Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
In my opinion, a good documentary - especially one dealing with controversial political issues - should be informative and as unbiased as possible. The point should be revealing the truth. This means, in particular, having among the interviewees experts on the subject and representatives of all sides. This film is a failure in this regard. Most of the interviews included in this film consist of "men off the street" expounding on the question of peace in the Holy Land. The wall itself, the supposed subject of the film, is given no serious treatment at all. For most of the interviews, the interviewer simply waits to be approached and asks general questions such as "what do you think of the wall?" - she does not approach random people near the wall and ask them how they have been directly affected by it. Outside of one interviewee, the Israeli general in charge of the wall's construction, we have no "experts" on the subject to provide us with the wall's context (e.g. how and when the project began, whether it has been successful, which groups are for and which against the project, etc.)<br /><br />Outside of the interviews, a very large portion of the film consists of extended shots of uneventful scenes, such as head-on shots of the wall, construction of the wall, and people getting off a bus. These shots take up far too much time, in my opinion. It's nice to see what the wall looks like, but the 20-30 minutes of head-on filming of the wall (and only the wall) are excessive. Clearly, these shots (accompanied by Arabic music that conveys a sense of mourning) are included for the sole purpose of arousing in viewers feelings of loathing for the wall. | negative |
Sometimes I wonder if today's horror movies rely on human torturing to make people scared. If so, then there's a sad future for horror movies. Dee Snyder tries to make you feel scared and terrified, this movie does exactly this but not in a good way. Now there are some moments in the film where that there is a chance that Snyder is saving this film from falling into a hole but let's be frank, this movie didn't fall into a hole, it was already in a hole and Synder makes no attempt whatsoever to bring itself out of it. When you finish watching this movie, you are left sick, depressed, dirty, and insane. I have a feeling that was the intention of this movie. What is lower than dirt? | negative |
As you may or may not have heard, there is no actual fighting between vampires or zombies in this film. One may then ask why the title suggested such a thing, but really it's kind of appropriate because nothing else about this film made any sense either. There was absolutely no story or plot, just things happening. The acting was incredibly bad, worse than safeauto commercials bad.<br /><br />Not only were there no fighting between vampires and zombies but I think there was only one scene with zombies even in it. Their make up looked as if it were applied by an 8 year old girl. The scene was totally random and out of place and featured one of the characters fighting the zombies off with a hedge trimmer (I'm not kidding) but they used chainsaw sound effects.<br /><br />This was undoubtedly the poorest movie I've ever seen in my life. The only circumstance that I wouldn't totally ridicule every person responsible for production of this film is if I learned that it was produced entirely by 11 year old's.<br /><br />Really though, even with all of the criticism I offer here, I'd suggest watching this movie solely based on the fact that it may very well be the worst movie ever, and because of this is quite comical. Even just counting the flaws in it should keep you entertained. | negative |
Well, after long anticipation after seeing a few clips on Bravo's The 100 Scariest Movie Moments I had long awaited to see this film. The plot was simple, beautiful model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) moves into an apartment building that's a gateway to hell. The Sentinel is a down right creepy film, even if it's a bit slow. It's a mix of The Omen and Rosemary's Baby. The acting is fine, and there are some truly disturbing bits such as the awkward orgy scene with the dead father and the chubby woman in the middle of the orgy eating cake and laughing The ending is a weird mix of deformed people and cannibals. It's a very odd, campy but in the end, I truly believe a great film! One of my favorites from the 70's, even if it's nothing greatly original. It's wacky and extremely creepy! Probably one of my all time favorites. 9/10 | positive |
Sandra Bullock paints a believable picture as the troubled detective, though seeing her as a cynical man-eating victim-turned-persecutor requires a leap of faith (or two). The two creepy troubled kids are portrayed adequately by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt. <br /><br />I do have quite a bit of trouble getting Ben Chaplin into the equation (same problem arose when watching 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs' (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0117979/). I mean, when you put an Englishman into an all-American movie, shouldn't there at least be a reason to put him there? Shouldn't there be some story leading up to the fact that an Englishman is serving as a detective on an American police force? Shouldn't there be some dialog pointing out and explaining that rather obvious fact? Or even some jokes about him being that English? <br /><br />He looks out of place here, as he looked out of place in 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs'. Producers really should take notice, it distracts and annoys the audience (at least me). Nothing wrong with Chaplin's acting, it's just a matter of making an actor who is 'out of place' believable and not putting him somewhere without a good reason or a storyline. <br /><br />The movie itself: well, thrillers, especially those dealing with solving a complicated crime, require some suspension of disbelief. This one's no different; actually, it requires quite a bit more effort than usual. In order to make Bullock smart enough to crack the case despite of all the pressures requiring her to let go of it, some unrealistic assumptions are being made about the evidence, and I'm sure a lot of people who watched it had a few moments of 'Come on, this is highly unlikely under the circumstances' or even 'Hey, you can't brush evidence aside like that to wrap this movie up!'. <br /><br />Like I said: reasonably entertaining and watchable. Just don't use this as required viewing for detective exams. There are no shortcuts there. | positive |
In 1242, Russia in being invaded by two sides: from the orient by the Mongols and from Europe side, by the Germans Teutonic Knights of the Holy Roman Empire. The city of Novgorod is the last free city in Russia. The population, in order to organize the defense of Novgorod and the lands of Russia, calls the Prince Aleksandr Nevsky, who had defeated the Swedish in a previous battle. His successful strategy defeats the Germans, after a great battle on a frozen lake. This movie was made in 1938 due to the threaten of the German to Russia, in a pre-Second World War period. The idea was to make propaganda pro-Russia. However, it is an overwhelming, marvelous, stunning powerful masterpiece. It is amazing the combat scene on the frozen lake. The present generation is very accustomed to special effects, like in the `Lord of the Rings' trilogy, and maybe cannot understand how fantastic is this black and white fight. If the viewer can forget the ideology and watch it as an art, he will certainly be astonished in the end with such a masterpiece. My vote is ten.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): Alexander Nevsky | positive |
*SPOILERS*<br /><br />I don't care what anyone says, this movie is friggin' hilarious. This is the sequel to Jack Frost, a movie about a killer snowman. The snowman is created when a convicted serial killer about to be executed is taken to the execution chamber, but the truck crashes with a truck carrying DNA manipulation chemicals that make human DNA bond with dirt, or in this case, snow. The first movie was just boring, and eventually the snowman is destroyed by pouring antifreeze on him.<br /><br />Or so they thought.<br /><br />This movie takes place about a year after the second. Some scientists resurrect Jack Frost by mixing the antifreeze with chemicals. No explanation is ever given for why they do this, they just do. Meanwhile, the sherrif who arrested Frost in the first is going to the Bahamas. Unfortunately, the snowman comes with him.<br /><br />This movie has it all. It has talking carrots that can stand up, ice cubes that explode when you stick them in your mouth, and killer snowballs. Yes, killer snowballs. They even say "Dada!" like babies. I'll have to give the makers of this credit. The snowballs are some of the cutest little things ever dreamed up. I wish that I could get one as a pet. Frost finally freezes the island, as if a killer snowman has the ability to influence major weather patterns.<br /><br />Then there's the actors. There's Manners, the FBI agent from the first movie, except here he's wearing an eyepatch. YARR MATEYS, SHIVER ME TIMBERS, I BE AN FBI AGENT! YARRR! And then there's the stereotypical British adventurer and the stereotypical black Jamaican with dreadlocks. And finally, Captain Fun. The fruitiest man on the face of the planet, bar none.<br /><br />This movie isn't scary, but is is hilarious. I laughed my butt off the whole way through, and I recommend this for anyone who likes a good "bad" movie.<br /><br />*** out **** | positive |
A heap of human flesh lies asleep on a red pillow. This is the hunk of naked meat that is "Little Joe", a New York hustler who lives with his bisexual wife and baby child. The film follows a day in his life, after he's woken from sleep by his wife demanding that he go out and do the traditional male thing - be a breadwinner. But the use she wants to put the bread to is to pay for her new girlfriend's abortion. We certainly aren't in the traditional family unit here...<br /><br />After playing with his child, Joe hits the streets to cruise for johns. The clients come thick and fast: the ordinary gay man who wants to meet him again because they "work well together", the old English classical scholar who pays $100 to see Joe pose like an ancient Greek athlete; the female topless dancer who blows Joe then boasts about being raped; the ageing gym bunny who doesn't think that what he and Joe do together is queer. After a hard day's work, Joe returns home exhausted, only to be put down by his wife and the girlfriend. He goes back to sleep as they harp and undermine him.<br /><br />Flesh is fascinating as it takes what is a traditional classical mainstream structure - it has an inciting incident (the money for the abortion) and set-up, a confrontation and a resolution (albeit a very downbeat one), even a protagonist with a strongly motivated goal, and then proceeds to concentrate on the details of the day to day routine of these people who are perfectly ordinary to themselves but extraordinary to most "mainstream" people. It all seems very authentic and natural - it's hard to see the acting, the actors are so fully being their roles - but yet the whole thing is a piece of cunning artifice - a beautifully drawn portrait or an intricately carved statue. Director Morrissey carefully plants every incident, every encounter around his theme of human flesh become packaged commodity but with such cunning slight of hand that you almost don't notice him doing it. The wife "packages" Joe's sexual organ, the old Englishmen laments a long gone order of classical beauty which created art and poetry from human fleshly beauty, the transvestite friends of the stripper package themselves as women whilst reading a Hollywood magazine in which "real" women are packaged as products; the gym bunny buys Joe's friendship and affection, thinks artificial porn is real and can't tell, as we can't, that Joe is performing his friendship and intimacy for the cash. The film itself presents itself as the ne plus ultra of cinematic realism but what we might as well be dealing with here is fine art or an early example of concept art.<br /><br />The genius - a word not lightly used - of Morrissey was to find a way of taking Warhol's arty pretensions to film-making, which were interesting sure but boring as hell, and making them into saleable products which remain amongst the most intriguing works of cinema art ever made - commercial cans labelled "Flesh" and "Trash" and "Heat" with a product label - "Andy Warhol" - which sells an idea about the product as much as the product itself. Yet just as you reel from Morrissey's cynicism, you are spellbound by his ability to still maintain the highest of standards and depth of meaning. The constant what seem like camera flashes continually draw attention to the filmic nature of what one is witnessing, yet you get drawn into the illusion all the same - Flesh is surely one of the most extraordinary pieces of cinema magic to ever spellbind an audience. | positive |
Well I just discovered IMDb from my twin sister, Carol. Carol and I played the "Fat Identical Twin" in Midnight Madness. We didn't have to prepare much for the fat part, that came with us, and well and the rest was natural. ;) It was our first major film role and we had a blast making it. We were 21 at the time and lived about an hour and half from The Disney Studio in Burbank and the Hollywood, California area. We grew up in front of the TV and probably some of the first generation of latch-key-kids. Twenty years later, we still have lots of fun and are still 'heavy' or what ever is politically correct these days. We don't pursue acting any more but have been know to 'come back' when the right opportunity arrives. Carol is a Chiropractor in our home town of Southern California and I am in the Information Technology field in Georgia.<br /><br />I maybe bias, but I thought the film was cute, clean and fun. We knew it wasn't a master piece or an Oscar nominee, however, it was and still is a movie the whole family can watch and have fun together. It's nice not to have to worry if your young children can watch a video without having to fast forward certain parts. And no one was more exited when it was released on video as Carol and I were. Carol found it at Kmart for $6.99! Now that's an inexpensive way to capture one's memories and share it with others.<br /><br />Sincerely, Betsy Lynn and Carol Gwynn; The Thompson Twins | positive |
In 1858 Tolstoy wrote this in his diary: "The political is not compatible with the artistic, because the former, in order to prove, has to be one-sided." This thought from a great mind is applicable to USA The Movie. The film might be read by those with a narrow focus as a 90 minute slam of Bush, Cheney et. al. as well as a ripping of America as an out-of-control imperialistic force that will ultimately be destroyed by its own folly and thirst for power. The more open-minded viewer will take note of the recurring images and themes that make this DVD a testament to postmodernist thought, as the main character breaks up into bits and pieces surrounded by recurring visuals of the natural world contrasted with the man-made constructions; towers, roads, video monitors, radio, vehicles. Above all the ominous threat of wars that have been and are to come smolder throughout. War and rumors of war are what is created, destroyed and recreated on the screen, in our conscious world and in our unconscious minds. | positive |
'Say Yes' is one of those flicks that you keep hoping is going to get better, but it never does. It's the kind of 'motiveless psychopath decides to menace an innocent couple' crapfest, so beloved of straight to video film-makers. <br /><br />The dialogue is clunky and, in several places, poorly translated. The acting is uniformly poor, especially from the villain of the piece, played by Joong-Hoon Park. He seems to think that by not blinking and trying to talk in a deep voice he is making his character seem threatening, when all it really does is make him seem a bit simple.<br /><br />The plot deserves special mention, as it is idiotic beyond all belief. The 'heroes' don't think it overly strange that their hitchhiker threatens to kill them. The 'heroine' twice manages to miss seeing the villain when he is no more than a foot away from her. The villain gets past a police checkpoint (while wearing a shirt covered in blood, and a bloody head bandage) by showing the cops a burnt corpse in the passenger seat of the car he is driving. The villain is punched, clubbed with a shovel and stuck through with a pitchfork, but never seems to be impeded by these, rather serious, injuries. And don't even get me started on that terrible 'twist' ending. Sheesh.<br /><br />The only plus point in this film, for me, is Sang Mi Chu. Who is very pretty, but really no more than a mediocre actress.<br /><br />Overall, this film comes off like a poorly written, flaccidly acted and shockingly directed attempt to copy 'The Hitcher' and 'Spoorloos', but it fails at every turn due to a lack of talent in everyone involved. | negative |
Fay Grim is a true example of what I call a completed puzzle film. It has all the pieces of acting, direction, storyline, and entertainment value. They all fit together and when done so create a masterpiece, Fay Grim.<br /><br />This film follows a single mother Fay Grim trying to raise her son to not grow up to be her father who ran away from the law and went missing. Soon the CIA contacts Fay in desperate pursuit to find 8 journals of her husband Henry's. These journals were filled with confessions of his long past in the CIA and his involvement with countries and their government doings. Fay is sent to find these journals, in return to release her brother from prison, and is sent on a cat-and-mouse chase all over Europe to recover these journals and learn of the hidden secrets of her husbands past she never knew about.<br /><br />Parker Posey had already been an actress I liked after I watched her in The OH in Ohio and Best in Show. She brought liveliness to these two comedic roles of hers, but Fay Grim was a far different role than the other two movies. Posey made me believe what was happening on screen, I felt for her, I rooted for her, and I wanted to know more. She grabs you while she is on screen and when she is off you can't stop thinking about what is happening to her.<br /><br />I haven't seen any other previous works by writer/director Hal Hartley but I believe I will look into viewing some of his earlier films if they are half as good as Fay Grim was.<br /><br />If you decide to make a smart movie choice next time you decide to rent a movie or purchase a DVD I'd highly urge you to choose Fay Grim. If you have any common sense on how a film should be you will enjoy this movie immensely. | positive |
I was fortunate enough to record this wonderful drama, both parts, when it originally aired on Masterpiece Theatre. I loved it but lost it. Then one day, while going through old tapes, found it again. I recorded it to DVD and watched and --- WOW! I still love it! The leads are excellent and my only complaint is I wish we had seen more Kester! What a man! And Prue. She's so strong and wonderful ... living in a time and age where her affliction and how she deals with it is seen as unfortunate and evil. Even her own brother tells Prue to her face that he doubts that a man will ever have her. *sigh* Unfortunately my copy is not the greatest, with wear and tear over the years, and I too would absolutely love to own this on professional DVD if it ever happens. | positive |
Outside Sweden you are not expected have seen this movie. Happy you. The cast includes several actors that are important part of modern the Swedish movie history. And still.. <br /><br />Seems like Peter Dalle only had a an idea lasting for about 20 minutes. Robert Gustafson is totally misused in this movie, trying to copy a younger Gösta Ekman. Ekman, by the way, is the only actor fulfilling the expectations. <br /><br />Credit that can be given is for the photo, splendid idea using black and white. Music is OK.<br /><br />But over-all it's a waste of god actors and the time of the audience. | negative |
-only few can understand Leland's character, and to do that u most likely are inborn to see both sides of life,and to face this reality is very hard and can lead some few to bad acts(like Leland's character does)but for such sad and real reasons that his intentions were good,in the sense that the intention to save another from physical or mental(in this case)pain over long time. and it is really sad how mostly everyone in this movie makes mistakes in it, but the one character to make one through good intentions is killed by it. the lesson of this movie is for the unique person to see,realize,face and make right of the real life situation u see and to make right,or inspire one who can make right of a wrong situation. but before that...u have to see both sides of something and rationalize it for the sake of long peace,and tranquility of all human life.aka-Don't BE IGNORANT | positive |
Leonard Rossiter and Frances de la Tour carry this film, not without a struggle, as the script was obviously hurriedly cobbled together out of old episodes. When it came out, this must have been a real disappointment as it's also done on a bus ticket budget. Attempts to move it out of the house - which is jarringly unrecognisable, a bad job all round there - with a picnic, fantasy sequences, rugby and a boxing match in the local gym simply don't work. Most of these are just character-light setups for a solitary not-particularly good gag. That said, the interplay of Rossiter and de la Tour (and anybody else with him) is mostly hilarious; they even manage to make a soda syphon gag work, but you can see the struggle with recycling a literally uninspired script that changes plot half way through. Don Warrington has very little to do except 'be black', and due to the random script hacks Christopher Strauli changes character at least twice. And in the end, as he often did in the TV series (though you might not remember - read the scripts), Eric Chappell lets you down with a 'time's up' ending. Were they that cynical, or just too desperate to be in the film business? Rossiter and de la Tour are always funny but as a film, it's a terrible postscript to a fondly remembered TV series. RIP. | negative |
I just don't see how a Concorde-New Horizons film directed by Jim Wynorski and featuring the acting talents of Andrew Stevens and a puppet could be bad. It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?<br /><br />Well, let's make no mistake about it. "Munchie Strikes Back" is indeed a bad film. Munchie is a puppet who has been around for many centuries. For reasons not fully explained until the end of the film, he is sent to Earth to help a single mother and her son. The mom's problem (her main problem at least) is that she has a balloon payment due on her mortgage in two weeks...to the not-so-tiny tune of $20,000. Ouch. She can't come up with the money because she just got fired. OK...JUST is the key word in that sentence. What the...? Was she planning on paying it off with a single paycheck? Maybe it would've been a good idea to have spent the last several years saving up for it...ya think?<br /><br />Munchie has magical powers similar to those a genie would possess...but there isn't a limit on the number of wishes you can make! Munchie gets the boy a bunch of fancy stuff for one night but then the kid asks for it to be sent back to the mall Munchie was "borrowing" it from. The annoying furball also uses his otherworldly skills to help the boy win a baseball game by means of cheating. A baseball is hit so hard that it orbits the Earth several times. Sadly, those dumb parents watching the game don't think it's at all strange. Hmm.<br /><br />Anyway, I'd like to wrap this up because this has already drained away enough of my lifeforce as it is. You'll be truly moved by the scene where Leslie-Anne Down, playing the mother, kicks a dog which is yapping at her. Your heart will melt at her charm when she notices dollar bills fluttering down on her front yard and she wonders how it could be snowing during the summer. "Munchie Strikes Back"'s credits promised another film to follow entitled, I believe, "Munchie Hangs Ten". To date, the movie viewing public has been robbed of what would surely have been a cinematic tour de force. Heh. 1/10 | negative |
This was a movie about infidelity and revenge. A twin with the "twin" connection senses that something is wrong with her sister. This movie took forever to establish the plot. A plot that has been done many times. The acting was lousy for the most part. Once the plot comes together, the movie ends. Laura and Ashley are twins that live with an abusive father. The father seems to favor Ashley, so Laura gets the blame for everything. There is a promise made that the girls would never be apart, but as they grow up, their lives go in different directions. Ashley gets a job in a diner where she meets Barry, a married man. Of course no good can come of this. The fact that Barry had tinnitus was a poor excuse for a way to track him down. I kept waiting for this movie to get better and for there to be some resolution somewhere, but it never happened. | negative |
One more classic performance by Maniratnam and his team. They can be proud to show this movie at all film festivals for it has got everything that needs to name it as an "all time classic". The war and its impacts in Sri Lanka through the eyes of a ten year old girl is the movie all about but the scenes and circumstances will surely be not the one that you will expect. Madhavan no wonder he is one of the best actors in the country who can always add beauty and unique identity for the role he plays, and it needs real daringness to act as a father for three kids when he is considered as a dream boy with a glamorous personality in the industry. Music by AR Rahman makes the movie a special one for those who love melodies. Above all the story and the way it is told makes it as the best movie in the recent times. | positive |
After viewing this movie, lets say, around 8 times, the story line has never bored me. Each character has their own distinct personality and their own views of "love". This movie has timeless, almost realistic, love lessons. Filled with philosophies on love, a jazzy soundtrack, and great actors is why I would call it a classic. | positive |
The movie is wonderful. It shows the man's work for the wilderness and a natural understanding of the harmony of nature, without being an "extreme" naturalist. I definitely plan to look for the book. This is a rare treasure!<br /><br /> | positive |
This isn't exactly a complicated story. It's not a mystery, or a plot you have to spend time re watching because you missed an intrinsic part of the dialog. Claiming a movie has to be seen multiple times for you 'to get it' may apply to a very few films, however this isn't one of them. Those type of movies have substance and are so involving it's easy to miss an important portion of dialog, or a subtle nuance to plot details you may have overlooked. With Goya's Ghosts this doesn't apply. The main flaw in this movie is an absence of detail. It jumps from one character to the next, never giving enough substance to any one set of scenes to allow the involvement of those watching. Because of that you don't connect with any of the characters. You don't get to the point where you care. Either the main actor is gone just as the movie seems it's going to redeem itself, or their actions are despicable and you're not inclined to anyway. Goya's refusal to go very far to help Ines is a good example. His refusal to commit himself further mirrors the overall tone of his part. The only characters you may momentarily feel for are Ines, when she's being questioned and then tortured. After her rape by Lorenzo any focus on her character is pretty much gone. Following that the only other in depth involvement comes from the best scenes in the movie centered around Lorenzo's invitation to supper with Ines' family, and her fathers all out attempt to force Lorenzo into signing a bogus confession and getting his daughter back. Then just as things start to be developing again, they're gone from the movie. I've read a lot of the comments here about how the movie didn't know what it wanted to be, etc. I found that basically it succeeded in not being much of anything. From Lorenzo's return and the coincidental viewing of Ines' daughter by Goya, everything seemed nothing more than contrived. Without much of a storyline, no effort to really examine the turbulent times they lived in took place. The essence of who Goya was didn't materialize, other than his actions, or lack thereof, proving him to be more self-centered than anything else. As for his art, the movie seemed intent on examining a few of the paintings he did but again frittered away another opportunity in examining the reactions to this work rather than the work itself. To sum things up best, the movie had no cohesion, it grossly lacked the substance to delve into the historical environment it covered, and upon ending, left you feeling like what you'd just seen was a series of aborted attempts to engage the viewer by switching from one thing to the next without adequately engaging the viewer in any of them. You can't watch something like this several times expecting it to improve with added examination. There's just not enough to it to waste the time. It's not a case of your missing out on something, it would just be more proof that the ingredients needed to make this movie good, just aren't there. As for best film ever made? It's not even the best film I've watched today. | negative |
Prot (Kevin Spacey) is a mental hospital patient who claims to be native to a distant planet called K-PAX. His psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Powell (Jeff Bridges) tries to help him, all the while trying to understand Prot and find out if he is really from K-PAX.<br /><br />This movie doesn't really fall into any particular genre. One big part of K-PAX is drama/ science-fiction, another part fantasy, plus, add to that a dash of comedy and you begin to get what K-PAX is all about. The story (as you see above) isn't too complicated or deep, but it still offers some good twists and turns of the plot that may still surprise you as they did me. No special effects or graphics accompany this movie, and there's no need to have them, the music in the film is great however. A techno soundtrack along with a terrific piano piece makes K-PAX sound sci-fi and makes certain scenes intriguing.<br /><br />Kevin Spacey is the heart of the movie and plays a very convincing alien (Prot) from the planet K-PAX, emotional with great facial expressions, Spacey does a fine job in the lead role. Jeff Bridges is Dr. Powell, that aids and attempts to understand Prot. Bridges is also excellent in his part. Bridges and Spacey fit together very well and they should, after all, they've both had a lot of experience. The wife of Dr. Powell is Rachel Powell, played by Mary McCormack. McCormack plays her part well, showing the frustration from having her husband gone and so dedicated to his patient. Alfe Woodard plays Dr. Powell's coworker Claudia Villars, we don't really see Claudia too much, but overall she puts in an alright performance.<br /><br />K-PAX is rated PG-13 for "a sequence of violent images, and brief language and sensuality", and that covers it. As far as "violent images" go, we don't see too much. A few people that have quite a bit of blood on them, but that's all. Language is as follows: 1 "f" word (wow, only one!), 11 "s" words, and a few uses of the Lord's name in vain. Not too bad really. The "sensuality" part is just from when Prot explains to Dr. Powell how reproduction works on K-PAX, nothing terrible, just something about it feels like "having your nuts in a vice." Not too bad on the content level for a PG-13 movie, it could have been a lot worse.<br /><br />In conclusion, K-PAX is not a bad movie. It won't stun you, but it is enjoyable and kind of fun to watch. It has some funny parts, sad parts, really sad parts, and, well you know what I mean. It's a story of a mental hospital patient, what do you expect? All in all a good rent for those of you looking for a good drama that you can kick back and relax to, K-PAX is a well done movie.<br /><br />Bonus! If you've seen this movie already, like it, and are thinking about getting the DVD, I would highly recommend it. It has loads of extras to look through, and even an alternate ending and deleted scenes. 8/10 | positive |
Utterly pretentious nonsense. The material is dull, dull, dull, and most of the cast wouldn't even have made understudies in Allen's earlier films. And to have to listen to the unfunny Will Ferrell do his Woody Allen imitation makes me loathe the second-rate (though mysteriously popular) Ferrell even more. It appears that the morose 70-year old Allen should have knocked off work when the clock rang in a new century.<br /><br />I truly tried to get involved in the film, but it was just impossible; my snyapses couldn't fire that slowly. So, rather than doze off and kill the afternoon sleeping in an upright position I got up, left my wife and daughter in the theater, and went out to the car where I had a really good book to re-read (George Bailey's great tome of 30 years ago, "Germans.") The day turned out pretty well after all, no thanks to Woody. | negative |
Now for the truth, its very very weak storyline - for a Walt Disney film its total rubbish. When the robinson appear, the films all over the place, I was shocked how poor it was. It like "alice in wonderland" gone wrong!. It feels like they were short on ideas some mashed some crazy rubbish together to try and get away with it - and they don't. After that, I sat there wishing for the end. My younger brother lost interest half way through and was confused by the story. The characters are weak and after the robinsons appear you don't care about the ending, you just want the film to finish. Its a film to forget, and forget quickly. If you've got some spare time, don't waste it on this. | negative |
This movie really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and "cleaverly" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.<br /><br />Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.<br /><br />It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it. | negative |
This movie was one of the longest movie watching experiences of my life. While I like how the director, Chan-wook Park, handled the revenge, the move as a whole was TERRIBLE. Oldboy is only billed at 1 hour and 55 minutes long but it feels like it takes at least 3 and a half hours to tell this story. I will say that the English dubbing was done very well and the movie was easily understandable. I felt that some of the scenes were unnecessarily long and a lot of the dialogue repeated itself. Also, if you have an aversion to annoying voices, then avoid hearing Hye-jeong Kang (she plays Mi-do) speak. If you are looking for a movie to kill time and make you feel morally superior to others, then watch away. If you don't want to watch a movie filled with incest, bad dialogue, unnecessary fight scenes, gross torture scenes and confusing flashbacks, then this is not the movie for you. | negative |
Ok, even if you can't stand Liza- this movie is truly hilarious! The scenes with John Gielgud make up for Liza. One of the true romantic comedy classics from the 20th century. Dudley Moore makes being drunk and irresponsible look cute and amusing and it is damn fun to watch! The one-liners are the best. | positive |
IMAGINARY HEROES is one fine little film! Written and directed by Dan Harris this story is classic theater, weaving comedy and tragedy together so tightly that the climax of the film takes your breath away.<br /><br />The Travis family is an odd bunch: no member is who each appears to be. Beginning with a suicide of the reluctant 'hero' child swimming champion Matt (Kip Pardue), the father Ben (Jeff Daniels) falls apart and isolates himself from his family and himself while the mother Sandy (Sigourney Weaver) turns to pot and rage and sarcasm, the daughter Penny (Michelle Williams) returns from school repulsed by her family's behavior, and the remaining son Tim (Emile Hirsch) takes the brunt of all of the above by avoiding his classmates, girlfriend, and teams with his neighbor Kyle (Ryan Donowho) to leap into drugs and sexual experimentation. Throughout the film Tim tries to hide bruises on his body that have a secret all their own yet lead his girlfriend to feel rejection, his mother to rage against the trailer park trash bully she believes is the cause, and finally open the window to the deep scars this family has suffered for years. Secrets and lies, here, and the resolution of them is painfully dramatic.<br /><br />This may be Sigourney Weaver's finest role, although Emile Hirsh, Jeff Daniels, Ryan Donowho, and Kip Pardue (despite the brevity of his role) all contribute top-notch performances. The story begins slowly and seems to meander and that fact may lose some viewers' attention, but stay with this little powerhouse film and the impact of the work will stun you. Highly Recommended. Grady Harp | positive |
After sitting through the trainwreck that was the first Dark Harvest movie, I couldn't leave bad enough alone. Upon seeing that there was a sequel (or rather what I believed to be a sequel)I had to increase my pain level. Seeing that this had nothing to do with Dark Harvest, that should have been a good thing. We didn't get any killer scarecrows in this one, instead we got a jackass walking around a cornfield screaming out little things like, "Girls!" and "Can you hear me?" every so often. Plus we got two (four if you include the two girls that the director wanted the same effect as the twins in The Shining) obnoxious little girls who couldn't act. And the cherry on top of this mess would have to be the Corn Cop. I should have known this movie was going to be terrible when the dog got an opening credit. How I managed to stay awake through this movie, I'll never know. | negative |
Being a former MST3k watcher, even I found this movie unwatchable. The awful attempts at humor-heck the awful attempts at acting. Nobody needs to read a harangue on this piece of junk.<br /><br />I just like how all the positive reviews were clearly written by cast members or family friends. Just click on their other reviews and wow--they are all reviewing Modern Vampires. Give me a couple of bucks and I can make a movie better than this. One of the most incompetent pieces of film-making I've ever seen and that's saying something. Watch at your own risk.<br /><br />Rating: 0/10 | negative |
The opening scene of this film sets the pace for the entirety of its ninety minutes. The shots are generic, conventional, and of television movie quality. The snow drenched scenery is gorgeous, yet the characters held with in it have a similar quality to that of looking at a photograph of such scenery, the overwhelming feeling being that of distance. Some of the editing is fairly high quality and the work of an veteran professional, the dialogue however is clunky and artificial, having little bearing on 'real' conversations at all seemingly. Any emotional insight is displaced in favour of swearing, which is of course the way in which everyone shows their true feelings. The action is slow and underwhelming, the overall feeling being one of someone trickling cold water over your head, but so slowly that you barely notice, yet eventually you feel pathetic and slightly sorry for yourself for being caught in such a incomprehensible situation.<br /><br />The mixture of genres that the Fessenden has seemingly tried to use; psychological thriller, horror and family drama, although commendable suffers from a serious lack of tension and interesting dialogue. The way in which the husband, wife and child trio interact is particularly unrealistic. The themes of family relationships being played out in haunting setting have been covered countless times before by far superior films, an instant example being that of The Shining (1980). The family unit here are torn by innocuous troubles which are hard to understand or sympathise with considering the relative ambiguity of the script.<br /><br />The family unit is hardly stalked throughout the film, Fessenden playing down the thriller possibilities of the narrative in favour of a slow family drama for the majority of the running time. The 'stalker' figure Otis has few apparent motives for his behaviour and despite being perhaps the most interesting and well acted character is still very underdeveloped. The main characters are empty husks of people who it was extremely hard to relate to, their relationships with each other being particularly void of any sentiment or feeling. Although the ignorance of the Erik per Sullivan's young character by his parents is presumably part of the story, surely any reasonable person would question their son if he allegedly spoke to someone who seemingly doesn't exist? People can accept this film as intelligent because of its relative lack of conventional aspects regarding creature based horror movies but this film fails in respect of whichever genre you wished to pigeonhole it in. You can read deep psychological meanings into every single minute detail of anything if you should so wish to but I think people would be better off over analysing their carpet for some deep emotional meaning, rather than these vacuous sub-human creations. | negative |
Greta Garbo stars in 'Anna Christie', a very early 1930 MGM 'talkie', the first time 'Garbo Talks'. 'Anna Christie' is a powerful movie but not for everyone. The movie is filmed like a stage play, short on sets and cinematography, long on dialogue and dramatic characterizations. Eugene O'Neil who wrote the play 'Anna Christie' is known for his dark work and Garbo's character Anna Christie is a bleak figure with a tortured past.<br /><br />The sound quality on the DVD was mediocre. Not helping matters is that George F. Marion who plays Anna's estranged dad, Chris Christofferson, is verbally hard to understand. Marion gives a good performance as the old drunken seamen who’s teetering on insanity with his fixation of the evil 'devil sea'. But his dialogue is written with a very heavy Swedish accent, this is true to O'Neils original play. Marie Dressler's dialogue as Marthy Owens is equally hard to understand. Dressler believably portrays a broken down old drunken women, a 'wharf rat'. Her dialogue also is true to O'Neils original play as is Charles Bickford as the Irish seamen, Matt Burke who pursues Anna in a troubled relationship. Garbo is actually the easiest to understand.<br /><br />The films strong point is Greta Garbo. She delivers a gut wrenching performance as the victim of neglect and abuse, leading to a life of prostitution. Garbo was a huge star at the time and considered one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood. Here her look isn't glamorous, it's tortured. Her body posture nearly doubles over in agony. She scrunches her face to become a pathetic creature on the screen. Garbo conveys these angst-ridden feelings to the viewer to convince us of her misery.<br /><br />This is dark subject matter and Garbo brings it to life. It’s not light fare, not fun, not for everyone. ‘Anna Christie’ is strong emotions dredged up from the depths for examination, this is one helluva ride. | positive |
Better than it has any right to be, this movie died a quick and painful death at the American box office. At times sophomoric, at others, bitingly satirical and witty, Jekyll and Hyde is mostly just a near perfect reflection of the times, laden with drug and sexual humor, reminding one at one time or another of everything from the Woody Allen of "Everything You Always Wanted To know About Sex" to the Mel Brooks of "The Producers", Saturday Night Live to Monty Python, Carlin to Cheech and Chong. Watch it, listen carefully because some of the jokes go by really quickly, and remember a time when comedy was allowed to be offensively hilarious. | positive |
A fantastic Arabian adventure. A former king, Ahmad, and his best friend, the thief Abu (played by Sabu of Black Narcissus) search for Ahmad's love interest, who has been stolen by the new king, Jaffar (Conrad Veidt). There's hardly a down moment here. It's always inventing new adventures for the heroes. Personally, I found Ahmad and his princess a little boring (there's no need to ask why John Justin, who plays Ahmad, is listed fourth in the credits). Conrad Veidt, always a fun actor, makes a great villain, and Sabu is a lot of fun as the prince of thieves, who at one point finds a genie in a bottle. I also really loved Miles Malleson as the Sultan of Basra, the father of the princess. He collects amazing toys from around the world. Jaffar bribes him for his daughter's hand with a mechanical flying horse. This probably would count as one of the great children's films of all time, but the special effects are horribly dated nowadays. Kids will certainly deride the superimposed images when Abu and the genie are on screen together. And the scene with the giant spider looks especially awful. Although most of the younger generation probably thinks that King Kong looks bad at this point in time, Willis O'Brien's stop-motion animation is a thousand times better than a puppet on a string that doesn't even look remotely like a spider. 8/10. | positive |
Considering that this movie had a serious and quite successful launching campaign, I would have expected something to be worth the fuzz...from the opening scene on (in which the two brothers "sensually" caress each other, laying naked in a bed) it goes rapidly downwards...nothing to get the attention, not a mind-catching thing in the whole plot, baaad baad acting (a few minor exceptions, but artificiality is at its best). Incest and lesbianism are promising themes, but the script analyses none of the two in depth ( mind that a possible excuse of the makers, saying that they aimed for a subtle movie would be hilarious, unless subtle and superficial mean the same thing...). The too curious viewers will not get any interesting scene...at this point, that could have saved some of the movie...so you can imagine how bad it is. Many other things could be said...but please watch the movie yourselves...I am an egoist and I would like as many people as possible to waste about 1 1/2h of their lives...like I did :( | negative |
I really wanted to like this movie, but the pacing was just way too slow.<br /><br />It was a nice story, but it was really like watching a slug race.<br /><br />The movie would have been better served, if it had some more action. I don't mean anything grand, but at least something in the background.<br /><br />It could have also been helped by songs that set the tone/mood of the more lengthy periods that were absent of dialogue.<br /><br />It's been about 10 years since I've seen it, so I may have to give it another chance.<br /><br />3/10 or *1/2(out of four) | negative |
I really loved this movie and so did the audience that I saw it with in Los Angeles. After the film, lots of people were crying and saying how much the film had affected them. I can see why it was such a huge hit in its homeland, Sweden. The film is masterfully directed and each character brilliantly drawn so that by the end you really know these people and care about them. The music is very natural and the main song in the film quite heartbreaking but inspiring. Would definitely recommend this film for everyone to see - even people who don't normally go to subtitled films. Definitely deserved the Oscar Nomination because of the profound themes of the film reflected without pretension in a small-town community with everyday people. It is a film that unites us in this divided world and shows us the potential of the human spirit. A MUST SEE! | positive |
Spend your time any other way, even housework is better than this movie. The jokes aren't funny, the fun rhymes that are Dr. Seus aren't there. A very lousy way to waste an evening. My kids 4-16 laughed a little at the beginning the younger ones got bored with it and left to play Barbies and the older ones left to play ps2 and surf the net. My wife left and did dishes. So I finished it alone. It was the worst "kids" movie I have seen. If you want to watch a fun kids movie watch Shrek 2, that movie is fun for kids and their parents. AVOID THIS MOVIE. It isn't funny, isn't cute, the cat's makeup is about the only good thing in it and you can see that on the disc label. | negative |
OK heres what I say: <br /><br />The movie was excellent. I am a huge Nancy fan and I have read all 1-56 original books and I went on to read more. I am now on 96. Beware of villains giving this movie a lower grade than it should have. All clues point to a wonderful movie! I loved the whole thing. So what Nancy is in current time. She is still old fashioned like she is in the books! People who haven't read more than 5 books are complaining about the view of Nancy. I have read all of them and I think Emma is perfect and that Nancy was perfect. I found parts of the movie spooky. I loved the exciting car chases and get aways. I loved the clues. I solved the mystery myself! It was really wonderful. I suggest you go see it since people who have been complaining know nothing of A what a good movie is and B about Nancy Drew. Go see it. It may not be Oscar worthy but its really a good movie. | positive |
I was pleasantly surprised by how good the movie was. Whether you're a gore fan or a suspense fan; you'll love this. I used to dislike horror movies, considered them stupid. But, anyway, it happens I make exceptions. I find something really extraordinary in this film. Rarely have I ever seen a film that has scared the crap out of me but I tell you the truth this film gave me shivers down my neck. Unlike most horror films this one cares about the development of the characters. I highly recommend this film and I'm glad that Asylum are finally bringing out good horror movies these days <br /><br />I recommend! Enjoy! | positive |
I found Grey Garden's to be a gripping film, an amazingly intimate<br /><br />look at too eccentrics who basically have the right idea: forget<br /><br />society and live in a delapidated house with no heating and a huge<br /><br />brood of cats and raccoons, persuing their own interests rather<br /><br />mundainly, all the while chattering at the camera.<br /><br />Big Edie and Little Edie are the two crazies that the Mazles Bros.<br /><br />have chosen to document. They seem like characters out of a<br /><br />Fellini film, only stranger, if that makes any sense. Old Edie is<br /><br />almost fully bedridden, a pile of papers, clothes and dirty dishes<br /><br />growing around her. Little Edie is even more interesting. She<br /><br />prances around the house, always wearing a baboushka-like<br /><br />headdress around her head, completely covering her hair. We<br /><br />never see her hair throughout the film, nor do we ever get a hint<br /><br />that she still has much. At age fifty eight, though, she is still<br /><br />beautiful and full of life.<br /><br />In Grey Gardens, we get the sense that both of these women's<br /><br />lives have become much less than what they once were. Little<br /><br />Edie is probably the sadder of the two. While her mother, in her<br /><br />earlier years, got married, made a family, lived luxuriously and<br /><br />even made some recordings (the scene where, at 77, she sings<br /><br />along with a recording of "Tea for Two" she made decades ago is<br /><br />one of the films best scenes), Edie left her promicing career as a<br /><br />model to take care of her ailing mother. At 58, she still longed to<br /><br />find her prince charming. If anything Little Edie is still a little girl,<br /><br />full of dreams of glamour and fame, and of domestic and romantic<br /><br />bliss, that have yet to be fulfilled.<br /><br />Highlights of the film include the opening moments, where Little<br /><br />Edie explains her outfit to the camera, the "tea for two" sequence,<br /><br />the birthday party, the climactic argument, the grocery deliver<br /><br />scene, and the scene in the attic. The whole thing is incredibly<br /><br />candid and unpretencious. And it's made all the more remarcable<br /><br />since it's all real.<br /><br />I suggest seeing Grey Gardens back-to-back with the Kenneth<br /><br />Anger short Puce Moment. The Criterion DVD is $35.00, but it's<br /><br />worth every penny. | positive |
Worst Bob Hope comedy ever(and that includes some heavy competition). Hope, on an island with sailors, dreams aloud of being in a bathtub with a geisha girl "steering his ship". Somebody certainly steered this Hope-hackery over the cliff, as it features Phyllis Diller and Gina Lollobrigida and still can't work up any laughs or excitement. Where's Bing Crosby when you really need him? | negative |
I was looking on Imdbs bottom 100 because i thought id never seen anything as bad as plan 9 from outerspace or Roller Ball remake, I was wrong. Ben and Arthur has beaten both.<br /><br />This out of the many countless amount of movies I've seen is the number one worst film on the i ever saw. Bad Directing ,Bad Characters ,Horrible Acting ,Horrible story There's a reason nobody but Sam ever says anything positive about this film. Sam was a horrible annoying actor but his directing was so bad he may just overthrow Ed Wood.<br /><br />The Director should be ashamed of his work unfortunately i have to give it at least 1 star but it deserves - to be continued stars. | negative |
A group of friends come face-to-face with a family of hideous cannibals whilst camping in the beautiful German countryside.<br /><br />The 'mutant cannibal family' concept is almost as old as the hills that the inbred freaks often call home, so any director attempting to breath new life into the genre needs to come up with something pretty darn special in order to impress. With Barricade, Timo Rose tries to give the well-worn routine a Teutonic twist, by transplanting the action to The Black Forest and giving it the German low-budget splatter treatment. The result is a very bloody, but totally unoriginal effort that is made almost unwatchable thanks to some dreadful directorial decisionsin particular, the non-stop use of fancy filters and irritating editing techniques.<br /><br />Had Timo Rose not opted to utilise every naff trick his editing software offered him, then Barricade might have been a reasonably entertaining gore-fest: his inexperienced cast do reasonably well; the bloody effects are suitably stomach churning; and there are one or two scares and even some well conceived creepy moments. All of this, however, is completely ruined by the awful camera-work, choppy editing, and overwhelming barrage of visual gimmickry used to give the film the distressed look that is so inexplicably popular with today's film-makers.<br /><br />I give Barricade 3 out of 10 purely for the outlandish gore, which includes a nifty scene where a guy is forced to drink acid, loads of nasty wounds caused by a variety of sharp implements, and some pretty decent shotgun damage. | negative |
In the ravaged wasteland of the future, mankind is terrorized by Cyborgsrobots with human featuresthat have discovered a new source of fuel: human blood. Commanded by their vicious leader Jōb (Lance Henriksen), the Cyborgs prepare to overtake Taos, a densely populated human outpost.<br /><br />Only one force can stop Jōb's death marchthe Cyborg Gabriel (Kris Kristofferson), who is programmed to destroy Jōb and his army.<br /><br />In the ruins of a ransacked village, Gabriel finds Nea (Kathy Long), a beautiful young woman whose parents were killed by Cyborgs ten years earlier. Now she wants revenge. They strike a pact: Gabriel will train Nea how to fight the Cyborgs and Nea will lead Gabriel to Taos.<br /><br />Five-time kick-boxing champion Kathy Long has all the right moves in this high-speed adventure that delivers plenty of action. Also stars Gary Daniels (as David) and Scott Paulin (as Simon). | negative |
this is the 4th movie in the Karate Kid series.however it has nothing to do with the previous 3.the only character remaining is Mr Myagi.this time around Mr Myagi meets troubled teen Julie pierce(Hliary Swank,before she was famous)Julie having all kinds of Problem including being bullied at school by a guy,belonging to a pseudo military club on campus.Naturally she is trained how to fight.Anyway,through Myagi,Julie learns Karate and becomes a better person spiritually and learns how to respect herself and in the end regains her respect.i like the unique idea of the antagonist being a female and having a male as her enemy.i there are also some fight scenes which are done quite well,very low key and minimal violence.none of the fighting is graphic.the ending is also good and a bit surprising.it is predictable but not a typical ending for this kind of film.the film has echoes of the original obviously,especially the spiritual aspect and the lessons learned.it is not as good as the 1st movie,and certainly not as good as the 2nd.it is however,a giant leap forward compared to the underwhelming 3rd entry.this is a very entertaining under dog movie that is suitable for the whole family. 8/10 | positive |
I didn't know it was possible to release a movie this bad. The labeling sounded so promising, but you would think that with a cast of 20, at least one of them would be able to act. My wife left me and went to bed after the first 20 minutes. She made a wise decision. | negative |
I think a round of applause is in order for whoever pieced together the trailer for Rogue Pictures' latest release, 'The Return'. I myself, along with everyone else have been duped into believing it is in fact a horror film. On the contrary though, its actually a supernatural thriller. Too bad it is not the least bit thrilling.<br /><br />'The Return' stars Sarah Michelle Gellar as Joanna Mills, a young woman who has had personal problems since the age of eleven. It was at that age that she began having haunting visions depicting the murder of a woman whom she has never met. While in Texas on a business trip, she is led by these visions to the murdered woman's hometown, La Salle. There she comes face to face with another person who has frequently appeared in her visions. A man by the name of Terry Stahl, who is played by Peter O'Brien. Joanna is now on a desperate search for answers. A search that could in the end result in her very own murder.<br /><br />I really don't know where to begin here folks. Which should I mention first? The atrocious acting, hideous directing, or the terribly bland story? No matter which one I choose my point behind each is the same: they simply suck. Adam Sussman's screenplay is downright moronic. Its not interesting. Its not compelling. Its just plain unpleasant. I kept waiting for something to jumpstart the "film" (I've placed quotations around film because I don't believe 'The Return' deserves to be called an actual film due to it's foulness.) and at least give it some slight chance of hope, but nothing ever happened. I was left out in an unbearable cold to freeze. Not even stellar performances from the actors themselves could have saved this disaster. Of course they probably knew this having read the script then agreeing to do the "film". I assume this is why the acting was so awful. At least that's what I'm choosing to believe. I really hope the cast doesn't pride themselves on their performances. They need immediate medical attention if they do.<br /><br />Now the directing was unmistakably bad, but I can't quite crucify Asif Kapadia entirely. (Well I could, but I won't since I'm such a nice guy.) I look at 'The Return' as a test for Kapadia because for all of you that don't know, this is his first full-length feature "film". He's just getting his foot in the door and still learning. Next time around, well if there is a next time, hopefully he will have improved vastly. The only thing he was able to accomplish here was almost completely duplicating the visual style of Marcus Nispel's 2003 re-make of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Now that's nice the "film" was given that, but unfortunately he still won't be receiving any kudos from me for that. Copying someone else's work isn't something I consider to be praise worthy. (Even if it is from a film I very much enjoyed.)<br /><br />I think Jim Sonzero's American re-make of 'Pulse' will now have to fork over the title of Worst Film of the Year to 'The Return'. It beyond question is deserving of the title in almost every imaginable way. Now I don't doubt this will make a small, and I mean very small, profit. No matter what though, it won't surpass or even parallel the fluke success of Gellar's previous acting effort, 'The Grudge'. On that note, there's one last thing I'd like to add. I can honestly say I had never been embarrassed to have been seen leaving a theater auditorium until seeing 'The Return'. That is something I never wish to experience again, along with the "film" itself. | negative |
As soon as I saw the ad for "Changi" on the History Channel, I knew I'd love it. It captured the ANZAC spirit fantastically - you would die if you didn't have mates around you. The characters of "Changi" were strong and each brought something different into the story, and the Japanese soldiers weren't criticised, but were depicted as normal soldiers doing what they thought was right, just as the Australians were doing. Direction, screenplay, acting and setting were all done wonderfully, with a clear easy-to-follow plot. Humour was the soldiers' key to survival, and it was great to see a mini-series about war actually have some sort of humour in it, which is usually difficult to do without offending people. From what I've read about soldiers in Changi PoW camp, this story is a very realistic approach to the three and a half years those Australian, British, New Zealand, American and Dutch men spent there. I would recommend this series to anyone, whether you are interested in war or not. 10/10. | positive |
This movie is nothing more than Christian propaganda. It started off like a good sci-fi movie and then works a syrupy sweet Christian theme into the story which is totally unrelated. I had to turn it off half way through because I felt tricked into renting it. The catholic church has officially announced that aliens do NOT contradict belief in God.<br /><br />The movie is slightly entertaining despite this but the dialog is unbelievable, writing and acting is mostly rubbish and all in all, this movie is mostly a stinker to be avoided.<br /><br />There was obviously some research done into the phenomenon by the filmmakers, but then you quickly realize that it is only for the purpose to debunk and inject their own paranoid religious views into a valid interesting subject. If you are a zealous religious fanatic who believes in demons and angels , you will love this movie. | negative |
This is a refreshing, enjoyable movie. If you enjoyed, "Four Weddings and A Funeral", "Peter's Friends", etc., you will see a number of familiar and talented actors. Made me laugh, made me sad. I view movies for entertainment, and English-set movies generally fit that bill for me. Enjoy! | positive |
This movie was offensively PC, predictable and clichéd. I couldn't imagine a movie that better exemplifies the myopic, narcissistic preachiness of today's Hollywood. If you haven't seen this don't bother watching it. If you have, show some courage and tell people how awful it really is. My wife, a minority in her own right, was offended by the inherent and unendingly racist message of the film. This movie has nothing to do with the real world and has little, if anything at all, to add to any discussion about racism in this country. Instead, it's the kind of cheap, sensationalist crap that is promoted as deep and challenging thought. What kind of a bubble do you have to live in to think that this is at all impressive? | negative |
While trying to build a major mall or complex or something like that, a wealthy landowner ignores ancient Native American artifacts buried on the land, and unleashes the Bone Eater...a creature who goes around and kills people in search of his fallen friends or something like that.<br /><br />Indeed this movie had to be a Sci-Fi Channel original. If it wasn't, then the director should never direct anything again. The effects in the film is laughable at best, and the Bone Eater monster is nothing but a CGI-animated being added into the frames at a later date. The actors don't even look all that frightened when they see the thing (probably because they really don't, and they're just terrible actors). It's a great comedy, though, even if it's supposed to be pure horror. | negative |
I loved this film, Independent film-making at its best. The cinematography , pacing, rhythm , and acting were perfectly in sync. Fred Carpenters best work to date! The movie is well written with lots of plot twists that take you to a great ending. It moves well and keeps you involved. Being a photographer, I was most impressed with the cinematography. the lighting creates mood and a beauty that is usually found in a much bigger budget film. This gave the actors a great canvas to start from, to work their magic. And that is just what they did! Great performances from all the actors and each one was well cast in their roles. As I said in the beginning, the is a wonderful film, and one of Fred Carpenters best movies. You will love it. | positive |
...is the only way to describe this movie about subjects that should be surefire: scandal, sex, celebrity, power. Kirsten Dunst grins her way through her role as silent movie star Marion Davies like she thinks she's in "Legally Blonde." The guy who plays William Randolph Hearst overacts to the point where you want to reach into the screen and slap him. Eddie Izzard is pretty good, except that he's playing Charlie Chaplin, and is about, oh, 125 lbs too heavy for the part? Hard to believe this hamfisted, uneven wreck was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, but then again, he hasn't made a watchable movie in, what? 30 years? Sometimes, there's just no coming back. | negative |
This movie was sheer, slow, plodding torture. Not being a fan of slasher films, and preferring classic horror, I may not be the best judge. Slasher fans may enjoy this as an early entry into the slasher genre. I really would like the 90 minutes I spent watching this back. The only reasons to watch this are 1) a young Vanna White (pre Wheel of Fortune) who has about 3 minutes of total screen time. 2) an early role by scream queen Linnea Quigley (with nudity), and legendary beauty EJ Peaker as the school secretary, who added a bit of humor and sex appeal. Otherwise, an 80's band called Felony makes an appearance, which while interesting, drags on WAY too long. Just like the movie.....I had to keep checking how much time was left and couldn't wait to "Graduate" to a better film. | negative |
I don't usually comment, but there are things that need to be said. Where to start...<br /><br />The acting, on Jeremy London's part was horrible! I didn't think he could be so bad. The plot could have been good, had it been well directed, along with a good solid performance from the lead actor. Unfortunately, this is one of those movies you read about and think it has great potential to be entertaining, but get disappointed from the start. <br /><br />Well, at least I got good laughs. I wouldn't waste my time if I were you. | negative |
At times I really wonder
when I look at the comments here it seems as if most people have seen a completely different film than I have. I've just seen it... and liked it. Not in the way, that it made me happy, but in the way of having seen a good film!<br /><br />The film needs some patience, yes. And yes, the main character is REALLY annoying, but that I'm sure is by intention.<br /><br />Maybe it really makes a difference if you watch this film in a cinema or at home. Most people watch films at home like they are listening to elevator music. This movie definitely doesn't fit as background noise.<br /><br />And no. Good directing doesn't mean having five laughs or explosions a second. Good directing means following your subject and keeping the story and actors together. And while that doesn't work out perfectly, at least I think it works quite good.<br /><br />I liked the photography and sets, even if they brink on the surreal at times. The opening scene is really special.<br /><br />I also liked the acting Guillaume Depardieu is NOT playing Pierre. He is acting the role of a Pierre who is himself playing a role! Pierre is not the romantic hero that he so hard tries to be, he is a presumptuous and self-righteous idiot, a downright weakling who by and by harms all the people he claims to protect. That even his love for truth is simply a pose is beautifully demonstrated by his ongoing lying and not even once asking questions or explaining himself.<br /><br />People are wondering where this or that person came from and other stuff: No character who is seen for more than two scenes is left unexplained, there is enough information scattered throughout the film on everyone.<br /><br />And even the strange building begins to make sense as soon as the target practicing is seen: Remember that Isabelle fled from a war zone - and obviously this is a refuge for fighters in a civil war, most likely Bosnia (which was still going on, when the film was produced). At least that's what is hinted at by the story Isabelle tells Pierre when she first meets him and by the later scene where Pierre shows Isabelle the book with his father on the cover, which is surrounded by books on Bosnia. | positive |
Although dated, this film is definitely worth a watch. I saw it about eight times as a teenager when it opened and it changed my life...I just HAD to live in New York. It has great opening shots of the Manhattan skyline with Johnny Mathis crooning "Romance is still...the best of everything..." that rival those of West Side Story. There is a rather stilted performance by the world's REAL first Supermodel, Suzy Parker (sorry about that, Janice D.), but it's great eye-candy! It also offers a bit of insight into late 1950's American mores--our obsession with (and repression of) sex (in the workplace, no less!), romance, and marriage before women's lib. It represents an era in which New York was at it's finest and a super-bitchy performance by Joan Crawford is just the icing on the cake. | positive |
The film-school intellects can drool all they want about the important (imagined) meaning of this film, but it's just that: intellectual drool. This film is creatively bankrupt, and some mistake it's endless self-indulgent wanking as substance. Yeah. <br /><br />Obviously Godard wasn't a Stones fan. Too bad, because this could have been great. He's capturing the birth of this timeless song and he chooses instead to cover the music with some guy reading out of a True Detective mag or some such crap. <br /><br />Then there's the endless shots of what looks like 60's librarians spray-painting words on people's cars. And then there's the seemingly neverending "interview" where the actress was brilliantly instructed to answer only yes or no to all the really deep and intellectual questions. There's some dude in a purple suit is reading more crap from a book, which goes on for, oh, only about 20 minutes. And black panthers or something in a junkyard.<br /><br />It almost sounds intriguing? Well, it's not.<br /><br />But for unwashed film-school hipsters who don't care squat about the lost opportunities of having full access to the Stones bringing Sympathy for the Devil into the world and would rather hear some English guy reading instead whilst gazing at the covers of nudie mag's, this film's a real winner!<br /><br />More accurately...maybe Godard just blows. | negative |
I had high expectations for this movie and was excited about renting it but was very disappointed when I saw it. It was very poorly written and sort of just fell apart. There wasn't a lot of good anything in this movie except maybe special effects. | negative |
The DVD jacket in which this movie came describes it as "uplifting and humorous." Those are not the words I would have chosen - not by a long shot. I would choose a word like "sombre," sometimes even "depressing." Which isn't to say that it's a bad movie. It's actually a pretty good movie, featuring good performances from the leads, with enough uncertainty throughout about what's going to happen at the end that you keep watching. The uncertainty comes from the structure of the movie - it seems to revolve around Ellen's reminiscences of her mother's slow death from cancer, as she is interviewed by the DA. So, we know from the start that something suspicious happened at the end - the questions are "what?" and "who?" <br /><br />Renee Zellweger was very good as Ellen - the somewhat resentful daughter who has to give up her life and job in New York to return home to care for her sick mother. Ellen evolves through the movie - moreso than any other character - as she learns to deal with both the strengths and weaknesses of her parents. Her relationship with her father (William Hurt) is quite interesting. My initial impression was that they were quite close, but the warts in the relationship start to show after a while. Hurt was effective as the detached husband - detached not in an uncaring way, but in the sense of being unable to cope with what's happening to his wife, and seeking escape from it in various ways. Finally, Meryl Streep as the cancer-stricken Kate was very convincing in the role, seeking to live out what remains of her life in the most fulfilling way possible, then dealing with the anger she feels at her increasing debilitation. In a way, watching a family deal with this kind of crisis reminded me a little bit of "Ordinary People," although this movie was far less emotionally intense. So, not "uplifting and humorous" (with all due respect to whoever wrote the synopsis on the DVD jacket) but very good in its own way. 7/10 | positive |
Cultural Vandalism Is the new Hallmark production of Gulliver's Travels an act of cultural vandalism? Not literally. After all, not a single copy of the book is burned. But if this is the only Gulliver people are exposed toand to many it will bethose people will not get anything like what Jonathan Swift intended. Were Jonathan Swift alive, Hallmark could be sued for moral rights violations and they'd lose. That's a good way to think before starting a project using someone else's ideas.<br /><br />Swift's masterpiece is an extraordinary vision of humanity. Through his hero, Gulliver, he travels to places that make him feel big, small, shat on and
human. The little people in Lilleput are small in every way. Petty and stupid, they fight, the big-enders and little- enders, interminable wars of annihilation over which end of their soft-boiled eggs are opened at the breakfast table. Sounds a bit like us.<br /><br />I forget most of the rest: it's been years since I read it. The TV show reminded me of a few things and, on the bright side, it made me want to read it again.<br /><br />This gift to mankind has been shat on, like Gulligan under the boughs beneath the vulgar yahoos, and Danson, Steenbergen and especially two great actors, Peter O'Toole and Edward Fox, ought to be thoroughly ashamed. Some "Creative Person" got the bright idea to put the focus on "the star:" Gulliver, played by Ted Danson, whose acting is just plain bad. He portrays Gulliver as insane. All his travels were made up. Weeeeel. Yeeeaaah! Of course Swift made up Gulliver! Naturally, the lands he visited were imaginary: that's called fiction. His purpose was to talk about humankind and our, often awful, relations with each other. The travels of his imaginary character to imaginary lands is his method. But these people treat imagination as a disease and anyone who has a moment that Hallmark couldn't turn into one of its anodyne cards is suspect.<br /><br />I can sure see why Hallmark would produce this crap. It's so bad that O'Toole, always profound, seems as little as his Lilliputian character. He's in character, of course, while commenting on the character simultaneously, as many, if not all great actors do. Informing the character sheds light on it. Our light completes the character. It becomes three dimensional through this act of psychic triangulation. Most actors do this very subtly, like Hopkins in "The Remains of the Day." Others, like Nicholson, in most things in the last twenty years, play the two parts pretty broadly apart. Nicholson actually plays on the relationship of his two points and with us too: with him it's all cat's cradle and he, chuckling away, holds all the strings. Great fun, as is O'Toole. But something here is lacking. He is shouting into a megaphone (as great as ever) and all one senses is a hollow shell standing under him.<br /><br />That's because it is. Look up "anodyne" and there ought to be the word "Hallmark" as a synonym. Harmless, bland, inoffensive: Hallmark is the doll who can't pee because she has no genitals: it is the norm, the average, the person of no distinction. Hallmark's hallmark is to have no hallmark. I never suspected that such people despise those who have imagination quite so much. Suddenly, Pound's "Disney against the meta-physicals" stands out in bold type. Or Einstein's "Men of genius always will be violently opposed by mediocre minds." Indeed, anyone, to this mediocre type, who has an answer to any question other than "a)" or "b)" is suspect. Who more distinctive then that a man who journeys to the darker places of the human soul and shines his little flashlight to illuminate what can be found there? Hence the act of vandalism. The Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan, the Palestinians the oldest synagogue in the world at Jericho, the barbarians the great statuary of the Classical age and these things are obviously vandalism. Hallmark endeavors to protect us from foreign foes by undermining our own culture; the one that feeds and sustains them. And us.<br /><br />Please buy a copy of Gulliver's Travels wherever you live, and read it. Or order it online. I like to use ABE Books. | negative |
I'm not a big musical fan, but this is one of the few I really love. Unlike many other musicals, such as "The Sound of Music," none of the songs are about gratuitous stuff. Each song is social commentary, acumen on war, sexuality, recalcitrance, spirituality, and freedom. Especially amazing songs are "Easy To Be Hard," "Age of Aquarius," "Hair," "Flesh Failures/3-5-0-0," "Walking In Space," and "Hare Krishna." Totally revolutionary and wonderful. I can't wait to someday see it live! | positive |
I have recently seen a string of caving movies and this film managed to cobble together all the worst aspects of this kind of film. You get very little appreciation for the caving surrounds or the monster that they face, while the characters are clichéd (spiritual guy, leader with tragedy in recent past etc) and the ending was just weak. It really annoyed me that the director kept shaking the camera or showing almost total darkness to create atmosphere. I have read that this movie gave a real representation of caving and yeah, I imagine that caves are dark. Showing near total blackness for half the film really brought that home. I quite enjoyed "the descent" which, for my money had better acting, showed more tight caving situations, better monsters and had a good ending.<br /><br />****spoiler******<br /><br />The monster turns out to be some guy whose plane crashed and parents were killed, leaving him to grow up in the caves. He seems to have developed super strength and speed, but why is never addressed - maybe the same force that drained their torch batteries caused this but during the film whenever someone is killed you get the impression of something large with claws that tears up each victim (see how much blood splatters the walls!) but in the end its just some dude with a fur draped over him and a mask? I would be willing to overlook this if great heights of suspense were reached but this was hardly the case. Then he starts raping the last remaining caver and roll credits... Almost absurdly bad I thought. Sometimes a film is soo bad you can appreciate it and maybe have a laugh, but this films fails to take itself lightly as well. <br /><br />You watched it, you can't unwatch it! | negative |
too bad this movie isn't. While "Nemesis Game" is mildly entertaining, I found it hard to suspend my disbelief the whole length of the movie, especially the situations that Sara was putting herself into. Are we supposed to believe that:<br /><br />1) this hot chick is going to go slumming unarmed around abandoned buildings and dark subway tunnels in the middle of the night just to solve some riddles?<br /><br />2) the protagonists are supposedly such experts that they play riddle games for fun, but don't put the whole "I Never Sinned" riddle together until the very end...and then...and then...get this...she has to do the whole mirror thing to finally put the pieces together?? I know it was the filmmaker's device to show the audience what was going on, but do they really think we're that stupid?<br /><br />3) when Vern and Sara go to the Chez M to question the blonde, there is not ONE topless chick in the whole building. Nada. C'mon. I know it's Canada, but I would expect more from a country that gave us Shannon Tweed.<br /><br />And anyone else notice that when Vern was surfing the Web and found that riddlezone site, that when he moused over the link the cursor stayed an arrow, and didn't turn into a little hand (LIKE ALL CURSORS DO WHEN YOU CLICK ON A HYPERLINK)?!? I mean, if you're gonna have the internet play such a prominent role in your movie, at least get the little things right. Geez. | negative |
"Jaded" offers a premise with potential as it looks at the rape of a woman by two other women and ask the question "when is rape not rape?". Unfortunately the flick seems to suffer from bad direction as it slogs through legal minutia while trying to weave some kind of story with a handful of foul mouthed and poorly portrayed characters only to end abruptly. "Jaded" is lame stuff only for the bleary-eyed couch potato in the mood for some dark drama. | negative |
ALICE is the kind of movie they made in the 30's and 40's. Never attempts to be an "event". Just wants to entertain. And it does. I was surprised by Kiefer Sutherland. In a role that could be a cliche, he made it real. The plot does make allusions to ALICE IN WONDERLAND. A guy dressed in white does go through a hole and Kiefer does fall down one. Like ALICE the plot does twist and turn, but with a freshness you don't see in small movies. I loved the direction, Sutherland, just a very fast paced and interesting movie. | positive |
THE ODD COUPLE (3+ outta 5 stars)<br /><br />Like most people I will always feel that Jack Klugman and Tony Randall are the definitive "Odd Couple". Their incredible work on the TV series from the early to mid-70s was a highwater mark for television at the time... easily surpassing the stage and screen versions of the tale. Nonetheless, how can you go wrong with a Jack Lemmon/Walter Matthau pairing? Matthau is in especially good form as Oscar, the slob. Lemmon takes a bit of getting used to as Felix, particularly if you have previously seen Tony Randall's outstanding performance. The script is good... definitely Neil Simon's best. (I will go on record here as stating that Neil Simon is probably one of the worst, most over-rated playwrights of American theatre.) The storyline is simple: Felix, a neat freak and newly separated from his wife moves in with Oscar, the slob who needs some help saving money for alimony payments. Their living arrangement becomes much like a marriage as well, culminating in some amusing tiffs and spats. Lots of fun and some great one-liners. | positive |
Always enjoy great films which deal with the super-natural and the deep thoughts of the Spiritual world. However, this film just turned me off as far as its production and direction. There is nothing to go into deep discussion about what this story has to tell; all I can say is that it was a big waste of time and effort to put it on the big screen. The actors, namely: Mark Addy, Thomas Garrett, gave an outstanding performance in his native land England, and we have seen him in "Still Standing" a TV Series. Heath Ledger, played the real wicked dude and we have recently viewed him in "Brokeback Mountain",'05, gave a great supporting role. Shannyn Sossaman, (Mara Sinclair), did a good job of seducing a priest from a church not recognized by any faith. Don't waste your time, you will be sorry! | negative |
Edwin Porter's 1903 short film entitled "The Great Train Robbery" bursts onto the screen with so much excitement and ingenuity that one prepares to be blown away by another pioneering early film. Just like Melies' "A Trip to the Moon", critics have hailed this as being the film that introduced the western genre into modern cinema. In my eyes, they were right. It had everything from the planning, the actual heist of the train, the murder of an unwanted civilian, and that looming final scene that makes you realize that these villains mean business it was all monumental for its time. From here to Eastwood, every western filmmaker has used Porter's image in some form or another to create their own story. One cannot say that this film didn't open the door, but the struggle comes from the story itself. The genre was defined by Porter, but outside of its initial excitement there really isn't anything to grapple onto. Perhaps I am jaded by the cliché modern westerns and their haphazard messages, but how can something be cliché before being cliché? To me, "The Great Train Robbery" seemed forced, untraceable, and unsurprising.<br /><br />Unlike Melies, Porter tells a very linear story. Robbers change the course of a train, rob it, then shoot at random people just to prove they are the true villains, and the final scene ends like any predestined film, without any surprises or glitches, and that looming man with a gun to your proverbial face. It is bland. Porter's film is boring. In the edition I watched, there was an addition of color near to the end to emphasize emotion, which felt cheap and was not encouraging to the filmmaker, or to the viewer. The issue remains that while it is important, Porter's film has been borrowed time and time again, it has in effect become diluted. The story itself does not carry the emotional powerhouse it once has. Unlike Melies early film, I cannot watch this again. I know what has happened, I know there is very little missing from behind the scenes, and that finally it is just what it has set out to be a simple story leading from point A to point B to point C. This issue is not only my gripe with this film, but also the strongest element to see in such an early film. While it was dull, the fact that it told such a strong narrative that our characters were characters with motives and drives, was outstanding to see. In an era where nonfiction films seemed mainstream, this broke the mold. Again, not that I am jumping on the prophetic bandwagon about this film it is an important film it just isn't a great film.<br /><br />Overall, I was eager to jump into this film to see where the roots of the western genre were planted, but I was equally as happy to leave this film behind. Porter is a talented director, and G.M. Anderson obviously went on to be very successful in the created field, but I just wasn't in awe of the film. I wasn't expecting big budget effects like Melies work, nor was I expecting a duplicate of "A Trip to the Moon", but I did want to see the same creativity, exploration, and originality. I felt Porter played it safe, if that can be said with such an early film, but I couldn't feel the excitement as our villains did their evil deeds. I wasn't rooting for anyone, and the final conclusion proved that the kitschy-ness of it had worn off minutes after the film started. It was pioneering, but not monumental. "The Great Train Robbery" has lost its space in the time capsule of cinema.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** | negative |
I enjoyed this film very much.Tobey Maguire gives a terrific performance as Jake. He has got to be one of the best actors I have seen. And I was surprised there were so many humorous lines throughout the film. He was extremely good at this too although I have never seen him deliver a comic line before. The film gets you involved with the characters and really makes you wonder what is to become of them all. I did not know what to expect from Jewel's performance but I think she did rather well. Lots of exciting scenes. A thoroughly good ride. I am absolutely a fan of Maguire's. Check out Cider House Rules. One of the all time Best Ever. | positive |
I have to admit that Purple Rain is one of my deepest guilty pleasures. Purple Rain not only broke boundaries, it set a decade, the costumes, the music, the behavior, and the dancing! To this day, my friends and I still jam to the Purple Rain soundtrack and pretend to be Prince and the Revolution.<br /><br />Now the movie itself, I just meant what I said in the title, because for the most part, this movie itself is made by the music. The acting? Please don't let me judge on that since this is one of my favorite guilty pleasures, because I know that it was not Oscar worthy by any means. But I think the duo that took this movie was Morris and Jarome, their speech about passwords was just beyond hilarious. I just want to rate this movie on the concert sequences because I felt that it was what made the movie.<br /><br />Prince is a musical genius and created beautiful music. While the movie and acting is pretty bad, this movie is still a fun one to watch at night and even dance too. This movie defined the 80's, so just have fun with it. Prince would want it that way, just to party on down! Oh, boy, that sounded lame.<br /><br />9/10 | positive |
A wonder. One of the best musicals ever. The three Busby Berkely numbers that end the movie are spectacular, but what makes this film so wonderful is the incredible non-stop patter and the natural acting of Cagney and Blondell. (Keeler is also lovely, even though she may not have been a great actress). There's a freshness in the movie that you don't see in flicks today, much less in the usually stilted 30s films, even though the plot, involving the setting up of movies prologues, is quite dated. | positive |
The centurions is one of the best cartoons ever and it needs to be put on TV and DVD so people can have younger generations enjoy such a good show that is far better than the garbage they have made in the last 14 years. I have a petition online that is at the website address Http://www.petitiononline.com/6600F/petition.html that originally was trying to get this show on five days a week but is now trying to get this show onto DVD since the TV station it was focused on has bad public relations. We all need to convince the people who own this show to put it on DVD so it can be seen by future generations. Also since now Hasbro Toys owns the toy line of this show we might want to try to convince them to make a live action movie of it just like they have done with Transformers and sometime this year G.I.Joe. We need good cartoons like this one to come back and be enjoyed by the younger generations. Please do sign this petition so we can one day have DVDs of the guys who are famous for yelling "Power Extreme!" | positive |
this was one of those $.50 cent deals of yore---and far more complex than most realize---and it was in color! not only are the effects extraordinary, vs. crap like 'earth vs. the flying saucers'---the real 'killer' is the 'universality of plot'---everything hinges on two principles---the ancient concept of a hidden incestuous-thinking father's desire for his daughter, and the idea of what would happen should a world's tech reach the point where all citizen's desires become manifest.<br /><br />needless to say if everyone we wished dead gets dead, not many, if any left---and that became the fate of the 'forbidden' planet's populace---rather modern, actually. unfortunately the 'gear' of 'The Krell'---wasted by ignorance, remains, and 'Morpheus', the incestuous father, knows how to access such tech---and does so, to prevent losing his daughter to another. ancient plot, beautifully rendered.<br /><br />and considering its age, it remains a stunning suspense, action, human-emotion classic---and visually very modern---don't pass this one up---it presages all modern sci-fi---and its pscychological content elevates it, beyond any genre---a timeless work---<br /><br />and the soundtract! you will see/hear no pure 'synth' and perfectly syched Moog background---a 'not miss'--- | positive |
'Traffik', despite its title, is not really about drugs. In the best tradition of crusading British TV drama, 'Traffik' analyses and moralises about its ostensible subject, which is not some mythical scourge, but a matrix or process with identifiable social, economic and historical roots, causes and effects. There is something almost scientific in the way the film takes four sets of characters from spectacularly separate global and class backgrounds - a poppy grower forced into the Pakistani underworld by poverty and a cynical government; the English, ex-Olympic swimmer wife of a drugs baron on trial for trafficking; two shambling German policemen whose determination to convict the latter arises as much from class anger as any faith in the law; and a Tory junior minister whose Cambridge-student daughter has become an addict.<br /><br />'Traffik' is unapologetically didactic - from the early scenes of Jack Lithgow in Pakistan, investigating the government's success in eliminating drugs before sanctioning more British aid, we are bombarded with facts about the problem. But these 'facts' come from a variety of sources - dissembling government representatives; left-wing lawyers with vested (ideological and domestic) interest in the corruption; poor farmers who need to grow poppies to survive. <br /><br />Facts, normally reassuring markers on a map, are clearly not enough - the more facts we get, the less controllable the situation seems. It is not until Jack, the film's moral centre, the man who connects all the narrative threads, actually journeys into the heart of the drugs darkness, learns to shed his tory hypocrisy (deploring the use of drugs, but refusing to put any serious money into tackling the problem, and creating the conditions, through various free market initiatives, where drug-traffiking flourishes. Just as the anti-heroes of the old Warners' gangster films were actually model American capitalists, so the traffikers are the ideal being espoused by Thatcher and Reagan) that at least the reality of the problem can be acknowledges. <br /><br />Like I say, 'Traffik' isn't really about drugs. As Jack finally recognises, after being sacked as a Tory minister, drugs isn't really the problem. It's a society dismantled by a woman who said there was no longer any such thing (as proved by Jack's non-existent family life), systematically depriving the vast majority of people of hope and happiness, increasing numbers of whom turn to drugs. <br /><br />What is most frightening about 'Traffik' is not the graphic, numbing depictions of drug abuse (the technical detail of which ironically reflects the presentation of more 'legitimate', verbal factual information), but the dystopian vision of a Britain stripped of any joy, beauty or community, a bleak wasteland of derelict tenements and soulless modernity, a society of defeatists ready for the thatcherite smugglers and barons to ply their trade. <br /><br />This isn't just a contemporary British story - it records the decline of an Empire built on trade reduced to lawless drug traffiking. It is surely significant that the other sites in the programme are Germany and Pakistan, crucial agents in the Empire's decline. Here the old imperial amorality comes home to roost, the formerly enslaved victims, their bodies abused by their masters' power, returning to the Imperial centre, London, the seeds of its decline literally carried in their bodies, embodying the fears of all those late 19th century gothic novels.<br /><br />'Traffik' is one of the great achievements of British TV, and is in many ways superior to the recent Hollywood remake. The political focus is obviously sharper - Jack's decline is much more effective than Wakefield's because he, as agent of government policy, as well as a bad father, is very much part of the problem, whereas the American's only real political flaw is complacency. In almost every case, characterisation is tighter and much more plausible (compare Lindsay Duncan's steely Helen, already bitten by experience and failure, and her risibly superficial counterpart). <br /><br />Unlike the dubious racial undercurrent of 'Traffic' (making Mexico dark and Other; the ultimate WASP horror being sex with a black man), the portrait of Pakistan is richly, tragically drawn, with disconcerting arguments about drug protection punctuated by scenes of gruesome violence. Throughout, the inextricable linking of public and private is expert. Visually, the film is remarkably inventive, without ever being flashy or 'cinematic' - especially in the last episode, where the buildings and decor seem to move as the system closes in. If 'Traffik', like its remake, feels the need to shore fragments, then the prevailing sense of waste and loss is much more damning, Jack's speech bitterly despairing. | positive |
There are no flaws in this production. Perfectly entertaining, fun, and worthy of respect.<br /><br />This is what theatre is all about. Definitely not for the very young, but slightly older kids will get a great kick out of seeing it and can be introduced to theatre this way.<br /><br />Astounding and amazing. | positive |
Something not-so-great. "Silence of the Lambs" remains Demme's only good film, and I'm of course including all the overrated, left-wing exercises in big-screen indulgence some of which I haven't seen - and never will.<br /><br />This is a light comedy that takes a thriller turn somewhere half-way. The first half is a little hard to sit through; it's neither funny nor particularly interesting. Daniels plays an over-the-top dumb-as-dirt naive moron who is so gullible and trusting that it defies belief. His animated acting is often annoying, and barely funny. He actually lies to Griffith at the outset and tells her that he is married, with children, when in fact he is divorced! In all the history of mankind and movies any man who is married and meets a woman he likes will lie - if he lies - and say that he ISN'T married. (Later on, the not-at-all credible or believable rationale behind this was revealed: he wanted to "protect (himself)". What a load of crap...) The fact that his character makes all the wrong decisions and does all the dumb things in the movie made me actually look forward to Liotta pounding on him when he caught up with him in the former's apartment.<br /><br />What then happens in Daniels's apartment is the classic end-of-movie fight-to-the-death which the good guy - albeit the very dumb good guy - predictably wins. Still, at least the last half-hour has some action, something going on, and Daniels isn't given any more the opportunity to be animated. The film lacks credible characters (whether main or marginal), and the feel of it is too 80s which means the movie has a rather bland look; visually ugly. Sayles yet again makes a cameo as a policeman. The film is also perhaps a bit too heavy on the coincidences side. Griffith once again plays a soft-talking dumb-sounding bimbo, but, as usual, she is convincing because she IS a soft-talking dumb-sounding bimbo. This was an earlier film, before her lip-enlargement and breast-enlargement surgery; compare the natural breasts she exposes in this film to the ready-to-explode balloons she briefly flashes years later in "Nobody's Fool".<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Griffith and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail. | negative |
This movie had mediocrity, laziness, and thoughtlessness written all over it. If you are going to do a movie about vampires that has been done thousands of times already, then you better do a damn good job. I'll be the first to say that this movie just did not cut it. Some scary/horror movies just fail to break the mold of the "lets do something forbidden and forsaken for the sake of fun because all the stories are just lies" cliché. This one, sadly, was no different, and like all scary movies, once you venture down that road there is no going back.<br /><br />And the ending? How do the heroes do the same job over and over throughout the movie, but then mysteriously they get wrapped up in the moment and cannot do the job in the end? The ending was very anti-climatic and spelled part 3 which I will never watch. Terrible movie. | negative |
From the acclaim it got I was expecting more from a Korean horror if it's going to be viewed in the same caliber as A Tale of Two Sisters, as some other reviews have stated. This movie isn't in the same caliber except in budget spent on special effects. Think Amytiville horror. With a tree and sparse dialogue.<br /><br />If you're going to have a movie with limited dialogue, the plot line and characters have to carry the film. This film could have been told quite well in a 30 minute short film concept, 2 hours with a lot of staring at trees and terror scenes that make you not only not scared, but detract in a "What the..." sort of way does not a good horror movie make.<br /><br />Those people who are stating that this film gave them lasting impressions must literally have heart attacks when decent horror films lay it in. | negative |
Greenaway's films pose as clever, erudite and innovative. Yet his style and grammar originate and remind viewers of films made in the World War 1 era of film-making: the frame composition, use of mid-shot, the static camera. It may be well to rub against mainstream movies with this style but it is not new. Perhaps like that other "innovator", TS Eliot, he draws more from the past than in looking forward as an authentic innovator would or could.<br /><br />Yet Greenaway's biggest failing is that he cannot write. His dialog and even plot structure is mechanical and logical but without the vitality of another dramatic logician, Brecht. Where this weakness is most apparent is in his humor, which is poised and logical, so the joke is dead before it's delivered. The result is tedium: if it's not funny, it has failed: ask a stand-up comedian to justify their act if the audience doesn't respond. Perhaps the well-read director could learn something from Freud on humor.<br /><br />Finally, like Woody Allen, Greenaway has manipulated his actors over the years to work like clones. They speak the lines with a bored, smug air like narcissistic adolescents.<br /><br />This film, despite its design and lighting, is meretricious. | negative |
AVP2 is an awful movie. The dialogue was pointless, the acting was pathetic, it had virtually no story line and you can't really tell what the hell is going on half the time due to the continuity errors and plot holes.<br /><br />BUT! You will love it anyway. Because it pushes the boundaries on gore, violence, death, destruction and chaos. They EVEN kill children, newborns and unborn babies in this movie. You will be sitting there thinking "Oh my God, that is disgusting" And they surprise you by killing the 'sexy chick who always makes it out alive' when the predator and aliens are fighting in the hospital.<br /><br />It's like the movie industry has said "We know what we did in the first Alien Vs. Predator movie was was bad, so we're doing it again but this time we're getting help from psychopaths with vivid imaginations" It's predicable, moronic and down right pointless....but you will be thinking about it for a while after you see it. | negative |
If you have not seen this excellent movie about life in the 90s (in L.A.) then you've missed a special treat. This is one of the most amazingly and most powerful movies ever made about life for Americans in the 90s and it even carries over into today's world in which we live in. It covers everything from raising a child, prejudice (more than one way),love, adultery, empty nest syndrome, selfishness, etc..and the list goes on. This story builds up to an ultimate climax and then when nothing else matters it always goes back to love with friends and family and love of life. It helps us dig deep within ourselves and to make us search for what we want out of life. Makes us ask questions of ourselves. Have we done enough for others, are we like this, etc.??? Sit back and enjoy a wonderfully done and emotional movie that I'm sure others will enjoy for a lifetime.<br /><br />Take note of Mary Mcdonnell, Kevin Kline and Danny Glover's wonderful performance through this whole film. These actors are amazing and really show the true glow and meaning of what message is being sent to all of us. These are 3 of my favorite actors for life after seeing this film over 10 years ago now. I still enjoy it again and again. Also enjoy the wonderful soundtrack with it and don't forget to count how many times you see the helicopter fly by and try to figure out it's symbolism for the movie??hmmm... I almost forgot this is probably Steve Martin's very first serious acting role in any film he has ever done. He, too does an excellent job in this movie. This may come as a surprise to most of you. Sit back, relax and enjoy truly good film making..... | positive |
i stopped this movie at 48 minutes and change... i don't know...maybe it's because i'm not Swedish...or french(the cannes commenter)...or any of those OTHER sleepy places from which the previous reviewers held forth... born and raised in NY. lived near san francisco for a quarter of a century. and now Holland. i love a good independent film as much as the next movie enthusiast... but this, in a word, isn't funny. see? now THAT's funny...that you're thinking that i made a mistake. i said, 'in a word' but then said, 'isn't funny'... nope. no mistake. if this is your type of humor, i'd say you haven't really had much of a life... consider your appreciation of this film a symptom... and PLEASE don't EVER write another review...i have a tendency to believe them when they're unanimous. even if there only were about 3 reviews before mine...i figured i might ACtually be able to save someone ELSE the boredom...the anticipation of laughter that never materializes... i DID smile once or twice, though... when i started the movie...and when i stopped it. that should be 10 lines. | negative |
Its a feel-good movie that made me feel good. Some in this genre can be sickly sweet, but this script is restrained. The movie is funny and fun. The acting is great.<br /><br />If this were a musical, I would have left the theater humming the tunes. | positive |
I just saw this movie at the Berlin Film Festival's Children's Program and it just killed me (and pretty much everyone else in the audience)! And make no mistake about it, this film belongs into the all-time-250! Let me tell you that I'm in no way associated with the creators of this film if that's what you come to believe reading this. No, but this actually is IT! Nevermind the "kid's-film" label on it, "Klatretösen" ("Climber Girl") is on almost every account a classic (as in "biblical")! The story concerns 12-year old Ida (magnetic: Julie Zangenberg), who is devastated to learn of her daddy's terminal illness. Special surgery in the US would cost 1.5 million and of course, nobody could afford that. So Ida and her friends Jonas and Sebastian do what every good kid would - and burglarize a bank! Sounds corny? Don't forget: This is not America and "Klatretösen" is by no means the tear-jerking Robin-Williams-multiplex-plat-du-jour nobody takes seriously anyway. Director Fabian Wullenweber set out to make a big-budget-action-comedy for kids and, boy, did he succeed! Let me put it this way: This film rocks like no kid-film and few others did before. And there's a whole lot more to it than just the "action". After about 20 minutes of by-the-numbers-exposition (well, granted) it accelerates into a monster that:<br /><br />- effortlessly puts "mission impossible" to shame (the numerous action sequences are masterfully staged and look real expensive - take that, mummy!)<br /><br />- dwarves almost every other movie suspense-wise ( no easy-they're-only-kids-antics here )<br /><br />- easily laces a dense story with enough laughs to make jim carrey look for career alternatives<br /><br />- nods to both damon runyon and karate kid within the same seconds<br /><br />- comes up with so much wicked humor that side of p.c. that I can hear the American ratings board wet their pants from over here<br /><br />- manages to actually be tender and serious and sexy at the same time (ohmygod, what am I saying?? they're kids! they're kids! - nevermind, watch that last scene!)<br /><br />- stars Stafan Pagels Anderson, who since last years "Mirakel" is everybody's favourite kid actor<br /><br />What a ride! | positive |
No, *Hitch* is decidedly NOT a romantic-comedy about bilious (and bibulous) former-Leftist-pundit-turned-reactionary-pundit Christopher Hitchens, though it sure would've made for a funnier movie. A dumpy little Englishman, teeth stained black from cigarettes and Guinness, barking out advice -- and acerbic political commentary -- to lovelorn men: "Look into her EYES when you speak to her, you nutter! And remember: calling someone a 'neo-conservative' makes you a de facto anti-Semite! Can't you get anything straight, you liberal pantywaist?"<br /><br />Oh well. Instead, we get Will Smith, whose continuing success remains a mystery to me, at least. I am apparently alone in this regard. Smith is the most powerful man in Hollywood as of this writing: Americans just can't help throwing their money at him. I, on the other hand, find his smugness insufferable, unmitigated by a scene here (spoiled by the trailer) where he suffers a drastic allergic reaction to seafood. We know Smith will bounce back to his bland, over-muscled good looks, because there's a fat sit-com actor (Kevin James) on hand making a fool of himself. We're supposed to laugh hysterically whenever the slob starts dancing like a jackass (cue "Everybody Dance Now!" by CC Music Factory), but why would a straight-arrow accountant behave in such a way? I've worked with several straight-arrow accountants for years, and I can tell you that if, in Norman Mailer's memorable phrase, "tough guys don't dance", neither do straight-arrow accountants. Am I taking all this too seriously? Or -- and here's a daring thought -- perhaps the writers couldn't conceive a logically-drawn character to save their lives?<br /><br />Speaking of the writers, they come up with a lousy idea for Smith's love interest: a writer for a tabloid (Eva Mendes). Since when do tabloid creeps deserve love? What universe am I in, anyway? -- everyone here at IMDb is actually gushing over this tripe. Either you all need to raise the bar, in terms of entertainment value for your buck, or I'm just a skunk at the garden party. (Me, and about 150 million other long-suffering boyfriends and husbands.) In any case, if I may imitate Smith's Hitch and offer my male readers some smooth advice: when you're dragged to see *Hitch*, say to your Better Half, "Hey, that was pretty good" after the movie is over. Don't be overenthusiastic; don't rave about it -- she'll know you're lying to her. Praise it in a lightly surprised way, as if the movie was better than you expected and wasn't the agonizing time-waster that it actually was. But what am I saying, eh, fellas? -- we dudes know all the moves. <br /><br />1 star out of 10. | negative |
A lot has already been said on this movie and I' d like to join those who praised it. It's a highly unique film which uses elements of different genres: drama, comedy, gangster film without making a mess of it. At points you just laugh out loud, at other points you feel for the characters whose mistakes and failures you watch. Sabu's genius can be shown with regard to some sequences of the movie. One is that where all three men chasing one another have an erotic day dream about a young woman that they just passed by on the street. This sequence is beautifully done and illustrates the characters of all three runners very well. It is erotic and funny at the same time. Another example of Sabu's genius is the part of the film where the runners get tired. First one of them, the typical loser among the three guys, hallucinates that the woman that left him for someone else is back again and you see them dancing with one another and in the next shot him dancing with himself which is deeply moving. All of the runners get to this point where they think that have something back they lost or are on track again. And at one part of the movie they stop chasing each other, running in line, just laughing.So here is it all the beauty and the ludicrousness of what we call life which Sabu manages to show throughout the film. His characters fail (do they at the end?) but he doesn't rob them of their dignity. "Monday" and "Postman Blues" that do justice to Sabu's claim that he is a genius. Go watch them!<br /><br /> | positive |
Based on the Korean legend, unknown creatures will return and devastate the planet. Reporter Ethan Kendrick is called in to investigate the matter, and he arrives at the conclusion that a girl, stricken with a mysterious illness, named Sarah is suppose to help him. The Imoogi makes its way to Los Angeles, wreaking havoc and destruction. With the entire city under arms, will Ethan and Sarah make it in time to save the people of Los Angeles? Written by Anonymous I think he should have included the following<br /><br />This is the worst movie i have ever seen the best actor in the whole thing was the CG dragon and overall it s u c k-ed i am p i s s-ed at not only with the people who made it but myself for watching save yourself the time read a book or something maybe a little Dr Seuss that should be more stimulating.<br /><br />no wonder the guy is anonymous sorry for the format this site has a lot of rules this is the only way i could get this out without adding more | negative |
I'm not a big fan of the Stooges' slapstick, but I find their history interesting. I've recently tried to check out stuff from each Stooge era, but the opportunity to see Joe shorts doesn't seem to come easy; this is the only one I've seen so far.<br /><br />Some say the quality problems with Joe-era shorts are really not Joe's fault, and I suspect that's the case. Joe as a performer is far from the worst thing about this. The thing that bothers me the most about it has been pointed out in another comment: the pitting of the other guys against the third violates the whole comedy-team/Stooges ethos. Perhaps Joe's style was perceived, by those in charge, as not really fitting in -- though there were no real off-camera conflicts between him & the others -- and this was their way of working around that.<br /><br />And what's with the titles of this and some of the other late Stooges shorts? Definitely a lack of creativity going on there; was that sort of thing the cause or the effect of the shorts market drying up? | negative |
I rented this flick for one reason Tom Savini, I respect his work but this was a real let down, I had horrible clichés, half of the film was naked women so called "fallen angels" running around trying to act scary, oh and then there was the occasional "Blair Witch" black and white motion sicken camera scenes. Tom's character was really awful, Horrible script. And you got to love these lines they use. "Is anyone there, who is out there, this isn't funny" No but your acting was. I wish I could give this flick a 0! Oh the names of the characters. Judd, Molly, Ally, Emilio, but they did leave out Anthony, The Breakfast Club reunite in the forest of unforgivable acting. | negative |
Absolutely fantastic. <br /><br />Now, before a legion of cinema purists choke on their lattés, allow me to elaborate. Much as I enjoyed it, this is quite simply one of the worst films I have ever seen and is certainly the worst film I've seen at the cinema (an impressive claim, as I remember seeing Daredevil on the big screen). The two leads (Daniel Gillies and Elisha Cuthbert) were unconvincing at best and downright awful at worst. Of course, they weren't helped by a script that had as much emotional depth as a Daphne & Celeste single and characterisation that was about as convincing as the OJ defence. The plot (to stretch the term slightly) was thin to non-existent and the 'gore' scenes, whilst undoubtedly brutal, were irrelevant and laughably formulaic. What plot there is revolves around a twenty-something model (Cuthbert) who is abducted, imprisoned and subjected to various visceral tortures, both psychological and physical. The torture scenes feel like disconnected set pieces and the emphasis was laid squarely upon shocking rather than scaring the audience. Whilst there really are very, very few positives to draw from this film, its redeeming features are the very flaws that make it such a dreadful film. I have never heard a more vocal audience in a cinema. Within twenty minutes, the entire cinema was in stitches and remained that way throughout. For my part I came out flushed with laughter, buoyed by a film that had ascended to the pinnacle of appalling film-making. Whichever way you look at it, this is truly a cinematic achievement and a blueprint for future directorial wannabes detailing minutely how not to make a film.<br /><br />P.S. I omitted to mention that I managed to get in to the film free...so I can afford to laugh about it. I was still tempted to ask for my money back...it really was THAT bad. | negative |
OK, so this film is well acted. It has good direction but the simple fact is that it undermines what all gay and lesbian people have been fighting for all these years. The straight man "deciding to be gay" and the gay man "Deciding to be straight" I did enjoy it up until the last 20 minutes, after that i got really offended. As what usually happens in these films the straight actors play the main parts and the out gay actors play the secondary straight roles. The leads are played by handsome men but don't let that distract you from the fact that this is a a film that leaves you feeling unfulfilled. All the romance and relationships you hope would happen do not. Unless you are a priest that is in which case god bless straight woman who cure our homos. | negative |
This is a decent movie. Although little bit short in time for me, it packs a lot of action, grit, commonsense and emotions in that time frame. Matt Dillon and the other main character does a great job in this movie. The emotions and intensity were convincing and tense throughout the movie. It is not typical fancy expensive Hollywood CGI action movie, but it was a very satisfying movie indeed for the price. My evening was great because of this movie. This movie is straight traditional action movie with great acting, story and directing. I would recommend this movie. The character development of the characters were good and makes you believe that were are actually seeing a real event taking place. Because this movie I believe was made with cheaper budget, the acting and quality were much higher. | positive |
Cops Logan Alexander and Debbie Rochon escort five black juvenile delinquents cross country and end up stranded out in the sticks when their van breaks down. After a deadly run-in with a racist, white trash bitch with a shotgun (played by the director), the survivors take refuge in the house of a blind voodoo priestess. One of the teens senselessly uses a spell to call up Killjoy, who finally shows up about midway through this bore in a subpar make-up job and bigger, greasier 'fro that looks like it could slide off his head at any moment. He then proceeds to kill off the stupid characters while spouting some of the worst one-liners heard since Hee Haw was canceled.<br /><br />The acting from the "teens" is terrible, the dialogue even worse, the FX stink and it looks a lot cheaper than the first film. Although I enjoyed him in his earlier Troma films, Trent Haaga (trying to imitate Jim Carrey here) is awful and no match for the hyperactive overemoting of Angel Vargas in KILLJOY 1 (which at least had a few dumb laughs).<br /><br />Yet another nail in the coffin for Full Moon studios, whose reputation as a fun direct-to-vid franchise has completely vanished since the TRANCERS/PUPPET MASTER days. | negative |
Once again seeing this kind of movies turns me more and more into English humor, not too often seen on screen since the days of Monty Python and Man About The House. Too bad.<br /><br />Brenda Blethyn (Who I first saw in Saving Grace early in the year, another must see by the way.) just excels, as Alfred Molina does. The rest of the cast, while virtually unknown to me, turns on great performances too. The film starts slowly and gradually gains in pace and amusement - midway I had tears in my eyes from laughing.<br /><br />All in all, a funny English movie, a thousand times better than the supposedly 'funny' garbage that comes from Hollywood.<br /><br /> | positive |
As a rule, there are few things more dispiriting than Hollywood's attempts to be courageous. Mixing caution with heavy-handedness, "message movies" pat themselves loudly on the back for daring to tackle major problems. CROSSFIRE is not entirely free from this taint; it includes a sermon on the nature of senseless hatred that is embarrassingly obvious, assuming a level of naivity in its audience that's depressing to contemplate. As late as 1947, it was a big deal for a movie to announce that anti-Semitism existed, and that it was bad. (It was unthinkable, of course, for Hollywood to address the real subject of the book on which the movie was basedits victim was a homosexual.) Nevertheless, thanks to good writing and excellent acting, CROSSFIRE remains a persuasive examination of what we would now call a hate crime.<br /><br />Postwar malaise was one of the major components of film noir, and CROSSFIRE addresses it directly. The film is set in Washington, D.C. among soldiers still in uniform but idle, spending their days playing poker and bar-crawling. Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene), an intelligent and kindly Jew, explains that the end of the war has created a void: all the energy that went into hating and fighting the enemy is now unfocused and bottled up. Samuels meets three soldiers in a bar: the sensitive Mitchell, who is close to a nervous breakdown, the weak-willed Floyd Bowers, and Montgomery, a tall, overbearing bully who nastily belittles a young soldier from Tennessee as a stupid hillbilly. The three soldiers wind up at Samuels' apartment, where the drunken Monty becomes increasingly abusive, calling his host "Jew-boy." Samuels is beaten to death, and Mitchell disappears, making himself the prime suspect for the killing.<br /><br />Unraveling the crime are Detective Finlay (Robert Young), dry and by-the-book, and Sergeant Keeley (Robert Mitchum), a thoughtful and experienced friend who knows Mitchell is incapable of murder. Among the pieces of the puzzle are Ginny (Gloria Grahame), a nightclub hostess who met Mitchell and gave him her apartment key, and Floyd (Steve Brodie), who as a witness to the crime holes up terrified in a seedy rooming house. While there is no real "whodunit" suspense, the story remains gripping, and the trap laid for the killer is extremely clever.<br /><br />The strong noir atmosphere saves the movie from feeling didactic or sanctimonious. The cinematography is a striking shadow-play, with inky darks and harsh lights, rooms often lit by a single lamp filtered by cigarette smoke. World-weariness is as pervasive as noir lighting. "Nothing interests me," Finlay says quietly; "To nothing," is Ginny's toast in the nightclub. Gloria Grahame, the paragon of noir femininity, nearly steals the movie with her two scenes. Platinum-blonde, jaded and caustic, she's the quintessential B-girl, poisoned by the "stinking gin mill" where she works ("for laughs," she says bitterly), her sweet face curdling when Mitchell tells her that she reminds him of his wife. Now and then a wistful kindness peeks through her defensive shell, as when she dances with Mitchell in a deserted courtyard, then offers to cook him spaghetti at her apartment. When he goes there, he meets a weasely, crumple-faced man (Paul Kelly) who seems to sponge off Ginny, and whose conversation is a dense layering of lies and false confessions. Gloria blows Mitchell's good-girl wife off the screen in a scene where she's asked to give Mitchell an alibi. Slim and frail in her bathrobe, with her girlish lisp, she lets us see just how often Ginny has been insulted and dismissed as a tramp.<br /><br />Robert Young is a nondescript actor, and he stands no chance against Mitchum's charisma, but he does a good job of keeping his pipe-smoking character, saddled with delivering the movie's earnest message, this side of pompousness. Mitchum, meanwhile, gets some cool dialogue, but not nearly enough to do; still, even when he's doing nothing but lounging in a corner you can't take your eyes off him. The third Robert, Ryan, creates a fully shaded and frighteningly convincing portrait of an ignorant, unstable bigot; we see his phony geniality, his bullying, his resentment of anyone with advantages, his "Am I right or am I right?" smugness; how easily he slaps labels on people and what satisfaction he gets from despising them.<br /><br />CROSSFIRE's message seems cautious and dated now, though not nearly so much as the same year's A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT. Finlay's speech about bigotry cops out by reaching back a hundred years for an instance of white victimhood, reminding us that Irish Catholics were once persecuted; next it could be people from Tennessee, he says, or men who wear striped neckties. Or maybe blacks, or Japanese, or homosexuals, or communists? The script seems afraid to mention any real contemporary problems. It sweetens its message by making the Jewish victim saintly, as though his innocence were not sufficient; and it takes care to exonerate the military, having a superior officer declare that the army is ashamed of men like Montgomery, and stressing that Samuels served honorably in the war. Still, it did take some guts to depict, immediately after World War II, an American who might have been happier in the Nazi army, and the movie's basic premise is still valid. If Monty were alive today, he would have gone out on September 12, 2001, and beat up a Sikh. | positive |
"Wild Tigers I have Known." It will only be showing in big cities, to be sure. It is one of those films SO artsy, that it makes no sense what so ever, except to the director! I HATE those! And all of those oh-so-alternative/artsy people try DESPERATELY to find "metaphors" in what is EVIDENT horseshit.<br /><br />There was NO plot, no story, no moral, no chronology, and nothing amusing or even touching. To me, it was a bunch of scenes thrown together that had nothing to do with one another, and were all for "show" to show how "artsy" and "visual" they could get. It was an ATTEMPT at yet ANOTHER teen angst film, but missed the mark on every level humanly possible. Then the credits roll! I was waiting for it to make SENSE! I was waiting for "the good part." I own about 60 independent films in my DVD collection, many of which could arguably be called "art house" films. This will NOT be amongst them. You will be very angry at yourself for paying to see this film, much less ever buying it on DVD. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.