scene after the director said "That's ridiculous, not every single character would be pretty". More tellingly, you can't find anything to admire in her. Nothing. She's a turnip in a bowl of apples. Appallingly, she does "sexy" from time to time. I won't forget her appearance in bright red corset with stockings tucked into her crotch for a long time, and for all the wrong reasons.<br /><br />So, good, delinquent fun all round. There's easily enough material here for a second series and I hope that they do one. I trust they learn one lesson though. The characters never take off their underclothes in bed! Having spent abandoned hours of unbridled lust, afterwards they surface still wearing their bras, or keep the sheets tight wound round their naughty bits. After several episodes, no nipples yet and you can go beg for a cock. What's this? Early 21st century puritanism? So production team, are you listening? Your characters will solve some of their mental problems if they Do abandon as well as Talk it. At least they'll have more fun in the fun scenes, poor things. In a series dominated by either being in the bedroom, or wanted to be in the bedroom, or having just been in the bedroom, it's a bit silly, and jars a lot, that the characters bonk in their underwear.<br /><br />Overall. I was going to score 6 (top end medium), but the series does one trick that's rare enough. When each episode ends, you always want more, and you look forward to the next one with anticipation. So I score 7. | positive |
One Chinese gang attacks and wipes out another gang in the beginning of the film. Unfortunately, the patriarch of the winning family is killed in the process. Oddly, and without any discernible reason, the gang solicits a volunteer to blame the massacre on and he leaves until the police decide to stop investigating. Now how ONE MAN ALONE is the one responsible for about 50 deaths is beyond me, so sending this one guy away just seemed silly, but that's the plot. Later, when this man comes home, betrayals and scheming have occurred--leading to almost one hour and fifteen minutes of non-stop killing.<br /><br />If you are looking for a Chinese martial arts film with much of a plot, then you should probably skip this movie, as its practically non-stop action and practically no plot or character development--even when compared to other martial arts films. I would estimate that 80-90% of the film are fight scenes--endless and reasonably well made fight scenes using knives. Again and again and again, fight scenes! If you want a film with a body count perhaps running into the hundreds as people are slashed, kicked, and slashed, then this is the film for you. The problem was by the end of the film there are literally no people left to kill and the film really lost my interest!! Deep it ain't, but if you want to see excitement and action ONLY, then this film is for you! <br /><br />By the way, this movie is set in contemporary times and no one thinks of shooting the hero until just near the end. And, when they FINALLY do the logical thing, it's too late and the effort is really, really lame! Logical errors like this and the lady's suicide (why???) make this a "turn off your brain" type of film. | negative |
I enjoyed "American Movie", so I rented Chris Smith's first film, which I thought was a documentary too. In the first minute I saw that it wasn't, but I gave it a go.<br /><br />What a dead end film. Being true-to-life hardly serves you if you're merely going to examine tediousness, esp. tediousness that we're already familar with.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but will it come as a relevation to ANYONE that 1) a lot of jobs suck and 2) most of them are crappy, minimum wage jobs in the service sector??? I knew that before I saw the film. It didn't really provide an examination of that anyway, as while the film struggles to feel "real" (handheld camera, no music, etc.), what's going on hardly plays out as it would in the "real world."<br /><br />Would an employer be so cheerful to Randy when he picks up his check, after Randy quit on him after 3 days when the guy said he expected him to stay 6 months?? Or the day after abandoning his job (and screwing up the machine he was working on), that everyone would be so easy on him??<br /><br />A big problem is our "hero"(?), Randy. This guy is a loser. Not because he's stuck in these jobs, or has a crummy apartment, or looks like one. He's a dope. He doesn't pay attention or even really try at these jobs. He has zero personalty. If I had to hire someone, he wouldn't make it past the interview.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to what Chris Smith does next, but guys, knock off the "this-is-an-important-film" stuff. "American Job" doesn't work. | negative |
All Kira Reed fans MUST see this. The film's premise has struggling romance novelist Kira unable to come up with any new ideas. She's also getting over a divorce. However, she meets this guy at a restaurant and he helps her out of her shell (and clothing). They go into a corner room and they do it. Thankfully, Kira gets a condom out (Now don't ever tell me these Playboy films are worthless piles of soft-core fluff. Remember kids, safe sex). Later, she marvels to her publishist how great it was, but she didn't get his name. Despite this, the guy finds her and they continue their kinky games. But eventually she tires of his sneakiness and wants to know more. When she does, all hell breaks loose, and I'll leave it at that. This is easily the best of these soft-core Playboys films I've seen. Check this out, and marvel at the greatness of Kira. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.