Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Since the Little Mermaid was one of my favorite Disney movies when I was little, I was curious about its sequel.<br /><br />The Little Mermaid(one) is a classic animated feature with top quality everything, a grand music score, and targets a general audience. In contrast, the Little Mermaid 2 is targeted primarily at young children, because it is spontaneous, reflects a child's self perspective, the music is bouncier and less dramatic, and the ending feels like recess.<br /><br />The Little Mermaid 2 starts out when baby Melody is presented to Ariel's side of the family. Abruptly without any visual cues to aid the drama, a giant tentacle grabs the baby. I laughed, wait a minute it's not funny, the baby's being attacked! Okay, I'll stop laughing. Morgana's crime in broad daylight and her spontaneity, takes away potential drama since it happened so quickly.<br /><br />Throughout the feature, Melody seems superhuman, which I defend is how most children envision themselves. This quality in Melody's character is clearly brought out toward the end when she fights Morgana without an inch of fear on her face.<br /><br />Like the first movie, Melody has a lot of Ariel's problems, except the reverse. Queen Ariel turns out to be like her father by restricting her from the ocean, whereas King Triton restricted Ariel from the surface. Ariel and Melody both rebel against their parent.<br /><br />The music is more emotionally moving in the first. This sequel has a bunch of songs, but not as much orchestral work went into it. It's great for little ones, because it doesn't take an orchestra to impress them.<br /><br />The ending in the first movie was strong and uplifting. The sequel ends with a bouncy song and everyone playing in the water. It's definitely more targeted at kids, because instead of the ending being solemn and leaving you blown away, this ending leaves you thinking, "It's time for recess!" Ultimately, this movie is fun for kids, so we should let them have fun. | negative |
I'll probably get a lot of flack for hating this movie- guess I didn't approach it with the proper dewy-eyed nostalgia of the generation before me. But suffice it to say- St Elmo's Fire was pretty crap-freaking- tastic, even as far as Brat Pack films go.<br /><br />Here is yet another lovely example of the smug, self-indulgent neurosis that is everything 80s (RENT, anyone?) The plot is virtually non- existent and the philosophies are kitchy at best, poorly delivered the rest of the time. The complete lack of anything resembling sympathetic characters doesn't help the situation. There really was no growth, no forward movement at all. Even the climactic suicide scene was effectually neutered by once again refusing to let death or anything resembling reality or adult life enter in. <br /><br />Each cookie cutter figure simply goes about making you hate them in the blandest, most predictable way possible. The Stalker is a creep for no discernible reason other than he is a Stalker and Andie MacDowell is gorgeous. The Jackass does everything in his power to constantly remind you he is, well, a jackass. The Gorgeous Slut hides really soulful, deep pain with a wild lifestyle. The Poet moods and mopes around for a full 3/4 of the film until he can reveal (!) he actually is full of teddy bears and sunshine and rainbows. The Virgin finally becomes a whole, happy human being after getting every Virgin's desire of one hot roll in the sack with a Jackass before he ditches her to really change (for real this time). The Cheating Bastard cheats until it is time for him to get caught. And finally The Feminist go around dousing holy water on any soul that utters "commitment".<br /><br />Which brings me to my final beef- what bond of super-cement was holding these people together as friends? I can't imagine being with just one of them- Now think of the vortex created by all that narcissism centered in one bar. And they were all so terrible to each other- heads in toilets, near rape, and sleeping around with everrrryone. The cherry was after two BFFs act like total baboons after screwing the Feminist, she's like, "umm, actually I don't want to be with either of you anymore. Let's be friends! And we can hang out in a totally unawkward way every day knowing that I may hook up with one or the other at any given point, but neither of you are satisfying enough for commitment (NOT THAT WORD!)." And they all smile as if to say, "Golly gee, I never thought of that! What a great idea!"<br /><br />Only it's not. Kinda in the way that watching this movie is not. | negative |
Got the chance to see this at a friend's house today, and was impressed with what it achieved on such a small budget. Not that this ever bothered me anyway, since I love low budget sci-fi like Dr Who, Blake's 7 and Dark Star. Hell, even Outland wasn't a big budget affair, so whilst money helps, it takes more than throwing cash at things to make them good.<br /><br />The story is straightforward at first, with a group of mercenaries paid to escort a prisoner through space. Their ship is attacked and they are forced to land on the nearest planet. They then discover the prisoner has made it too, he's a stone cold nut case and that's only the start of their problems.<br /><br />The effects, except for the gunfights, are minimalistic and add to the film without overwhelming it. Computer effects look a bit dodgy at times, but serve their purpose well and add to the story, lending a futuristic feel to the proceedings. Films like I, Robot could have benefited from this approach instead of being largely style over substance and substituting special effects for a plot, like all too many of Hollywood's offerings.<br /><br />Whilst none of the actors get Oscar material, it's tightly scripted and shot and at an hour and ten minutes doesn't outstay its welcome. The characters don't get fleshed out much, but then they didn't in Predator either, which it resembles in feel. Big man Mike Mitchell is a good stand in for Arnie and is a good combination of brains and brawn.<br /><br />Some people may be annoyed at the lack of explanation towards the end, but I like it. Unlike a lot of films and shows which leave things unexplained, it is not so obscure that you can't get a handle on it at all, and I'd like to see a sequel where the nature of the aliens is explored further.<br /><br />A cracking little film from an enterprising team, done on the cheap but a fun way to pass an hour. If this is what they can do on a shoestring I'd like to see what they would do with a bit more cash, and hope the film industry and the talentless armchair critics don't knock all the creativity out of them first.<br /><br />Recommended. | positive |
All Dogs Go to Heaven plays on the canine criminal underworld. The film is a delight for children with a comical and dark-but-satisfying and happy-ending storyline with plenty of song and dance. It features outcast Charlie, a fellow canine criminal who is murdered but returns from the dead. He meets a homeless human girl who looks up to him, and through this relationship, he realizes the meaning of life and self-sacrifice. This is a cute animation loved very much through my eyes as a child. I would highly recommend this film to children. I'm unsure about how adults would react to it. (I tried to watch it a few years ago on VHS, but those recordings don't last long, do they?) | positive |
In the third entry of the Phantasm series, Mike and Reggie continue chasing the Tall Man, assisted by a trigger-happy 9 year old, a black G.I. Jane and the spirit of Mike's deceased brother (he died in the original Phantasm). Number 3 is a rather disappointing sequel, since the gore and black comedy is a lot less inspired and exciting as it was in Phantasm II. I got the feeling the stress was merely laid on Reggie's incompetence as a lover and his talent as stand-up comedian. The humor in the previous film was a lot more dry and oppressed, which fits a story like this better. Also, the settings aren't as macabre here, plus the constant presence of the Tall Man (Agnus Schrim) isn't as obvious
There still is plenty of gore but not half as satisfying this time. By the way, beware for the severely cut version as it shows most delightful killings off-screen. The entire Phantasm series is the lifetime achievement of Don Coscarelli, who wrote and directed 4 episodes so far
the fifth being in production. The first one is a semi-cult classic, the second is a horror-feast of gore and violence and the rest can easily be skipped. A. Michael Baldwin returns as Mike, even though James LeGros portrayed his character a lot better in Phantasm II. | negative |
This movie was horrible. I swear they didn't even write a script they just kinda winged it through out the whole movie. Ice-T was annoying as hell. *SPOILERS Phht more like reasons not to watch it* They sit down and eat breakfast for 20 minutes. he coulda been long gone. The ground was hard it would of been close to impossible to to track him with out dogs. And when ICE-T is on that Hill and uses that Spaz-15 Assault SHOTGUN like its a sniper rifle (and then cuts down a tree with eight shells?? It would take 1000's of shells to cut down a tree that size.) Shotguns and hand guns are considered to be inaccurate at 100yards. And they even saw the reflection. What reflected the light?? I didn't see a scope on that thing. Also when he got shot in the gut and kept going, that was retarded he would of bled to death right there. PlusThe ending where he stuffs a rock or a cigarette in the guys barrel. It wouldn't blow up and kill him. The bullet would still fire kill Ice T but mess up the barrel. | negative |
I watched this film recently on DVD and I have to say I wasn't impressed. I know it's taboo to knock independent films, but this one felt devoid of entertainment.<br /><br />The premise was interesting, but the execution of it fell short. I found myself thinking "okay, they're just getting into it, the story will pick up soon". Before I knew it, the film was over and the story never picked up. I can't say I found the acting all that impressive either. It was pretty bad. Not Star Wars prequel trilogy bad, but bad nonetheless.<br /><br />I'm not sure what the running time was, I'll assume two hours (because it's a safe estimate). Anyway, when the film was finished, I felt as though I deserved some kind of recognition for the will power I exerted in not stopping the film and walking away halfway through.<br /><br />Again, I was thoroughly unimpressed, and eventually bored out of my wits. I'm not one of those guys who requires fast-paced action and explosions in a film, so don't start in on me as that being a reason for not liking it. | negative |
I'm rather surprised that anybody found this film touching or moving.<br /><br />The basic premise of the film sounded to me like an excellent, if provocative, idea for a movie about a rare sort of relationship, but one (if I can judge by the real-life examples I've known) is extremely deep and loving.<br /><br />However, the film is cheaply scripted--poorly scripted--and although it has a number of very pretty-looking shots, I didn't find it to be anything special.<br /><br />Probably the biggest problem is that it is far too short and poorly-composed to give its audience time enough to invest, emotionally, in the characters: we don't really care about any of them, and so their stresses and obstacles don't really touch us.<br /><br />I think a REMAKE--from the screenplay up--with some character development by some really good writers--could improve it greatly. It is instructive to compare this film with Brokeback Mountain, which the screen-writers took to far loftier levels than did the author of the screenplay--screen-writers who were clearly conscious of how to write a classical tragedy, and carried out their task with care, planning, and superb craftsmanship! However, people only seem to remake those films that don't need it! You're not really missing anything if you skip this one: I found it very disappointing indeed, and it is only saved from getting a 1-star from me by virtue of the daring and gumption it took to make a film on this sensitive subject. | negative |
Some of the greatest and most loved horror movies have a wicked sense of humour, but when a film comes along that isn't as original as the "classics" but just goes at it for laughs then a bunch of po-faced, wanna-be critics completely slag it off. This film made me laugh aloud several times, this is testament to the way this film was approached and it shows. The two main leads look natural and believable together and this really helps this film. You root for them the whole way and laugh along with them, everyone has friends like both of these guys. Another highlight for me was the monster truck, it's awesome, intimidating and really well shot. Taking inspiration (completely stealing) from loads of films, the most obvious being Duel, Jeepers Creepers and probably in reference to the Jack Black alike co-star Orange County. But really you can pick any road trip gone wrong movie and find a reference here. But so what, it's not trying to win any Oscars just give the viewer a good dose of frights and laughs and on that score it's a 10! Obviously It's not getting a 10, I give real sensible reviews and scores unlike 99% of the people on IMDb. There is no-way this movie can get a zero like so many lazy idiots give to too many films and as fun as it was it ain't getting a 10 either. It's just a good fun movie for anyone with a sense of humour and a liking for scares. You really can't get anymore simple than that. | negative |
And how it made it into production astounds me. The main character is an obnoxious show off who isn't the least bit funny. I can't stand the character at all. He's a dumb ass with nothing to offer the show. <br /><br />This is the worst cartoon to surface in the last 10 years, no joke. The story lines are both poorly written and executed. The jokes are as bad as the ones on Disney's Sweet Life of Zack and Cody. I could not dislike this show more, it's terrible and should be canceled. Even the theme song is bad. The title, even worse.<br /><br />It's as though this show is written by a couple of 15 year olds that based the character on themselves and think they're hot stuff when they're really just arrogant and lack creativity as well as humor.<br /><br />Johnny Test, go away far and fast! | negative |
Although Kris Kristofferson is good in this role, who wouldn't want to see Elvis Pressly instead? With the drug addiction and the fall from supreme fame may have scared away Elvis' agent to be apart of the movie, it was a mistake. This would have been a perfect movie for Elvis. Even though the soundtrack is far from terrific, Paul Williams and Barbra Streisand do a decent job in creating an original soundtrack for this "period" piece / musical. Somewhat of a love story, this is more of a drama about the fall from grace and the gift of redemption. Like is most tragedies, the hero of the story was die. Also, Gary Busey is once again perfect in a not so perfect role. | positive |
This was a movie that could have been great if there were not so many unnecessary historical inaccuracies and if the actors had been chosen or made up to look a little more like the real persons (not very difficult). Sissi did not go to Mayerling to see her dead son, she also did not die in the street; they carried her on to the boat and then back to the hotel, which was much more dramatic. I am not sure about the wedding night, but I find it exaggerated that a lady-in-waiting would undress the empress and leave her completely naked (and that in the 1850's) or that the emperor would announce very proudly "yes I finally laid her" to the assembled court. As far as I know this was done right away on the first night and nobody rewarded her as if she were a streetwalker. The saving grace of the movie is really Stephane Audran, excellent actress and true to character. | negative |
A River Runs Through It is one of those movies that deserves to be seen in the theater so that the majesty of its cinematography can be truly appreciated. The acting is wonderful and understated, with every gesture and smile and nod carrying meaning. Brad Pitt gives a radiant performance and Tom Skerrit is powerful as the preacher father. The movie moves like a river, you have to be willing to follow it through ebbs and flows, but it is well worth it in the end. | positive |
I went to see the movie because my boyfriend was raving about how much he wanted to see it, and how his friends had already been and loved it. So I came in with a neutral attitude, not really expecting the worst. Unfortunately, that is what I got. I could write a 15 page paper on why this is easily THE WORST movie I have ever seen. But for your benefit I will point out the pros and the endless supply of cons. To begin, the acting was very good, especially Christopher Waltz and Melanie Laurent. There were also a few lines that deserved a laugh, and a couple suspenseful scenes. Sadly, good acting, a little humor and suspense is where the good points end. The whole beginning story could have been great. A Jewish girl's family is butchered, she goes into hiding, later encounters the man responsible for her pain and then hatches a great plan for revenge. Sounds very good. But the movie wouldn't be quite as "satisfying" for the Americans and Jews craving Nazi blood. I have no problem with WWII movies or killing Nazis; I saw Defiance and like it very much. However, it's the way and attitude with which our would-be heroes kill. I'll give you a prime example of the kind of hypocrisy this movie oozes. Our hoodlum gang ambushes a German unit and kills/scalps all of them except a sergeant and two other soldiers (no problem so far). They ask the sergeant to divulge information on another German unit. When he "respectfully refuses" to betray the lives of his fellow soldiers they bash his head in a with a baseball bat, cheering, and swearing as if they were at a football game. They took that Nazi's head off yaaayy! Now let's look at the hypocrisy in that scene. Here's a hypothetical situation: a group of American soldiers are ambushed and taken captive by the enemy. The same scenario follows and the American commanding officer would rather die than betray his fellow soldier. The enemy bashes his head in with much celebration. This would infuriate an audience if this scene were in a movie. That American soldier was a hero for placing his men above himself, and those barbarians brutally murdered him! Well
what about the Nazi sergeant? Well he's a Nazi and deserves to die the cruelest death possible, right? Coincidentally, the Nazi's felt the same towards the Jews. See the hypocrisy? By celebrating the butcher of the Nazis we are placing ourselves on the same sadistic level. <br /><br />Major hypocrisy #2: The Nazis make a propaganda movie about a German sniper who kills nearly 300 American soldiers. Near the end of the movie, the film is revealed. Hitler and his cohorts giggle with delight as they watch an American soldier get shot out of a window and fall into a fountain. The Nazis cheer as soldier after soldier falls to the snipers skill. This is supposed to enrage the American viewers of this scene. Those evil Nazis are laughing over the deaths of our brave men! Well the irony is, isn't that what we were doing (or supposed to be doing) the entire time we're watching Inglorious Basterds? Laughing over the pain of others simply because they were "the bad guys." How would we feel if Native Americans somehow made a hit film in which they reek bloody vengeance on the American settlers? Or what if blacks made a movie glorifying the Nat Turner Rebellion? OK enough about the hypocritical flaws. <br /><br />I'll summarize other reasons for the 1 star rating. 1) There were view admirable characters throughout the movie. Brad Pitt even tortures a woman by sticking his finger in her gunshot wound because he suspects she betrayed him. He's the good guy? 2) Scenes dragged on way longer than they needed to. 3) Brad Pitt's southern, supposedly Tennessee accent is HORRIBLE and thoroughly annoying throughout the entire move. I'll quit now since I'm at 700 words. <br /><br />Unfortunately it seems that the general population doesn't think anymore, they just want blood. And that is why this movie received such a high ranking. I recommend this movie for the ignorant or if you are Jewish and simply wanting to see a nice "fantasy justice." Personally, when I finally got out of the movie theater I felt like I had been scalped (or wish that I had so I wouldn't have suffered over 2 hours of mental rape). | negative |
A fantastic musical starring Gene Kelly and Rita Hayworth. He owns a nightclub where she dances. She's no star yet, but she gets a big break when she's chosen as a cover girl for Vanity, whose owner was actually in love with her grandmother. When he sees the resemblance, he picks her right away for a contest his maganzine is running. Hayworth's newfound fame at first works wonders for Kelly's club, but her star rises so quickly and so high up that his grasp on her begins to falter. This isn't the most original of plots, but the two leads really make it work. It also helps that the screenplay is great. Kelly's not yet at his peak, especially his peak as an actor. His dancing, however, wow. Hayworth is the star, but Kelly claims the film's most memorable moment as he dances passionately with his own reflection. It's obviously a take-off of Fred Astaire's shadow dancing in Swing Time, but I think Kelly one-ups it, which is hardly believable. In fact, this has got to be the most amazing dance sequence in film history, save perhaps the finale of An American in Paris several years later. The rest of the songs are also excellent, and the musical numbers are even better. Too bad Rita didn't sing her own songs (well, she may have a couple of them, as her singing voice seemed to be different sometimes). Her dancing is wonderful, as is the rest of her acting. It's hard not to love her in anything. She's really one of the few truly beautiful women from the classic era. Not plastic like many of them; no, you can really see the warmth in that woman. Her smile is so disarming. Phil Silvers has the role as Kelly's best friend, and he is also very funny. The trio of Kelly-Hayworth-Silvers is obviously the kernel which became the Kelly-Reynolds-O'Connor trio in Singin' in the Rain eight years afterwards. One of the biggest musical numbers in the film seems almost completely pilfered with the "Good Morning" number in Singin'. I do think Singin' in the Rain is the better film, as Cover Girl is a little rough around the edges. This roughness, though, just adds to the charm. There are aspects of this film that beat Singin' in the Rain, and even An American in Paris. For instance, the central relationship is more emotionally involving. Instead of the dominant older man chasing the little girl (Leslie Caron and Debbie Reynolds were just teenagers, after all), we have a very nice relationship with two people who seem more like equals. There is no chasing around - an aspect that does unfortunately turn a lot of the best musicals a little sour, you have to admit. Kelly and Hayworth are a couple from the start, and when that begins to fray, I really felt it. 9/10. | positive |
A wonderful early musical film from Rene Clair, as fun and witty as his silent "The Italian Straw Hat". Using sound in a expressive way and not just for dialogue and effects, Clair influenced early musicals in America (the opera scene from A Night at the Opera is strongly influenced by Le Million, for example). Should (but won't) be seen by all cinephiles, and the DVD from Criterion is exactly as good as you'd expect. There's not a ton of extras, but most DVD extras I've seen are useless fluff, and the Clair interview on disc is one I hadn't ever seen. Get it while it's still around. | positive |
His John Dark-Kevin Connor fantasy adventures were a mainstay of Summer holiday movies in the days before Star Wars: they weren't masterpieces, they didn't boast state-of-the-art special effects, but they were exactly what an audience of kids wanted from a film back in the mid 70s.<br /><br />At the Earth's Core catches just the right tone for the appropriately named Burroughs' pulp adventure about Victorian inventor Peter Cushing and the inevitable Doug McClure ending up in the underground world of Pelucidar and battling its evil telepathic fighting dinosaurs. This time the puppets are gone in favour of men in monster suits, which is a lot more fun if you're willing to suspend your disbelief, and if you're not there's always Caroline Munro's cleavage to look at. Aside from what may well be Peter Cushing's worst performance, an irritating but dottier rehash of his movie Dr Who ("You can't mesmerise me, I'm British!"), it's easily the best of the John Dark-Kevin Connor-Doug McClure fantasy adventures, surprisingly well directed and boasting an atmospheric use of colour. Never especially good at exterior scenes, Alan Hume's photography gains immensely from the control a studio set gives him (the film was shot entirely on soundstages) to paint a luridly vivid world worthy of a pulp novel cover. Not high art but definitely great Saturday matinée fun. | positive |
In it's time, this movie had controversy written all over it (like most of Verhoeven's projects).<br /><br />Containing very graphic depictions death-scenes; A parachute that doesn't open *smack* guys body on the floor. A guy being eaten by a Lion *chomp* teeth in the throat. And a guy being run over by a speedboat *zoom* bloody corpse going down.<br /><br />But besides gore, this flick also contains some brilliant (and stunningly beautiful) scenes, filmed in the gray fisher's town that is Vlissingen;<br /><br />Thousands of rosebuds flying over the screen, in a somewhat irrelevant part of the movie, a beautiful (holy) woman putting flowers in a milk-can, surrounded by slabs of blood-dripping meat and a steamy love scene between two male characters, in a graveyard.<br /><br />The story is concluded in a frantic, but fulfilling 10 minutes, that don't disappoint, and will leave you sighing a breath of relief.<br /><br />Of course with the pros come the cons, Some special-effects are too over-the-top, and are obviously done to see how far Verhoeven could push the gore-factor (e.g. the several eyeballs hanging out of their sockets). Also, while the two lead actors, (Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk), do an excellent job of breathing life into their characters, the character of Herman (portrayed by the rather un-charming Thom Hoffman) just feels enormously underdeveloped, making him hard to care for, even after his tragic death.<br /><br />I've done my best to give you a slight idea of what to expect of this amazing movie, and as you can see, it's not easily summed up in words. So do yourself a favor, if you happen to find this movie somewhere, watch it ! And enjoy the unique style and substance of this masterpiece. | positive |
Apart from the usual stereotypes of the thirties, Eugene Pallette as the gruff police detective, Jack La Rue as the "swarthy" Italian and of course, James Lee as "The Chinese Cook", this film is THE great mystery of a murder in a locked room. For an early 1930's film, this step by step "peeling of the veneer of the mystery" is similar to the COLUMBO series, except in this film, you don't have the advantage of knowing who the killer was in advance. | positive |
If you are having a bad day,or bad week. If you are looking for a film that will make you laugh and forget about your troubles. I don't think Role Models is that movie for you.<br /><br />The film centers around Danny(Paul Rudd) and Wheeler(Seann William Scott) Two juice promoters, who go to schools promoting the product, telling kids to stay off drugs, and more juice. But Danny is having the worst week ever, and crashes his company car, with Wheeler in the seat next to him. His soon to be ex girlfriend Beth(Elizabeth Banks) who is a lawyer, manages to avoid getting them jail time, by doing hours of community service, volunteering at a big brother place called Sturdy Wings led by Gayle(Jane Lynch). Wheeler is assigned to Ronnie(Bobb'e J Thompson) who is 10 years old, and has a foul mouth like he's Chris Rock. Danny is assigned to Augie(McLovins, Christopher Mintz-Plasse) who likes to dress like a knight, and fight like he is in medieval times. But will this be good for Danny and Wheeler, or will they be better off in jail?<br /><br />Okay I'm not gonna beat around the bush, this movie was very unpleasant in many ways. Namely the Ronnie character, hearing those bad words coming out of a kid that young, was very shocking. If he was a little bit older, it would not have mater'd as much. I mean what where his parents thinking, when they sign'd him on to this. Elizabeth Banks character is so unwatchable, maybe I was supposed to feel bad for her character, but I felt nothing, because she is annoyingly predictably portrayed as a female who would be played in these types of comedies. And Jane Lynch, who's the worst of the worst. She delivers the most overacting performance ever. Playing a former drug addict, who acts like she still is on drugs. Listening to her give all that annoying dialog, made me want to throw my head up against the wall. Seann William Scott once again playing another Stifler like character, he should really try to separate himself, and this film won't do it. And the more Scott tries to hard to be funny, is what keeps him from being funny.<br /><br />Now Paul Rudd on the other hand, I'm gonna separate from the others in the film, cause he manages to deliver a solid performance, although he does not get higher laughs, but he is the most interesting character from the rest. Cause Rudd does not overact, and does not try so hard. The scenes with him and Mintz-Plasse are watchable. But the rest of the film is so stupid, it picks up at times. But it becomes so predictable and uninteresting. It is a reminder that these types of comedies try nothing new, there all the same, they take no chances. Role Models is an example of that. | negative |
This 22 minute short, short of a precursor to the later much better "Rock and Rule", features two folk singer mice who are going nowhere. The female mouse, Jan, signs a deal with the devil to become a hit rock star. So it's up to Daniel Mouse to save her soul. Made in the late '70's this has all the trappings of said decade (crap music, crap clothing and hair style, awful folk tunes) This cartoon is featured on the Second disc of the 2-Disk Collector's Edition of "Rock and Rule", it also comes with a Making of that runs almost as long as the show itself.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ | negative |
Firstly, let me make it clear that I love aircraft, and usually any film with them in is worth watching - and I've sat through some shocking ones. However, the same is not true of this film. James Stewart is an excellent actor, but he is wasted in this Strategic Air Command promotional film. The acting is mediocre, and the direction is weak. I had to stop watching this awful rubbish about half way through. This was despite some really good, maybe even the best, aerial photography. The trouble is, even for an aviation nut like me, making something out of the shocking aircraft featured (B-36 and B-47) just grates on the nerves too much. It's a shame that the film wasn't made when the B-52 appeared, then the superlatives used for the aircraft in this film would have been valid. Then I might have been able to sit through it. Perhaps I'm missing the point of the film, which may be the angst suffered by loved ones while their beloved are on active duties. In any case, it could have been done much better. Recommendation? Well worth missing. | negative |
Just kidding about the weight loss thing; well, you might lose weight you never know. Anyway, what can I say, I love this film. It has that same sense of youth and innocence found in films like Stand By Me and The Goonies. Jake's Closet illustrates the beauty of life's simple things and how often we overlook them. The film reminds us what it's like to see the world through children's eyes and all the magic, mystery, and horror they perceive. Jake's Closet presents a tale uniquely human in its compassion that anyone who's had a childhood can both relate to and fall in love with. Watch it with friends; watch it with loved ones; build a fort - wine optional. | positive |
I could crap a better movie. This is a waste of time and money. it makes me sick that movies like these are actually getting made and the people making them actually think they're good. I happen to like teen comedies, when they're done well. This movie, however, takes this genre to a new low. With movies like this, people think it's actually okay to make this filth and ask unsuspecting people to pay money to sit through it. It's sadism. | negative |
I've always liked Barbara Stanwyck who was, perhaps, the hardest working lead actress of the 30's and 40's although few of her movie roles are memorable. Today she is remembered most for the TV show "The Big Valley". Stanwyck worked so much because she was durable; it seems that she would accept most any role and make the most of it to make the movie a success and so directors loved her and many an ordinary picture gained credibility by her presence.<br /><br />And so it was for "Christmas in Connecticut" a very ordinary effort whose plot strains credulity and isn't even really about Christmas. It does, however, have Stanwyck and Dennis Morgan as well as some supreme character actors including Sydney Greenstreet and S.K. Sakall so there are plot twists and funny moments which undoubtedly seemed more real in 1945 than they do today. To begin, the plot concerns a magazine writer (Stanwyck) who the magazine's readers believe is a domestic goddess, married with a child and living on a farm in Connecticut but who is really single, lives in New York City and knows nothing about cooking or homemaking. Could anyone get away with such a fraud even then? Apparently, and even the owner of the magazine (Greenstreet) is deceived although one would think that he would have long since seen though the deception but the story moves on and Stanwyck, Greenstreet, a sailor recently survived from his sunken ship (Morgan) and Stanwyck's restaurateur friend (S.Z.Sakall) find themselves spending Christmas in Connecticut at a farm belonging to Stanwyck's boorish boyfriend (Reginald Gardiner). You can imagine all the possibilities there are for this as the fraud unwinds as it must. Gardiner wants Stanwyck to marry him to perpetuate the rouse but one wonders how she can stand him at all. Morgan and Stanwyck fall for each other but he is supposed to be engaged and she is supposed to be married. Regardless, they begin what seems to be a make believe affair dancing cheek to cheek and stealing off in a horse drawn sleigh. Meanwhile, the incredibly naive Greenstreet character who has seen Stanwyck and Morgan go off together but still doesn't get it sees one of the neighbors take back a child that has been borrowed as part of the deception and calls the cops to report a kidnapping. Stanwyck and Morgan are arrested for stealing the sleigh and the hoax begins to unwind.<br /><br />At this point the movie is funny as in ridiculous or absurd, not funny ha,ha and it routinely ends like screwball comedies always did. The good guy gets the girl and presumably they live happily ever after.<br /><br />I watch this movie every year at Christmas to enjoy these character actors at their best in a story that reflects way it was in 1945 and because of a long held fascination with Barbara Stanwyck. Thank goodness it was set at Christmas or like 95 percent of Stanwyck's movies it would have been long ago forgotten and we would not get to see it each year anew. | positive |
A stunning piece of art.You can watch every image of the film and see the beauty in it.First I would like to say that ´when I saw the German´s soldiers helmet´s I understood that it was from here that "Star Wars" hade been inspired.The scene were they kill the baby is frightening and when I saw it I did not like it.But when the film was end I thought about that scene and I changed my mind and thought that in the World War 2 that was exactly what the German´s did.<br /><br />The Ice-battle scene is some of the best war scenes I have seen(If not the BEST).They way this film combines music and so superbly stunning visual images is really excellent.Then the Prokofiev score is one of the most famous sound track´s in history and I thought it was some of the best to.<br /><br />what more can you say then a work of art.Eisenstein have created a stunning masterpiece,a propaganda film and a Beautiful work of art. I am very happy because I have just got the criterion collection Eisenstein set. | positive |
.. is the Princess Bride meets... well Trainspotting. But wait, really, it's a good combination! This was definitely one of the better movies I've seen in a long time... it has the kind of witty dialog I associate with The Princess Bride or Cemetery man, along with the disgusting scenes of violence of a horror movie... the heroic feel of Princess Bride combined with the (this is odd) lack of any really good guys that Trainspotting had.<br /><br />I'm not saying it was as GOOD as the Princess Bride, but it was in the arena, and it rocked. Some of the dialog transcends pleasing to brilliant, the plot is interesting, the characters - while SLIGHTLY anacronistic - are anacronistic not due to their intrinsic nature (there WERE flamboyantly gay people in the 18th century, contrary to a previous reviewer's remarks) but just in a bit of the language they used. The anachronisms made it fun, though, and NOT cheesy and easily dismissed.<br /><br />If you've ever read any Simon R. Green, or Gleen Cook's Garrett series, you know EXACTLY what this movie is. Check it out. It's great. | positive |
'I don't understand. None of this makes any sense!', exclaims one exasperated character towards the end of Death Smiles at Murder. Having just sat through this thoroughly confusing mess of a movie, I know exactly how he feels. The story, by the film's director Aristide Massacessi (good old Joe D'amato using his real name for a change), is a clumsy mix of the supernatural, murder/mystery, and pretentious arty rubbish, the likes of which will probably appeal to those who admire trippy 70s garbage such as Jess Franco's more bizarre efforts, but which had me struggling to remain conscious.<br /><br />Opening with a hunchback mourning the death of his beautiful sister (with whom he had been having an incestuous affair, before eventually losing her to a dashing doctor), Death Smiles at Murder soon becomes very confusing when the very same woman (played by Ewa Aulin, who stars in the equally strange 'Death Laid an Egg') is seen alive and kicking, the sole survivor of a coach accident that occurs outside the estate of Walter and Eva von Ravensbrück. After being invited to stay and recuperate in their home, where she is tended to by creepy Dr. Sturges (Klaus Kinski in a throwaway role), the comely lass begins love affairs with both Mr. and Mrs. Ravensbrück (meaning that viewers are treated to some brief but welcome scenes of nookie and lesbian lovin').<br /><br />'So far, so good', I thought to myself at this point, 'we've had hunchbacks, incest, some blood and guts, and gratuitous female nudity'all ingredients of a great trashy Euro-horror; what follows, however, is a lame attempt by Massacessi to combine giallo style killings, ghostly goings on, and even elements from Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Black Cat', to tell a very silly, utterly bewildering, and ultimately extremely boring tale of revenge from beyond the grave.<br /><br />This film seems to have quite few admirers here on IMDb, but given the choice, I would much rather watch one of the director's sleazier movies from later in his career; I guess incomprehensible, meandering, surreal 70s Gothic horror just ain't my thing! 2.5 out of 10 (purely for the cheesy gore and nekkidness), rounded up to 3 for IMDb. | negative |
This film makes you really appreciate the invention of the fast forward button on your remote control. It's exquisite boredom in beautiful pictures. For once Hamilton goes relatively easy on soft focus shots. However, what I found hard to take about the film was that although Anja Schüte was about 19 when it was shot the girls are portrayed as much younger than they actually are. This whole Lolita thing especially as there is an older man involved leaves me rather uneasy. The heroine is actually shaved in the pubic area in order to make her look even younger than she is. Come on, sex is a nice past time- between consenting adults. Another thing I found odd was that neither Beart nor Schüte have a nude scene in the film, well, not a proper one at least. | negative |
I saw this film awhile back (while working on a trailer for the film's production company) and it was TERRIBLE. Hewitt is mediocre at best, Hopkins phones his performance in (but still blows away Hewitt in their scenes together) and Alec looks bored. Trust me on this: you should avoid this film like the plague if it ever gets released. It seems to go on forever as the tired plot unfolds at a snail's pace. It is relentlessly unfunny, the cinematography is crappy and the direction is pedestrian. Alec Baldwin should go to film school if he plans to direct again. In terms of his acting, his character is totally unlikable, which makes it impossible to root for him. Dan Ackroyd is pretty funny and the surprising makeup of the jury near the film's end is cute, but this film is just plain awful. | negative |
Holy crap! What a terrible, terrible Spanish thriller! I've had it for about four years and finally started it the other night. I watched an hour or so before heading to bed. I was pretty intrigued by the whole thing. I finished it last night and couldn't believe where I stopped it the night before. Literally, I stopped it the second before the movie went completely downhill.<br /><br />Like I said, I was pretty intrigued and curious as to where this mystery was going but stopped it right when Simon receives the package in the bar. I picked up when he opens up the package to reveal a laser gun and then plays a "menacing" game of laser tag. Whew! Then the big reveal is that the whole thing is a terrorist plot by role playing game nerds. WHEW! You can tell the Spanish industry was definitely behind director Mateo Gil (co-writer of Amenabar's two big previous hits). There is an excellent score and great photography. But this scenario reeks of silliness. How anyone sat through the last 40 minutes with a straight face is beyond me. | negative |
It is fascinating how this title manages to slip by the average viewer as something new and groundbreaking (quoting some of the comments). Murali K. Thalluri must have thought by himself: "Oh, great! Elephant ... What a fantastic movie! I'll try hard to do exactly the same movie and see if anyone notices!", sadly enough, he even failed with his outrageous idea. The movie turns out a complete failure. Considering that it tries hard to catch the brilliance of Gus Van Sants "Elephant", it makes it look even more ridiculous - a most embarrassing faux pas for a film director.<br /><br />The movie starts off with the suicide of a student in the schools bathroom. This scene, already, shows the awkward acting skills of each one involved in this scene. You don't buy a single word they say. In carries on, interrupted by short interview-styled bits of the kids who "live on their marry lives" with each bit rather distressing in its plain stupidity on the basis of each worthless monologue. Thalluri means to introduce the characters this way, to give a kind of fast-as-junk-food insight look into their hearts ... and fails once again. Not five minutes later, Thalluri ultimately screams at the audience "Yes, people! I stole this movie and for some curious reason, I am proud of it!" by taking Gus Van Sants most unmistakable narrative style from "Elephant": He shot scenes twice to let the viewer follow each character involved in a scene on his particular way and role in a school situation. Hm, doesn't this seem awfully familiar? To me, this certain level of very forgiving tolerance had been infringed right there to a point at which I couldn't stand this dreadful movie any more. Shame on you, Murali K. Thalluri, I say! I am especially surprised that "2:37" has reached the official selections in Cannes as of 2006, whereas everyone must have certainly remembered "Elephant" (2003) at the very same Film Festival just a few years ago! So, how in the name of the lord did this most disgraceful rip-off end up being shown there? I find myself absolutely puzzled by this mistake.<br /><br />Directors like Thalluri use the ignorance of audiences who aren't (and cannot completely be) aware of every independent film out there. As Elephant has little to do with mainstream cinema (although it is without a doubt a masterpiece), few people notice that the story as told in "2:37" had been told before! How that is possible at a Film Festival of such importance as attributed to Cannes, I cannot say. It is sad and shameful that such things are passed on and hardly anyone sees the true fraud in it.<br /><br />2:37 is by all means solely commercial, worthless as an independent film and (on a certain level) rather a phoney parody of its obvious idol, "Elephant". | negative |
Where the hell are all these uncharted islands where prehistoric monsters lurk, evil doctors perform their experiments, madmen hold the ultimate karate championship, and the uber-rich hunt humans for sport? I had no idea there were still so many uncharted islands out there, but if you take into account the number of movies that utilize one of these mysterious islands as a location, you'd have to assume that there are at least 50 of these suckers out there. It always winds up feeling so damned convenient and I immediately deduct points from any movie that uses this hackneyed device. Hammerhead is the story of a mad scientist who is conducting experiments on one of these uncharted islands, so the movie already had a lot to make up for before it even began.<br /><br />The island in this movie used to belong to Dr. Moreau, but has recently been purchased by the Re-Animator himself, Jeffrey Combs. Old Jeffrey is doing some kind of cutting edge stem cell research, which has led him to start working with sharks while searching for a cure for cancer. If that sounds familiar, that's because this is roughly the same basic set-up as the smart shark facility in Deep Blue Sea, not to mention a host of other Nu Image movies. So apparently, Jeffrey's son was dying of cancer which prompted our mad doctor to start experimenting on his progeny. He did some kind of super fancy gene splicing and so forth, turning his son into a shark-man.<br /><br />William Forsythe leads a crew of unknown actors to the island to look into the doctor's experiments. If someone would have given him a sailor's hat, William would have been a dead ringer for the Skipper from Gilligan's Island. In typical Bond Villain fashion, the doctor decides that all of these intruders would make nice chum for his son. Not chums, like buddies... chum, like shark food. So enter shark-boy who starts stalking the Skipper and his cohorts all over the island. They, of course, make half-hearted attempts to escape and are thwarted over and over again while being chased by a guy in a rubber shark-man suit. <br /><br />The movie didn't make up any of the points that it lost for taking place on one of those dastardly deserted islands. It's funny that this movie is called Hammerhead, it made me think of an old joke. Why do you hit yourself in the head with a hammer? Because it feels so good when you stop. That's pretty much how this movie is. The only reason to watch it is because it feels so good when it's over. | negative |
This is a very, very early Bugs Bunny cartoon. As a result, the character is still in a transition period--he is not drawn as elongated as he later was and his voice isn't quite right. In addition, the chemistry between Elmer and Bugs is a little unusual. Elmer is some poor sap who buys Bugs from a pet shop--there is no gun or desire on his part to blast the bunny to smithereens! However, despite this, this is still a very enjoyable film. The early Bugs was definitely more sassy and cruel than his later incarnations. In later films, he messed with Elmer, Yosimite Sam and others because they started it--they messed with the rabbit. But, in this film, he is much more like Daffy Duck of the late 30s and early 40s--a jerk who just loves irritating others!! A true "anarchist" instead of the hero of the later cartoons. While this isn't among the best Bug Bunny cartoons, it sure is fun to watch and it's interesting to see just how much he's changed over the years. | positive |
Honest young insurance agent Ronald Reagan (as Eric Gregg) is optimistic, but poor. His wife, scheming Sheila Bromley (as Nona Gregg), longs for the finer things in life. Describing herself as "not weighted down with tons of righteousness," Ms. Bromley begins to spend more money than Mr. Reagan earns. Bromley obtains the finer things in life, but puts the couple in debt. Bromley is a fun shrew.<br /><br />Handsome Reagan attracts other women, like perky clerk Gloria Blondell (as Patricia Carmody); but, he doesn't indulge. To pay the bills, Bromley gets tangled up in the insurance fraud racket - which helps get her husband fired. An unemployed Reagan seems to be tempted into a life of crime - will he remain straight up, or get crooked? Clinton Rosemond has an uncomfortable "broken arm" scene.<br /><br />*** Accidents Will Happen (1938) William Clemens ~ Ronald Reagan, Sheila Bromley, Gloria Blondell | negative |
Any fan of Russian cinema will have great difficulty in believing the sub-par performances phoned-in by Mashkov and Bodrov Jr., and will perhaps be utterly perplexed by Bodrov Sr.'s hackneyed and confusing script, which is coupled with uncharacteristically weak direction. Most of the characters wander through the movie as though they have no idea who they are or what they are doing. It is also sad to see that Jennifer Jason Leigh's acting skills have not advanced one iota since FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, and her screen exposure is mercifully limited. This is a terrible mafia movie; so much so that it makes the GODFATHER III look like a winner in the genre. To see the key Russians at their best, check out Bodrov Sr.'s work on PRISONER OF THE MOUNTAINS (which also features Jr.), Mashkov's turn in VOR (THE THIEF), and Bodrov Jr.'s new criminal in BRAT. | negative |
A lot of people don't think Dan Aykroyd is funny. This movie proves otherwise. Aykroyd is brilliant delivering his one-liners in this comedy. The only major problem with this is that it wastes far too much time near the end jumping back and forth from Aykroyd's character and the doctor who is pursuing him to prove he's a fraud. The doctor goes nuts like doctor Leo Marvin (Richard Dreyfuss) in "What About Bob?". The scenes where the doctor is desperately trying to get back to Los Angeles are silly, unbelievable, and unfunny. Other that this aspect the movie really is funny, especially the first half. | positive |
A friend of mine who has a mysterious knack for finding and - horrors! - liking bad movies recommended I watch 'The Pest.' At the time unaware of just how truly pathetic his taste in movies was, I decided to give it a try.<br /><br />Bad mistake.<br /><br />The story, although clearly ripped straight out of any sixth grade English textbook as far as the "manhunter" theme goes, would be amusing under the right conditions - good actors, writer, director, wardrobe, and so on and so on to almost no end. Clearly these factors are absent.<br /><br />'The Pest' is supposed to be funny, I think. I say "think" because I let crack nothing more than a slight smile throughout the whole film. Not a guffaw, not a laugh, not a chuckle, not even a grin. A smile, at best. And that happened so rarely while watching this film I even remember how often I did smile - maybe 3 or 4 times at best.<br /><br />So do yourself an immense favor. Never watch this movie. Avoid at all costs. | negative |
In the questionable comedy vein of Mel Brooks, "Wholly Moses!" tries to take the Bible story of Moses and make fun of it, resulting in the unfunniest Biblical spoof ever filmed.<br /><br />There is no real plot here, just excuses to trot out stalwart comedy talent in underwritten roles. Dudley Moore and Laraine Newman are on a bus tour of the Holy Land, when they stumble across an ancient scroll in a cave. There they read the story of Herschel and Zerelda, also played by Moore and Newman. Herschel's life parallels Moses'. He was sent down the river to be found by the pharaoh's family at the same time Moses was. Herschel's birth father, the late James Coco, becomes Herschel's slave after Herschel is rescued by idol makers and works as a sculptor. Eventually Herschel comes to work for the pharaoh as an astronomer, is banished, and ends up tending Moses' flock of sheep. Herschel and Moses are brothers in law, marrying sisters, and Herschel thinks God has chosen him to free his people in Egypt. Of course, Moses was receiving the Divine Word, but Herschel misunderstood. I'll pause here to laugh hysterically...pause...anyway, the rest of the film is a series of badly written scenes involving Moore and actors who are making "special appearances." These scenes do not propel the plot forward, they bring what little story there is to a grinding halt.<br /><br />Jack Gilford plays a tailor. Dom DeLuise has maybe three lines when he meets Herschel in the desert. John Houseman is an archangel, just giving the same line readings he gave in "The Paper Chase." David L. Lander is a fake blind man "healed" by Herschel. Andrea Martin is one of Zerelda's sisters. I was not sure who Madeline Kahn was supposed to be, she gives a ride to Herschel, and has about a minute and a half of screen time. John Ritter plays a very unfunny devil. Richard Pryor has one scene as the pharaoh, but it was obviously shot at a different time than Moore's scene because the two do not appear onscreen together! In the end, Zerelda turns into a pillar of salt after looking back on New Sodom's destruction, ha ha. Herschel writes the Ten Commandments, and gives them to Moses, who is basking in all the glory. In the final scenes, the screenwriter decide to try and salvage this shallow film by having Herschel bait God into an argument. God comes off as an all powerful bully who was leading Herschel around for his own amusement, speaking through him only to give him the Ten Commandments. We even have Zerelda quip "God works in mysterious ways," thereby excusing everyone's very unChristian behavior during the film.<br /><br />This film is not funny. There is nary a laugh to be found anywhere. At least Monty Python made fun of many established religious mainstays in "Life of Brian" in addition to their questionable take on Jesus' life, but here the humor consists of poo poo jokes and characters constantly bumping their heads. This makes Mel Brooks look like Merchant/Ivory. Churchgoers will be offended, not by the film's attitude toward religion, but by the smugness the movie exhibits, impressed with their own hoitytoityness (I know, not a word) on a subject they obviously know nothing about. "Wholly Moses!" is wholly bad, and an embarassment to all involved. I suggest you read the Book instead.<br /><br />This is rated (PG) for some physical violence, profanity, sexual references, and adult situations. | negative |
When Jan Svankmajer lets his imagination run wild, get ready. You're in for dark, harrowing films like "Alice" and "Little Otik," or short gems such as "Down to the Cellar" and "Jabberwocky." All of those are excellent films that represent disturbing, surrealistic film-making at its best.<br /><br />On the other hand, when Svankmajer attempts to make a political statement of any kind, you're advised to leave the room in a hurry. Svankmajer's films in this vein tend to be both adolescent and preachy, presenting straw-man caricatures in repetitious fashion to express his pseudo-brilliant insights.<br /><br />"Lunacy," unfortunately, is very much this latter type of movie. Cartoonish ideas and characters are stretched paper-thin for an appalling two hours. There are a few moments that briefly hold interest, but these few oases are separated by vast deserts of boredom.<br /><br />If you found Svankmajer's dreadful, monotonous short film "Et Cetera" brilliant and hilarious, you'll probably love "Lunacy." If you've never seen a Svankmajer film before, please start elsewhere. | negative |
Jesse yet again delivers, after almost 12 months of hype about his upcoming production it finally reaches the dark world of the internet with more than a brilliant approach to amateur film making.<br /><br />DBP is a original, nail-biting commentary on a troubled child growing into an even more troubled adult. if i had more than two thumbs, i would give more, but i think two will be enough.<br /><br />Great work from all cast, especially by Marissa and Elizabeth, the character of Emily as an adult has given me shivers so far and i'm afraid of where she'll go next.<br /><br />An excellent watch | positive |
This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality! | negative |
Sweeping and still impressive early Talkie Western of pioneering days; other contemporary films in the same vein include THE COVERED WAGON (1923), THE IRON HORSE (1924) and CIMARRON (1931) none of which I've watched, though I do have the latter on VHS. It was simultaneously filmed in the "Standard" fullscreen ratio and in an experimental Widescreen process called "Grandeur", but only the former has been released on the bare-bones Fox DVD; one can only surmise how it would look in a wider ratio, but the careful framing not to mention the splendid cinematography is evident enough even in the "Standard" version.<br /><br />Young John Wayne is surprisingly commanding in the lead (a role which, however, didn't lead to the expected stardom as he'd languish in 'B' Westerns for the best part of the next decade, before John Ford came to his rescue with STAGECOACH [1939]!); anyway, he and Marguerite Churchill (from DRACULA'S DAUGHTER [1936]) make a nice couple despite her somewhat tedious character. Supporting characters include a variety of stock types: veteran westerner, comic-relief sidekick (with a penchant for making noises with his mouth!), burly and uncouth villain (played by Tyrone Power Sr.!), his two slimy cohorts (a Mexican and a Southerner, the latter also filling in as Wayne's rival for Churchill's hand), etc. Also among the members of the wagon party is a timid Swede (full of optimism for the promised land, but who's continually put down by his irascible mother-in-law) and later Wayne regular Ward Bond.<br /><br />The episodic narrative resolves itself into a number of alternately cornball, lyrical and action-packed vignettes as we see the prospective settlers combating the elements, the Indians and themselves; the film, however, has a completely authentic feel to it which smooths over its essentially dated and static quality. Also, the editing is somewhat choppy (particularly during the second half) little wonder, since the DVD edition of the film is only 108 minutes long against the complete 158-minute "Grandeur" version! | positive |
"The Hazing" is one of them films I always wanted to see solely based on the illustrated cover image here on IMDb. Yes, that's how shallow I am! I don't care if ten million people call it a crap movie, the poster looks awesome so I guess I'll just have to see it
Now, "The Hazing" can somewhat be described like its alternate title: curious! The poster and title make it sound like a genuine horror movie set on campus and dealing with sinister initiation rites, but this movie is actually more of a crossbreed between comedy and thriller. First of all, there's something very wrong with the tagline on the old VHS box I watched. It says: He had good grades, a good girl and good buddies
until they put him through the Hazing". That's not the case, actually. Protagonist Gilbert Lewis is finally accepted by an acclaimed campus through an athletics scholarship. It takes over half the movie before we even hear about his girlfriend back home and the only "buddy" he has is a very nerdy Charles Martin Smith (still with hair in this film). Both of them are approached to become members of the prestigious "Delts" fraternity, but during their hazing exam in which they have to descend a mountain dressed in their tidy white undies Barney falls off a cliff and breaks his leg. When Lewis returns with the other frat boys, Barney froze to death already. Together they intended to keep the body frozen for five days and then claim he never returned from a weekend ski-trip. With Barney's body hidden in the cafeteria freezer, Lewis has to cover for him so that Barney's absence doesn't look suspicious. The set-up of "The Hazing" is quite original and potentially innovative, but the problem here is that the execution could easily have been a lot better. The tone is too steady and too serious for a comedy movie, even a black one, but on the other hand there aren't any proper attempts to build up suspense or thrills, neither. The soundtrack is cheerful and full of light-headed tunes, but that's nearly not enough to make this film a comedy. Around an hour into the film, the plot also runs out of steam and idea, and the makers have no better alternative to fill up the emptiness with romantic compilations of Lewis and his outer town girlfriend biking through the countryside. I didn't like the final twist, because it's quite implausible and because it has been done numerous times before and after (though admittedly after). "The Hazing" is not a complete waste of time, but still I'm glad I found an ex-rental tape at a friend's house instead of having to spend any money on the recently released DVD. | negative |
Please do not go see this. I did have several laughs throughout this movie, but they were all due to unintentional comedy.<br /><br />There were only three characters in this movie, so it was amazing how bad the character development was. Pacino played Pacino again and was aggravating most of the time. The scenes in this movie seem like they were put together from 20 other bad movies by a really poor editor. There is no continuity and I found myself wondering why I didn't leave 15 minutes into this.<br /><br />I would suggest never seeing a movie directed by D.J. Caruso. This really was awful. | negative |
The Lion King series is easily the crowning achievement in Disney animation. The original Lion King is the greatest masterpiece in cel animation. Lion King II:Simba's Pride is the BY FAR the best direct-to-video sequel that Disney, or any other studio, has made for an animated feature. It deserved a theatrical release. The same can be said for this movie. It has the original cast, songs by Elton John, a hilarious story, exciting action, and touching character moments. Everything you've come to expect from this series. Not so much a new story, but filler and extended background on Timon and Pumbaa, and their place in this story. What impressed me the most, was the care taken in the animation. All to often, Disney shorts on the animation quality of their video and television efforts. But here, they seamlessly blend new animation with footage from the original film. The scenes never seem out of place. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella are in full swing as Timon and Pumbaa. Matthew Broderick, Robert Guillame, and Moira Kelly reprise their roles as Simba, Rafiki, and Nala, respectively. We even get a return visit by Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin as the hyenas.There are MANY big laughs in this movie. So if you love Lion King, you need this movie. The story is just not complete without it. | positive |
The first film was quite hip and had amusing moments, this film doesn't exactly have the same standard. Calvin Palmer (Ice Cube) is still trying to keep his barbershop going, but this isn't just against stylist Gina (Queen Latifah) with a beauty shop next door, but soon enough a big barbershop chain called Nappy Cutz opening across the street. Calvin, along with co-workers and friends Eddie (Cedric the Entertainer), Jimmy (Sean Patrick Thomas), Terri (Eve) and Isaac Rosenberg (Troy Garity), they are doing everything they can to keep regular customers coming, and ultimately their business running against the competition. Also starring Michael Ealy as Ricky Nash, Leonard Earl Howze as Dinka, Harry Lennix as Quentin Leroux, Robert Wisdom as Alderman Brown, Jazsmin Lewis as Jennifer, Kenan Thompson as Kenard and Bad Company's Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon as Loretta. I didn't like this film as much as the first because of the unnecessary flashbacks about Eddie, and it isn't as witty, I just got bored of it. Okay! | negative |
The cast is OK. The script is awkward at times, and it takes a while to figure out what the point of the movie is. I found myself looking forward to doing the dishes. The Shehan bit is a cheesy statement on the war. I guess we were supposed to not notice it...we did. Its a house, you did nothing more than kill forty five minutes. The shower part...huh? What was that about? Literally, it is I have a client, "Ok you can use our shower." Yawn. The angles are trying way to hard. There was a set of woods, suddenly its gone cause you can see right through, then next it is deep and animals are dying. In the end this is a horrendous movie of boring proportions. | negative |
If you never have read the book and never intend to read it in the future, go on and watch the movie (6/10). It is a nice fantasy movie with well done CGI, nice acting, a beautiful environment and an above-average fantasy story.<br /><br />If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.<br /><br />Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse): <br /><br />- The magic in the book works with rituals for classic magical effects. (Changing weather, creating illusions, transform into animals, ...) In the movie the magic is more like "jedi-school for the middle ages" (TM) (wooden sticks instead of lightsabers). That the devil is looking like emperor palpatine (after part III) doesn't make it really better.<br /><br />- The mill in the book is not totally cut off the world like in the movie. In the book the story is set near Dresden, which Krabat visits one time with his master and also he visits some nearby villages for festivities. (This part might have been changed to cut costs.) I also don't understand why in the movie the mill is located in the hills while the nearby graveyard is set in the high mountains.<br /><br />- The whole surrounding is the average run of the mill fantasy medieval style. Lots of mud everywhere, dirty faces, not an orderly kitchen, only very rough houses. The book never suggested such an environment.<br /><br />- In the book the master tries to make Krabat his successor but Krabat rejects. Krabat is somewhere between admiration, distance and silent rejection. In the movie Krabat rejects the master always openly like a stubborn schoolboy.<br /><br />- The movie is set in 1647 instead of around 1720. This makes it impossible for the master to tell some stories from his youth probably around 170x. OK, the stories are missing anyway in the movie.<br /><br />Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes: <br /><br />- In the book all work done at day is effortless and work in the night is like normal work. This explanation is missing in the movie. Sometimes the boys are sweating and sometimes they are happy.<br /><br />- The book explains why only a few "Gesellen" try to confront the master: If the master dies by any mundane reasons, the "Gesellen" are free AND keep their magical powers. If the master dies at the confrontation, all will lose their power forever. | negative |
I find it hard to understand why this piece of utter trash was repackaged. The only saving grace in the whole thing is the body of Ariauna in her sexy uniform. Her humour is also to be appreciated. She is a definite plus but alas it would take a magician to salvage this garbage. However she must be positively recognised for her heroic effort & true professionalism. Can't say the same for her co star Lilith with her whining voice that grates on your nervous system. Appeared disinterested & gave the impression that just her presence on the set was all that was needed. All said apart from Ariauna's performance it is indeed utter trash. | negative |
The One and the Only!<br /><br />The only really good description of the punk movement in the LA in the early 80's. Also, the definitive documentary about legendary bands like the Black Flag and the X. Mainstream Americans' repugnant views about this film are absolutely hilarious! How can music be SO diversive in a country of supposed liberty...even 20 years after...find out!<br /><br /> | positive |
Ten minutes worth of story stretched out into the better part of two hours. When nothing of any significance had happened at the halfway point I should have left. But, ever hopeful, I stayed. And left with a feeling of guilt for having wasted the time. Acting was OK, but the story line is so transparent and weak. The script is about as lame as it could get, but again, stretching out the ten minute plot doesn't leave a whole lot of room for good dialogue. | negative |
My husband wanted to watch this film because the review in the paper said that it was better than Fatal Attraction. Well, not liking either Michael Douglas or Glenn Close, I would have to agree. Not for conventional reasons though.<br /><br />This is one of those films that needs to be watched late at night when you don't want to watch something that really requires thought but don't want to go to bed yet.<br /><br />Yancy Butler is a really enjoyable bad-guy. She is not the best of actresses, in fact she isn't even good but she is perfect for this role in this film. Everyone else in it varies from pine to oak, including the slightly disturbing boy who comes across as a warped Pinocchio.<br /><br />SPOILER: The ending goes a step or two too far, complete with the cliché not quite dead, up with a roar, still gonna get you moment and then there's a shot of Pinocchio with his frozen wooden smirk which makes you wonder if they were going for chilling or just forgot there was botox in the make-up.<br /><br />Regardless, it's a hilarious eighty odd minutes and despite being a bad film, you would have to be lacking the humour gene to not enjoy it somewhat. Don't pay for it but if you're in that kind of apathetic telly mood then this is just right. | negative |
The film successfully gives a graphic portrayal of the suffering of forced sex labour, but nothing more. The leftest agenda behind this movie could be seen a mile away and leaves viewer so embarrassed while watching if you know that feeling. So, the women are kidnapped and sent to ex Yugoslavian territory to work as sex slaves because (take a deep breath) the American military institution is corrupt and looks away while their private security contractors are selling people abroad. You don't need half a brain to see the relevance to Iraq war and Black Water Company.<br /><br />What a load of leftest excrement! Looks like I have been fooled all my life into thinking that this problem and many others were a direct result of Communism's grip on this region for 45 years. But no, it was the American war on Iraq, which is also responsible for earthquakes, tropical storms, and the constipation I had last week.<br /><br />The film ignores the fact that 95% of the sex trade is women willing to sell their bodies for money and entry to the western block. You also see scenes that are so stupid you want to pull your hair. We have someone chasing down a woman in the streets of London in broad daylight, beat her up, then somehow drags her unconscious body half a mile back to the apartment where he rapes her. No one sees this or calls the police, and the running woman does not care to scream during the chase. Even better, we later see 4-5 women lined up in the centre of London in -again- broad daylight to be sold, one of them has a smashed face, and people are shopping in the background as if nothing was happening. You can't make this stupidity up.<br /><br />I used to think that such trash was exclusive to Hollywood, but apparently I was mistaken. | negative |
Sure it is a new take on vampires. Who cares. I would rather the old take if it is entertaining. This was not entertaining. It was a dull story, poorly acted, with annoying cinematography. Save your money, don't even watch it on video. | negative |
I and my brother are very big Asian movie fans, so when finding this movie hidden in a shop, I bought this one on DVD, because it sounded very promising and I couldn't wait to watch it. So I watched this movie with my brother and I must say, in the beginning it was very promising. Both of us really loved this brutal ball scene in the first scene. But i guess that was all. There are some interesting fights, but it is not a action movie, as it claims to be. Instead it's a love movie... with the cliché of love so extremely played over the top, even Shakespeare would vomit on this title. Sorry for my language. By the way: The characters act like being picked up from the street and given 100 for playing in this movie.<br /><br />Well, I and my brother watched it to the end, because we thought, it can only become better. But, heck, it never did. This movie challenged place #1 on my and my brothers "worst movies ever seen"-list, only followed by "Fantasy mission force" - do not watch this either. | negative |
Jake's Closet has the emotional power of Kramer vs. Kramer combined with the imagination of Pan's Labyrinth. Even the beginning special effect seems to give a nod to Pan's Labyrinth. But this is a story that takes place in modern times, not in a war sixty years ago and in that way it has even more resonance today. Jake's Closet is about a boy, an only child, practically alone on summer vacation, dealing with his family falling apart. It's a horror movie like The Others and The Sixth Sense, a horror movie for the thinking person. If you're looking for a slasher movie, this won't be your cup of tea but if you're looking for a story that is both touching and suspenseful with good acting, this is the movie for you. At the screening I saw, I swear there was one moment where the entire audience screamed. I highly recommend catching this film. | positive |
The 1986 TV movie of The Spirit was a pilot for a possible series. However, Spirit creator Will Eisner did not like the film and thus no series was produced. I thought it was a very entertaining film and captured the spirit (sorry) of the comic with a modern twist. I'm sorry it didn't materialize into a series. Sam (Flash Gordon) Jones was a perfect Spirit. Nana Visitor was a nice Ellen Dolan and of course would later go on to Star Trek:Deep Space Nine years later. Maybe with the release of Frank Miller's big-screen version of The Spirit, more people will be able to see this rare gem of Spirit history. It seems that when Hollywood makes a film from an already established character or idea, someone will inevitably seek out previous versions of the property and release it to video in order to make a few dollars. When Antonio Banderas donned the mask of Zorro, we were able to get earlier versions of the masked hero on DVD, such as the great Alain Delon version of the 1970s (although all copies I ever saw were badly edited). Heres hoping someone will release the TV adventure of The Spirit to DVD soon. | positive |
Give H.G. Lewis points: He managed to incorporate beefy exotic dancers, gallons of his notorious fake blood, and Henny Youngman all in one movie. "The Gore Gore Girls" was Lewis's horror film swan song, and ends with a head being squashed by an automobile. Oh... Henny plays a surly night club owner whose girls are falling prey to Lewis's standard butchery. | negative |
I love the way that this game can make you literally jump out of your seat while you are playing it. The way that the screen jumps and flashes when you get hit, its very realistic while at the same time you have to remember that its just a game and your not really there. The sound effects and audio are amazing. There are a lot of weapons and different spells to cast and you can even choose which spells to make stronger or not. You get this stone that can knock back enemies while you recover mana to blast your foes with even more magic. The best part is that the whole time you are playing it you are really jumpy and afraid of what might lurk around the next corner or what might jump out behind you. If you want to get the full experience, try playing it with head phones on. | positive |
Although this was a film of only less than forty minutes, it is one of best directed and acted stories I have ever seen. It accomplishes in less than 45 minutes what most films cannot in more than 90.<br /><br />It is the story of two brothers, one 18 and the other 10. They come from a poor farm family in Mississippi. Both are caught up in war and the conflict of duty verses love of family.<br /><br />It brought tears to my eyes especially because the entire film is so well acted and directed, plus it tells the story of so many wars where one serves and the other left behind.<br /><br />I can fully recommend this film as beyond superb ! | positive |
This film, though, critically acclaimed, has of course not yet been released in the U.S. on DVD, like another great - Christine Lahti's "Housekeeping", out the same year. But if you can support Region 4 (Australian) DVD's, this little masterpiece should be in your collection. There are still some VHS copies available on the internet as well.Davis is complemented by a great story, as well as memorable performances from her supporting cast, especially Claudia Carvan and the late, great Jan Adele. Amazingly, or maybe not, this film and its stars went unacknowledged at Academy Awards time, as did "Housekeeping", but treat yourself to both of them - you will be glad you did! | positive |
I saw this very emotionally painful portrayal and it was fascinating. The conflict between the public and private faces of Williams and the pressure he was under is illuminated in a way that even those who knew something about him would be surprised. The cast acted superbly, but Michael Sheen was outstanding. I only realised it was him when I saw the earlier comment. He looks completely physically different in this role, from any other role I have seen him in or as himself. Williams autobiography differs markedly from his diaries,as represented in this film. The film is at times distressing to watch, because of the emotional anguish displayed. However, it is a worthwhile experience and a film that can be recommended highly. | positive |
Let's face it: the final season (#8) was one of the worst seasons in any show I've ever enjoyed (mostly, I've never found dry spells to last a whole season). But if you judge this show by the last season, of course it's going to come across as inferior. That is an entirely unfair assessment-- because "That '70s Show" was, in its day, a brilliant and hilarious sitcom about a bygone era and how the people who lived there weren't so different than we are here in modern times.<br /><br />All right... ignoring Season 8.<br /><br />Topher Grace stars as Eric Forman, a horny geek of a teenager with a perpetual love of Donna (Laura Prepon), the feminist girl next door. Playing their friends, Danny Masterson (Hyde), Mila Kunis (Jackie), Wilmer Valderrama (Fez) and even Ashton Kutcher (Kelso) give fantastic performances in (almost) every episode. The best one is probably Fez, a foreign exchange student who is as mentally promiscuous as they get. What country is he from? Try to figure it out! For another dimension of entertainment, Debra Jo Rupp and Kurtwood Smith are phenomenal as Eric's parents. Rupp, as Kitty, is both formidable and sweet, sort of like Mrs. Brady meets Marie Barone, while Smith's Red exists mainly to scare the pogees out of everyone. Don Stark and Tanya Roberts play very well opposite each other as Donna's parents, the chauvinistic but likable Bob and the airheaded Midge. Tommy Chong has occasional appearances as Leo, a stoner who acts as a father figure to Hyde.<br /><br />Apart from the anachronistic errors that pop up quite frequently and the over-the-top lessons that sometimes come (and that deplorable final season), "'70s" is a terrific show with amazing writing, spot-on direction, and a feel-good vibe pulsing through every episode. They're all alright. | positive |
The first one meant victory. This one means defeat. It takes place in a Bolivia, there the guerillas are sick and wary and don't meet that much sympathy from the farmers. If you know your 60s history, you understand how it ends. You will understand it even without that knowledge.<br /><br />Del Toro is once again splendid. He goes on building this icon about the revolutionary who remains the same, regardless of success or failure. That's what Guevara is according to the legend, but still it's so well acted.<br /><br />The documentary feeling is there around the icon, which is one of the greatest achievements in this big Soderbergh project. He has succeeded. | positive |
I've just seen a couple of Episodes of "Eleventh Hour", but I must say that they were enough to impress me. This series is just so impressive and interesting... I'm definitely going to follow it.<br /><br />First of all, I must say that the acting is top-notch. Patrick Stewart plays his character - Ian the scientist - believably and coolly, and he makes the audience believe in the character. Other characters, such as Rachel, are also believable, and, although they sometimes are a little cold - due to the way the series is filmed - they're interesting.<br /><br />The stories told by this series are also interesting. For example, one of the episodes I saw was about cloning, and a man who was trying to clone humans. The way the Episode was developed, and how Ian - Stewart - kept following clues and saving people was amazing. In addition, it made you think about ethics and how good or bad could this be.<br /><br />Anyway, I think this is one good TV shows. I just hope it keeps going on like this - interesting, thought-provoking and with good acting. Even though it's filmed in a kind of cold way - little lightning, cold photography, lots of close-ups - it never stops being interesting. Highly recommendable. | positive |
A director and his crew head out to the isolated Beal mansion, to make a low-budget horror film about the seven mysterious deaths of the Beal family that have occurred there in the last century. Even with warnings by the caretaker, the director pays no attention to the supposedly cursed house. One of the crew find a book titled Tibetan Book of the Dead, and use some of the passages from it for their script. But in doing so, when red they raise a ghoul from its grave.<br /><br />Boring, confusing and tacky all rolled up into one, equals this penniless midnight horror production. What feels like an eternity, it just never seems to get going or demonstrate anything effective from somewhat decent ideas. Even though director Paul Harrison's clunky, tensionless direction did construct a couple eerie, moody and atmospheric set-pieces. But laziness did set it early. The whole film within a film structure takes up most of the movie and in this time little to nothing happens of great interest. Nor is it fun. Think of Bob Clark's "Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things (1972)", and now we've got older actors in the part. However I found "Seven Corpses" to be inferior. The script early on has some cutting wit abound, before it ends up being drab, predictable and left with many unfulfilled possibilities. The cheap foundation involving limited sets didn't help matters either, but the mansion's dreary, dark appearance had a creepy air to it. Performances from a recognizable b-cast is mainly rigid. John Carradine in small part mainly lurks about. John Ireland plays a hot-headed director, Faith Domergue's washed-up actress demands attention and Charles Macaulay hams it up. The slow grinding premise is crossed between "Ten Little Indians" and your usual zombie set-up. However its not all that engaging, even with its occult and supernatural edge. Hell they even throw in some graveyard action, with no prevail. When the rotting ghoul makes its appearance
finally, but a bit late. It does get a little better, if very baffling. Just like the inspired opening, the ending is deliciously downbeat. To bad in between, it constantly drags. Continuity in many scenes comes across non-existent, and the death scenes are more exciting and bloodier (but indeed poorly executed) in the movie they're making, then what actually happens to them when the zombie appears. The generic music score flounders on with its shuddery, but frank Gothic cues, and the camera-work is blandly staged with a lack of imagination. Shoot and frame. Shoot and frame. Job done. That's a wrap. | negative |
I didn't think it was possible for a horror comedy film to fail so abysmally on both fronts....really awful. The fact that it doesn't take itself seriously (usually a good thing) works against it, primarily because the actors are so wooden you really would swear they are reading cue cards. On the upshot though.....the MST3K version, as always, has a few laughs.... | negative |
It is always satisfying when a detective wraps up a case and the criminal is brought to book. In this case the climax gives me even greater pleasure. To see the smug grin wiped off the face of Abigail Mitchell when she realises her victim has left "deathbed testimony" which leaves no doubt about her guilt is very satisfying.<br /><br />Please understand: while I admire Ruth Gordon's performance, her character really, *really* irritates me. She is selfish and demanding. She gets her own way by putting on a simpering 'little girl' act which is embarrassing in a woman of her age. Worse, she has now set herself up as judge, jury and executioner against her dead niece's husband.<br /><br />When Columbo is getting too close she tries to unnerve him by manipulating him into making an off-the-cuff speech to an audience of high-class ladies. He turns the tables perfectly by delivering a very warm and humane speech about the realities of police work.<br /><br />Nothing can distract Columbo from the pursuit of justice. Abby's final appeal to his good nature is rejected because he has too much self-respect not to do his job well. Here is one situation you can't squirm out of Ms Mitchell! | positive |
I truly love horror films & try to give every one I see as much credit (or sometimes more) as possible, but this is really pushing the ticket...most of the cast were very like-able but hardly any of them could act at all - but then again think about the writing/dialogue of this mess...some good make-up but absolutely ridiculous special fx. All in all I give it 3 out of 10 - & am having second thoughts about that!! | negative |
This film is one of those nostalgia things with me and I never REALLY expect anyone else to "get it" but am pleased when I recommend it and somebody DOES enjoy it. My late father HATED Arthur Askey but this film was one he really enjoyed and his consistent enthusiasm for "The Ghost Train" and "Old Ted 'Olmes" transferred to me as a child. Years later, I watch it every now and again, enjoying the familiarity. I always wonder if it will not be quite the same but I am never disappointed in it. There is much to enjoy. The sequence on the train is truly inspired when Askey and Murdoch proceed to annoy the arrogant male passenger. Then the whole section in the station is amazing with so much going on you have to keep up. Yes, it is dated and full of wartime Britishness in accents and plot (based on the original play by Arnold Ridley of Dad's Army fame!) but full of wonderful character performances - including Kathleen Harrison as a dotty spinster. The atmosphere is truly as near sinister as an Arthur Askey vehicle could get. This is available cheap as chips in the UK on DVD so treat yourself. It is a perfect Saturday/Sunday morning or any day lazy afternoon lightweight piece of entertainment. I Thank You....<br /><br />OLD MOVIES CAN BE GOOD MOVIES! | positive |
The opening scene makes you feel like you're watching a high school play. But I've seen high school plays with better acting! Every line was delivered so obviously that I felt like I was watching actors work instead of seeing characters. I found the character development to be poor and the acting very forced! I found that 25 minutes into the movie, I really didn't care what happened anymore because the plot was overly obvious and I was bored. I kept hanging in there, waiting for the film to redeem itself, but it never happened. Sister Theresa was overly sweet, even for a nun, yet appeared impulsive and slightly manipulative. All in all, I was mighty disappointed. | negative |
"The Man From Utah" opens with a singing cowboy strumming a guitar on horseback. This is how we're introduced to John Weston (John Wayne), heading into town and looking for work. When he helps Marshal Higgins (George pre-Gabby Hayes) foil a bank robbery with his fancy shooting, the marshal offers him an undercover job as a deputy to investigate the Dalton Valley Rodeo. Apparently, the annual winners of the big prize money in the rodeo are a tight knit band of bad boys in the employ of Spike Barton (Ed Peil), who also happens to head up the rodeo committee. Serious challengers to the supremacy of Barton's top henchman Cheyenne Kent (Yakima Canutt) wind up severely ill or dead. <br /><br />Even back in these 1930's Lone Star Westerns John Wayne had a charismatic presence that hinted at future star quality. If for nothing else, seeing Wayne so young in these films is a real treat. The movie itself clips along at a quick fifty three minute pace, much of it taken up by stock rodeo footage of roping, bulldogging and Indian parade and dance. In the deciding rodeo event, Weston avoids disaster by discovering a poisoned needle inserted into the saddle of "Dynamite", a formerly unridden bronco on which he must outlast Cheyenne. <br /><br />The ending is no surprise, as Barton's bad boys forsake winning the rodeo events and go for the whole thirty thousand dollar pot of prize money deposited in the local bank. But the marshal and Weston are there to foil their plans and save the day for the Dalton Valley Rodeo. And as we've seen before in films like "Neath the Arizona Skies" and "Randy Rides Alone", Wayne's character closes out the film in a clinch with a pretty young lady, this time the judge's daughter Marjorie Carter (Polly Ann Young), who pined for him throughout the film. | negative |
As an avid fan of Cary Grant, I expected to watch this movie and howl with laughter, as AMC billed it as a comedy. I have never been more disappointed with a film! Cary's usual charm and effortless comedy are AWOL from this entire movie; he comes across as strained, bored, and just not himself. Mississip's character ranks among one of the worst stereotypes I have ever witnessed - his accent is terribly exaggerated (and incorrect, according to which part of Mississippi he claims to hail from), and whenever he does deliver a line, it's several decibels higher than any other cast member. Mississip tried to make himself stand out in the film as a lovable, country-bumpkin goofball, but in the end, he manages only to detract from the already weak plot. Mansfield looks more like an obscene blow-up doll than a Hollywood sex kitten, and while she was never known in Hollywood for her acting ability, this film screams that she never had that ability to begin with. Ray Walston's character was sugary and ultimately contrived. For four men on shore leave, it was the tamest leave I've ever seen. I watched this nightmare until its very end, and while I won't spoil that for anyone, I will tell you that it's the most absurd you'll ever see. The film tries to spark patriotism and a sense of debt to the fighting men, but the film misses that point totally because of its weak plot line and weak cast. Sorry, Cary! | negative |
This movie had what sounded like a good premise: 9 people facing their fears to win one million dollars. Unfortunately, it did not turn out to be a good movie. There are several scenes that are way too long and really pointless like the dancing scene. A few scenes are just an excuse to point the camera at female body parts. The acting is bad, but some of the lines are amusing in their awfulness. What's really strange is that towards the end of the movie it turns into like a 5 minute western, and at the end, the twists, of which their were several, don't make sense with the rest of the movie. It seemed as though the director just added stuff on because he thought it would look cool, while conveniently ignoring the plot of the movie up to that point. It just didn't make a lot of sense. The only creepy thing was the old people dancing down the hall, but that doesn't even come close to making up for the rest of this mess. | negative |
This movie is light, funny, and beautifully filmed. The lightning is absolutely superb, and the colours convincingly remind Vermeer paintings.<br /><br />This is sentimental comedy at its best, way above US and French standards, and arguably better than English ones too. <br /><br />Every character is touching, and interpretation is close to perfection. Isabelle Blais is splendid, Sylvie Moreau is better than in the Catherine series, Stéphane Gagnon is charming, Emmanuel Bilodeau is great in that weird role of his, and Geneviève Laroche is the perfect best friend!<br /><br />I could go on for hours before finding any negative comment on this movie, so give it a chance, and add your own review. | positive |
Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen) brings a group of people to a mountain to help find his missing daughter (Erica Durance). What they don't know is that she was killed by a sasquatch (Taras Kostyuk) and it's still out there... waiting for them.<br /><br />It was a late night when I poped this into my DVD player. I seriously wish I could go back in time and stop me. Most people will tell you that films like "House of the Dead" or "S.I.C.K: Serial Insain Clown Killers" will be the movies you wish you've never seen. Wrong. This will be.<br /><br />I've seen a lot of crap, but this is the only crap that's haunted me. How I wish I never watched this! The acting actually isn't so bad. It's just the writing and the directing and the pacing and everything! I am actually a fan of Sasquatch films. But not this one.<br /><br />Please, listen to my warning. Don't watch this! | negative |
This film is great - well written and very entertaining. David Duchovny shows, once again, that he is much more than Fox Mulder, and the performances by the old men are funny as can be. Old married folks (like me) will appreciate the connection between two hearts. | positive |
In the last few years of Ron Miller's (son-in-law of Walt Disney cum Producer) reign he churned out live-action crap on a stick often starring the very boring Dean Jones, whose entire career was based on that kind of light, empty-headed fare. Other horrible films from that same period include Pete's Dragon, the Last Flight of Noah's Ark, Unidentified Flying Oddball and the dreaded Condorman. I'll not mention Tron because I thought it ambitious and Miller was only the executive Producer on it, so he had little to do with the actual production. However he was in full force when this god-awful piece of human junk was expelled from the bowels of creativity. Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo. Second sequel to much- loved Love Bug tale finds Herbie in love with another car who has a brain and heart too. There's a race, some lame bad guys, a diamond and Barney Fife. Shot in France, the film actually is nicely photographed and the countryside is lovely. But one gets the idea the film was made so all involved could have a three month vacation in France. The rest of film is a wreck. Prat falls, bumbling thieves, wicked German racing competitors and a pretty bouncing feminist all fall under the category of stock supply. The biggest insult of the film: trying to further develop Herbie's lover personality via shakes, beeps, flashing lights and movements indicative of a horny seventeen year old, Disney's writers do an injustice to our cute little VW. Then again I would think it'd be tough for anyone to top Helen Hayes driving Herbie around a skyscraper ledge in the second outing. | negative |
Yes, it's not a great cinematic achievement, but Toy Soldiers is a fun and entertaining movie. The young cast does a great job with both dramatic and comedic aspects of the story, and I particularly liked Shawn Phelan as Derek/"Yogurt". I've seen this one plenty of times over the years, and will probably see it several more. Just don't think too much and you'll love it - enjoy! | positive |
I was half-dozing as I watched a late night selection of short films--but sat bolt upright from the first frames of "I Shout Love" and could not take my eyes away for its full, brief, perfect length. With incredibly assured pacing and performances, this film maintains its funny/sad/insightful tone throughout. The credits at the end went by so quickly and in such small type, I had to go online to find out the person responsible for this master work. What a pleasing surprise to see the name of Sarah Polley, a major actress who is too seldom seen.<br /><br />Kristen Thomsen (Tessa) and Matthew Ferguson (Bobby) turn in rich, touching performances as a couple in the throes of breaking up. As they work through a reprise of Tessa's favorite moments from their time together, both actors reveal dimensions of their characters and their relationship in ways that bring nothing but honor to their talents--and to the director/writer's skills. The film creates a moving narrative with laugh-out-loud moments and caught-breath sorrow.<br /><br />"I Shout Love" is unquestionably one of the greatest and most memorable short films I ever expect to see. It has wit, heart and stunning originality. It matters. | positive |
All ambiguity about Michael Myers has withered away thanks to this series' chronic habit of arseholing about with its continuity and pulling relatives out of nowhere. This entry introduces the potty angle that he's not just a psycho killer but is actually controlled by runes, which appear as a star constellation every Halloween, and a cult is using him to... erm, well, this film is far from coherent and I lost track of the plot after a while. The movie hemorrhages credibility so profusely it doesn't have a drop left by the end. Why does Michael put one victim's clothes in a washing machine? Why does an otherwise empty corridor have a deadly spike sticking out of the wall? Does getting electrocuted really make your head explode? And so on. It's left to Donald Pleasence, in his penultimate film role, to produce some wonderful little moments from the pile of dreadful dialogue he's given. | negative |
How unfortunate, to have so many of my "a" list, and good "b" list actors agree to do this movie, but they did, and that is what sucked me into watching it. I had never heard of this movie, but there was Cuba Gooding Jr. right on the DVD cover, and James Woods in the background how bad can it be? In a word Very! This movie starts o.k. has some twists and turns, then just lays an egg. The ending was so weak, it was as if the writer got called away and his 4 year old son sat down at the type writer and hacked out the ending. How ironic a for a movie titled "The end game" to have such a poor one. These are the types of movies that can move "a" list actors to the "b" list in hurry. I hope Cuba Gooding JR, and James Woods don't make a habit of this. | negative |
One of the best movies for all ages. You will never be able to look at LION KING again without thinking of the extra history this movie adds. Nearly 40 years old, I watched this with my wife and two sons after work tonight & I have not laughed & enjoyed a movie so much in a long time.<br /><br />Take time out and watch this with the kids. It will remind you of how Disney used to be when you were a young one. | positive |
I saw this movie in Blockbuster and thought it might be a good Sunday evening movie when there is nothing else to do. So I bought it used, 3 DVDs for $25. Although it was cheap, my money would have been better spent on a nail to drive through my foot.<br /><br />The film started out nicely. Kinda Dark and mysterious. I was always enthralled with vampire and samurai movies as a kid. I thought the combo would be really cool. The first fight scene was pretty cool. I was excited for the rest of the movie. Then the movie took a serious nose dive.<br /><br />I understand that this was a big hit in the east. I guess because of the twins. I don't see it though. This movie, aside from the first 10 minutes, was absolutely horrible. So many movies in this genre have the potential to be great, and blow it terribly. This is just another casualty.<br /><br />Jacki Chan's role in this film doesn't make any sense at all. Whyyyyyyyy? Complete silliness. He probably made a few bucks off it though.<br /><br />The only cool thing in this movie are the swords they use. Nice idea.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone. | negative |
This movie . . . I don't know. Why they would take such an indellible character as Pippi Longstocking and cast the singularly charmless Tami Erin, I will never know. Why they would spend money on art direction and some not-all-that-bad special effects, then not bother to edit it properly, I will never know. Why the sets and costumes are sometimes in period, and sometimes bizarrely not, why they commissioned SUCH bad songs, why the script doesn't make any sense whatsoever (not even on a silly, children's film level) . . . . what were they thinking?? Nothing about this movie is quite as it should be. Every single part is dubbed (and always poorly,) every sound effect is slightly wrong, every edit is in the wrong place, every performance is bad in some way. It does manage to create an appropriate atmosphere, despite all the problems, but it NEVER captures the magic that is Astrid Lindgren's creation. | negative |
Prom Night is about a girl named Donna (Brittany Snow) who is being chased by a psycho killer trying to kill her at her prom night. And by doing so killing her family, friends, and her enemies. <br /><br />Now before I begin let me say have you been tired of PG-13 horror movies that haven't been scary lately. Are you tired of stupid girl dialog 'Oh my god' and talking about girlish things. And are you really tired of girls in relationships and then crying. And the last thing are you tired of the US remaking Asian, Japanese, and Chinese films. That pretty much sums up Prom night but I'm still not done with the review.<br /><br />The only reason to see 'Prom night' is to crack a laugh at the kills. If not, don't see Prom night. You never see the kills an only hear screaming and you see some blood on the wall. And by the way the deaths are repeating like 24/7. So not only aren't they scary but it's obnoxious. By the time I met the cast I think I was ready to hurl. Too much girl talk, too much guy talk, and lots of 'Oh my gosh. It's our prom'. I understand it's fun but seriously is it too much to ask not to concentrate. <br /><br />If I were to put Prom Night on the list of worst films of 2008 without seeing the other films I'd be the first one too. I'm not going to be surprised if it gets released on DVD for cheap and quick. Seriously don't spend your money or the time for dull acting, cheap scares, and a 'Night to die for' when watching the film.<br /><br />1 star out of 10. (P.S. If I could give the film zero stars I would). | negative |
This typical teenagers movie is one of the best, beside the story is good, the music is well accompany the movie all along. <br /><br />Although i do not enjoy classic movie unless it is classic and better written script, this one is exceptional. Maybe the hair style and language should be change a bit, in the 80's i believe offensive language is still rarely heard.<br /><br /> | positive |
I recently got THE SEVEN-UPS on video and I must say it was a very enjoyable movie. Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco are great as the cop and crook respectively and a young Richard Lynch is great as psycho henchman Moon. The late Bill Hickman is pretty good as his associate Bo and sets up a brilliant car chase sequence which will have you on the edge of your seats. The other three members of the Seven-Ups team are pretty bland but that's only to be expected.<br /><br />I'm glad that a lot of people on this site have supported this movie. I think it should be a film that should be released on DVD and not just forgotten. I certainly enjoyed every minute of it. The final scene between the two leads is excellent as the bad guy must face the consequences of his actions. THE SEVEN-UPS does not disappoint. | positive |
In these days of ultra-fast processors and the Internet, coming up with a movie like "The Matrix" may seem merely the next step from coining the term 'cyberspace', but do you remember what computers were like in 1974? Right. To come up with the notion of virtual reality back then is truly an amazing feat of the imagination. Fassbinder's movie, of course, has none of the massive gunslinging and pyrotechnics, and a lot of 'artsy' elements instead, but the atmosphere it creates is intense and poses the question how we can know what is real in a dark and gripping manner, making this a chiller and a thriller for the mind. It also takes it up a notch on more recent VR stories: if you get out of one cyberspace, can you be sure you didn't just emerge into another level of virtual reality? | positive |
The first collaboration between Schoedsack & Cooper is a compelling documentary on the migration of the Bakhtiari tribe of Persia. Twice a year, more than 50,000 people and half a million animals cross rivers and mountains to get to pasture. You'll feel like a pampered weakling after watching these people herd their animals through ice cold water and walk barefoot through the snow to cross the mountains while trying to get their animals to walk along steep and narrow mountain paths. | positive |
The key to The 40-Year-Old Virgin is not merely that Andy Stitzer is a 40-year-old virgin, but rather the manner in which Steve Carell presents him as one. In a genre of crass "comedy" that has become typified by its lack of humor and engaging characters, The 40-Year-Old Virgin offers a colorful cast and an intelligent, heartfelt script that doesn't use its protagonist as the butt-end of cruel jokes. That Andy is still a virgin at forty years old is not as much a joke, in fact, as it is a curiosity.<br /><br />Carell, a veteran of Team Ferrell in Anchorman and an ex-Daily Show castmember, uses the concept of the film to expand his character we get to understand why Andy is the way he is. It's the little things that make this film work. When Andy's co-worker at an electronics store asks him what he did for the weekend, Andy describes his failed efforts at cooking. When Andy rides his bike to work, he signals his turns. He doesn't just adorn his home with action figures he paints them, and talks to them, and reveals that some of the really old ones have belonged to him since childhood. A lesser comedy wouldn't even begin to focus on all of these things.<br /><br />The plot is fairly simplistic Andy's co-worker pals find out he's never had sex and they make it a personal quest of theirs to get him in bed with a woman. It's a childish idea and the film makes no attempt to conceal its juvenility.<br /><br />Andy's friends are a complement to his neurotic nature: David (Paul Rudd) has broken up with his girlfriend over two years ago but is still obsessed with her, Jay (Romany Malco) is a womanizing ladies' man and Cal (Seth Rogen) is a tattooed sexaholic. Their attempts at getting Andy in the sack backfire numerous times, and each time leaves Andy feeling less and less optimistic.<br /><br />Finally Andy meets single mom Trish (played by Catherine Keener) and, much to the chagrin of his worrying buddies who claim mothers aren't worth it, he falls in love with her. They begin a relationship and agree to put off having sex for twenty days Trish being unaware that Andy is still a virgin.<br /><br />The 40-Year-Old Virgin was directed by Judd Apatow, the man who produced Anchorman and The Cable Guy, and began the short-lived cult TV show Freaks and Geeks. Apatow is renowned for his unique sense of humor, and the script co-written by Carell offers plenty.<br /><br />However, in the end the most interesting and (indeed surprising) aspect of The 40-Year-Old Virgin is its maturity. By now you are probably well aware that the film received glowing reviews from the critics, and even I was surprised by its warm reception. But after seeing the film, it's easy to understand why. We like Andy. We care about him. He's not just some cardboard cutout sex-comedy cliché he's a real, living, breathing person. His neurotic traits combine the best of Woody Allen with childish naivety. His friends are not unlikable jerks and his romance is tumultuous and bittersweet. It strikes a chord with the audience.<br /><br />Although this is far from being a perfect movie and definitely contains some rather crude innuendo and sexual humor, it doesn't offend to the extent that other genre entries might have because we have affection for the people on-screen. The best sex comedies work this way from Risky Business to American Pie and that is the major difference between something like The 40-Year-Old Virgin and 40 Days and 40 Nights. | positive |
Munchies starts in deepest darkest Peru (looks more like a dirt road to me) where archaeologist Simon Watterman (Harvey Korman) & his son Paul (Charles Stratton) are on an expedition. Simon thinks that ancient Aztec buildings were in fact spacecraft control centres & he is on a mission to gain proof that alien lifeforms have visited Earth, while in once such structure he discovers a strange small creature which he sticks in his backpack & takes back home with him to the small American town of Sweetwater in California. Simon feels that the creature is the proof he has been looking for & for some inexplicable reason decides to leave the thing at home while he goes to share his discovery. Simon ask's Paul & his wife Cindy (Nadine Van der Velde) to take care of it. Meanwhile Simon's brother & fast-food businessman Cecil Watterman (Harvey Korman again) steals the creature so his brother won't make any money out of it, but his idiotic stepson Dude (Jon Stafford) has a fight with it & chops it up with a knife but the individual parts grow back into separate little creatures that proceed to cause much havoc amongst the townspeople...<br /><br />Directed by Bettina Hirsch this has to be one of the worst horror comedy's ever, if not the worst. The script by Lance Smith is so unfunny it's painful. Every joke in Munchies misses the target by the proverbial mile, I doubt the humour in this piece of crap would even appeal to pre-teens. There just isn't anything even remotely funny or even amusing in Munchies as far as I'm concerned. The basic story is crap too, they just happen to find this creature running around with no explanation of what it is, why no-ones ever seen it before, how it manages to learn English so quickly & how it learns to drive etc. The whole thing is a big Gremlins (1984) rip-off with none of the elements that made that film so good. The character's are moronic, the stupid Deputy (Charlie Phillips) & his dad (Hardy Rawls), Cecil wearing an embarrassing wig & fake moustache & his air head wife Melvis (Alix Elias) & more besides. They just plain embarrass & are ridiculous, I defy anyone to find any of this rancid rubbish funny. Basically Munchies fails spectacularly at being either a comedy or horror & ends up being, yes you've guessed it, crap.<br /><br />Director Hirsch was obviously working with a low budget here & it shows, the entire thing takes place in two houses, the desert, some caves & a miniature golf course. This is really cheap & incompetent film-making. The special effects on the Munchies themselves are really awful, their just dolls that have no movement unless someone off camera pulls a string attached to it's arm. I cannot stress how bad the effects are, these things wouldn't convince my 4 year old nephew (as proved by me & him yesterday!). Total incompetence all the way, this film sucks.<br /><br />Technically the film is terrible, bad special effects, lame production design, rubbish sets & well, just everything's crap. The acting is rotten through & through, from the cops to Korman who has two roles both of which prove he can't act & isn't funny.<br /><br />Munchies is a really bad film that fails in everything that it tries to achieve, sure watch it if you want I won't stop you but just don't say you weren't warned! My advice would be to watch Gremlins again instead, but the decision is yours! | negative |
I have to hold my hand up and say that I was one of the first (and probably the last!!!) to see this film. Where do I start, it's a complete mess. The main attraction of course was the soundtrack. Which goes without saying is brilliant - it's what Himesh does best. But as they say, don't give up your day job - HR definitely shouldn't.<br /><br />HR's acting is plain and simply awful. Even if the film had a plot, the thing that baffles you most is why this man is up on screen and what the hell is doing there. Two words of advice to HR - give up acting and secondly, use chapstick.<br /><br />HR has no screen presence, no acting skills and the female lead looks just a little too young for him. As for Malika Sherawat - just the same old Bollywood vamp crap. <br /><br />You can package the product as much as you want, but if there's no substance it won't hold. Don't waste your money... | negative |
In what seemed like the longest 1hour 35 I've had to endure in a long time, Al Pacino delivers an accurate performace to be sure. Not his usual typecasting, which was nice. But his character was just truely pathetic. Someone to pitty as he stumbles around forgetting appointments as we realise that the Hollywood social life has drained him of his life energy. But in this movie we needed someone to like. And for some reason, every character in the picture said "I don't know why I like you, Eli" to Al Pacino's chracter and I couldn't even come close to liking him.<br /><br />All the other actors played their usual styles. Tea Leoni, Richard Schiff, and Bill Nunn did nothing to change their established personas developed on TV or in earlier films. And Kim Basinger wasn't even in the film long enough to deliver a performance of any kind.<br /><br />The movie's story had no momentum. Most scenes never driving the story forward, but rather just collecting factoids about characters which later came into play in an anti-climactic ending. It had potential except for their unwillingness to build upon the story.<br /><br />Whats the point of the film? Daniel Algrant and Jon Robin Baitz would have you believe "Once Hollywood has you, you can't get out." Yeah right! And that's why so many people get fired in Hollywood. | negative |
When I first saw the movie, I thought it was sweet - a family movie. For the rest of the night and over the next couple of days, though, clever moments and funny lines kept creeping back into my thoughts and our conversation... There's a lot going on, classic elements of farce, good character acting, and Wendie Malick's story line is just hysterical. Labelling it a "feel-good movie" belies the wit and fun - it's smarter than it seems, just like "It's a Wonderful Life" is. | positive |
A group of people goes deep into the jungle for various reasons, and finally find a lost city (where apparently King Solomon's Diamonds are) and a race of super-gorilla's... Now, you know you're in trouble when you put fine actors like Linney and Curry in one movie that stars... a talking gorilla, and that is just the beginning. Okay, what else...?<br /><br />For an action/adventure movie the film is... well, lacking just that. The first hour (!) of the movie they aren't even in the jungle, just trying to get there, with subplot after subplot (something about a local military regime, whatever), and when they finally do... it's just no fun anymore.<br /><br />The effects of the movie are only so-and-so (and really bad compared to the earlier Jurassic Park movie).<br /><br />Now, the ending... The father not caring for the death of his son, but just interested in the diamonds? Uh-huh... only in the movies folks, only in the movies.<br /><br />A complete waste of talent, this Chricton (Jurassic Park, Twister, ER) adaptation. 2/10. | negative |
Polish film maker Walerian Borowczyk's La Bête (French, 1975, aka The Beast) is among the most controversial and brave films ever made and a very excellent one too. This film tells everything that's generally been hidden and denied about our nature and our sexual nature in particular with the symbolism and silence of its images. The images may look wild, perverse, "sick" or exciting, but they are all in relation with the lastly mentioned. Sex, desire and death are very strong and primary things and dominate all the flesh that has a human soul inside it. They interest and temptate us so powerfully (and by our nature) that they are considered scary, unacceptable and something too wild to be true.<br /><br /> A sophisticated young woman travels with her mother to a French countryside to meet her soon-to-become husband whom with she has had a letter affair of some kind. All are very exciting and each others' parents and relatives wait impatiently to see the new people arriving to their families. The innocence of the young bride shines through and no one knows what can happen and wake up inside the walls of the big and beautiful French mansion, with all its humans and animals, and a mysterious "la bête" that turns out to be something that the characters, nor most of the film's audience, could have never imagined to be real and (in front of) them.<br /><br />The film is about the same theme as Canadian David Cronenberg's debyt feature Shivers (1975), which happens inside a huge luxury building in which destructive and gory parasites spread from human to human by sexual contact and make people act furiously and violently in their lust for pleasure and fulfilment of instincts. Human has instincts that can be and are stronger than his will and that is why those instincts can be as dangerous and powerful as the instincts of some other animal, a beast, be it a lust for blood, revenge or sex and carnal pleasure. Humans are only animals that have intelligence and tools to convey it but because we are also animals, that intelligence is not always used too much as can be seen anywhere around us. The film opens greatly, and very shockingly for most hypocritic attitudes, showing a horny male horse raging in fury as he waits to get inside the mare and continue the race, but the rage and visible lust we see from his eyes and violent movements are the key elements of that beginning and why it is there, not the close-ups of organs as could be so easily claimed. The horse is a beast that battles in an almost unbearable heat, in heat that's much stronger than his will as he doesn't have any control at that point anymore. The power of the instinct makes an animal a beast.<br /><br />After the memorable beginning, the characters get introduced, and the film fantastically has all the necessary age groups inside it from the little innocent children waiting to grow up and develop to their blossom, to the adults and elders that all represent their own part of the lifespan, creating the face of human life on screen. A film doesn't necessarily need more characters this way as all the important ones are already there and represent the whole race, including the urban and countryside inhabitants, and both sexes. The mansion makes the protagonist girl's sexuality wake as she saws the horses coupling and acting like she obviously has never thought of. For the first time she sees something unique and something that excites and feels almost vital for her and her body, like getting water when you're very thirsty. The transformation of the girl is a very important element in the film as she has lived unaware of these things inside her, with his mother and camera and a letter-boyfriend, even though the things have just waited for the moment to burst out. Flesh desires flesh and that belongs to being a humanimal, but still those things are not so easily admitted everywhere and films like these trying to depict it get banned for decades? Man's stupidity and unwillingness to interpret images must not be an argument for a film being banned or otherwise violated.<br /><br />The film's last 30 minutes are also as important as the beginning, and once again show how powerful cinema is without needless words and talk. As the girl and audience realizes what her body starts to feel and desire, she starts to have dreams about the mysterious beast that turns out to be none other than the undressed form of ourselves, having lived in the woods without other people/beasts near him. The dream sequence is the one that causes and caused most of the controversy alongside the film's overall straight and honest attitude, and the images are so easy to be judged as "perverse" and "pornographic", without a courage to go deeper into them, character reactions and thoughts behind what we see. The images are exciting in her dream and also eventually inside the dream for the dream's (more) human character, and Borowczyk forces us to admit it with the images that are so close to a "normal" sexual act between a man and a female, which is a beautiful thing and expression of love, another human need. Also the numerous, and cleverly blackly humorous love making scenes inside the mansion, between the young mother and the black servant, get interrupted many times as someone screams for the servant, for example, and there's no doubt that the sensual image of two young human bodies being together and being interrupted with an angry shout at least doesn't become any more pleasant by the interruption. Borowczyk has managed to paint his images so beautiful and "sensitive" that his message is almost impossible to be misunderstood, but nothing seems to be impossible for our cultures and minds that criticize art. He uses dialogue only when it's necessary, otherwise the images do the job and make the film powerful.<br /><br />Death is also there, as flesh dies sooner or later, after years of life and instincts, it dies. The ending is inevitable but the meaning of the dream sequence could have also been as powerful without the kind of dramatic and "revealing" ending too. Another blackly humorous element comes when we see the shocked city women running out of the place in which they saw a little more than they were looking for! They visited the mansion of truth about flesh, us and them. The film reminds me of French writer Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye with its same themes about eroticism, death and how they both are always connected to the nature of our flesh. The book is well written and fantastic as well as this film, and naturally both have been blamed for their "too explicit" content and other equally noteworthy shallow comments.<br /><br />Borowczyk's film is also very beautiful visually alongside its raw honesty, and the nature and forest have rarely looked so bright and shining as they do in this film. The sun shines through the trees, and to everyplace where humans live, and the beauty of it is always there, but so is the ugliness that originates by the inhabitants of the world. To every innocent white sheep there's a selfish, evil and horrible beast in our world and that is why the intelligence we have been given never fully seems to overcome the power of our bad instincts and the other side of the sheep, present inside every human soul. It is about how many manages to keep the dark side passive and not active. The fulfilment of some of our instincts is not a bad thing, and by using this intelligence and seeing which of the instincts are good and which bad, they can be satisfied without exploitation, violence and the lethal and destructive circle created by it. Human is not more than an animal with intelligence, intelligence that is so easy to be forgotten and eaten to the background by things that feel better and more satisfying at each and perhaps sudden moment. Borowczyk's film is a masterpiece, unforgettable and clever piece of magical cinema with ageless theme and also an example of how much can be achieved, expressed and given by a film maker, who is also only a human. | positive |
0*'s Christian Slater, Tara Reid, Stephen Dorff, Frank C. Turner, Mathew Walker, Will Sanderson. Directed by Uwe Boll.<br /><br />Based on the video game director Uwe Boll attempts to recreate the game into an action-packed nail biter sadly he doesn't succeed. Instead he makes one of the worst movies ever MADE! Even though he gets minor celebrity such as Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff his movie lacks the necessary fundamentals that a movie needs to be good such as a story line, and some basic relativity of what's going on in the dark and the light. The movie bounces all around and Uwe Boll has no creative control. And not to mention the bad CGI used on making the monsters. Even though they did look cool and the feedings were well, a little lame. Honestly this is one of the worst movies ever made. My final rating 0/10. | negative |
Would have better strengthened considerably by making it as a<br /><br />50 minute episode of the Outer Limits. Too much superfluous material and stuff like the chief bad guy looking like he'd escaped from The Phantom of the Opera didn't help. The whole 'Night of the Living Dead' sequence was extremely silly and quite unnecessary. After all, if the dead were to punish anyone for their sins, now remind me exactly who was killing everyone again? | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.