Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Many American pea-brains who worship and support the political half-truths of hucksters like Michael Moore would do well to sit through this movie more than once and see how hypnotic manipulators can scare, intimidate and lie to an underinformed public and get the people they fear or loathe killed, spindled and mutilated. Robespierre in this fine epic kills the opposition by remote control, all in a fit of self-righteous devotion to his principles. We get the impression that Robes felt it quite justifiable to snip off his opponent's heads, even as he sent his minions out to trump up false and misleading charges against the State. Today, the captains of our rotting media institutions are much more sensitive that Robes...they merely murder your character with innuendo and false charges laid down without foundation or sources. Witness Dan Rather's attempts to assassinate W's character on the eve of the 2004 election, or the constant drumbeat that the 2000 election was stolen, although constitutional scholars continue to scoff at such irresponsible drivel. | positive |
I went to this movie only because I was dragged there and I would have left again immediately because the audience consisted mainly of elderly people and I felt out of place. However, the film was utterly fascinating and far from being targeted towards old people. The characters were all very real and believable and I found myself discussing the film, the characters and the storyline for hours afterwards. There are a few quite engrossing scenes in there but they are necessary and help you to understand the situation much better. All in all, this is a great and valuable film - slightly off mainstream but that does not mean that this film cannot be enjoyed by people who prefer mainstream. It's a thrilling and interesting movie experience. | positive |
Karim Hussain's masterpiece of art/gore--this cat is definitely a talent to look out for. We have in this several longer vignettes interspliced with some shorter segues. This is all in all a very powerful film that relies on its intense graphic imagery and symbolism and it is not for all viewers.<br /><br />The film kicks off with a short called OVARIAN EYEBALL. Very short segment that has a nude woman placed on a table naked. An unseen woman's hand covers the supine woman's face with a red cloth and makes an incision in her abdomen out of which an eyeball stalk is extracted. I've got nothing too much to comment on this one due to its brevity.<br /><br />HUMAN LARVAE is one of the films lynchpins and it is a totally unflinching portrayal of a perverse act committed by a disturbed man who has an incestuous love for his pregnant sister. This is one of those "must be seen to be believed" type things. I will say that this film has some of the best effects I've seen in an indie horror film but the subject matter will make this an undeniably unpleasant experience for most (not me though--I live for this!).<br /><br />REBIRTH could have been cut out of this film all together. This is the film's weakest segment and it has a bunch of nude people f!cking bloody holes in a field and whatnot. Very short but this one kind of blows the film's momentum.<br /><br />RIGHT BRAIN/MARTYRDOM is one of the most profane representations of religious imagery that I have ever seen and it totally kicks ass. Think "P iss Christ" or menstrual blood paintings of the Virgin Mary. Very hard sexual/sexually violent/gory imagery is presented in this piece and it is definitely not for anyone who will be offended by sacrilege.<br /><br />Subconscious Cruelty is one of the best films I've seen under the banner of extreme horror it will be a very divisive film amongst horror fans and the filmgoing public in general. Some will call it trash, some will call it brilliant. I don't see much middle ground. I thought this film was pretty damn original and I will recommend it to anyone who is adventurous enough to try it. 9/10. | positive |
Geez, as a Gay man who lives in NYC I can gratefully say that I have never seen the underbelly of Gay Culture that is portrayed in this film - and I am glad of it!!! Was this film broadcast on TV across the United States there would be a great anti-Gay backlash and I cannot say that I would blame them. The people in this film do not represent the average Gay American or even the average Trandgender American, what they do represent is a sheer and utter nightmare. The inclusion of obviously underage characters is appalling and the obvious racist sentiments (anti-White) are blatant and unsettling - society cannot be blamed for people who have chosen drugs, unemployment and rejection of education on the part of the film's "cast" - the actions of these people are not acts of desperation, but rather a rejection of anything resembling personal ambition and a willingness to make something out of one's self. | negative |
First let me say that I am not a Dukes fan, but after this movie the series looked like Law and Order. The worst thing was the casting of Roscoe and Boss Hogg. Burt Reynolds is not Boss Hogg, and even worse was M.C. Gainey as Roscoe, If they ever watched the show Roscoe was not a hard ass cop. He was more a Barney Fife than the role he played in this movie.<br /><br />The movie is loaded with the usual errors, cars getting torn up, and continues like nothing happened. The worst example of this is when the the General gets together with Billy Prickett, and the General is ran into a dirt hill obviously slowing to a near stop, but goes on to win the race. | negative |
I thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including Peter O'Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig & Harry Andrews might be worth watching. Alas, I was wrong. Utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both O'Toole and York overacting wildly. I watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. I've a feeling O'Toole plays the Laird of a Scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (York). He is also barking mad. But apart from that, your guess is as good as mine.<br /><br />The film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. I can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary, unimaginative, stagy piffle. Clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. Risible. | negative |
In terms of the arts, the 1970s were a very turbulent era. In literature and the visual arts, it was the closing of a great fifty or sixty year period of creativity that has yet to be restarted. In music it was a decade that many see as a low point, due to corporate rock and disco. On television it was a Golden Age for situation comedies, from The Odd Couple to the Mary Tyler Moore Show to M*A*S*H to All In The Family, but in film it was even a greater period of creativity, in all genres, that saw the rise of the American auteur- directors like Robert Altman, Francis Ford Coppola, and Martin Scorsese- from the ashes of the old studio systems that had dominated Hollywood for over half a century. These directors wanted to craft literate, arts films for the masses, of the sort that had been staples in Europe since the end of the Second World War. Yet, the studios were trying to keep pace, with socially aware films of the sort not seen since the 1930s.<br /><br />But, unlike the films of the 1930s, starring actors like Jimmy Cagney and John Garfield (usually co-starring the Dead End Kids), that dealt with social issues in a gritty realistic way, or as realistic as one could get on a sound stage, the social consciousness of the late 1960s and early 1970s manifested itself most in science fiction films, which allowed the Left Wing of Hollywood to preach to the masses under the guise of what most considered little above comic strip entertainment. There was precedent for this approach, for several of the flying saucer films of the 1950s dealt with the political zeitgeist of the McCarthy era- most notably The Day The Earth Stood Still and Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. And the early 1960s saw Rod Serling constantly subverting the political conservatism of the time by casting social issues into science fiction settings on his classic sci fi television anthology show The Twilight Zone. Among the studio offerings of this time were the ecologically sensitive Silent Running; George Lucas's first film THX 1138, which dealt with consumerism, group think, and existentialism; and Logan's Run, which hammered away at Communism and state control versus the rights of an individual. Some of the film's references are quite heavyhanded- and reek of the then current Arab oil crisis and rampant inflation. A few jarred strawberries cost $150, and Soylent rations its assorted colored foods- Soylent Yellow, Soylent Red, and the new Soylent Green, reputedly made from 'the finest undersea growth,' in a manner not unlike the gas rationing of the time. Scenes of food riots are eerie echoes of the oil riots at many gas stations during the year of the film's release, and the scenes of crowding, and bodies, live and dead, lying all about are still chilling, as well as influential. A later film like Escape From New York is an obvious progeny. The rest of the script, by Stanley R. Greenberg, however, is rather pedestrian, and fairly standard for a dystopian flick, but Fleischer and cinematographer Richard H. Kline do a great job of filling the screen with interesting images and sounds, to spice things up. The use of soft, dimly lit visuals, murkily filtered, add a Stygian feel to the New York of the film, almost like a colorized version of Carl Theodor Dreyer's Vampyr. The only light in the film comes from artificial sources, and were it not for the fashion faux pas the film could truly seem timeless.<br /><br />The end of the film, where Thorn sneaks into the processing plant where human corpses are made into Soylent Green wafers, is both chilling, and oddly drama-less. In the end, the Soylent minions hunt Thorn down, but he survives long enough to utter the film's catchphrase to Chief Hatcher. Yet, one does not know if it is enough, for Hatcher has already been co-opted, and has a track record of taking the easy way out. Yet, that fact, and its ambiguity, shows that the film does not recapitulate its characters' dilemmas, and has a depth many later, better made films, sci fi or not, do not have. It is also why Soylent Green is still a film worth watching. | positive |
I've been surprised by the enthusiastic response to this film. It seemed dull to me, much as I enjoyed looking at Penelope Cruz, and the plot details often poorly worked out. It also seemed like an intensely sexist film: if the gender roles were reversed, almost everyone with any sense would be up in arms complaining the movie is intensely misogynist. It's not just that both the principal males are portrayed as complete jerks and sexual predators, but also that the women are portrayed as almost flawless, forming a utopian community which lacks conflict of any kind and which rests on relentless generosity and good humor. Utopias are notoriously dull and this one turns out to be no exception. But it's also interesting to notice what happens (and here comes the plot giveaway, though it refers to a very early scene) when the teenage daughter kills her father. (1) Her mother rushes to take responsibility for it and(2) the daughter seems to suffer almost no remorse (and in fact her emotional life then disappears from the film). It's not quite a glorified killing, though Aldomovar's camera lingers on the blood in a bloodthirsty way, as though it makes an attractive painting, and then it's soaked up and out of sight without bloodying either daughter or mom, neither materially nor emotionally. Later the film reveals another killing, again by a woman of a man, , and once again it is a killing which the film implicitly endorses.In short, Volver is an ideologically-driven film with an unpleasant and in fact a repugnant ideology, and so I write an ideological critique. But apart from that, it's just not very interesting. It has none of the depth of, say, Aldomovar's Talk to Her, which I loved. | negative |
There is something about true stories that makes them so much more interesting than fiction. I guess it is the fact that truth has always been stranger than fiction. The Falcon and the Snowman tells the true story about Christopher Boyce and his buddy Daulton Lee. Boyce (Hutton) is a former alter boy and intellectual, trying to find an occupation that can support and entertain him. His FBI father is able to pull some strings and get his idealist son a job working in the defense department. Boyce has few responsibilities and seems to be complacent drinking and goofing around with his co-workers. However, as time goes on, Boyce starts to learn top secret information that causes him to doubt the morality of his government. The idealist Boyce soon sees the illegal operations that the CIA is carrying out in above all places, Australia. Boyce eventually decides that he will leak some of the top secret info he is privy to, to the KGB. Of course, Boyce's mistake is the assumption that because the USA is doing bad things, the USSR is the good guy. Over time, Boyce and his drug-dealing buddy Lee (Penn), start to sell their top secret information to the KGB. What was once idealism, turns into capitalism and espionage. The strength of this movie is the incredible performances by Hutton and Penn. Although one of them starts off with the best intentions, they will both soon find themselves in an unending downward spiral. Great direction, music, everything. Not only a great film, but one of my all-time favorites. | positive |
This is a classic example of an increasing problem with films. Why is the background noise and the soundtrack dramatically louder than the dialogue? What sense does that make? This film isn't alone. Most films seem to do this now. For 2 years, I wondered if it was just something wrong with my TV, but then I got a new TV & there it is again. BACKGROUND noise that could be taking place a city block behind the actors drowns out the dialogue.<br /><br />It was even more distracting in this film because, in the English version anyway, the woman mumbles constantly. I kept hoping Jean Reno would say "Excuse me, would you speak up or get the marbles out of your mouth." If you watch it on DVD & you have even high-school French, I recommend the French version with subtitles.<br /><br />I give it 4 because Reno was so good in Leon. People rave about the scenery, but I saw it on a TV & I lived in the Rockies for a few years, so "Enh". | negative |
Finally watched this shocking movie last night, and what a disturbing mindf**ker it is, and unbelievably bloody and some unforgettable scenes, and a total assault on the senses. Looks like a movie from the minds of Lynch (specifically ERASERHEAD), Buttgereit, and even a little of "Begotten". What this guy does to his pregnant sister is beyond belief, but then again, did it really happen or is it his brain's left and right sides doing battle. That's the main theme of this piece of art, to draw a fine line between fantasy and reality, and what would happen if the right side of the brain that dreams and fantasizes overtakes the reasoning and logical left side. And the music in this movie is unbelievable, a kind of electronic score that is absolutely perfect. Even though this movie is totally shocking and pretty disgusting in some of the most extreme scenes (including hard core sex) you will ever see in any movie, I viewed it as a work of art, and loved it. And that music still amazes me, I have to try and find the soundtrack if is available. Watching "Subconscious Cruelty" is a real event, and not something the viewer will easily forget. And a note to gorehounds, this is a must-have.<br /><br />Warning... Be careful buying this movie, because some prints have fogging on the graphic sex scenes and extreme gore, especially the copies from the Japanese release. | positive |
Ladislas Starewicz's curiosity with insects and cinema melds into a short film about a love triangle between Mr. Beetle, an artistic grasshopper, and Mrs. Beetle. The rather simple story of an adulterous beetle couple that both seek stimulation outside their marriage is similar to a Biograph or Vitagraph short of the time. Starewicz's twist on the story is to use embalmed beetles with wires straightening the legs in frame-by-frame animation. The story builds as Mr. Beetle is unknowingly caught on camera with a dragonfly from the local nightclub by a jealous grasshopper. When Mr. Beetle comes home to find his wife in the arms of her artistic friend, he chases her around angrily, but eventually forgives her and takes her out to see a movie. However, Mrs. Beetle soon learns of her husband's infidelities as the movie they watch is the jealous grasshopper's footage of Mr. Beetle and the dragonfly together. Mrs. Beetle thrashes Mr. Beetle with her umbrella, Mr. Beetle jumps through the screen, and they both end up in jail after the projector they wreck catches on fire. The insects are placed in humanized settings such as a house or a nightclub, and are given human characteristics of jealousy, anger, lust, and revenge. The insect characters carry briefcases, drive motorcars, and even wear shoes yet they also twitch their antennae and open and close their mandibles as real insects would. The novelty of the story doesn't wear itself out, even after multiple viewings, but as fluid as the movements are, the film moves slowly. Action happens with intricate detail, but rapidity and a quicker pace of filming is lost in the process. Despite its pace, the film is an excellent example of Starewicz's early puppetry and is highly recommended. | positive |
Orson Welles manages to knock me on my ass with every picture of his I see. Lady of Shanghai is on the same level as his other masterpieces, The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil, The Trial, and Chimes at Midnight. The plot can tend to be confusing sometimes, and sometimes it seems to be moving maybe a tiny bit too fast (about an hour of it was edited out when test screenings went poorly). It doesn't matter, however. You can't watch Welles' films and manage to concentrate too much on the plot. His direction defines what great direction is. Almost any scene from this film can hold up with any other scene he directed. Check out the courtroom scene. Usually they are such stock scenes that I can't stand them. Case in point, try to sit through Welles' own speech near the end of Compulsion. In Lady from Shanghai, just pay attention to the level of detail in that courtroom scene. Watch that juror who is always sneezing and interrupting the proceedings. Or just take a look at the lighting in that scene. I know, it is just a simple Venetian blind, and that it was used constantly in film noirs and crime films of the era, but Welles gives it a beauty all its own. The dialogue is also remarkable. Welles had the skill, a skill that no one else seemed to have, to make a crime film containing examples of the grandest poetry. Whether he was speaking Shakespeare or spitting out hard-boiled lines, it had the power to stir the soul. 10/10. | positive |
In 1983, Director Brian De Palma set out to make a film about the rise and fall of an American gangster, and that he did-- with the help of a terrific screenplay by Oliver Stone and some impeccable work by an outstanding cast. The result was `Scarface,' starring Al Pacino in one of his most memorable roles. The story begins in May of 1980, when Castro opened the harbor at Mariel, Cuba, to allow Cuban nationals to join their families in the United States. 125,000 left Cuba at that time, for the greener pastures of freedom in America, and most were honest, hard-working people, thankful for the opportunity they had been granted. But not all. Among the `Marielitos' who streamed into Florida, approximately 25,000 had criminal records and were nothing less than the dregs of Cuba's jails-- criminals considered beyond redemption, who Castro had merely wanted to be rid of. And they, too, saw America as a land of opportunity, even as Al Capone had considered Chicago some fifty years earlier. And among the most ambitious was a man named Tony Montana (Pacino), known to his associates as `Caracortada.' Scarface.<br /><br />Now that he was free of the yoke of Communism under which he had grown up, Montana wanted what he felt was coming to him, and he wanted it now; and from the moment he stepped off the boat in Florida, he was determined to have it all. Wealth and power-- that was Montana's dream, and he would get it by doing what he did best, beginning with a favor for a man living in Miami by the name of Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia). Lopez, it seems, had a brother in Cuba who had met an untimely end at the hands of one of Castro's goons, a man who, having outlived his usefulness to Castro, had been summarily discarded and was currently being held in `Little Havana,' along with Montana and all of the Cubans just off the boats, where they awaited their papers from the government that would effect their transition into their new lives. And in short order, Montana sees to it that Lopez's brother has been avenged, and it sets the stage for his own entrance into the underworld of America.<br /><br />Lopez, a wealthy businessman with the right connections, in return for the favor gets Montana and his friend, Manny (Steven Bauer), released from the holding camp, and puts them to work. In his day, Capone may have had bootlegging as a means through which to line his coffers with illicit gain, but Lopez has the modern day equivalent, and it's even more lucrative: Cocaine. Lopez takes Montana under his wing and indoctrinates him into the life, but once he has a taste of it, Montana isn't satisfied with whatever crumbs Lopez sees fit to throw his way, and he sets a course that will take him to where he wants to be: At the `top.' With a cold-blooded, iron will, Montana decides he'll do whatever it takes to get there, no matter what the cost. but before it's over, he will realize the price for his dream, and he'll pay it; but for a brief moment, perhaps he will know what it's like to be The Man. And he will also know whether or not it was worth it.<br /><br />In step with De Palma's vision, Pacino plays Montana larger-than-life, and he does it beautifully. From the accent he affects (which he researched thoroughly to make sure he got it right-- and he did), to the body language and the attitude, he's got it all, and it makes Montana convincing and very real. What he brings to the role is nuance and style, in a way that few actors (De Niro would be one) can. This is definitely not a character that is sympathetic in any way, nor is there anything about Montana that you can readily relate to on a personal level; but Pacino's screen presence is so strong that it makes him a thoroughly engrossing character, even though it's hard to become emotionally involved with him. It's quite simply a dynamic, memorable performance.<br /><br />Michelle Pfeiffer gives a solid performance, as well, in the role that put her on the path to stardom. As Elvira, the woman who becomes an integral part of Montana's dream, Pfeiffer is subtle and understated, giving that sense of something going on underneath, while affecting a rather cold and distant exterior countenance. She, like Pacino, definitely makes her presence felt as she fairly glides across the screen with a stoic, enigmatic and sultry demeanor.<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Gina), Miriam Colon (Mama Montana), F. Murray Abraham (Omar), Paul Shenar (Sosa) and Harris Yulin (Bernstein). An excellent precursor to the more recent and highly acclaimed `Traffic,' and `Blow,' and well as having a climactic scene reminiscent of Peckinpah's `The Wild Bunch,' De Palma's `Scarface,' originally panned by critics, has since been cited by many as being the definitive American gangster saga. Much of the violence is implied rather than graphic, but this film still has an edge of realism to it that many may find somewhat disturbing. But if you stay with it, there is a lesson to be learned in the end. And like many lessons in life, the most valuable are often the hardest to take at the time. But the reward is always worth it, and that's the way it is with this film. I rate this one 8/10. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> | positive |
(spoiler warning) I seem to keep giving this guy his last chance. Strange how an action hero who once was keeps attracting an audience. Anyway, this movie is about a character (Seagal) being kind of a mysterious rough-neck hero. That's it.<br /><br />Next. | negative |
I guess I was prepared after all the years of hearing about it. First heard about it from Siskel and Ebert. When they said Divine ate excrement, I had to look it up. Then a friend told me about it in 1991. She said also that her parents saw it when it first came out and that her mom almost dumped her dad over it! So by the time I caught Pink Flamingos on Sundance today, I was prepared. For the most part.<br /><br />I still couldn't help but be surprised by the anal close-ups and the blowjob scene. That said, the only characters I sympathized with were Edie and the egg man. Her crying scene early in the film, though over something frivolous to normal people, actually makes me sad. Though she sure wasn't pretty, she had a cute voice. I was happy for her and the egg man, and they actually touched me.<br /><br />On the other hand, the acting in this poverty-level production was not good. And as for the script, just how does John Waters come up with this stuff? Well, at least it's different. | negative |
According to most people I know that saw this film and to the reviews I've read this was supposed to be a hugely entertaining thriller that oh so needs to be seen by more people. I didn't expect this film to blow me away but I certainly didn't expect to find this movie mediocre at best, which is what it is.<br /><br />I'm no stranger to French films being both French and having studied them as a student so i'm aware of the clichés and corny plot twists that can go unnoticed by English/American audiences. There are some great French films that should have been given widespread international release but this isn't one of them.<br /><br />To begin with the plot is both far fetched, over complicated and too smart assed to be entertaining so you really feel every minute of its 2hr and 5min run time and by the time everything is finally revealed you are beyond caring. The main character himself is lacking any real charisma or even acting talent to keep your attention fixed mainly on him and his journey anytime close to the crap ending so by the time you've even considered swallowing the main plot twists it's begun to dawn on you that you've wasted your time! I actually remember switching off before the credits actually began to roll after the film's climactic reunion - that was the point in which I was sure I had almost completely wasted my time by the way.<br /><br />The film is not at all the worst thing i've seen but it seems completely overrated. For instance I read somewhere that it beats all the Bourne Identity films in terms of suspense or even that it has 'wall-to-wall tension'. I can safely say some people are hyping up this frankly dull movie.<br /><br />4/10 is a generously considerate rating for this film I feel, and since I have seen some complete and utter stinkers, I'll therefore save the 1s, 2s and 3s for them. | negative |
This movie was unbelievably bad... It's gory but the violence is just too much to the point where it looks extremely fake and predictable. Since Everything is shown to you there is nothing left to the imagination. And the plot... what plot? There really isn't any! The pacing is unbelievably slow (despite the random acts of violence) and the screenplay must have been written by a deranged 12 year old kid who kills kittens for fun. So this movie was banned in 31 countries? I could see why... not because of the gore (boring and trite) but because it was a terrible movie. It should have been BANNED from existence. Avoid this one like the plague. 1 out of 10 | negative |
This movie, based on a true story of Gerrit Wolfaardt, is one of the best films I've seen on race relations in South Africa; a very good history lesson of the turmoil of 80's South Africa. I put it in on the scale of American History X as far as it's depiction of how a young man can get seduced by the Aryan doctrine and how the "certain" segments of the Christian church taught a false doctrine regarding race to justify an injustice.<br /><br />It's strong message of forgiveness and redemption, is one of rarity in films today. The violence is well done as to show the severity of Gerrit's crimes and greatness of his transformation.<br /><br />One word about Jan Ellis who played Gerrit Wolfaardt. He carries you through the darkness of Gerrit's beginnings to his enlightened transformation. He went to some dark places as an actor and is to be commended on his performance.<br /><br />Another standout performance was that of Mpho Lovinga who plays Moses Moremi, one victim of Gerrit's crimes. He was able to pull from some places of pain that really touched you as you watched his performance.<br /><br />Very good movie to show the teens. | positive |
I haven't actually seen a lot of movies with Holly Hunter, but seeing her in Broadcast News was a pleasant surprise. She is a hard-nosed journalist, Jane Craig, who has devoted all of her time to TV news show. Her colleague Aaron Altman has carried her torch for a long time without saying anything. The love triangle is completed by Tom Grunnick. He is the slightly aloof ex-sportscaster who is the new reporter. To Jane, he symbolizes everything she doesn't like about news reporting - turning it into edutainment, not serious business. Much to her surprise, Jane finds herself attracted to Tom.<br /><br />Holly Hunter is doing a great performance as the perky journalist. But I don't quite see what she finds so charming about her new colleague, Tom. It's something with them that prevents us from getting up close and personal with him. Almost as impressive is Albert Brooks, who gives his all in the role of a professional who gives more than 100 percent for his job but doesn't get quite as much in return. Actually, for a while I thought he was Steve Guttenberg from Police Academy (1984). He has a few funny lines and if this was a Meg Ryan-picture, they'd call it a romantic comedy.<br /><br />Running over two hours, a few scenes could have been edited or left out completely, eg. Jane's and Aaron's trip to Central America. Also, I'm a sucker for happy endings and had preferred a different ending than just a reunion between the three of them seven years later. | positive |
What a stinkeroo this turned out to be!!! At one time, much earlier in her career, Linda Darnell was one of my favorites - no great shakes as an Actress, but very beautiful and pleasant (particularly in films like "The Mark of Zorro" and "Blood and Sand") but when I saw this monstrosity, the memories of her golden days faded quickly. The story is unbelievable and farcical, the acting second-rate, the supporting cast insufferable. I cannot think of a more immature performance by anyone when compared to Tab Hunter, and Donald Gray had to be the most boring leading man they could have picked. Added to this, was the terrible photography (and I am not just referring to the color!) Everyone associated with this, must have shuddered whenever it was shown. | negative |
I only watched the first twenty minutes of this movie and personally I think that this is the worst movie to be made in the recent years.<br /><br />The plot was so bad that it might have been possible that a 10 year old kid wrote it. The acting was also sloppy with pretty much an unknown cast and not only that the action sequences especially at the first half of the film were so terrible it was unbelievable.<br /><br />I don't know how the producers obtained the budget to film this movie but the production company must be regretting it by now.<br /><br />To anyone who may come across this film in the near future, I advise you to steer clear of this joke of a movie. | negative |
Only one thing could have redeemed this sketch. A healthy gunfight between the happy couple, the exotic model at the delicatessen, and the old-timer from the motel who was (it would have turned out) secretly watching from the woods and had been aging rent-boy to the guys when they'd shared the rubber house. <br /><br />In the process, they could have blown that freezing shack to smithereens, resolved most of the snags; such as the "whore bitch" ode on the windscreen, the reason why the protagonist had "no friends," as well as explaining his coolness under pressure from bloody tampon, incessant phone calls . . . and that crawl-space chic, the green thumb, and his attraction to the simpler life. Quite the technician with the human body, though. Ex-abortionist? Morgue attendant? A bit of a heartbeat would have been nice.<br /><br />It was fun watching these people move around, I guess, but Eleanora's silly Italian games were suffocatingly stereotypical while the caretaker had been to too many yoga classes: a dick, a mind, and a pick-up truck about summed it up for him. I also wished they could have had a bit more luggage: Eleanora is ready to go after putting some black underwear into her nifty red suitcase and the caretaker just needs a cardboard carton there at the motel.<br /><br />Trifling matters, you may well say. I agree, although the niggling bits just didn't add up right in this rush job. Good owl-wrangling, though, and I really felt cold all the way through. | negative |
I found this a very enjoyable light hearted comedy set in Wales with some truly funny sequences highlighting the rivalry between two funeral directors. The showbiz ideas used by Christopher Walken's character to liven up his funerals are genuinely laugh out loud moments. | positive |
I literally ran to watch it, expecting a film that will make me cry, or touch my heart.<br /><br />What I found was not heart-rending, but a lame exploitation of 1 strong human character.<br /><br />Interwined between a pair of young lesbians and an obese man.<br /><br />In a setting that is substantially devoid of sound not to mention acting of the most common.<br /><br />It was not entirely BAD, as I have seen worst - and I left the cinema $10 poorer but wiser - that a FILM well advertised is not the same as a FILM WELL-MADE. | negative |
William H. Macy is terrific in this Alfred Hitchcock-esque film. Macy stars as a film critic who accidentally kills one of his girlfriends. The characters that ensue are hilarious. James Cromwell gives a terrific performance as a blackmailing private detective. As always, Macy is incredibly funny and gives a phenomenal performance. See this movie whenever it is on t.v. and check your video stores because this is one you don't want to miss. | positive |
My favorite "Imperialism" movie and one of the best action-adventure flicks of all time. Grant, McLaglen and Fairbanks dominate the screen with daring-do and wise cracks to please all but the most "PC" of film goers. Memorable scenes abound -- the 3 sergeants and their 20 sepoys fighting off hundreds of Thugs; MacChesney & Cutter giving Bobby Coote the spiked punch ("save some for the elephant"); Cutter to MacChesney -- "I'm an expedition"; Din breaking Cutter out of jail, with a fork ("what do you think I'm trying to break out of? A bleedin' pudding?!) And the incredible temple scene with Cutter singing and then annoucing, bold as brass -- "All right, you're all under arrest!"<br /><br />I could go on, but suffice it to say I try to catch this film whenever it is on. For armchair adventurers and generals, it's hard to imagine a better 2 hours. | positive |
Midnight Cowboy opens with a run down Drive In theater with the voice-over of the main character Joe Buck (Jon Voight) singing in the shower. He is singing a cowboy song, the very thing he strives to be. Joe picks up his humdrum life living in Texas and moves it to New York City with the dream of lots of women, and even more money. He dresses as the epitome of the cowboy, but in a cartoonish fashion, not even his friends take him seriously. He begins his journey on the bus to NYC and we can quickly see how diluted Joe is through his interactions with the other passengers. This is primarily a story of Joe's realization of the harsh realities of the real world.<br /><br />He starts off as a very naïve southerner thinking he can make it in NYC just on his good looks. He has no other reason to think otherwise, as they proved helpful in the past; we learn this from the many flashbacks he has. In the beginning the flashbacks are filmed in a way that portrays them as being somewhat whimsical. They are hazy and the voices sound as if they are coming from a great distance, as they are, they are coming out of his past. However, as Joe delves deeper and deeper into the reality of the harsh atmosphere of NYC we see more of his past, which is no longer whimsical but gritty, filmed in black and white with rapid editing to portray the cruel nature of the past events. This is especially seen in the flashback of him and his girlfriend being assaulted, and her being raped. In one of these flashbacks we see a building being torn down brick by brick. This mirrors the way in which Joe himself is falling apart; the naiveté that he once carried is falling off of him. He and Ratso (Dustin Hoffman) are living in squalor, and barely able to get food to eat; Joe is realizing he cannot live off of his looks, that there is a gritty underbelly of New York that he didn't envision. His subconscious mirrors the way in which his real life is panning out.<br /><br />Ratso is also serves as a kind of mirror to Joe, but in an opposite way; Ratso is Joe's foil. Joe is a handsome, strong man who, for the most part, has a good outward appearance. Ratso, on the other hand, from the very first time we see him sitting next to Joe in the bar we can tell he is the opposite. He is short, dark, and always coated with a sheen of sweat. He understands how the world works, that it is unforgiving, and sometimes no matter how hard you try you will fail; just as his father did. They are living in the same world, the same apartment even, but they understand things on a completely different level.<br /><br />The theme of alienation, one that is common of this era, is very apparent in this film. Neither Joe nor Ratso fit into the culture surrounding them. Joe feels trapped in Texas and moves to NYC where he is still very much an outsider. Ratso, living in the cold of NYC, wishes to move to sunny Florida where he thinks he will be able to find a good life. Even though this is his ideal, in the fantasy we get from Ratso's perspective, it is apparent that he knows he will never really fit into society. In said fantasy he is turned on by the people living around him, he is yet again an outsider, alienated from society.<br /><br />It is not until the end that the gap between Joe and Ratso begins to narrow. Joe resorts to violence; he takes on the mentality of this city in order to get money to fund a means of escape for Florida for himself and Ratso. On the journey we see Joe coming out of a store not wearing the cowboy clothes that he is never without in the rest of the film. He is dressed as someone who looks like they are headed to Florida for vacation. He dresses Ratso the same way; he tires to make them fit into the new society they are entering, but it is to no avail. Upon Ratso's death on the bus, their fellow passengers once again look them upon as outsiders. Even in this new culture they have entered, they cannot escape the alienation they have met at every turn in this film. Despite the Ratso's death, and Joe's continued alienation, the film ends with the hope that Joe can take his new knowledge of how the world works and create a better life than he would have had as a hustler in NYC. Midnight Cowboy is an excellent film portraying the harsh reality of society, and alienation, with stellar performances by both Voight and Hoffman. | positive |
I have to congratulate the genius who approved this one. Edward Furlong, you're not as good as you think mate, you can't grab on every piece of low-cost amateur crap, which sole intention has to be to get some bucks.<br /><br />The filming is bad, and I mean BAD. Anyone with a camera would get the same result, or better.<br /><br />The acting, lets just say: don't go to the supermarket looking for actors. The good ones usually come with a degree or, at least, have some damn experience! The director.. Mr. Jon Keeyes, please find your purpose in life, as a director you simply suck. Your directing is poor, the angles are all messed up (not in a good way), the lines seem as if they're being read out of toilet paper, and the damn music.. it always comes up when it shouldn't and goes out for no apparent reason. And don't go for writer either, by the way. Making movies isn't like serving on a coffeshop, it requires art and skill, things I really doubt you'll ever have.<br /><br />Instead of making a badass shootout movie, you should've shot this one back to oblivion and wait 'till something good came up.. Or just go find a job on a coffeshop. You'll have less stress and you'll save movie goers some money and a bad night.<br /><br />vote: 1/10 (my first one) | negative |
My first thoughts on this film were of using science fiction as a bad way to show naked women, althought not a brilliant story line it had quite a good ending | negative |
After reading many good things about it ,i finally watched "the clearing".With a cast of great actors like Redford and Dafoe ,one would,at least, expect a decent film.After the closing credits had rolled i was still shocked by how bad and incoherent this movie actually was.<br /><br />Is it supposed to be an "art" film??I don't think so cause it is too melodramatic for that.The bad thing is that the drama seems way too forced and unrealistic.<br /><br />The truth is that the script makes absolutely no sense.First of all it never really explains the motive behind the actions of any of the characters,it just overblows their so called "personal issues".What's so bad about Redford's character's life that he has to "clear it"??The fact that he cheats,occasionally,his wife??The guy is a millionaire who has had a good life,has a great son and a great daughter,a wife that loves him(and a girlfriend that also seems to be way above the generic mistress type of woman)o and a new-born grandson.The only problem seems to be that he...has been working hard for all his life to be a successful person.So what??It seems that his hard work has really paid off and there's actually no real problems with his life.<br /><br />Then we come to Dafoe's character:here's someone who was a manager for one of Redford's companies and was fired.Why is this guy unemployed for ...eight years???It seems that he must have some kind of good education to have a job like the one he had in the first place and seems to have been a man with solid ideas about his work(as evident by his flashback of a conversation that he had with Redford when he was working for him).Why couldn't a man like that get a decent job and have a decent life??Cause he was ,once,fired??Totally unrealistic.<br /><br />The film really tries to portray these men as "tortured souls" or something and that comes off as really cheesy.In fact i would say that if the creators of this film were trying to say something about the American dream then they failed miserably.<br /><br />As for the actual events that take place during the movie ,they also make no sense at all.In fact the last 20 minutes of the film come off as an insult to the viewer's intelligence,because there's not one thing that takes place that actually makes any sense.Redford seems to have about a 1000 chances to escape ,yet he doesn't.At one moment he is ready to escape and yet he misses his chance cause he feels sorry for his kidnapper and doesn't want to hurt him!!!Then Dafoe picks up his gun from the water and the mud,which should be useless(if you fire a shot with a gun after the gun has been in the water and mud it will possibly blow up in your face)and the gun is in perfect condition!!! The way an unemployed ,useless(as portrayed in this film) and mentally unstable character,manages to outsmart the entire FBI with such ease brings the narrative of this film to "twilight zone" levels.The cheesy ending(with Redford's wife illusion) comes to finish the viewer off.<br /><br />This film pretends to be something,it's not(i.e a quality,sophisticated psychological thriller).Unfortunately it fails so hard,that it becomes a disaster and that's the word that describes this film best:A DISASTER. | negative |
Don't be fooled by the silly title folks, this is one sweet ride! A true successor to Tetsuo the Iron Man and Ichi the Killer, this gem starts with a bang and lays the gore on thick until the credits roll. It seems that aliens are taking over people's bodies and modifying them into war-machines, which are then used to fight each other in a twisted game for the amusement of their species. The winner of the battle eats the loser alive. That's mostly it for plot, but who cares when the gore is this good? I have no idea how many buckets of slime were used, but it's disgusting to behold. There is interesting and effective use of stop-motion when the takeovers are in progress, and loving care is lavished on all of the creature and make-up effects. The CGI is a bit limited, but that actually doesn't detract from the overall quality one bit, at least for me. This was truly a fun and stomach-turning film that deserves much praise, and has truly earned its place in the stack of Cult Classics. Find it and watch, you won't be disappointed! | positive |
Six students at a convent do the unthinkable - kill a nun who was overbearing. Now, eighteen years later, the nun's spirit is back and getting revenge for her murder.<br /><br />Yea, basically that's the short of it. There's more to it than that, but I still have no clue what it is. The only really cool thing is the effects on the spiritual nun, as I was pretty impressed for being a more low-budget flick. I'm also confused as to whether or not it's in English. Most of the actors are Italian, and even the title here is in Italian, yet they spoke English in the film (I think, or it might've been dubbed, I still can't tell).<br /><br />Anyway, the real premise of the film is pretty idiotic, and the ending not only doesn't make sense, it...well...doesn't make sense. | negative |
I went into this movie with very little in terms of expectations. I went with my girlfriend and two friends, and none of them could explain the story of the Grudge 1 to me. Well, if the first one couldn't leave an impression on them to explain the plot, then I doubted this one would be any better.<br /><br />Let me summarize what the trailers let you know: The Asian lady is back and so is Sarah Michelle Gellar. Luckily for her, she isn't around very long. That decision may have saved her career.<br /><br />The movie has three story lines, and none of them make sense. And even worse, none of them are developed. You almost start to understand, and then someone dies and the story gets left behind. Okay, killing people could be scary, but I was left more confused over the attempted plot development than I was frightened. They jump back and forth between all three story lines, which aren't related... OR ARE THEY?!?! *SOUND EFFECTTT*~~~ The timing of the three stories are displaced, and you can tell right at the start that the movie is going to have a twist at the end. BE PREPAREDDD. Oh Wait. Sorry, this isn't a Fight Club or Vertigo quality twist, you could see this one coming from miles away. And probably envisioned a MUCH better twist in your head... they should've hired me. Instead of the girl making her "SURPRISING" appearance, maybe it could've been Michael Jackson instead? That part of Scary Movie 4 scared the crap out of me.<br /><br />The killing sequences were terribly done. Unlike horror movies of the past, where a killer pops out of nowhere, a closet or behind a door for example, and everyone in the theatre jumps (and subsequently the fat guy behind you spills popcorn down your neck)- this lacked any frightening pop ups. They zoomed in on where the random Asian woman or kid would show up, and you knew exactly what was coming. Instead of having the music get really loud, then quiet, then a pop out to psyche you out, the music actually gave you timing for the scary scene. If I know it's coming, it won't scare me.<br /><br />The movie began with explaining what the "Grudge" is; when a person is killed during a fit of rage, a curse is placed on the location where she was killed. So why does the Asian lady being cursed by her mother have any significance to the story? And why is the grudge now moving countries? This movie was absolutely terrible.<br /><br />All it did was leave me begrudging my friends for making me go- we should've seen one of those animated Pixar movies. It would've been scarier. | negative |
The worst movie ever made. If anyone asks you what is the worst movie you've ever seen - tell them Plump Fiction. Of all the movies I've ever seen this gotta be the most lame experience. Even the poorest sequels are pure masterpieces compared | negative |
When going to see Rendition, I was expecting an exciting film on a controversial topic with big-name actors. I was not expecting a film that was so engrossing, exciting, poetic, and sad that picked me up from the very beginning and didn't let me go, even after I left the theater. A word of advice to anyone who hasn't seen it yet, don't let your politics come in the way of enjoying (or not enjoying) this film. Take it for what it is. I saw this with my conservative Jewish family (I'm the black sheep, the pseudo-liberal college student) and I thought they would write it off as "liberal propaganda". Instead, they said it was a great film with excellent performances (they like to fancy themselves film critics).<br /><br />It's sad that a movie like this has to be marketed by its Oscar-affiliated actors, while leaving out the constantly underrated Sarsgaard as well as new talent like the truly excellent Metwally. The entire cast gave good performances, with some standing out much more than others; my only problem with it was that there was a lot going on which didn't allow for much screen time for each of the characters. In fact, I felt like the "sub-plot" with Fatima and Khalid was just as prominent on screen as Anwar's part of the story.<br /><br />The characters all have the potential to fall into stereotypes, but the actors do a good enough job to give them depth with the little screen time they have. Streep is truly terrific, as a heartless senator, and as much as I don't want to see the actress in such a terrible role its impossible not to believe her. Gyllenhaal, who will probably be one of the Oscar nods for this movie, seems a bit unsure in his role at times. H's trying to portray his inner conflict but usually just comes off like he either forgot his lines or he doesn't know how he should feel. Sarsgaard gave an excellent performance; his unforgettable confrontation with Streep is easily one of the best parts of the movie. Metwally, again, was terrific, and I hope to see him in more mainstream films. It's a shame that Gyllenhaal with probably get nominated before him. Yigal Naor, as shown on IMDb, has been is some films already but he is a newcomer in my eyes. He, along with Mohammed Khouas and Zineb Oukach, all gave great performances.<br /><br />The story of Fatima and Khalid was not given any credit in commercials, but it brings a sad humanity to the story. The narrative was interesting as I was trying to really connect the two story until it was plainly told to us at the end. I've read some comments on here that say the love story was useless, but I disagree. I think it definitely shows another side to the controversial issue as well as humanity in general. Khalid was the real terrorist, but he was doing it to avenge his brother, and even though he is responsible for the attack, you see a humane side to him through the story with Fatima. Not that I think we should feel bad for actual terrorists, but I think the "we are all people" theme was definitely relevant.<br /><br />Whatever your feelings on terrorism, politics, etc. leave it out of the theater. The bottom line is this is an interesting story with a message we all need to hear. | positive |
This movie is such a piece of unbelievable crap. First let me talk about the pros: Sandra Bullock in a black bathing suit.<br /><br />Now the rest of the story which is all pretty much bad. We have said computer programmer Angela Bennett (who's online profile is ANGEL - HOW WITTY!!! I bet the directors cheered over that one for an hour) who basically checks other Company's software for errors/glitches etc. So we start with her ordering pizza on the Internet and then putting on a fireplace on her monitor (EXTREME computer skills shown thus far). This is after she finds some virus on a macintosh program which crashes the whole system after hitting the escape key. This is apparently a HUGE problem yet the virus created to do such could be done in about 1 minute with a simple batch file.<br /><br />Any event, we move on. She gets this call from some other bloke (that works at the same company) and this fool says to go click this symbol which apparently opens up some secret Internet gateway to a bunch of unprotected 'top secret' data woohoo! Angela saves this crap on a disc and now the people that created this loophole are out to get her. This of course is only after she hooks up with one of the bad guys only BEFORE he tries to kill her BEFORE she jumps in the ocean off his boat, BEFORE she winds up in a random hospital.<br /><br />Problem #1: You can't create a loophole on the Internet to gain access to a bunch of top secret FBI data. Where the hell did this come from? Since when can a group of hackers control the basic flow of the Internet (even in 95)? Problem #2: Angela would need proper identification before a hospital or clinic would release her. She could not just pack her things and go.<br /><br />Then these 'hackers' or whatever change Angela's ID so she can't get help from anyone and conveniently enough all her ID is gone. So she returns home and a cat and mouse chase goes on and on and on.<br /><br />Apparently all police and FBI people are stupid and don't believe her. So then she has to utilize a bunch of tactics to enter into the building where she works (where the person who is now filling in for her is) and get back to her old computer. She starts talking to some other random bloke and finds out who is behind everything through some BS IP address that the director knows the audience is too stupid enough to believe.<br /><br />Then she runs to some center to mail all this information to the FBI. She apparently HAS to use a mainframe to email stuff to the FBI. But then the same fool that tried to kill her BEFORE throwing her in the water catches her and easily hacks into the FBI again (wtf?). But remember that cool virus? Well somehow she luckily gets that and even though the virus only worked on software, it now works on the entire system too. It brings down the whole mainframe which has all the fake information because the mainframe was just sitting in the middle of some convention... WHAT THE HELL IS THIS CRAP! Anyway, the now uber virus works and Angela (the real one now) runs away and later kills the evil dude with a fire extinguisher. He of course has a gun, runs up to her so he's like 2 feet away and then decides to aim. CLASSIC Hollywood.<br /><br />All in all this movie is so full of BS and crap. Anyone who doesn't know a lot about computers will be wildly fooled into thinking this crap is possible but not one thing is accurate concerning computers or the net. And I honestly doubt I'd see a multiplatform virus for Mac and a mainframe computer (*cough LMAO*). | negative |
I love Japanese movies--having seen at least 100-200. So it's obvious I am not afraid of Japanese films. However, sometimes there are Japanese concepts for film that just don't translate well to Westerners. They might be hits at home, but abroad they just don't seem, well,...normal. It's like the live fish my wife ate on a business meeting or odd PS2 games such as dating simulators or Katamari Damacy--things that are accepted there that confuse non-Japanese. This is probably the way others view things Americans take for granted, such as American football, fried Snicker bars and Paris Hilton! Well the king of strange Japanese films that just don't seem right to Americans might just be ATAMA-YAMA. Now the style of animation isn't the issue--it's different but nice enough. No, it's the story concept itself and the rather bizarre ending. That's what make this a truly unusual film and it goes like this: There was a stingy man who, for no apparent reason, had a tree growing out of his head. It was little at first and he simply cut it away, but again and again it grew back--so he just decided to let it go. And, after a while, people began living on his head under the shade of the tree. Oddly, while they were under the tree, they were tiny but when they left, they were full sized again. Then, after finally getting sick of it all and yanking out the tree, the man drown himself(!?) in the hole in the top of the head where the tree was! The end.<br /><br />See! I told you this was very, very odd--but not in a good way like TAMPOPO or HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS--just odd. O-D-D....odd! And unless you have a very high tolerance for this sort of thing, I doubt if you'll feel bad to know that this Oscar-nominated film did not win. Frankly, that makes me happy, as I really DON'T want this film to spur on such similar films. The only reason it earns a 4 is due to nice, but not spectacular animation.<br /><br />This film made my brain hurt....I hope that isn't a sign that I have a tree! | negative |
I have one word to someup this movie, WOW! I saw "Darius Goes West" at the Tribeca Film Festival. People in the theater were sobbing. This movie shows the hardships that Darius sufferes with Muscular Dystrophy. The movie was very well done and really made you part of the movie, I WAS SO emotionally moved by the movie because it made us remember that we are very fortunate to be perfectly healthy, some people in this world are less fortuate then us. And sometimes we should give them a had and help them, to the very end. I would give them ten stars, they gave Darius a had when they weren't asked to, they did't do it for the money they did it for a friend in need, Darius, the world should know, Darius went west. | positive |
Director Ron Atkins is certifiably insane. This ultra-low budget film chronicles a few days in the life of one Harry Russo (John Giancaspro, who also co-wrote), a nut-job who receives a Rubberneck doll from his bitch girlfriend. He starts to take orders from the doll to take massive amounts of drugs, rape and kill, not always in that order. What starts off as being a balls-to-the-wall exploitation film, well stays like that, but it gets VERY repetitive VERY fast. I'm leaning more toward the certifiably insane. It IS hard to forget once seen though. Kinda like if Tom Green ever did a horror film.<br /><br />My Grade:F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Laurie Farwell gets fully nude; Jasmin Putnam shows tits and bush <br /><br />ANTI-eye candy: seeing John completely naked repeatedly | negative |
There seem to have been any number of films like this released during the 70's. And the fact that I cannot recollect the title to a single one of them off-hand is a measure of their impact. These are what novelists would call 'pot-boilers'. They are scarcely more than a vehicle for keeping movie-stars in the public eye.<br /><br />We have Micheal Caine, Peter Ustinov, Omar Sharif, Rex Harrison and William Holden; more than enough names to get bums on cinema seats. Every taste in hero is catered for. Though one suspects that most of the audience still went away disappointed.<br /><br />Their talents are simply thrown away, and I wonder that stars with so much money and such reputation can be yet so desperate or lacking in good sense. This sort of movie hardly adds gilding to a CV. Sometimes maybe actors should choose their director instead of the other way round.<br /><br />It was pretty obvious that it would be crap even from the outset. That ludicrously mismatched jaunty-jazz theme music, which also percolated up every time some incidental noise is needed, had all the atmospheric conviction of elevator Muzak. Who imagined employing a jazz band when a scene depicted the steamy jungles of central Africa, or the endless Sahara with camels and palms as a backdrop? Definitely a serious goof-ball. Ennio Morricone would have known what to do; and his results would have oozed enough atmosphere and tension to raise my rating a good two points. This director should have taken the trouble to watch 'Lawrence of Arabia', or even Sergio Leone's westerns; he might have learnt a few things. But then again, probably he wouldn't.<br /><br />Alfred Hitchcock played the disappearing wife theme to good effect in his film 'Frantic'. It was later remade with equal panache staring Harrison Ford. In each case the confusion surrounding her loss and the tension of the chase was tangible. Here, when Michael Caine might be otherwise compelled to employ a little brain and bravado, Rex Harrison kept popping-up out of no-where like some wily old genii, to put him back on track whenever the narrative stumbled. <br /><br />At least the photography was rather good, with excellent use of the often beautiful environment. But then the dumb music must pipe-up and blow to atoms what little ambiance this created.<br /><br />Action scenes were also contrived and stilted, with such ineptly choreographed fight sequences that they might have been staged in a first-year drama class. And, of course, the players must fight to a jazz accompaniment - as you do.<br /><br />And that's about as much comment as this item deserves. Except to say that the script was pretty wretched as well.<br /><br />Stick with your hobby on this one. Even if it contained your favourite movie-stars, you're sure to be disappointed too. | negative |
Love this film also. Saw it when it was first shown i8n Germany in a small independent cinema in Frankfurt. It was really crowded and it was a very ambitious atmosphere to. The erotic of the movie hit the spectators and the discussion with Moritz Boerner the producer and director was always underlined by that. In his genre it was a very ambitious movie even especially when you think that it was an independent movie.<br /><br />It doesn't exist much copies of that film, Mortitz Boerner came from the theatre and made two or three short movies more worked for TV as well before he became a sort of therapist.<br /><br />For the people who wish to see that movie again, you could find it on his homepage which isn't that easy to search for but its possible. | positive |
Marlene Gorris has established herself as one of the world's great directors. This sensitive, visually beautiful film is based on a story by Vladimir Nabokov and captures well that writer's dark irony. John Turturro gives what I consider to be his finest performance (I am usually not a fan of his); and Emily Watson is brilliant as well. Well worth seeing. | positive |
This documentary makes you travel all around the globe. It contains rare and stunning sequels from the wilderness. It shows you how diversified and how fragile our planet can be. The polar bear's future is highlighted at the beginning and at the end of it. After all, its bleak future is closely linked with the consequences of global warming. This documentary is however a simplistic approach of such a serious environmental issue. It can nonetheless be easily seen by young children since it mainly remains descriptive. Scientists might well be disappointed as it is not a remake of Al Gore's documentary "An inconvenient truth" but frankly...what a description!!! A question may then arise: Isn't it worth preserving our world's beauty? Because this documentary proves that in 2007 such a beauty still exists despite the different pollutions. By living in towns and cities we tend to forget that we are part and parcel of this nature. All things considered this documentary reminds us that we own a common treasure called "EARTH". | positive |
A holiday on a boat, a married couple, an angry waiter and a shipwreck is the reason to this films beginning.<br /><br />I like boobs. No question about that. But when the main character allies with whoever happens to have the most fish at the moment, mostly by having sex with them and playing the role of the constant victim, my anger just rises to a whole new level. Take two guys (a husband and another man), put a pure bombshell woman in the middle of them, ad a deserted island, subtract all her moral issues, ad a whole bunch of moral issues to the men and mix it in a big bowl of arguments, fish and a zippo lighter and you will come up with a piece of junk movie like this. <br /><br />The acting is, I would say, good. There are some bloopers but not many as far as i could see. The main female character makes me sick. This is due to her lack of moral values. The man with the most fish get's her attention. Even though one of them is her husband, she sees no problem with being unfaithful with (Manuel) the other man because "I must do it to survive". How can you justify having sex with another man for fish when your husband is 30feet away? And he won't even benefit from it? The female character has absolutely no problems to justify anything that she does. If she doesen't get approval for her actions, she's a victim.<br /><br />I recommend everyone to see this movie. This is the kind of movie that will make just about everything else you see this year a pleasant movie experience. | negative |
I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time. <br /><br />It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.<br /><br />And the tagline, "Revenge can be deadly"....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?<br /><br />It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion. | negative |
There's so many negative reviews about "Stay away, Joe" in here I just can't stay quiet any longer and let this injustice happen. Here's a side you haven't heard yet.<br /><br />Elvis Presley's movies are my guilty pleasure for a simple reason: they are perfect films for a pure relaxation because I don't have to think when I watch them. That means I don't have to worry about missing a complex plot because there never is a proper plot to start with. I can just kick off my shoes, grab a beer, sit back, switch off my brains and enjoy all the general wackiness and catchy easy-going rock n' roll tunes from the grooviest decade of them all.<br /><br />In my books "Stay away, Joe" definitely falls into the "so bad it's good"-category. Now if you're like me and appreciate "the trash value", this is the ultimate 1960's camp experience. It's so bad that it's almost surrealistic to watch and just when you think that it can't possibly get any worse it surprises you in the most imaginable ways. In the end you're so amazed by all the new levels of stupidity you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. In a nutshell: I love it because it's so damn amusing that there once was a generation that actually made films like this. I still give it 1 out of 10 though - once it hits the bottom 100 it will became an instant bad movie classic. | negative |
If you have ever shopped at Wal-Mart, then you probably know about the $5 DVD bin that sits by the electronics department. Well, that is where I found this movie. However, I was tricked! You see, the cover of this particular DVD had a big picture of Sandy Bullock on it and even listed her name as a "headliner". I picked it up thinking, "Wow, I didn't know Sandra Bullock did this movie?!?!" So I was pumped to go home and watch a cool Sandra Bullock movie. Much to my surprise, Ms. Bullock had a small role.....very small role. She plays the girlfriend of the son of the CIA agent. Talk about supporting actress. She may have had no more than 2 lines in the movie. Besides being deceived of this being a Bullock flick, I looked past that and I continued to watch an "action-packed" film. Negative! At one point, for special effects, a gun was taped to the camera. You gotta watch it to laugh at what horrible really is. | negative |
The scenes are fast-paced. the characters are great. I love Anne-Marie Johnson's acting. I really like the ending. <br /><br />However, I was disappointed that this movie didn't delve deeper into Achilles's and Athena's relationship. It only blossomed when they kissed each other. | positive |
When a BBC murder thriller is this rife with heterosexual dysfunction, you know who the killer must be: The Homosexual.<br /><br />Who murdered the sexy blonde teenager (who's also a pathological liar) on her way home from school? Let's see, could it be the mother who (against all common sense) is letting her teenaged son make unchaperoned visits to his serial-killer father behind bars? Could it be the moody son, who's impressed by his dad's no-nonsense attitude about women? Could it be the serial killer himself, who seems able to manipulate events from behind bars, a la Hannibal Lecter? Could it be mom's boyfriend, a teacher at the school whose affair with an ex-student led to his wife's suicide? Or could it be boyfriend's daughter, who goes blabbing everyone's secrets at school, causing untold misery? No, it's none of these likely suspects. It's...The Homosexual!<br /><br />The only mystery for the viewer is guessing who The Homosexual is. Of course, it could be anybody, since the only characteristics of The Homosexual are shameful secrecy and a propensity to murder and otherwise make life complicated for the "normal" folks. The Homosexual is the invisible root cause of society's ills; only when this person is exposed and eliminated can the fractured family come back together, and things can return to normal...whatever that is.<br /><br />As for the cast, both Jemma Redgrave and Robson Green are now officially past their sell-by dates. The world could get by marvelously without ever seeing either on screen again, but as long as the BBC has roles for The Aggrieved Woman and The Misunderstood Man, I suppose they'll keep coming back in movies like this one. | negative |
"My Left Foot" is a pretty impressive film that tells the story of Christy Brown, an artist who was crippled with cerebral palsy and learned to paint with his left foot, the only limb in his body he had control over. Daniel Day-Lewis won his first Oscar as Best Actor for this film, which I'm not absolutely certain was deserved, but is still noteworthy. Day-Lewis give Brown a realistic and occasionally almost humorous touch. Brenda Fricker, as Brown's devoted mother, also won an Oscar for a believable and touching role. My problem with this film is that it is a bit too real at times. When Brown is in desperation and must help someone and do it all with his left foot, the film can be difficult to watch. This gives it an often depressing feel that may turn off some viewers for a time. However, if you look beyond that, you will see a sense of hope and inspiration for those who have handicaps and other difficulties to overcome. Those of us who are not crippled and still consider ourselves to have problems are inspired by this film, because if somewhat with a much worse condition than us can overcome their difficulties, we can certainly do the same thing. Well made, occasionally enjoyable, but difficult to watch. May not be for everyone, but not bad at all.<br /><br />*** out of **** | positive |
This movie is very modern and forward. It is about 75% in English. It is aimed at English-speaking multiplex-going young audience. Basic plot is similar to DDLJ. Acting is below average.<br /><br />Unfortunately they are portraying a wrong picture and setting a bad example for the youngsters. Tanisha is shown drinking from a bottle, or taking shots of tequila about 5-6 times in the movie. The director does not even acknowledge she is an alcoholic and has a drinking problem. All through the movie she only wears bikini tops whether she is at work, at a beach or at a wedding. The heroine of the movie doing this makes the youngsters feel this behaviour is acceptable.<br /><br />The less that is said about failure of Uday Chopra doing Shahrukh Khan's DDLJ role of arrogant girl-chaser, the better. The movie is about equality of sexes. But equality should not be about making the same mistakes, instead about doing the right to do the right thing. If men have been shown as chronic Casanovas in movies, does not mean women should also portray same behaviour.<br /><br />Even though the movie is made in light-hearted fun spirit, it promotes so many wrong social notions in the name of being forward, that "fun" part of the movie makes no impact. Not even in Canada women dress like this, or guys behave like they have shown in the movie. It is certainly not a reflection of Indian society or even Canadian society. Perhaps they should have a disclaimer at the beginning stating, "All characters and events in the movie are imaginary and do not reflect the actual culture of the cities and countries mentioned in the film." The only good thing about this movie is the length, 1.5 hrs, thank god. | negative |
IMDb lists this as 1972 for some reason, but the other sources I've seen including the excellent program notes mark it as '68. Doesn't really matter, except that it's quite interesting to watch this abstract collage of film and video (one of the first art works to merge the two apparently) in the context of the Star Gate sequence in 2001, released the same year. Pure abstraction isn't really my thing, but I can take it in small doses and the super-saturated optically printed colors and psychedelic feel of this series of flowers, Rohrschach blots, birds, etc is pretty compelling and quite beautiful. Certainly helped paved the way for many other nascent video artists in the 70s, and deserves to be better known. | positive |
Why Lori Petty was cast as tank girl, I'll never know. Her acting performance is lack-luster. Her voice is grating. It's almost impossible for me to put into words how bad this movie is.<br /><br />There are several "modern-pop" references in the film, which I found to be very strange, given that the movie was supposed to take place far in the future. It wouldn't have been hard to make this premise interesting either. Some better writing would have helped loads.<br /><br />Naomi Watts makes an appearance in it as a mild mannered techno-geek. I think they should have probably switched roles.<br /><br />I'll never know why anyone would like this movie, unless they were a Petty fan.<br /><br />Try not to see this movie. Total waste of time. | negative |
A real classic. A shipload of sailors trying to get to the towns daughters while their fathers go to extremes to deter the sailors attempts. A maidens cry for aid results in the dispatch of the "Rape Squad". A cult film waiting to happen! | positive |
Okay, I think we're all agreed that Michael Jackson was the low point.<br /><br />And the special effects too. But, please, keep in mind that this was NOT a big-budget film, okay? Not every film gets as much of a budget as Harry Potter or Star Wars.<br /><br />However, I thought it was pretty funny altogether. B-? Nothing that would, in my opinion, waste your time.<br /><br />Parodies are always fun to watch, and just because it wasn't big budget doesn't mean it's bad.<br /><br />I think this was a good movie, if weak at some points.<br /><br />Hope this comment helps. ~Angela | positive |
This is a terrible film, and not one scene has an ounce of truthful emotion. The characters are uninflected, obviously drawn, predictable and the story line is obvious and typical Hollywood wish fulfillment.<br /><br />William Holden (so sad to see him in this role) was 55 when this film was made, but he's playing someone in his early 40s and looks like he's in his 60s. Kay Lenz was 20 and was scripted to find him irresistibly attractive. I think the dog they found by the side of the road was sexier and had more life than their erotic connection.<br /><br />Holden's character--the same age as Clint Eastwood when he directed this film, (not) coincidentally--is placed with obvious trappings of 60s pre-hippie cool: the bachelor pad, the swinging hi-fi, the lunches at Yamashiro. But the film is ridiculously uncool, a clanging claptrap of old fogies desperately wishing that the free spirits they saw on Sunset and in Laurel Canyon would find them and their big honkin' cars sexy.<br /><br />Ugh. Youth culture was never that desperate. And I shudder to think that Bill Holden was so desperate for youth that he took this embarrassing part. | negative |
Truly awful nonsensical garbage. This movie does everything wrong except make the running time under an hour. The gore FX defy gravity & logic. There are no scares. The acting is abysmal, with everyone appearing to be reading their lines. There's a surprise ending that's just silly where we find out that things we saw happen didn't even happen. Boy do I hate cop out endings! They pad this thing out with long drawn-out shots of people doing nothing interesting(like putting on make-up or talking for what seems like forever). They have to pad out a movie that's under an hour long? Ridiculous. The story itself is pretty freakin' thin. I mean it's just a variation of the movie APRIL FOOL'S DAY, if I remember that movie correctly, and that film wasn't all that great either. The only good thing I can say is it seems to have been shot well. Too bad nothing happens that's very exciting. | negative |
It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.<br /><br />The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.<br /><br />HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.<br /><br />The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.<br /><br />Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.<br /><br />It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring "workers" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note. | negative |
I don't know how expensive was the creation of this movie but the effects were awful. Half of the movie was filmed on stage in front of a movie canvas (that's sure that blue box wouldn't look so artificial). When they traveled on a boat, the background canvas was moved imitating the movement of waves but the characters weren't moving. The CGI effects: terrible (I am not sure but I guess the effect were created with Paint and made a GIF sequence of them - next time the creators should hire a professional CGI maker team). It looks like the CGI creator would have drawn on the picture strip with shaky hands. Awful, that's sure. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was created in 1983. One of my friend told me the correct date: 2005. My jaw dropped, I was so shocked, I thought he was kidding. People, I recommend you to skip this movie, the story is also twisted, you won't enjoy it. | negative |
I thought this was a wonderful movie. It touches every fiber of a human being. The love in the film is very intense. I thought it was Will's best performance to date. Great directing. Liked the editing. Music was great. Good use of flashback. This is the kind of movie everyone should go see. I hope people will get something wonderful from this. Overall, excellent movie. I think Hollywood should make more movies with substance. Even action films can have a caring story. I like the fact that Will was very subtle in his acting. He had a purpose and a dedication that is rare to see. I would suggest watching this alone or with someone that you really care about. For me, I found that the world stopped and my only focus was on the film. The outside world was suspended for a moment. It was a nice feeling with all this chaos going on in this world. And with this me generation it was great to see something(someone) that cared about other people more than himself. | positive |
TV does influence society...just look at the surge in popularity of cappucino shops after this shallow little piece of work debuted. Besides, real people who look as good as these people do don't have any problems.<br /><br />Besides, does anyone really believe that these people can afford to live in a nice Manhattan loft considering what they do for a living? NBC just loves to insult the viewer's intelligence, even if they're just around Gump's level. I know a person who makes $100,000 a year as a web designer and lives in a tiny one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan that costs $2200 a month in rent. <br /><br />I'd like to see a show called Phriends, where it's six ugly nobodies in dead-end jobs, living in a crummy neighborhood where sirens constantly wail and someone gets mugged every week...and then the landlord jacks up the rent. Now THAT I would watch. | negative |
1st watched 5/17/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Ewald Andre Dupont): Fairly lame account of the Titanic disaster is the first filmed version of this much-heralded event. The replication of the disaster is not bad, but the drama around it is at some times silly, badly acted and way-too soap opera-like. The story is very much the same as the most recent Oscar-winning one except that we are shown how the crew tried to hide the actual disaster that was occurring until almost too late. Good for nostalgia purposes only and to get a feel for what James Cameron was competing against(barely
) in his recreation. | negative |
Since I am not a big Steven Seagal fan, I thought this was a pretty good movie. It is apparent that his fans are very displeased with this drama that lacks an over abundance of martial arts and brute force.<br /><br />Gailard Sartain plays a self claimed patriot leader of a militia in a standoff with the ATF for weapons violations. He surrenders with the intentions of releasing a deadly virus. Seagal is a former CIA agent turned country doctor that pressures himself to find the antidote for the lethal bug that has incapacitated a small town. His Grandpa's Native American herbal remedy figures into the salvation.<br /><br />Notable appearances by L.Q. Jones, Camilla Belle and Silas Weir Mitchell. My personal favorite in this movie is Whitney Yellow Robe. She is stunning and appears to have what it takes to take on a more challenging role.<br /><br />Despite the far fetched ending, this was a decent movie that could have used a lot more action. | negative |
Ho, ho, homicidal maniac! This spirited tour-de-force adaptation of a great EC Comics horror tale is undoubtedly one of the best episodes of the cable TV series ever made. Director Robert ("Back to the Future") Zemeckis makes the most out of a witty script by Fred ("Night of the Creeps," "The Monster Squad") Dekker which centers on a ruthless two-timing housewife (well played by Mary Ellen Trainor, who was married to Zemeckis when she starred in this episode) who kills her jilted jerk of a husband (a nice cameo by Marshall Bell) on Christmas Eve by whacking him upside the head with a fire-poker. Complications ensue when a deranged murderous madman dressed up as jolly Kris Kringle escapes from a nearby asylum and decides to pay Trainor a decidedly unfriendly visit. Alan Silvestri's spooky, stirring score and Dean Cundey's typically polished cinematography further enhance the macabre fun. And Larry Drake (the sweet gentle giant Benny on "L.A. Law"!), with his creepy hiccuping guffaw, a demented twinkle in his bright green eyes, and a leering, truly wicked grin, makes for a sensational sanguinary Saint Nick. | positive |
I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...<br /><br />Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...<br /><br />p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy<br /><br />I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...<br /><br />Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...<br /><br />p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy | negative |
I know it is fashionable now to hate this movie. I have seen hundreds of spook films including he original 1963 Haunting as well as most of the Hammer films. This film is not restrained and does not hold back at all which is probably why so many modern viewers seemed not to like it. Yet many viewers can accept out of control films like Scream because knife killers are more easy to believe for most people than demons or ghosts. Actually this film had many great scenes and the acting and special effects were great. I have seen it 15 times now and it gets better every time. The director of this film has made a number of interesting and stylish films and was not trying for the type of realism of the 6th sense. The Haunting lets go and is certainly not boring. Perhaps this film might appeal more to John Carpenter fans but more of an traditional plot structure. The old Haunting was also a fine film from 1963. It was even more scary. See both and also The Innocents and The Legend of Hell House with Pamela Franklin. | positive |
As an adventure mini-series, this is about as good as it gets. I viewed it when it was originally shown on HBO. Sigrid is totally believable in her role as Philadelphia, and the whole production was first rate! See all 400 minutes of it if you can. I highly recommend this mini-series. Amazing that I can't rate it officially, but for you readers/users I will let you know it's a solid 10! | positive |
Like many western Pennsylvania history buffs, I had been really looking forward to this much-heralded PBS program that was produced by Pittsburgh's WQED. However, I must say now that I was somewhat disappointed. On the positive side, I believe that overall this film did a fair job of explaining the main issues and describing the events of the so-called French and Indian War. In particular, its presentation of the Indians' point of view was somewhat new and quite interesting, although it certainly was at time over-emphasized. Also on the positive side, the blend of narrative and action scenes was well done and came across somewhat better than many of these typical documentaries made up of "experts" interviews and picture stills (a la Ken Burns). On the negative side, many of the battles did have a somewhat "staged" look and many important aspects of the war were overlooked. Most of all I was very disappointed and frustrated by how little importance was given to Forbes's successful campaign of 1758 against Fort Duquesne as compared to the earlier failures of 1754 by Washington and 1755 by Braddock. In particular, I was somewhat incredulous that there was NO mention of Colonel Henry Bouquet, the Swiss mercenary in the British service who was most responsible for Forbes' success. Finally I could not believe the complete omission of the 1763 Battle of Bushy Run that started as a re-run of Braddock's defeat but ended up as the victory that decided the outcome of Pontiac's War thanks to the wiles of the same Colonel Bouquet who certainly must rank as one of the most successful British commanders of this war. | negative |
I would probably not have bothered to comment on this film if I had not been disturbed by the constant references made to it here in North America as a porn film. Our obsession with what is, or should be, regarded as pornographic remains a relic of the 'guidance' provided to film makers by the Hayes committee many, many years ago and it is now really time that we relegate it to the past. So far we have not progressed far beyond establishing a somewhat arbitrary division between what we now term 'soft' and 'hard' porn, with both carrying the same pornography label. It is time for us all recognise that neither the R rated (soft porn?) release version of this film, nor the unrated version (hard porn?) available on DVD were in any way pornographic.<br /><br />In legal terms pornography is defined by its capacity to deprave or corrupt. Many classic books such as Lady Chatterley's lover, Fanny Hill, Women in Love, The Story of 'O' or Moll Flanders have been prosecuted for pornographic content, tried by jury and cleared on the basis of this definition, but in practice most ordinary citizens are not interested in what they regard as legal equivocation, and apply a simpler test that is rather too stringent when applied to books or films which are very close to the line, but serves to quickly clear most others from any taint of pornography. Although the Hayes code would have rated AIW as unacceptable both for nudity and for its depictions of sexual activities, in practice most people today accept that where the basic message of a book or film is clearly designed to encourage the development of long term stable family relationships in which the participants find real fulfillment, it cannot be regarded as pornographic (this does not mean that works depicting unsatisfactory or unstable relationships should be recognised as pornographic, only that these may need a more sophisticated assessment). In AIW, we have a film about a young female librarian who has had a rather sheltered upbringing, and keeps her suitor at arms length because of a feeling that this is what morality requires her to do. After he gets too frustrated by this and threatens to leave her, she falls asleep and dreams she is transported to a Wonderland (closely based on that of Lewis Carrol) where everyone she meets is totally uninhibited about their sexual needs. She is shocked, but is a kind person who takes things as she finds them, so before long she finds her own prejudices gradually melting away. She wakes up when her boyfriend returns to break off their affair, but her attitude to him has changed so completely that their relationship is fully restored, and the film ends with them living 'happily ever after' with their children in a home with a white picket fence and a family dog - an ending clearly directed to those romantics who remain very young at heart.<br /><br />Pornographic? - Hardly!.<br /><br />Suitable viewing for children? - Well probably not quite, unless they have very progressive parents.<br /><br />R rating? - PG would be more appropriate today.<br /><br />Entertaining for viewers in most age groups ? - Yes, but the film has its faults - these are discussed in many of the comments here on IMDb, however most commentators clearly appreciated and enjoyed it.<br /><br />I believe the only pornography associated with this film was the reported claim by an anti-pornography activist of "scientific proof" that a magazine picture of Kristin deBell was a photographic montage of images of the face of a ten year old with various body parts of adult models. These and other comments seriously damaged the career of a very promising young actress, but today the film appears to be on its way to becoming a cult classic, Several home video productions have been released in both VHS and DVD format; the last was a DVD containing both the R rated and unrated versions of the film, released by Subversive Cinema in 2007. Copies of this were readily available until a few months ago, now they are almost exhausted and the mail order vendors who still have copies in stock are selling them at many times their original price - a situation which usually quickly results in a new DVD release appearing. This continuing interest nearly 35 years after the original film was released points to near classic status.<br /><br />Commentators on this database are expected to provide fellow viewers with useful guidance on whether a film is worth watching or even collecting - my comments here were intended to stress the ongoing damage to the industry that still results from pressure on major studios to respect self-censorship recommendations originating with the Hayes Committee. On this database such general comments are very quickly marked by readers as 'not helpful' and I seldom make them; but fortunately I still have space to add that in my opinion this film is quite unusual and is well worth watching or even buying. It is flawed, but Kristine deBell gives a great performance and the film provides a fairly unique and rewarding viewing experience. Overall I would rate it at 7 stars and will be buying a copy of the next DVD edition if and when it appears. If Ms deBell is still alive today I would love to hear her comments both on the attempts to suppress this film and on the late recognition that it has gradually achieved. | positive |
There are so many stupid moments in 'Tower of Death'/'Game of Death 2' that you really wonder if it's a spoof. At times, it felt like I was watching a sequel to Kung Pow rather than a Bruce Lee film.<br /><br />To be honest, this film has bugger all to do with 'Game of Death'. If anything, it's more a sequel/remake of 'Enter the Dragon', incorporating many elements of that film - particularly the actual footage. Bruce Lee's character Billy Lo (apparently) investigates the sudden death of his friend and encounters a piece of film that was left with the man's daughter. When the body is stolen during the funeral (!), Billy is also killed and it's up to his wayward brother to avenge both men's deaths.<br /><br />Tong Long stars as brother Bobby Lo and doesn't really have the sort of charisma to carry the film. His fighting abilities are very good however. Bruce Lee obviously turns up thanks to (no longer) deleted footage simply to cash-in on the legacy. Saying that, on the whole, the footage is actually edited-in better than in 'Game of Death' but it doesn't stop the film from being a mess.<br /><br />OK, so the fights are actually very entertaining (dare I say mind-blowing) and make the film at least watchable. But there are so many daft elements to this film that it really tests your patience. First off, there's the supposed villain who lives on his palatial estate... or is that mental institution? Seriously, the nutter eats raw venison, drinks deer's blood, carries a monkey on his shoulder and owns some peacocks and lions (?!). This attempt to make him look tough and intelligent just makes you feel sorry for him - you half expect someone to escort him back to his room.<br /><br />In fact, this middle section is awful and when the scene involving a naked hooker and a lion suit arrived I turned it off. However, I did finish the film and was kind of glad I did because the fight scene towards the end (much like 'GOD') was the whole reason for watching. While the story is an embarrassment, the action is very good and contains excellent choreography.<br /><br />But even the finale disappoints if the premise was anything to go by. What we were told was that the 'Tower of Death' was a pagoda that was upside down and underground. This sounded great, like a twist on Bruce Lee's original idea with different styles of fighting on each level. Could this be the 'Game of Death' that was originally planned? No! The film should have been named "Generator Room of Death" because thats as far as the tower goes. Of yes, there were indeed one or two 'different' styles... there were foil clad grunts, leopard-skinned henchman and stupid monk. It's as though Enter the Dragon had never been made, with the plot being a poor imitation.<br /><br />Worth watching once for the fast paced fight scenes, but so stupid sometimes that it hurts. If this was intended, then fine. Thumbs up, however, for recreating that projector room scene from 'Enter The Dragon'. | negative |
This movie is a rather odd mix of musical, romance, drama and crime with a sniff of film-noir to it. It's basically one messy heap of different genres, of which none really works out like it was supposed to.<br /><br />This movie is an attempt by Mickey Rooney to be taken more serious as an actor. He's a former child-star who always used to star in in happy comical- and musical productions at the start of his career. In this movie he picks a different approach (although the musical aspects are still present in the movie). But his role is actually quite laughable within the movie. I mean Mickey Rooney as a tough player? He's an extremely small boyish looking man. He actually was in his 30's already at the time of this movie but he seriously looks more like a 16 year old. Hearing him say babe to women and hearing talking tough to gangsters who are about 3 times bigger than he is just doesn't look and feel right. He simply isn't convincing in his role.<br /><br />Because the movie mixes so many different genres, the story also really feels as a messy one. Somewhere in it there is a crime plot and somewhere in it is a romantic plot-line and one about living your dream but none of it works out really due to the messy approach and handling of it all. It just isn't an interesting or compelling movie to watch. László Kardos is also a director who has done only 10 movies in his lifetime, despite the fact that his career span from 1935 till 1957. He must have been a struggling director who had a hard time getting work into the industry and instead once in a while was given a lesser script to work with. His movies are all unknown ones and normally also not of too high quality.<br /><br />Let's also not forget that this is a '50's movie but yet it more feels like a '40's one or perhaps even as one from the '30's. This is of course mostly due to the fact that this movie got shot in black & white. Generally speaking black & white movies from the '50's often have a cheap looking feeling over it and this movie forms no exception.<br /><br />It's a rather strange sight seeing Mickey Rooney and Louis Armstrong and his band as themselves performing together in a sequence. It wasn't the only movie Armstrong appeared in though and he would often pop up in these type of movies, often simply as himself. I guess jazz lovers can still somewhat enjoy watching this movie due to its music, since there is quite an amount of it present in this movie. The movie actually received an Oscar nomination for best original song.<br /><br />An awkward little movie and outing from Mickey Rooney.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
Director Michael Ritchie and actor Robert Redford's second documentary-style drama, 'The Candidate', is a political satire that still seems fresh and pertinent today. So it's a pity that 'Downhill Racer', made a short time before, seems so dated by contrast. The music is ugly, and the perhaps innovative ski-ing sequences are now standard in televisual coverage of the sport. The world of ski-ing seems strangely amateurish (probably accurately, given the time the movie was made, but it's hard to relate to today's professional world), and the theme of Americans in Europe likewise seems hundrum in an age of ever easier travel. Perhaps the biggest problem is the flat plot, centred on the arrogant but enigmatic hero; unfortunately, it's a dreary performance from Redford, offering us little insight into his cares or motivations. And a character-driven film without much of a character is never a good bet. I expected much, but sadly this is a boring movie. | negative |
Most people (36) gave this movie a 10 and those who don't are being too critical or maybe expected something else. This is one of my favorite movies from the 80's, it grows on you, and has it all. I just got it on DVD and 20 years later it still does not disappoint, having plenty of action, drama, romance, and even comedy. Add to that the great car chases, automatic weapon shootouts and lots of stuff blowing up and you have a fun, edge of your seat experience! You will even be humming or whistling the main theme song for days after seeing this. <br /><br />You can watch this movie with your wife/gf and you will both enjoy it lots. The premise is that of a paperback book hero, like Doc. Savage, really existing and helping people fight evil so he can write the story is almost true to life here. The actor Jake Speed is also a director, producer and writer of many films. In THIS film Jake Speed (the character) is an Indiana Jones adventurer type, he usually uses his head to get out of sticky situations but will sometimes resorts to brute firepower (yay!,and sheer dumb luck too!). Keep an eye out for his one "James Bond" hi-tech equipment, the ultimate road warrior SUV dropping out of the sky.<br /><br />The heroine is the very beautiful young love interest from the early Jim Carey vampire movie "Once Bitten" and here she is a little older and still a knockout even compared to her teenage blonde little sister.<br /><br />The bad guys are "real bad" men and are the worst lowlife villainous scum you love to hate. The ending is just perfect and can stand alone or invite a sequel, sadly never made - but you can just imagine what would happen next!<br /><br />You have to see this movie just because it will entertain and amuse you and that's worth the price of a ticket. | positive |
I fell in love with Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves, then grew even more fascinated by her range and adeptness in Hilary and Jackie. Now comes this stunning portrayal of a rich girl who spurns breeding and convention in favor of mothering the tortured soul of the child of a man clearly in need of mothering. Her eyes are the mirror to his soul --and what gentle and beautiful eyes they are.<br /><br />Those who take things literally will find Marleen Gorris' poetic and allegorical direction quite frustrating. Romantics who are willing to go with the amazing kinetic energy is this filmed allegorical poem will be well rewarded. | positive |
Have you ever wondered why these guys -- Seagal, Stallone, Willis, et al -- manage to survive all those gunfights in which they're outnumbered? I think I've got it figured out. The enemies always miss, and the hero doesn't.<br /><br />Here, Seagal has a pistol and outshoots a half dozen heavies firing at him from a few feet away. One of the heavies has a shotgun. Or maybe two of them have. It doesn't really matter. There could be a thousand shotguns blasting away at him and Seagal would still emerge with his ponytail intact.<br /><br />And when it comes to mano a mano combat -- forget it. The evildoers may or may not be armed with swords or knives or blunt object but Seagal, with his skill in aikido or tempura or sushido or play-do or whatever it is, brushes them aside with a few dismissive blows. Not only is he a master of these outré skills but his physical strength is Herculean. More than once he snaps somebody's long bones as easily as we would break a toothpick. One he breaks a guy's SPINE over his knee.<br /><br />I'll tell you something. (I'm getting into the spirit of the film here because Seagal uses that line, "I'll tell you something," several times, along with, "What's that supposed to mean?") These guys are fully deserving of extinction in any good Xenophobe's handbook. They are all black, speak with unintelligible Jah-MAY-can accents, wear dreadlocks that look in dire need of a shampoo, they torture and murder with aplomb, and -- here's the worst part. They're unchristian. That's right. They practice voodoo.<br /><br />Actually the voodoo element comes close to being the most interesting element of the film. They got the constituents of the ritual pretty well -- cigar smoke, rum spitting, the sacrificial chicken. They only left out the possession dance in which the spirit rides the dancer. They should have read Metraux on voodoo.<br /><br />Otherwise the plot adheres to the usual conventions. What was done to Jaqueline Bissett by the voodoo-practitioners in "The Deep" is done here to a friend of Seagal's. What was done to John Wayne when he was stuck between trucks in "McQ" is done here to Seagal himself. At the movie's very opening, when Seagal makes a brief speech about having seen too much pointless violence in his DEA career so he's now happily retired, and when we are introduced to his friends and family, I tried to keep track of his affiliates to see if I could pick out which ones would be horribly murdered or maimed to generate his quest for revenge.<br /><br />The acting doesn't really require much comment. But Charles, the Jamaican cop, played by Tom Wright, is really pretty good. Wright has considerable range. Here, he's an associate of dubious allegiance, rather sinister. But in "The Pentagon Wars" he has a comic part that he underplays perfectly.<br /><br />The Jamaicans never flew as movie villains. I don't know why exactly. It's a small movie market. And if you go to Jamaica stick to Montego Bay. However, if you want to see Jamaican voodoo drug dealers as heavies, and if you're in the mood for another typical-standard action flick, this should be a satisfying view. | negative |
'Succubus', the edited version of 'Necronomicon Geträumte Sünden', is a struggle to sit through, even at a lean 76 minutes; any more of this dreadfully boring and pretentious Euro horror tripe and I may have slipped into a coma.<br /><br />Jess Franco once again delivers a truly awful piece of 60s trash that appears to have been made by a cast and crew out of of their heads on Class A hallucinogenics, since not one second of this mess made any sense whatsoever. Apparently, this is one of the better of his 180+ films it's hard to believe that there are worse efforts out there.<br /><br />The unfathomable plot deals with Franco's usual themes of sex, violence and lesbianism and throws in a bit of S&M for good measure, and yet it still manages to remain mind numbingly tedious.<br /><br />I may leave it quite a while before entering the world of dodgy Euro Horror again life is too short to be spent watching bilge like this. | negative |
Bruce Almighty is the best Jim Carrey work since The Truman Show, and was a pleasant surprise after some of his recent "Hey Hollywood - look how good I can act!" box office disappointments. It's great to see Jim recognizing and embracing his strengths. He won't get an Academy Award but the film itself will last longer than many of the "awarded films" of the Academy. He is at the top of his form in this most recent film - it's like the return of an old friend.<br /><br />Carrey, Freeman, and Aniston all do a great job together - comfortable in their comedy roles, superb comic timing, and obviously having fun together but without the "hey mom - look how funny I am" type of comedy. A real surprise was Steven Carrell as Carrey's nemesis (Carrell of The Daily Show fame), who walked away with some the best and funniest scenes of the film. I laughed harder at Carell than anyone else in the past three years.<br /><br />I can foresee the religious nuts in the US will be up-in-arms over the treatment of God, but the bottom line of the film is true to all major theological beliefs - we are masses of protoplasms trying to get through our short lives by exercising our free will. Without Married With Children t o complain about, this will likely become a target of people with misplaced priorities (who know the types - men adorned in gold watches on Sunday morning and late nigh television, selling prayers to God). And, again, about 0.5% of the country will care and 80% of the media will report it.<br /><br />The bottom line: this a purely entertaining film, each audience member laughingly wondering what they would do, and a feel-good feeling at the movie conclusion. A walk down any major street in America has to confirm that God has a tremendous sense of humor. What better comic genius to remind us of that than Jim Carry.<br /><br />Thanks again, Jim -- it's GREAT to have you back!! | positive |
A memorable line from a short lived show. After viewing the episode where that line was introduced my fraternity intramural flag football team started using the line to break our huddles on offense. Instead of Ready / Break, our quarter back said FOOTBALL and the rest of the squad responded YOU BET! A fun way to break the huddle that had our opponents scratching their heads as very few of them had watched the show. Using this line added a unique element to our season that I'll never forget. We had our best season during my time in college that year and in a small way it was due to the fun that we had using this line. The show was pretty much a stinker but it lives on in the memories of the 1977 Pi Kappa Phi intramural flag football squad at West Virginia Tech. | negative |
This review contains a SPOILER---<br /><br />The movie is an American Ninja mysteriously trained in the martial arts. He falls for the Colonel's daughter and turns from the most hated grunt on the post to the "People's hero" at the end of the film. This film is extremely cheesy and very poorly researched. It is good for folks who do not care about plot development or reality. Good for kids under 14. The military errors in this film is comical. I remember during my three years in the military, us privates were not required to salute or call NCO's "Sir", the film does this in various spots. The colonel's hair is way too long on the ears. The Master Sergent's moustache was against military protocol in length. On the post, the Colonel was the only officer around. Not one other officer was shown walking around the post. You had idiot ninjas brandshing swords against troops with m-16's, rather poorly made.<br /><br />Folks this filmed reeked. Michael Dudikoff is not really that bad of an actor he just has lousy scripts. The ninjas were more hilarious than dangerous. Avoid this film | negative |
This was an interesting movie. I could have done without the bathroom scene and the seduction scene - EWWWW! Other than that, I loved the head-banging music this movie revolved around. Chris/Izzy's parents are AWESOME! They totally support their sons interests and believe in him enough to support him - now that is AWESOME!! What really surprised me was the Chris's realization at the end. It was not quite the "hollywood" ending on his road to self discovery. The overall rise to stardom and the fall of it was quite a roller- coaster ride. | positive |
In short, this movie is a declaration of artistic bankruptcy.<br /><br />Almodovar is easily the most important European film maker of the 80s and 90s. No other living director has shaped the style and contents of present-day European cinema more than him. It is therefore not easy to say that his latest effort is not just another disappointment after two lackluster films, but rather a complete and total disaster confirming that he has run out of ideas, out of humour and, worst of all, empathy for the characters he creates.<br /><br />That is not due to the complexity of the story. All Almodovar films are almost impossible to summarize. This time, in fact, it's rather easy if you are familiar with his earlier work. "Broken Embraces" is a remake of "Law of Desire", only this time the director is straight and the jealous jilted lover is a millionaire.<br /><br />For those of you not familiar with that film, I'm doing a summary. If you don't want to know too much, please skip this paragraph. A blind man, who used to be a famous movie director, seduces a sexy buxom woman reading a paper to him after a chance street encounter (yes, really, that's how it starts). Just then he gets a visit by his agent and best friend. He mentions to her that he has learned from the paper that a certain millionaire has died, which takes the story 14 years back. He can still see and is about to direct his next film. He stars the inexperienced mistress of the said millionaire as the lead, as he is instantly smitten with her. The millionaire discovers their affair via silent videos made by his gay son, which he has lip-synched by an interpreter (a few great scenes: Cecilia Roth). After violent quarrels, the mistress escapes with the director to a seaside resort where he learns that the millionaire, who produced the film, had it released in the worst possible edit, destroying the director's reputation. The couple decides to return, but has an accident in which the director turns blind and the would-be actress dies. Back in the present, he learns that his agent has preserved the film's negatives and starts to reconstruct it.<br /><br />As in "Bad Education", there are various sub plots to beef up this rather thin story, and as in "Bad Education", the result is more confusing than satisfactory. For instance, the agent's son, who works as a DJ, has an accidental drug overdose - which is completely unnecessary for the plot, and also interpreted rather badly.<br /><br />Mostly, however, the actors are not to blame, but the way their characters are written. Blanca Portilla as the agent has so many skeletons in her closet that not even a brilliant performance can save the character from ridicule. Lluis Homar is an old man's dream of a protagonist, living in an artificial world where an English alias and a few sweet words can seduce any super model. And Penelope Cruz is the embodiment of this old man's sexual fantasy. Her character is completely lifeless. It remains thoroughly incomprehensible why she would go from one old man, who at least helped her family, to a slightly less old man, who isn't charming enough to convince as either a romantic hero or a passion fuse.<br /><br />But all these shortcomings wouldn't make this film so awful. However, Almodovar does the worst possible thing of a director (or any type of storyteller) running out of ideas: he quotes himself, something he has increasingly done, and to very little benefit. The film-within-the-film, which "Broken Embraces" uses as a plot-driving device, is actually "Women at the verge of a nervous breakdown" (1988), only this time it is called "Chicks and Suitcases". This rather unimaginative title may give you a hint how this beloved classic is treated here: while the dialog making up the final ten minutes of "Broken Embraces" is a frantic, over-the-top exchange of screwball one-liners in the original film, here it is a stern, colorless, pesky business encounter.<br /><br />In conclusion, this is the D.O.A. brainchild of an exhausted creator of past marvels, pretty much as awful and disappointing as the last Indiana Jones feature. Maybe not so many people would agree with that, because Almodovar used to be such a genius. I'd rather offer my respect to his accomplishments by humbly asking the reader to watch "All about my mother", or "Tie me up", or "High Heels", or "Matador", all of which bear witness to Almodovar's unique and unmatched talent. A few more film like this, and his legacy may very well be destroyed for good. | negative |
A few years ago, while I was renting some movies, I came across Subspecies 4, ended up watching it and actually kind of liking it, we need a good vampire gore flick that doesn't hold back. But when I went back to the video store, they said they didn't have any other Subspecies videos, unfortunately, the same went for any other video store I checked out. I gave up, until someone on youtube actually posted all the Subspecies films and I got to watch them all last night and I'm hooked. I am now a fan of the Full Moon Subspecies series. I think because this was the type of horror film I have been looking for, I've been looking for a good cheesy scare for a long time and Subspecies filled that spot. Radu is one of the coolest vampires on screen and almost gives Nosferatu a run for his fangs! <br /><br />Radu is an evil vampire who is after his blood stone, his birth rite, the stone contains some blood that is absolutely incredible and gives him strength. Three American girls who are studying Romanian history and culture bump into a man, Stephan, who offers to help. They stay at Radu's castle where we find out that Stephan is Radu's brother; Radu seduces and turns two of the girls, but Stephan falls for one of the girls, Michelle, and will do anything to protect her.<br /><br />Subspecies is a fun series, despite the cheesy effects, it makes it in some ways more likable. Plus Radu was a perfect villain as Stephan was the perfect angel like romantic vampire. The story is chilling and I think this was a fun vampire movie. This was also the first in the series, the best part is, the sequels are just as fun. I would recommend this for a scary movie night, watch it in the dark, Radu is sure to send shivers down your spine, or even your neck... OK, cheesy joke, couldn't resist.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
In a better civilization, this and many other of the David Suchet movies would be released in theaters. The plots are fabulous (no, I'd no clue who had done it, but the clues were all there if I'd been more imaginative - the best kind of mystery), the production values astounding, the acting (from Edward Fox, Sarah Miles, Lysette Anthony, Megan Dodds, and of course David Suchet as Hercule Poirot) simply perfect, the dialogue wonderful, the music and sens of suspense and tension just wonderful stuff.<br /><br />One of the pleasures of these Hercule Poirot movies for a man is how many beautiful women star in them! Here were have two - the sexy sinuous Megan Doods and the stunning Lysette Anthony.<br /><br />You really can't go wrong renting these - they're just wonderful - like the most wonderful dinner in the most wonderful restaurant with the most perfect company you can imagine - your mind constantly working because it's all there and you struggle but by keeping your mind constantly thinking can keep up with everything - and the settings gorgeous.<br /><br />I can't think of movies that stimulate thought more than these Hercule Poirot/David Suchet movies. It's impossible to over-praise them - and I had never seen one before a few months ago nor read an Agatha Christie. | positive |
In moments of desperation were willing to do whatever it takes to win. I loved how the Maple Leaves futility was used as a metaphorical basis for Bobby and Tessa. The acting was accurate by far superior from the hogwash intake given by the film industry.<br /><br />Great editing! At the end of the short I felt it was a bit incomplete but so is life and this is were life and art waltz into cinematic masterpiece.<br /><br />Excuse me while I rinse off the cheese whiz, but I guess it's acceptable at certain times.<br /><br />Two scenes which I must point out are: The bath tub and the couch scene.<br /><br />The couch scene for Tessa was a defining moment and 360 of the human condition. Throughout the short I viewed her as a brute, but now we see her true reality. Her mind spoke before her heart. Need I say more about the bath tub scene. | positive |
Nice to see a comedy for grown ups. Masterfully structured by Aaron Sorkin via Mike Nichols's own mastery. Mr Nichol's mastery is to present characters in all their shocking truth, from the sad and riveting Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf" to the sad and riveting Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Jude Law and Natalie Portman in "Closer". In "Charlie Wilson's War" the shocking truth is outside the characters and the sad and riveting Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams are at the service of something else, it's personal only to a point. Hanks has to bury his brilliance in single malts and Julia Roberts throws parties and introduces characters with blatant straightforwardness. Amy Adams witnesses and exist as a character, witnessing. An insurmountable task that Miss Adams manages to surmount, beautifully. It is Philip Seymour Hoffman's Gus with a t, however, that monopolized my attention. His character may not be a first but it is a first the way that Hoffman presented him to us. Someone who survives the disregard with which he's treated by the absolute conviction that he's smarter than all of them put together. Hoffman is superb. The pacing of the tale helps enormously not to fall in a myriad of useless questions. A sharp, short, smart, sad comedy and when was the last time I was able to say that? | positive |
Working from a script written in part by Nicholas Pileggi, best known for writing the book Wiseguy, which he adapted into the movie Goodfellas, and for writing the book and screenplay Casino, director Harold Becker shows how connected circles scratch each other's backs, even in the command of a comparatively honorable mayor like Pappas, who is regarded as a presidential prospect. As Cusack follows the paper trail of the dead mobster's probation report, his skepticism is agitated. How did this violent young man get probation rather than a jail sentence? We meet the other players in the plot, not the least of which is Danny Aiello, the political boss of Brooklyn, and Tony Franciosa, the Mafia boss whose nephew was shot dead. How and why these people are affiliated I leave to the movie to divulge, though there are never any misgivings that they are.<br /><br />The narrative is told generally through the eyes of the Cusack character, a visionary from Louisiana who admires his boss and hopes to learn from him. Much is made by everyone of bureaucratic knowledge passed down through the generations. Some of the dialogue is ungracefully erudite, but considering I just described the building blocks of the story as bureaucratic knowledge, one can't say it doesn't work. The shooting case builds against the seasoning of two other issues on the mayor's desk: a charge by Aiello for a subway stop and an off-ramp in Brooklyn to aid a new banking center, and the city's bid for the next Democratic convention. Individual idiosyncrasies are also explored, including Aiello's emotional bond with the music of Rogers and Hammerstein.<br /><br />Much also is made of menschkeit, a Yiddish expression, which, Pappas explains to his deputy, is about the bond of honor between two men, about what happens between the two hands in a handshake. This connection doesn't mean much to Bridget Fonda, the lawyer for the policeman's association who defends the dead cop's honor and fights for his widow's pension even as incriminating evidence appears. Little by little, the deputy mayor comes to grasp that menschkeit is such an influential notion that it outclasses he law.<br /><br />There are various scenes of hard impact, including one where the Brooklyn boss comes home for lunch in the middle of the day, his wife asserts her interest through the medium of the dish she has cooked, and then the Mafia boss drops in by surprise. There is also a compelling, and markedly conjectural, late scene between the mayor and his deputy.<br /><br />One scene handled with delicacy is comprised of the mayor's decision to speak at the funeral of the slain child, in a Harlem church. His advisers tell him he won't be wanted there. But he goes anyway, and cranks himself up for a spiel of unabashed hyperbole, Pacino and his character both.<br /><br />It gets an impressive reaction from the congregation, but the mayor knows, and his deputy knows, that it was artificial, and the way they scrupulously evade discussing it, in the limousine taking them away, is a subtle employment of composure and innuendo. This is a script that knows it has to supply Pacino with the reason why most of his fans go to see him, and immediately follows its quota with the reality that silence has much more inherent meaning than speech.<br /><br />Pacino and Cusack are convincing together throughout the movie, the older man unbreakable and aware, the younger one anxious to learn, but with ideals that don't sway. Pacino is innate with his down-to-earth capacity to marry common sense and inventive imagination, inspired flair and matter-of-fact realism. Cusack moves very freely in spite of his dark defensiveness.<br /><br />The Bridget Fonda subplot development is unnecessary, but it is a result of veteran screenwriter Paul Schrader's otherwise shrewdly perceptive belief in the worth of every character, and each is fleshed into earnest embodiments. Aiello, for instance, is a highlight because he evokes his character's joie de vivre and sensitivity to his environment. | positive |
This movie really is a mixed bag. On the one hand, the story and concept of the movie are really good, tense and have some nice plot twists in it. But than again on the other hand, it all is told very slow, without style and uninvolved. Still I regard "Just Cause" as an above average thriller simply because of the fine cast.<br /><br />Maybe Sean Connery was miscast in his role. I mean, he isn't really that believable as a the main 'hero' and father of a young daughter (played by a still very young Scarlett Johansson by the way) and husband of Kate Capshaw. I feel that he simply was too old for the role to be really credible in it. However Sean Connerey is of course a great actor and that is the only reason why he is still able to carry the movie as good as he does. But he of course is helped by a very solid supporting cast that consists out of actors like Laurence Fishburne, Blair Underwood, Ned Beatty, Hope Lange, Lynne Thigpen and Ed Harris. All actors are really good but some of them are highly underused at the same time, which is a real shame, as well as a missed opportunity. Especially Ed Harris is just totally great in his role as a psychopathic serial killer. He's truly chilling and acting superbly. Normally he doesn't play this ruthless, chilling sort of roles in movies, so he really surprises with his role in this one. His performance alone is already more than enough reason to watch this movie. However due to the fact that the story is told without much style and too formulaic, none of the characters in the movie really work out well because it feels all too distant.<br /><br />It really is the way of storytelling that kills all the movie its fine potential. Arne Glimcher directs the movie with little style and keeps the pace too low at times. Because of this, we as viewers, never really get involved with the story or any of it's characters.<br /><br />It really is too bad, for "Just Cause" had more than enough potential. A fine cast and a slick story with some unexpected twists and turns in it in which nothing is what it seems. The cast and story are the only reason why this movie is still an above average thriller, that will probably still please the fan of the genre. It however is an eternal shame that the movie is lacking in its story telling and style, or else this movie could had been a real classic in its genre.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
I watched this movie for its two hours and have absolutely no idea what it's about. Somebody got murdered or maybe they didn't and maybe somebody did it or maybe they didn't. This brought back memories of the good old days (bad old days?) when all CBC Canadian movies were stinkers. Lately stinkers have been the exception but this confused hodge podge of trendy feminism, mind reeling flash backs and mumbled dialogue makes up for lost time. I've never found Margaret Atwood's books easy to read. This movie continues that fine Canadian tradition. It isn't easy to watch. Maybe the trendy folks at the chi chi Toronto cocktail parties will pretend they liked it. Us folks in the boonies are a little less pretentious. | negative |
At first, I honestly thought it would be a corny movie. But after seeing this, I was quite surprised. Amanda Bynes was convincingly funny along with the supporting cast (Especially that character played by "Bullet tooth Tony" from Snatch. What a contrasting role between those two movies!). Now, i'm not one to say whether or not an actor is good or not, but her act, especially, was thoroughly enjoyable. Even though the plot devolved into a teeny-bopper love triangle (though very funny) half-way into the movie, I feel that this shouldn't discount, what I think, the movie really is: simply entertaining. So if you happen to stumble upon it, whether by DVD or theater, i'm confident that you'll enjoy. | positive |
First off- What are some of you thinking? This is the best movie I've seen in ages! <br /><br />Secondly- I don't think of it as a British movie as it is set in Dublin and has mainly Irish actors- Moran, Gambon, Aisling O Sullivan(Rita), Deirdre O'Kane etc.<br /><br />Thirdly- I thought that Moran was excellent. He was hilariously funny through out. Micheal Caine seemed only to be there to get Moran context. Each character he took on he perfected. <br /><br />Abigail Iversen I thought was better than any other child actor I have seen. She was believable as the smart kid and also as a kid and an adult(yes I know that sounds strange but hey...). Even she managed to upstage Caine. <br /><br />Iversen and Moran worked very well together and were very funny in the preparation scene.<br /><br />Barreler(Gambon) was very funny in his ineptitude. | positive |
This movie is not about the soda nor is it quite the French Connection.<br /><br />The Seven Ups are a group of elite policemen that use tactics not in accordance with protocol of the NYPD. Scheider heads the group with his posse or regular looking joes. They are running surveillance on a local costra nostra cartel and things go awry when a cop's wire is found out.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Richard Lynch, the most evil looking man in film (Invasion:America, Little Nikita) and his partner end up killing the cop by accident and escape from Scheider in the coolest chase scene I've seen, Bullitt and French Connection are not as good as they one up the West Side to the George Washington and onto the Palisades Parkway in New Jersey. <br /><br />The stunt drivers are terrific and Lynch makes it away free though he looks scared witless from the dangerous trip. Roy Scheider is nearly killed when his car slams into the abutted rear of Mack truck ripping the roof of his vehicle off. <br /><br />Things come to a head and one has to keep watching to follow up on such a sequence. Quick moving and intense, fresh for a thirty years. | positive |
Well where do we start, there was a lot of potential for this film with such big stars playing a role. But the whole story was ruined by a horrific plot. This movie did not pan out to be what i would expect, the good guy makes it out alive, i mean co mon nobody wants the good guy to be successful. The ending was cringe worthy and very cliché no thought what so ever, YOU GOT THE PLOT ALL WRONG THE BAD GUYS ARE MEANT TO COME OUT SUCCESSFUL.<br /><br />If you want to waste 1 hour and 2 minutes of your time spend it doing something else this movie was the epitome of CRAP. I really think the actors did this movie for some quick Vegas cash no doubt about it. SAVE your money watch a better movie. | negative |
I went into this film thinking it would be a crappy b-rated movie. I came out surprised and very amused. Eva was good, but Lake Bell stole the show. She had amazing comedic timing. The jokes in this film were surprisingly original and really funny with one or two flat jokes in between. The plot was enough to tie it all together, a woman (Eva) dies on her wedding day and comes back to haunt the woman that is going out with her was-to-be husband, its sounds far-fetched but it actually works quite well. <br /><br />7/10 - Overall its a worthwhile cinema watch, if not get it on DVD when it comes out. | positive |
Maybe the greatest film ever about jazz.<br /><br />It IS jazz.<br /><br />The opening shot continues to haunt my reverie.<br /><br />Lester, of course, is wonderful and out of this world.<br /><br />Jo Jones is always a delight (see The Sound of Jazz as well).<br /><br />If you can, find the music; it's available on CD.<br /><br />All lovers of jazz and film noir should study this tremendous jewel.<br /><br />What shadows and light - what music - what a hat! | positive |
This is an odd movie. On the surface it's no different to many other d-grade gore movies but in at least a few ways it stands out. Firstly, the main killer character is really weird. How the heck a guy who only ever clucks like a chicken got paroled is totally beyond me. What was that female parole board member thinking: "he's totally reformed and rehabilitated". He clucks! Another problem with Luther the Geek is the script/direction for the women. The daughter is so pathetic and seemingly stupid that if she was mine I'ld slap her. In attempting to untie her mother off the bed she struggles with knots and just doesn't seem to think, "I'll get scissors, or a knife". Later on, in a similar attempt to untie her mother she wanders down stairs and starts searching in a box of scrap-booking stuff for some scissors, eventually she gets a knife. By the way, this is after the killer has obviously left in the car and just returned. Bizarre. On the plus side the daughter did get her kit off for the shower scene, so that was nice, although again unusual. It seems that in many of these d-grade gore movies they happily show throats being bitten open with gushing blood but the sight of a female breast is somehow too strong for the audience. In general, it worked but it was annoying and nasty, although the bare breasts made up for some of that. | negative |
I am a huge fan of the $5.50 DVD bin at my local WalMart. Hopefully you have one at your local branch. You can find a bunch of campy flicks, a bunch of trash, and the occasional surprise. This movie is one of the surprises. My friend recently bought this one, and in thinking it would be another cheesy kung-fu laugh riot, I was genuinely surprised at how good it was. I watch a lot of movies, and as a result, I can almost always call how a movie will turn out; and if there's a plot twist, what it will be. Not this movie! The directing is brilliant, the plot is awesome, and the fighting is unbelievably inventive. If you see this one sitting around somewhere at a dirt-cheap price, get it! If you see it at full price, I would still recommend it. | positive |
An enthralling, wonderful look at the films that inspired the excellent Martin Scorsese. Many of the films he speaks of are easy to relate to his works, particularly the earlier ones, the silent era. Very enjoyable despite being a bit long, I found this to be one of the best documentaries on film yet. Required viewing if you admire Martin Scorsese and his work. | positive |
Turd Pie:<br /><br />* Take x2 franchises * Par-boil for 5 mins * Stir in mixed cardboard characters (non Actors work best) * Add 2 tons of clichés then bake in Your Plot-Hole Microwave until bored. * Serve with a Sprinkling of Dawson's Crack (not a Typo)<br /><br />Voila! - Money spinning Brain Rot for the Emo/World of Warcraft Generation <br /><br />Looking for the keys in drain was the best bit (?) <br /><br />Aside from the first 5 mins, its one of the worst films ever made. <br /><br />Utter, Utter, Nonsense. | negative |
THE FOX AND THE CHILD is the latest film from MARCH OF THE PENGUINS filmmaker Frenchman Luc Jacquet. The movie, which boasts just one human being in its cast, young actress Bertille Noël-Bruneau, tells the story of the rather rare, though seemingly believable relationship between a child and a wild fox.<br /><br />Part-nature documentary, and part-fairy tale, the film focuses on L'Infant, the child, who on her way to school one day comes across the path of a wild fox in a picturesque setting, possibly France, though the exact location is never mentioned. Over the coming weeks the child revisits the place where she found her fox hopeful that one of said days she will see said fox, who she begins to call Lily, once again. And so it goes on. Days turn to weeks, and then the summer disappears, turning to fall and then winter, promting some superb cinematography of the sweeping, white winter landscape. Eventually, spring comes around again, and the young child finds her fox, and indeed does strike up a friendship with the animal. And so on.<br /><br />I had little to no expectation for THE FOX AND THE CHILD. I had seen MARCH OF THE PENGUINS and was simply in awe at the film-making contained in that movie. Luc Jacquet is a hugely talented, and indeed rare film-maker, and I was expecting some superb, breathtaking cinematography, sweeping vistas and brilliant footage of the wildlife. This was delivered in spades. But here Jacquet has a screen writing credit, and not knowing anything about the movie prior to the screening, I expected something a little different than what had previously been seen in 'March'. A fictional story.<br /><br />The child and the fox And the story is simple. A young, seemingly lonely child lives in a house in the middle of nowhere and walks to school, seemingly on her own, every day, seemingly without a care in the a seemingly perfect world. Without the hint of an adult in sight. Brilliant. So she strikes up a friendship with a fox.<br /><br />With a film like this, you have to dismiss your own opinion of the movie and put yourselves in the shoes of the target audience. This is a film which is aimed directly at children from the age of, I'd say, six and up. Or to families who fancy a trip to the cinema with their breed one wet Sunday afternoon. Not a 31-year-old male who gets his kicks from films like the recent, brilliant WANTED and the like. But, me being the newbie London critic, I put myself in the shoes of an excited eight-year old girl for the 95 or so minutes of THE FOX AND THE CHILD. Now, I have a few problems with this film. As a 31-year-old lad, and loyal lover of all things cinematic, I loved the wildlife and landscape photography. It's visually stunning. The direction of the animal characters is brilliantly executed -- as good as you will find on any of Attenborough's efforts. As an impressionable, short attention spanning eight year old, I loved about the first half hour -- then I lost interest. It's a little repetitive and in places quite harrowing and bloody scary for a younger child, particularly the rather dark ending. As a 31-year-old male -- I was a little frightened in places. Wuss.<br /><br />So, it's not a child's film. It's not really an adult film and I felt a little let down. Is it a good family film. Depends. It's educational maybe, and the film carries a message. It's definitely not a film I would pay the hard earned green to go see and I'm racking my brains to try and recommend it to a certain type of film goer. It's hard, but I know some will go see and fall in love this film. It's very European in feel and certainly if you are a fan of wildlife themed flicks, give it a try. Unsure? Well I'd wait for the DVD for a wet Sunday afternoon in then. -- Paul Heath, http://www.thehollywoodnews.com, July 2008. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.